How do British skeptical/atheist/critical thinking-types feel about the the royal family? Do you get upset and defend them when foreigners trash them? Do you say "God save the king/queen"? Will you support the next monarch when Elizabeth passes away? Do they serve a purpose?
I'm American so I can't really contribute.
I'm Canadian, but as the Royals are ours as well I can probably have a go at my answers:
Q. How do I feel about the royal family?
A. Elizabeth is the Head of State here, and as a member of the Canadian Forces, specifically the Primary Reserves, Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, I have a slightly biased view as my enrollment oath mentions Her specifically. And in addition, she is the "Captain General" of the Commonwealth's gunners.
As a person, I've generally felt that for people raised in what potentially is a nothing but a opportunity to live a life of entitlement, they end up being fairly normal human beings, with all the problems that gives. So while they are not paragons they do seem to be fairly decent people.
Q. How do I feel about foreigners trash them?
A. Depends on what they are trashing them about.
Some of Phillip's less than charitable comments? Valid and justified. Chuck carrying on with a married woman while married to someone else? Hell yes those are justified! Personal attacks based on a general dislike for perceived priviledge? Less so.
Q. Do I say "God Save the Queen?"
A. Only if I'm have to butcher my way through the song (I can't carry a tune in a bucket). This happens maybe once a year - not really a big imposition on my time.
Q. Will I support the next monarch when Elizabeth passes away?
A. Yes. Said person will be the Head of State - otherwise I'm being a disloyal Canadian. My loyalty is to the instution, not necessarily the person - same way that US soldiers can follow the orders of a President they didn't vote for.
Q. Do they serve a purpose?
A. Yes. The government of Canada has developed as a constitutional monarchy with the monarch taking the role of the executive, as advised by the prime minister (traditionally the leader of the political party with the most seats in the elected house).
The fact that the head of state is non-elected allows the head of state to be nominally apolitical, and take actions are perceived to be in the best interests of the country as a whole, not just short term political interests that often seem to apear in other countries where the roles are split (most often as a president and as a prime minister). It also allows the position to be more of a unifying figure than an elected official, as politics plays no role in the selection process.
The role of being an example to the nation in the manner of service is actually fairly new as monarchies go, and we can thank Elizabeth, the Queen Mum for that. And here is where we get lots of the criticism - can you reasonably expect someone to live up to the ideal of selfless service to the state 24/7 and to maintain a strong bit of personal virtue at the same time? Possibly, but that's the sort of fishbowl that I certainly wouldn't want to live in. Remember, the rest of us can go to the local with our buds, hoist a few and vent our frustration with whatever we want to - If any of the royals do so they can be roasted all over the world press for improperly interfering in - whatever, so they get relegated to issues that are of limited substance like architecture, organic farming, etc (Yes we're looking at Chuck here) and then they are criticized again for only dealing with lesser issues.
The follow on question not asked is "Can this purpose be done with someone else?"
The answer is "Yes, possibly. Maybe not as well, maybe better. And is there a real need to do so?"
