No it isn’t just symbolic. We don’t much like our politicians here (they’re all useless muppets) and the monarch denies absolute power to the numpties in Westminster. The armed forces, the judiciary etc all answer to the king not the prime minister. We don’t let our prime ministers ride about in gold coaches or go on state visits in their own honour and we make them sit and give account for themselves every week in a private audience. I think it keeps them at least a bit more humble. We all know the king is a rubber stamp on democracy but our system splits the power. Plus, nun quam rex moritor - the king never dies. You’re never without a monarch (that you’ve known since they were born) and it gives a sense of stability while the politicians play musical houses in and out of Downing St!A big question is what is the purpose of the monarchy? Is it merely symbolic? Does it operate under the foreign service? I think the degree of transparency ought to reflect its function. At the end of the day, they are public employees who work for the people of the UK (of which I am not included). As an outsider, I would think that the British people would want full transparency and the ability to strip royal members of titles when they are no longer found to be appropriate representatives of the nation. In other words, the people should be able to force Charles to strip Harry of any royal title and let him live a je ne sais quois life as his son, Mr. Harry Mountbatten Windsor.
I absolutely want KCIII to have the power to strip the Harkles’ titles. It’s ridiculous that he can’t when the monarch is ‘the fount of all honour’! He ought to be able to take away as well as give. My MP has infuriated me by saying he won’t vote for the bill to give that power. His ridiculous reason was that he thinks titles should be a matter for the monarch not Parliament! Make it make sense! Stupid idiot - I can’t wait to boot him out at the next election! (I need the rest of your to write to yours since mine is so useless!)