What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

a rather token standard.

Lets just be done with them.

Oh, that's rich.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that such things are easy. The royal family conducted 4,000 public engagements in 2014. That's on average eleven a day. So basically, every one of them has to be seen, to interact, to speak, and to look enthused, interested, be interesting and be happy and charming for a large chunk of every day.

Do you honestly believe that's easy? Do you have any real concept of how exhausting such work is? It's not parties, it's work. Real work, hard work, and it's necessary work.

Celebrities in general tend to have a high rate of mental and emotional stress that drives them to drink, drugs, violence and depression, and sometimes suicide. It's in part because of the enormous stress of being public figures.

I mean, Jesus, the Queen's father smoked and drank himself to death because of the stress and terror of the job.

As for their speeches, they are prepared by the Government, this is true, but you're mistaken if you believe that the royals simply take them and parrot what they are given without reading it. They have to make sure what they say is constitutional and not going to suggest criticism of particular groups. That's a delicate job.

Nor is that the end of their role, for either the German President or the British Queen. As I said, they consult with the government on what policies are going to be enacted, and can informally comment, make suggestions, and ask questions. They can also privately warn or encourage the government on the wisdom of a particular course if they feel it's wise or dangerous. But in both cases, the government can politely ignore them or take the advice on board, without any pressure.

Finally, they possess Prerogatives and powers which are exercised on the advice of the government. This, again, is normally routine, but the important point is that the use of powers which could, for example, give the government a built-in advantage over parliament must still be authorised by the Head of State, and they must ensure what they do does not prevent the democratic functioning of the State.

Easy job? My foot.

As I said, they are not permitted to do jobs for profit. I don't know what else to say to you, but if you want to deny what's already fact...*shrug*

The law does not permit them from doing jobs for profit.

Do you believe that her majesty should be forbidden in future from voting

and that Prince Charles should be forbidden from writing his infamous letters, by law?

also, with this incident, the Queen Mother said this stress arose from Edward VIII's abdication: he was never intended to be king and so was never trained for the role. It was a situation of the monarchy's own making.

The whole deal with Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis, which was hardly good for our country. If Edward had stayed king, the country's government would have dissolved itself. If you are keen on precedence, the monarch should have married whoever they wished, even it meant abolishing the Church of England.

Do you think it would be better then if we had someone who was willing to do the self-created job as well as being chosen by popular consent?

George VI was born in 1895 and died at 56...in the UK, the average life expectancy for a man born in 1900 was apparently 47 years.

True, but it was also a job known to be hugely stressful and generally not fun. She never said the stress was entirely because of the abdication but it did have a significant contribution. He had done public functions as a royal before becoming King and had despised every moment of it. He had training and experience, but it was a galling job for him.

More sycophantic nonsense. You talk about these engagements as though they're a chore, the actual physical activity extends to eating, shaking hands, chatting to people who are already in awe of you, and reading out drafted manuscripts. It is not challenging, it is not tiring and you get very well compensated for it in the form of a life of privilege and high status. Put it this way, would someone working 40 hours in an office on £7 an hour trade places with Her Majesty, or vice versa? I think we all know the answer.

Whilst the duties of ceremonial leaders the big differences lie in the length of the term and the status that comes with being royalty over an elected figure.

We award these things based on nothing other than birth, using the crass assumption that a commoner is not fit for the job and is not fit to decide who should have it.

Also, you and I both know that the PM will take the opinion of HM over that of Joe Bloggs-to award this level of influence because of ancestry again rests on the assumption that mere commoners are lesser than a Windsor.

Self-created? Is the President of Germany a self-created job?

Why bother electing a ceremonial position? All that does is risk the incumbent getting involved in day-by-day politics, which is not what the office is meant to do.

We accept unelected officials in all sorts of other roles because it is not seen as essential or helpful to the position, and yet for some bizarre reason when it comes to the Head of State an arbitrary insistence on an imagined constistency is belted out.

She might not, but any future hereditary monarch could, just as any future monarch might be habitually racist like Prince Philip, pro-homoeopathy like Prince Charles, or otherwise be insane.

There is also nothing stopping any future monarchs from deciding to do absolutely nothing in aid of this country other than pay some taxes.

The queen decides to take part in any of those activities that interest them, and nothing else. They can follow old traditions and invent new ones. If she decides to do nothing, she still gets her privileged status as being Head of State, Queen of the Britons, Supreme Governor of the Church of England etc. etc.

George VI was born in 1895 and died at 56...in the UK, the average life expectancy for a man born in 1900 was apparently 47 years.

Do the elected ceremonial leaders in other countries get involved in day to day politics?

We can do away with hereditary peerages while we're at it-even David Cameron agrees.

This is hardly a strong argument in favour of monarchy, compared to choosing someone purely on the basis of merit.

Well, what can I say? I can only conclude you have absolutely no idea about work or real life. Despite your repeated, baseless assertions, it is hard work, and it's valuable work, and it can drive enormous stress.

I have been in work for years and I can say without hesitancy that if you offered me days of shaking hands and eating banquets, for life, with palaces and country estates to live in, I would snap your hand off. So would anyone who struggles to make a living. The Queen would not trade places with them, end of discussion.

You still haven't explained how it's easy work for both the monarch and the president, and yet somehow pointless for the monarch, and valuable for the president. You're inherently contradictory.

I have never claimed this and you have seen me criticise ceremonial positions many, many times. But *if* we absolutely must have a ceremonial leader I want the position elected.

How do these things affect the workload of the office? This is simply an unsupported assertion by you.



You really don't read what's put before you, do you? No, we don't elect the position because doing so adds no value to the position and is not something that is essential, given that most other countries do not elect the position.

It adds accountability and reduces the celebrity status attached to the position. Still not as good as an executive leader but some advantages over treating people literally as royalty on account of their ancestry.

Oh please. You have absolutely no evidence that the PM somehow fawns over the Queen just because he has to speak to her once a week. And somehow you consider someone who won a popularity contest more legitimate to speak to the PM in such a way? Utterly surreal.

being chosen by popular consent is a merit

Unfortunately, yes. That's what the law tells us to do.