To think most 84 year olds do not have such a busy weekend

[enimmead]

I am not a supporter of the Monarchy but I am very impressed that an 84 year old has the energy to go to the races, spend a day in the rain going up the Thames and do everything else she has done this last month.

I know my Gran couldn't do that - much happier with her feet up watching Countdown with a pot of tea.

I always imagined being the monarch is a pretty lonely life - surrounded by people all the time but not really having true friendships (would they like you for you or your status)knowing you were despised and loved at the same time, every move scrutinized and never having a day off from being you.

And all that smiling. And living a life without experiencing things the way most people do. It may be a privileged life but not one I would necessarily want.

I agree - she has an enormous sense of duty but at what price has it come for how she wanted to live her life?

I cannot for the life of me understand why Kate wanted into it. Her whole life is mapped out for her and she will no longer be able to be her own person in her own way.

But I don't think many Monarchists think about this aspect too much.

Having staff may make your life easier, but it doesn't make your job easy. Just because someone helps you to get dressed in the mornings doesn't equate to 'an easy life'. I just read the 'Queen's working day' from the link on the first page and the woman crams a LOT in.

Those of you who have a cleaner, or maybe even a housekeeper some of you - and go out to work - would you say that your job is easier because of the help you have at home? If you're in a position of some authority in your job, does that make it easier? After all, you have people underneath you so your job must be a breeze, right?

To answer 3littlefrogs

For me, an elected head of state would be very much like the queen in certain ways. Non-political (but with a good working knowledge of politics), non-inteferring, knows what to say, how to dress, how to behave etc.

I personally think the USA have got it wrong - their president is way too involved in party politics. I would never consider the likes of Blair, Cameron etc to be head of state material because they are also politicians.

Ways in which an elected head of state would differ from the Queen would be

1. Non religious. In his or her private life, I do not care, but someone who would not take religion to work with them, which the Queen has to do, being head of the CoE.
2. Elected. For maybe 6 or 8 year terms? Or even longer.
3. Non-hereditary. Obviously.
4. Severe cuts backs on property/wealth etc. He or she would have what she needed to entertain foreign heads of state, travel etc, but would not, for example, be funded to go to the races or whatever.

That's off the top of my head, pre coffee, hope it made sense.

Of course YABU: you cannot possibly compare this woman to other women of her age. She has been cossetted all her life. Get a grip for goodness sake.

'Our dear old Queen is just like the rest of us'. Yeah, right. Utter bollocks and I'm afraid you'd have to be really, really stupid to believe such things.

Psammead Like who though? Can you think of anyone? This is where I get stuck.

I cant remember who said "Wanting to be the President (of the US) should automatically disqualify one from holding that office" but it's actually quite true.

You'd have to be very very bland/ guarded, yet at the same time, someone other heads of state would want to meet. Apolitical really means not just being affiliated with a party but never publicly making a comment that could be construed as favouring one party over another etc.

A constitutional President is a bit of a waste of space realyl. may as well just make the PM the head of state and avoid the duplication.

Interesting that some people have commented about their older relatives still being fit enough to travel the world etc. My Grandmother also did until she was 93. Australia being the favourite

However she had the option of sleeping for 2 days on arrival, sightseeing when she felt like it, catching up with old friends over morning coffee etc.

The Queen has a hectic schedule mapped out for her visits, no time to relax and just be.

She has a holiday home, like a few Brits do, but she employs many local people and brings money to the area, unlike some english people I know who have houses in Scotland and bring all their food from London. They won't use the local shop or employ a local person to maintain it. They are the thoughtless ones.

RichMan - I disagree with your statement that the PM should just do the head of state job. I think both roles are full time work. I would not like to see either the PM or HoS settle for doing a half job in either role.

As for who would be good for the job - I'm afraid this is where my opinion becomes very unpopular indeed. I can think of a body of people whose job it is to serve and advise impartially, and who know all the necessary protocol for foreign relations, and who have an active understanding of politics - and that's the civil service. At this point most people make the mental jump to Sir Humphrey Appleby, or to grey suited beaurocrats, but I really think it could work. An independant selection of those top civil servants who would actually be able to adequately perform the job, along with a public election in order to choose one who had a bit of popularity about him or her.

That's my opinion, anyway. Dull, perhaps, but I think weighed against the current system, infinitly preferable.

Hectic schedule, my arse. She has been cosseted from birth, has never, ever known financial hardship, and has a team who will attend to her every need 24/7, how anybody can think she has a hard life I just do not know.

Some of you are brainwashed, you really are.

