Originally Posted by
JamesWales
I think we all know in practice that their role is entirely ceremonial. I would argue they add to our soft power abroad and I guess it would be naive to pretend that they have zero power here; they are part of civic society which all govts must keep on board. In practice I would say their influence on domestic policy is nothing compared to the civil service or religious leaders.
One could even argue that their apolitical status aids the executive as they don't present a threat where in other countries a political head of state who is different to the head of the govt may well do.
Certainly since WW2 we have seen extraordinary ranges of govt policy so I don't think the royals prevented any of that.
Nonetheless, I do remain uncomfortable with the fact that our head of state, symbolic as they may be, is unelected. I guess I view the positives as outweighing that. I accept some of the negatives you present but I think they are outweighed by the stability, sense of permanence, service and continuity that they provide.
What gets my goat is what I interpret as snooty jibes by a small minority against anyone who is supportive of it or dares to enjoy the ceremony.
The world is full of gloom and ceremonies of all kinds help to break that. There is nothing wrong with it in my opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote