No power apart from having to give assent for any act passed by parliment to become law you mean, it may be a formaLITY IN recent times, but in theory she could refuse to give assesnt to any act and it wouldn't be law.

She can also (again in theory) disolve parliment unilaterally,

The Queen is head of state. She has the power to dissolve Parliament on a whim, she has to consent to any laws that Parliament passes, the elected Prime Minister has to ask her permission to form a Government - the list goes on. This is [ireal power[/i whether or not it has been used in recent times.

On top of that, members of the Royal Family have enormous influence if they choose to exert it - as our future King has done on any number of occasions.

None of this is a 'poor Republican argument' - it's fact. I'd prefer those powers to be invested in an elected representative with legal and constitutional restraints on their usage rather than have them reside with someone chosen by an accident of birth with NO legal or constitutional restraints.

I'd also prefer to be a Citizen rather than a Subject. The difference may seem to be minimal on the face of it but I feel that the symbolism is powerful. Maybe if we were all Citizens we might develop more of a sense of identity as a country and ownership of our own destiny.

I'm far from a rabid Republican and don't have a particular axe to grind with the Royals just because of their status. I just feel that there are better ways to run a country in the 21st century.

You are deluded, there is no other explanation for your irrational thought on this matter.
Does it not say British CITIZEN on your passport? Who classes you as a subject? Except yourself on some ancient technicality.

Still waiting for you to present some evidence to Standee to back up this claim that the Royals influence government.

kosh guevara the great revolutionary. His face will be emblazoned across millions of t-shirts in the future. Power to the people

I think the point is they could if they wanted too. A very valid one.

I think there is room for both personally. The Royals, in my opinion should have no potential to influence the governing of this country, i.e. dissolving of Parliament etc. I don't want a "president" either. The solution would seem to be to completely dissolve the powers over goverment, even ceremonial of the Royal family, and allow them to be in law what they are in fact now, cultural ambassadors of the UK operating like the rest of us within a parliamentary democracy.

His point was that he believes the royal family exact influence over our government. And that he is classed as a subject and not a citizen. Tell me, how did you take the news when you found out?

It's more that we retain a culture (albeit a fairly vestigal one) of deference based on bloodlines, for me. It just seems silly - but there are worse things in the world than silly, I suppose.

I'm neither deluded nor irrational. Regardless of the wording on my passport (dictated by international protocol) I am a subject, as is every other British national except the Monarch. Research it for yourself if you don't believe me. It's not an ancient technicality, it's built in to our unwritten constitution.

On top of that, just about everyone who wields any power in this country is required to swear a personal oath of allegiance to the Monarch and his/her heirs in perpetuity - not to the country, people, or Parliament. All MPs swear to serve the Queen and her heirs, not the people who elected them. I don't happen to think that's appropriate in a modern democracy.

All power in this country devolves from the Crown rather than Parliament. Even when the Monarch stays out of the picture the Prime Minister and Privy Council wield this power on their behalf without any constitutional restraint. That includes such minor issues as taking the country to war without being required to consult Parliament as just one example.

On two separate occasions (1957 and 1963) our current Queen directly chose who would become Prime Minster when the Tory Party were in power and the choice of Party Leader (and hence Prime Minister) was proving difficult to resolve. In 1910 the King insisted on a dissolution of Parliament before he would enact legislation passed by Parliament because he disagreed with it. A full constitutional crisis was only averted by his death and replacement by a more reasonable successor.

There's a fair amount of interesting information rlhererl. It's a campaign site for a Republic so clearly not impartial, but they do attempt to address all the common arguments in favour of continuing with the Monarchy. I don't agree with everything they say - they seem to have a far more personal dislike of the Royal Family than I do, and some of their PR ideas don't sit well with me - but I agree with the fundamental principles and arguments.

I get that you don't care. Which is fine. I'm not sure why you care that [iI[/i care though.