Originally Posted by
Old-Duffer
heights good,
The current incumbent as our sovereign cannot be faulted and has been let down over the years by several of her kith and kin.
I venture to suggest that a monarchy such as we have is probably a better solution to the head of state question than any sort of elected/appointed arrangement. Perhaps you could offer your solution to the matter - it would prove an interesting 'Thread Drift' to my original question at Post 1.
Old Duffer
Having been the largest recipient of welfare benefits in the history of the UK, HM can most definitely be faulted.
It is an archaic, pointless and eye-wateringly expensive endeavour to keep the royal family going.
To remind those of the history of the monarchy, going back centuries the person on the throne, that the Queen is decemded from, was basically the most brutal murderer who kept the populace in check and killed rivals.
Why in a modern era do we keep such nonsense going is beyond me.
The royals are totally symbolic and provide nothing in the big (or small) scheme of things.
Having met a few Royals over the decades, some are 1,000% 'me' centric and care not a jot about anyone but themselves and what they can get from the system.
The very definition of a protection racket!
And to be clear, I am in no way advocating an overthrow or anything of that nature.
I am merely voicing confusion at why we end up in arms about 16 year old Tiffany getting a free council house for her 2 kids, yes we praise and glorify the expense and absurdity of the royals?
Intellectual inconsistency.
As for a solution, a lack of royal family will change zero in how the country is run.
HMQ actually does nothing and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
I think having something similar to the (original) US Constitution would be an excellent start and would codify in law the limits of government.
It could be a document used to hold all politicians to a higher standard than the sorry bunch of criminals, fraudsters and puppets we have now.