She uses it quite a lot to block bills that she doesnt like and to alter bills that may have an effect on her private income as does her son. It's totally undemocratic but if that is how the British like being governed why not make the political interference public knowledge, the exact details are still secret.
She doesn't use it. Perhaps you and I have a different definition of veto, but as we understand it - she can only use the veto by withholding Royal Assent to a bill.
As for the other stuff - I think someone that has been the Head of State for over 60 years might just have a wealth of experience to draw on, don't you think? It's no different to drawing on the Father of the House for advice, for instance. It's also worth pointing out that Her Majesty's Ministers don't have to listen to a word she says.
Barney, have you ever been to tourist areas such as Royal Deeside? You'd see the huge amount of money that the Royal Family bring in - not to mention all the utter crap sold on Oxford Street and so on.
Tourists will still go to England with or without an undemocratic head of state. Elton John or Mark E Smith could do the ambassador for Britain thing. They could do the arms fairs trousering backhanders as well as anyone so long as they held the position of power.
Actually, what's undemocratic about it? The UK could vote to become a Republic tomorrow, but no-one would be that stupid.
If you like paying for undemocratic institutions its great but why not pay another more frugal family to do the job?
Because part of the job is to act and look like royalty. In return, tourists spend a fair bit of cash on them.
I tend to agree because their first loyalty is to themselves.
I think many members of the Royal Family have done far more for others than anyone else on this forum. Their charity work is often deliberately under reported, for a start.
Don't get me wrong, they're not perfect - but when you consider the antics of the elected Heads of State in Poland, I'd much rather stick with our boring Queen.