Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
By convention that is right - but as many Tony Benn road shows explained, it is not the whole story.

They still have a very powerful residual role and no primary legislation can be enacted without the assent of the sovereign. The monarchy still has a lot of power that they choose not to exercise (or test).

For me the ceremonial role is bad enough - enshrining inherited wealth and power, popular subservience, and archaic and expensive ritual - where none of that should be present in a modern, self-confident, democracy.
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.