Queen and Country

Subject: Queen and Country.

Oh why, oh why are we so conflicted by matters pertaining to the Queen. The feigned establishment  terror if the Queen gets drawn into the constitutional fray surrounding the proroguing of parliament. Why do we create such a hierarchal pedestal, a platform, a throne for her to look down on us from on high. Is there nothing more to say of her than, how well she looks at 93 or how that dress and hat suited her on television.
She's a manufactured icon from a country which still carries on with an archaic, medieval, expensive pantomime, the Windsor family monarchy. Fixated with the trappings of noblesse oblige, which is clearly beyond some members of the family, we bow and curtsy as instructed, and in so doing we ourselves becoming the walk on characters in the same pantomime. The hushed tones used in her presence the ridiculous do's and don'ts and the horror which is professed if protocol is breached. 
Of course a couple of hundred years ago kings and queens played a hands-on role in the affairs of the country and in fact were often the instigators of much of the trouble we found ourselves in. Idiotic spats amongst the aristocratic European family,  the aunts and uncles, who represented the blue blood in the 18th and 19th century and who's feuding provoked thousands, if not millions of deaths, of which history treats lightly whilst becoming apoplectic at the thought of Colonialism (nothing much more than a form of business operated by businessmen).
Crazy to think that the House of Hanover and the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, (what became the essence of the State of Germany), a direct blood line to our rebranded the House of Windsor, instigated two world wars without the loss of a single member of the  extended family, in Germany or in Britain. So precious were they that we were shielded from the fact that some sections of the royal family were ready to swop sides, attracted by the supreme power of fascism and its dictatorial hold over the people.
The Queen, a young woman on holiday in Kenya was handed the reins of Monarchy early on the death of her father and one assumes, like her father who himself unexpectedly assumed the reign through the abdication of his brother (a Nazi sympathiser) would have preferred a more normal life before taking on this figurehead role.
Fortunately for those in the country who feel we benefit from having a monarch, she took to the job like a duck to water, temperamentally regal she set the fashion for being a successful Queen. 
The question hovering in the background is, how in the 21st century can we support such a medieval idea, that of needing a chieftain, an isolated, iconic symbol who is supposed to represent us as a national figure but  couldn't be further away from the people, isolated as she is by damn protocol. 
Are they special, or do we insist on making them special. Does the hot house into which they are born and have spent all their lives, make them nothing more than a quaint extension of an historical artefact  
Do the people wish, along with their palaces and fine estates, for them to be a symbol of  themselves, as if their finery were in some way ours. Does it caricature my oft stated amazement at the unemployed in this country, voting for the Establishment Party, when their interests seem so poorly supported. Is it the case that, if I wear the school tie, I'v attended the school.
A perfect example of being trained to exclude your own experience for the glamour of Hollywood