Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?

He could use Stephen Fry's voice.Stephen Fry could use the Queen's voice.The Queen could use Stephen Hawking's.There. Solved.

His own, of course. However, he would run the risk of being confused with a Stephen Hawking impersonator. Imagine the hilarity of someone at the pub telling Attenborough, "Hey, you sound just like that wheelchair chap".

Or...Stephen Hawking's intelligence.
David Attenborough's voice.
Stephen Fry's wit.
George Best's alcohol tolerance.
Joanna Lumley's legs and Patrick Moore's xylophone!I think I have created ... a monster.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

- Sort of like what happened in the American colony awhile back?

Your unholy conglomerate gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "the royal we".

Try it yourself:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUuRXchGfS0

I wasn't really asking about the legitimacy of the monarch. Just trying to get an explanation from UK as to why they would want a "Royal" person.Seems kind of outdated
.
I would never be able to call another human being, Your Royal highness.What the heck is "Royal" about any monarch?

Oh, well, in that case I'm not entirely sure.Except, I guess, the Queen is a symbol. Why do Americans get all upset when people burn the flag? It's only a piece of cloth. But when things become symbolic, they become emotionally conflated with the things they symbolize. I don't think that that form of address is actually required, but if it was, you might still find it within your powers to do that if it was a choice between that and being rude to an old lady.But beside that, she does have the symbolic value I referred to. She is, albeit by mechanisms we might not entirely approve of, the British Head of State. If there are rules that say how you should behave towards her, and you break them, you are "dissing" Britain and representing your nation as uncouth.A British person who thinks that the American constitution is stupid and who would have rather voted for McCain if he had the choice should still address Obama as "Mr. President" rather than "you dumb n*****", shouldn't he? --- because to do otherwise would be taken as an affront to the whole nation, and the people who would so take it would include 99% of the people who don't want him to be President. Their personal respect for him might be at rock-bottom, but they would still demand that he should be shown proper respect as Head of State. What?Er ... being a monarch. That makes them royal. This is true just by definition.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I like the Queen. I am an American but have always admired the British. Pomp and circumstance, traditions, ceremony it's all interesting and entertaining to me and many Americans. I am of Scottish roots and don the kilt from time to time, I think it is important to have such links to the past. Pride in our roots is a good thing.

http://nerdnirvana.org/.../queen-elizabeth-ii-presidents.jpgEdited by Catholic Scientist, : de-hotlinked

God no! But then again I'm not keen on separate elections for this post either.Best off just appointing our most recently retired (and successful - no losers) cricket captain methinks.Edited by Boof, : No reason given.

All in this thread seem to agree that having a head of state that isn't the political leader of the day is a good thing. That does make selection rather difficult. Unless hereditary "selection" remains in place. Ricky Ponting as the head of state at formal banquets and suchlike. The mind boggles!!

We already manage to select Lords and judges without voting them in. Though there are reforms being bandied about to make it more democratic. Selection can be done in any number of ways. It could be done on the mutual agreement of Parliament. There could be an independent committee. Or maybe some exceptional quality like making the head of state the person whose peer reviewed work has the biggest impact factor. The real question is, should the head of state be a lifelong position determined by birth? I can think of only one good reason why it should: A lifelong duty means one can get rather good at it. But it's hardly a guarantee of sufficient competence.

The biggest difference between the American president and the queen is that the american president has earned the title, not born into it.
Your republican primary thread shows how much the republicans running for the nomination respect the position.
My personal opinon is that they are idiots, with Rommney being the least harmful of them.
but that's off thread. I guess that't my biggest problem with any monarchary.
It's a title given not earned.