Originally Posted by
Asturias56
Every Country has a Head of State and it's generally felt that it better if they are to some degree above the day to day politics required to run a country.
They "represent" the country at major occasions (good & bad) and are a symbol , as is the national flag and anthem. The UK has a hereditary Head of State - which removes a lot of arguments but it means it's a bit of a lucky dip as to the capabilities of the incumbent. In the case of Queen Elizabeth she'll have done the job as best she could for 70 years and that , surely, is worth remembering next year.
Sure her own family are a bit of a mess, and occasionally she hasn't reacted to events as many might have wished but she's never wavered, never been found doing dodgy deals with Lockheed, or living in palace in Bavaria, or playing the tables in Monaco while claiming to live a life of religious austerity.
The UK could have done a lot worse
"A bit of a mess".
Edward VIII abdicated to marry a divorced American, numerous divorces, adultery by Margaret, Charles, Andrew, Anne, Diana, Fergie, dodgy business interests, accepting bribes, naked parties in Vegas, possible involvement with sex trafficking, Nazi costumes, racist comments, questionable parentage (Harry), "stepping back from royal life"....
This ignores my point about the utility of the royals.
Regardless of whether HM "could have done a lot worse", it is still an eye-wateringly expensive and largely pointless institution.
The royals cost a fortune, provides nothing of substance and if they were no longer here, have zero effect on the UK other than some old stuffy pensioners complaining.
Other than 'I like the royals' or 'they bring in millions in visitors every year' (not true) or 'they help UK PLC' (negligible at best), I have never heard a compelling and logical argument as to why we should continue.