Royalty in the modern age, Queen of England or KIng of ..??Are they necessary?

Very " few people " - That acknowledges or denotes the fact that they do exist , detractors of the throne, I mean.Reality of it is that perhaps with exception of the genuinely Anglicised souls, or those with high vested interest at stake, the noblese, aristocrats , Lords and Dukes . I think many British are on the fence on this, throne or no throne life goes on. Even the title of "Queen of the commonwealth has little meaning seeing as the marjority of people in commonwealth countries do not share the sentiment you have towards your Queen. It has faded in significance over time. Maybe in colonial days of long ago when the British governed things in the era of King George , and then the very young Elizabeth,when the influence of the Brits was everywhere, from Asia to Africa.That perhaps was the era when the term "Queen" has an aura of power and awe. I also wonder if you realize that she is more popularly known around the world as the " Queen of England". All who have access to History books knows about the UK and the British isles and the place called Britain but ask anyone -out of the UK who is not British , this question , Who is Queen Elizabeth ? 9 out of 10 will very likely answer ," Queen of England" which she is , the Queen of that Kingdom , just as much as she is the Queen of the other Kingdoms in the British Isles -hence the United Kingdom... or Britain . Strangely, since you mentioned it, i just realized that mainly, only British say they are British , but Americans tend to say Sean Connery/Pierce Brosnan/ is Irish English, Ewan Macgregor is Scottish or that" that famous "English" actress Dame Helen Mirren , Judi Dench , not " British" actress. And the term " an "English gentleman" has a much gentile meaning to it than" British gentleman" which actually sounds ackward and out of place.

i beg to differ, I respect but there is no reverence for Queen Elizabeth , same feeling to President Obama , to me they are still foreigners and i am a citizen of a commonwealth country which is predominantly Muslim that is also the national religion and we have our own King and Prime Minister, and so is the island republic of Singapore, another commonwealth entity. As for myself , i am Catholic, so it may be difficult to acknowledge her Majesty as the head of my church .although when her Majesty came for a state visit here ,she was very warmly received as a foreign Royal Guest just like a foreign Head of state. I think it is more a state of mind in accepting her majesty as the Queen of the commonwealth nations, India i am sure we all need no elaboration as to their perception of Queen E , She is a foreign Royal- Australia , another commonwealth nation with deep emotional ties to Britain has 2 camps, royalist and non royalist . It is a very different world now compared to as early as the 1960s and earlier, where Commonwealth countries and their citizens acknowledgement of Queen E as their symbolic sovereign was still strong and passionate.

Actually we refer to ourselves by our nationalities - We are proud of our national history, whether that be Welsh, Scottish, Irish or English. We do not refer to ourselves as British.... except for the Olympics and a time of war Recent polls show that 79% of British people support and want to retain the Monarcy. You are making assumption. Commonwealth countries still regard the Queen as their Queen.

As ambassadors to their countries none can match the prestige they carry , that i agree totally, especially in trade and commerce. as far governing a country is concerned , it is a role in which they have detached away from more and more as compared to Kings and Queens of old with hands on invovlement in state affairs even commanding armies and fighting wars. I suppose terms like King,Queen , Emperor or Sultan or Majesty in those times carried with it a form of supernatural God-like aura of power and significance that the modern world has diluted and paled into symbols of exclusivity ,affection , reverence and awe but minus the power and authority.

That is a good thing: not everyone is born to govern wiselly. Many of us saw "The King`s speech", the movie based in part of the life of King George VI of England. He performed a great role during World War II, but Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill. Both were needed.

Imagine that the young Queen Elizabeth had Winston Churchill as her PM , how many PMs already during her reign . She is the one constant, PMs and elected Goverments, whether famous or not still came and went during her rule and she is still in her place , as regal and royal as ever.

If it is the monarchy of England or UK as purist will insist, i still can understand the powerful symbolic institution of the British monarchy,and the esteem and high regard other nations have for it, also the sense of culture and historical identity of the throne that the British identify with and maybe is a rallying centre for the British pride. It is some other monarchies that i totally do not get, with their kings or emperors totally having no say at all in anything relating to Goverment affairs.and out of touch with their subjects. Kept liked Mascots at the people's whim, not even toothless tigers , are many of these royals, pussycats..poor things , kept away like national treasures to be exhibited occasionally like some kind of very precious fragile jewellery. Like the last emperor of China , whom the Japanese made ruler of Manchukuo. Ruler of an empty building he was confined in..