Go to Africa and see what a woman who REALLY has a hard life does, maybe that will wake you all up a bit.

In any case, if she is that ordinary, why the heck is she Queen? If you are going to be royalist, at least buy into the idea that she is somehow superhuman and cut the 'she is so ordinary' nonsense.

Other european countrys have royalty but they seem much more down to earth than ours. They are more like a head of state and send the kids out yo work .

I think it depends on what you classify as work. If you think only looking after small children or working in an office classifies as work then you must think the Queen is very lazy. But I think being on the go all day, always meeting other people's expectations, always making other people feel special, rarely being off duty, is hard work. I'm glad I don't have to do it. When I've had a bad night and come into the office to find my desk piled high with work that someone has then messed up as well I can get Very Grumpy and people will notice. Imagine you spent 6 months preparing for the Queen's visit and when she arrives she has a sour face on because she CBA to be there.

And KalSkirata I think worrying about your young grand children losing their mum, your other grand children seeing their parents split up, your country going through (several) depressions, recessions and double dips also takes it out on you. Just to name a few points over a 60 year reign.

I don't think the Queen has had everything she does scrutnized by the press. Royalty were always fawned over by the press, until Dianas death (?) then was probably the first time they were harshly criticised.

It appears to have gone full circle again now.

cocolepew yes and no. To an extent the Dutch royals are more down to earth. Some of the princes went to my school (an ordinary state school, nothing private) and they cycled to school like all of us (followed by security in a volvo!!!!) and the school care taker made a point of making sure they did their share of the chores rota.

On the other hand the last queen asked people to call her 'mevrouw', which is not even ma'am, it's more ordinary than that. This one likes to be called 'your majesty'. She's awesome though, very clued up on economics and politics and known to have a quiet say in the running of the country.

"Go to Africa and see what a woman who REALLY has a hard life does, maybe that will wake you all up a bit."

To be fair I doubt ANY of us here truely know that kind of hard life, if we take it to that extreme.

How the hell could you vote for a non political head of state?

If they were not stating their political/religious or any other stand point how would you choose who to vote for?

Or would we just choose one that looks good and has a good dress sense?

cocole I agree that the civil list needs a big trim, to only those directly in line to the throne (i.e. who have a chance of actually being monarch one day/ who's other job opps are limited by their status). Princess Anne prob did her kids a big favour in not giving them royal titles. As they have little chance of being monarch, she's given them a chance to have a normal life

psammead I agree that those you mention are probably the best bet, but whether they'd inspire much interest from ex-UK bigwigs, or indeed, the UK electorate I don't know. I actually disagree with myself re PM being head of state. Not sure why I said that really

cantspel that's the point with a non-constitutional head of state though. If we want to replace the Queen with an elected representative, that's what we have to do. Or, we go for a French or US system where the President is directly involved in politics, but then, what does that add?

I we had an elected head of state, it would probably be Tony Blair at this very minute.

That alone should put anyone off dispensing with the monarchy.

I agree with Hully how many of us know what a woman in africa is like how hard she has it , unless of course you see african women day to day , yes the queen has a lovely life but so do a lot of well to do british ladies who have no money worries and live lovely lives,

It adds nothing but will cost this country billons.

Our monachy has undergone big changes in the last couple of decades and it will continue to change as the times we live in change but the core principle applies of a life of dedication and duty.

Willam has had a very differnet up bringing than Charles and will make a great king when his time comes. The Queen is a product of her era but for all that she is the one who has moved the monachy forward. It will be a sad day for this country when her reign ends.

Why would it be Tony Blair, OneHand?

I'd rather have Tony Blair. At least he would have worked for it.

I think that is the main point for me: I don't really care if the Queen is hard-working or not, I don't care if she is the nicest person on earth, I don't care about her personality at all.

The point is this: it is utterly wrong to have somebody gain such privilege purely because they are born to it and for that privilege to be passed on to the next generation purely because they are born to it.

There's nothing right about it at all.

Yep. give me Tony Blair. I don't care if his personality sucks (or not); he would have at least used his talents to get it. In fact, I'd rather have President Thatcher for the same reason and, believe me, I can't stand her.

But at least it would be a case of a person from a normal (ish) background having worked hard to get the role.

The old 'President Thatcher' line is used to distract us from the central truth that the whole concept of monarchy is utterly wrong.

I agree, wamster, although an overtly political person would certainly not be my first choice. Or even 100th.

I am just wondering how a UK presidential election would look and wondering if candidates would be put into the Big Brother house