Do we need a Royal Family

We were talking about how to guard against a democratically elected leader turning dictator and how a sepration of head of government and head of state with limited constitutional power prevents this.

What? I'm talking about a president in a parliamentary system. Please see Germany, France, Israel, and others. I have an extremely hard time believing that the average presidency in those countries is more costly than the Queen.

That's what mystifies me. People's peculiar need to be deferential to these unremarkable people.

we only need tony blar for the job

I would trust the Royal Family over a spin dripping New Labour government any day of the week.

Well I am in favour for some major reform in this country. The current state of affairs with the monarch as our head of state and we as her subjects and with an unelected house of lords. Not to mention the grown men still donning wigs in our justice system with everything directly under "the crown". It's embarassing really to see all these other modern countries and we're still stuck in tradition. When I saw the last state opening of the parliament, I cringed.

I would suggest a reformed house of lords with elected senators, a reformed justice system and a new written constitution that fully establishes the rules and principles that govern this country. As for the monarchy, I think the Royal family should be relieved of their 'birth right' duties but be still entitled as anyone else to stand for elections as Head of State/President.

The Royal Family represent one of the most potent symbols of power through privilege.

The Royal Family represent one of the most potent symbols of power through privilege. There is no other way of seeing them - they are born into their status and we are expected to swallow this as entirely reasonable. In this respect they are diametrically opposed to the value of meritocracy - something which liberals are supposed to believe in.

We could have a Royal Family by vote, changing every two years, say - that would be fun!

That might assuage your envy but it's hardly pragmatic. It would cost more, loose the benefits of continuity and tradition, make the head of state partisan, incentivise politician-esk acting over appropriateness and give the incumbent a feeling of obligation that they had to 'do' something that could be seen by the electorate rather than take the most appropriate course of action, which, in this role, is often to do nothing.

But you don't deny the logic of my first sentence.

You make the fatal assumption that the alternative, a function of democracy, would produce a candidate of greater merit. So yes, I do deny it.