[Red_Baron]

If I had a :P after the sentence would you have taken it in the spirit it was meant? This is after all bollocks and not SeriousDiscussion. As no one had provided a "well constructed argument for keeping the queen." I parodied one you had used before. And I was taking the piss out of the argument, not yourself, with my tongue in cheek the whole time.

point taken

Because she does have real power - the crown powers.
The facade of Westminster blurs it and there hasnt been a "constitutional crisis" to trigger it here for donks but its still held by the monarch. The real powerbase at westminster isnt the cabinet, its the privy council. Its the ruling monarch who selects the prime minister, not us who elect him/her. Its the ruling monarch who finally approves bills, not the parliament. The fact that these powers havent been exercised in any serious way in the UK which counters the parliaments wishes doesnt mean they cant be.

The monarch can with immediate effect if they so wish:

* Select David Cameron to be her Prime Minister (yes hers, not ours).
I used DC as example as he is leader of opposition but she could choose any leader of party, any MP or anyone she wishes. She could (if drunk or something) select me to be her PM and theres nowt we could do about it.
* Reject every Bill ever brought before her.
* Take us to war.

Exactly, one common argument is that she has no power so is therefore useless but in reality she does, as you have shown.

Having said that, if she did for some reason choose a Prime Minister who was not of the majority party the commons system would prevent him getting his bills through as he would not have a majority vote. So in effect the party who acheived a majority vote from the people would still have a lot of influence.

I complain when the government wastes money too. If the prime minister got 60mill/year for living expenses for his family I would complain about that too. If you would then why complain about the Royals getting that?

I think that for the number of royal visits taken that it is value for money IMO.

So because Bush is a bad president then all presidents are bad? This is also the false comparison I mentioned earlier:
1. If you oppose the monarchy you must support a president.
2. Bush is a president and he is dum lols
3. Therefore presidents are bad.

Let me see, someone whos elected over someone who gets a job through accident of birth. Yep I'll go with the elected, recallable and accountable part every time.

In the same way if I need an operation I go to a good surgeon not the child someone who may have been a good surgeon.

Besides the Bush comparison is ridiculous.:
"You dont want a queen, do you want a George Washington?"
well actually that would be a hell of an improvement.

And taking it to its logical conclusion ask Americans if they would rather have X president or King George the Third.

Does that prove that presidents are better than kings? No it just proves that argument is not a "well constructed argument".

I think perhaps you've got the wrong end of my argument. I'm not saying all presidents are bad. I am saying it is better to have a head of state seemingly detatched from the politics of a country and therefore be seen to be able to represent all the people of the country abroad not matter what their political stance.

Me. There is someone who my tax money goes towards who subsequently wields massive amounts of power(however much of that is delegated to others) who is not accountable, transparant or recallable

That's fair enough I would hardly describe the small amount of tax as an adverse amount but that's a matter of opinion. I also think that the royals do enogugh good to warrent the small expense One thing you could ask is if we have an acountable government at the moment? Correct they could be voted out but is that enough in some cases?