Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?

This seems to be of a type with one of the three common justifications offered for monarchy. 1. It's popular, 2. Tourism! and 3. Vague, abstract musings about legitimacy and consitutional roles.The legitimacy of the British government doesn't come from the monarchy - it comes from the fact that it's a government elected by popular vote. As for what makes us a democracy - the fact that people think this is the most appropriate way to run a country in the modern world.The only legitimacy that really matters is popular support. If the monarchy were done away with tomorrow, this would not suddenly mean that popular support for democratic government would evaporate along with the silly little quaint traditions. Maybe a written constitution would be appropriate, although given that absolutely nothing would change in the practical functioning of government, it doesn't seem wholly necessary. The question that actually matters here is who wins the armed struggle for the throne. Legitimacy is a vague, abstract concept, while the swords of the soldiers marching for you and the pikes of the peasants rising in your support are concrete, significant matters. If you can convince enough people to support you because of your marriage, or your bloodline, or the words of God, then you can win the throne. If you can convince enough people to support you because of backroom promises, a winning personality or promises of bread and circuses, then you also win the throne.

I've been wondering for a while what, really, is the point of a Head of State? In a parliamentary republic, the President tends to have veto powers, and plays in a role in the formation and dismissal of governments. But then you look at the consitutional monarchy next door, where everything seems to trundle along in a similar way, and the head of state doesn't, in actuality, really possess these powers, regardless of their technical constitutional role.The only universal role for heads of state seems to be the ceremonial, but this all leaves me scratching my head as to what the point of it all is. If people want to prance around in daft costumes or what-have-you on their own times because it gives them a warm cozt feeling of tradition, all well and good. But it all seems a bit of a waste of public money to go doing it officially.

Honours systems often just seem to be a way of old boys patting each other on the back, and I wouldn't be too sad to see them go, but if we think this has a useful function in society we can always keep them. Instead of the award being presented by a President, or by a Prime Minister who should be busy with the actual process of governing, we could appoint a Master of Ceremonies who turns up just for such events, and solemnly gives some speech about how 'on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, in recognition of your selfless sacrifice...' and so on and so forth. Such a job could be accomplished as a part-time position, with far lower cost than a permanent President. Perhaps we don't even pay the Master of Ceremonies - treat the position itself as an honour for a distinguished civil servant or somesuch.As for foreign delegations, I have even less interest in granting them all this pomp and circumstance. I get deeply annoyed when Obama and Medvedev have to turn up here for some formal treaty signing, with all sorts of ceremonial nonsense (paid for out of the public purses of US, Russian and Czech citizens) and disruption to people's travel and work. Politicians, I imagine, have plenty of work to occupy ther time without jaunting off on jollies to foreign parts which, in the age of instant global telecommunication, are rarely necessary.I'd probably make a poor diplomat, though.

But when it comes to modern diplomacy, the actual work has been done already by career diplomats by the time Barack and Dmitri are shaking hands in Prague Castle. This is just a formality and a photo opportunity. I'm not sure any personal relationship between the Presidents has the same impact on international diplomacy as we are led to believe. I agree that security is necessary for such a high profile target as the President of the US. I just don't agree that his prescence here is necessary. I'm sure it's perfectly possible for him to sign something in Washingon. But, no, he has to come and do it in a castle instead.