Things change because people choose to change it that way. We are to

Most things change because of technology... take our BBS setup vs the intynet for arguments sake.. or a change in outlook...

This is true in some cases, but not all. The specific move for companies to adopt "ESG", especially in the particular format is made by a small number of people. Some decisions by parliament are done without the backing of the people. With regards to technological change, again, that has more to do with human agency than you realise. The US government for example, in not deciding to do anything about the monopoly that Big Tech companies have, are allowing those said companies to shape the internet. This shaping is done, again, by corporate vision.

Humans are making decisions here, decisions to act, and just as importantly, decisions not to act.

We in the West seem very fatalistic, that we really can't shape our future at all.

Then lets clarify, it has no executive power.. are they a bunch of the original influencers, perhaps.. does that equate to real power, in this day and age where you can be creeped out by the kardashians, possibly
but not so much.

Correct. The amount of executive power the Queen has is not as relevent (it's not none) as the fact they are still the figurehead of the nation means they do have political power, if we define political power as the ability to influence politics.

Discounting people who have no 'official' power as having no power is a fatal mistake. Our world is shaped by such people. Random BLM activists have no power, yet they are to some degree influencing corporate ethics. The company I work for is shaping their policy based on the musings of internet bloggers, as are many other companies. This is political power.

The world is shaped by people who have no formal power. The formalit of power are far less relevant than you think.

And possibly more relevant than you make out.

Spec

Not saying they are not relevant, but elected officials themselves have to bow to other pressures. The President of the United States himself can be cut off from communication on the whims of some execs at Twitter. The media will frame arguments in ways which make people take one or another particular stance on an issue.

I just don't see the value in the figurehead of a state being essentially silent and passive. It just doesn't make sense to me to point some people as being the constancy in a changing world, THE representation, who are for the most part, seeming to act totally indifferent to what they represent.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

Correct. The amount of executive power the Queen has is not as relevent

Well it is relevant, and it is to all intents and purposes none. Sure they
has a rubber stamp or seal of some description that requires use every now
and then. But if something passes parliament its a given it will pass the crown.

means they do have political power, if we define political power as the ability to influence politics.

The crowns stated objective for the ruling monarch is to stay out of
politics. Not to engage in debate for better or worse. Sure Chuck used to
trot out his really weird stuffand push a barrow... but only in the capacity
as prince, not king (so far) and that makes the crown inherently neutral. Essentially it backs the winner.

Discounting people who have no 'official' power as having no power is a fatal mistake. Our world is shaped by such people. Random BLM activists have no power, yet they are to some degree influencing corporate ethics. The company I work for is shaping their policy based on the musings of internet bloggers, as are many other companies. This is political power.

That is the blind leading the blind, or the sheep being led by a goat, pick your metaphor. That is imho a bunch of morons listening to idiots and sooner or later all that schnitzengruben will come to a screaming halt and
everything that it touches turns to the aforementioned schnitzengruben.

bow to other pressures. The President of the United States himself can be cut off from communication on the whims of some execs at Twitter. The media will frame arguments in ways which make people take one or another particular stance on an issue.

If the orange alien dude is doing the wrong thing, he's not above reproach... just like people keep calling out Prince Andrew. If you're going to use a thing, you need to run with that things rules or find another platform.

The media on the other hand, are in corporate pockets for the most part these days. Can't write anything bad about anything in particular in case you lose advertising dollars. Unless something is so far gone its indefensible. Thats got nothing to do with executive power, or lack of, thats about spin. People don't but if you're going to take one source as gospel these days you're already a lost cause.

Spec


*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
--- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
* Origin: Good Luck and drive offensively! (21:3/101)

Well it is relevant, and it is to all intents and purposes none. Sure they has a rubber stamp or seal of some description that requires use every now and then. But if something passes parliament its a given it will pass the crown.

The crowns stated objective for the ruling monarch is to stay out of politics. Not to engage in debate for better or worse. Sure Chuck used
to trot out his really weird stuffand push a barrow... but only in the capacity as prince, not king (so far) and that makes the crown
inherently neutral. Essentially it backs the winner.

That is the blind leading the blind, or the sheep being led by a goat, pick your metaphor. That is imho a bunch of morons listening to idiots and sooner or later all that schnitzengruben will come to a screaming
halt and everything that it touches turns to the aforementioned schnitzengruben.

If the orange alien dude is doing the wrong thing, he's not above reproach... just like people keep calling out Prince Andrew. If you're going to use a thing, you need to run with that things rules or find another platform.

The media on the other hand, are in corporate pockets for the most part these days. Can't write anything bad about anything in particular in
case you lose advertising dollars. Unless something is so far gone its indefensible. Thats got nothing to do with executive power, or lack of, thats about spin. People don't but if you're going to take one source
as gospel these days you're already a lost cause.

Spec

This is probably venturing too close to a political discussion, but I don't really disagree with you all that much. I just don't see much value in the stated objectives of the crown and I think in the scheme of things, the idea that the monarch is a constant in life doesn't really seem to me to be something that would really matter. In my opinion, it a pretty 'naff thing to hang your identity on, that some family is occupying the same castle.

Ultimately, my objection is political, so its not really something for discussion here.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)