Well the monarch isn't 'someone else' - she's 'as well' as the politicians we're saddled with - and indeed the monarch's role is that of a pathetic powerless puppet used by politicians and the establishment to hide behind and to rubber-stamp their own outrages and excesses. Indeed, contrary to the fond illusions of the monarchists the country is ruled by a president just as most other countries - he or she just happens to be called the Prime Minister here.Far from being a source of stability, security and continuity for the people, as is endlessly claimed and parroted, the monarch certainly throughout my lifetime has done nothing whatever to stop countless millions of her subjects (not citizens, note) from suffering insecurity, instability, poverty, privation and injustice, and indeed has often a source of it.In addition to the monarch being required to rubber-stamp any legislation, however flawed and repressive, there are monstrous legal devices such as Crown Immunity (which was even used to let NHS hospitals escape prosecution for poisoning their patients with contaminated food) and Orders in Council (the most odious of which in recent years was used to summarily overturn the legal judgement in their favour which the Chagos islanders - who had their whole country stolen from them and themselves expelled in the name of the British monarch) - had finally gained after years of legal battles in the courts). Not to mention lesser but still irritating devices such as the Dutchy of Lancaster, the sinecure Chancellorship of which was given to a superannuated politician a few years ago so he could run the ruling party's re-election campaign at public expense.The 'constitutional' monarchy system is fundamentally riddled with corruption and deception, and frankly stinks imho.Having said all which, my original point was primarily about the arrogance, complacency and spurious statistical justification expressed in one pro-monarchy posting on here; not about the merits or otherwise of the system itself.
Chris Veasey ● 5078d