Thats only because I know more about the UK than the others. Occasionally I read about the monarchs in other places like Denmark. No other countries hold royal weddings like the UK.
They don’t? 
I’ll have to let Felipe and his sisters know that their weddings were tiny little shindigs, barely a few hundred guests each and the country paralized… I’m sure Mohammed VI will also be happy to know his wedding and those of his siblings didn’t cost anywhere near as much as his father’s Treasurer insists they did, but he’d probably like to know where did the money go. And of course, the weddings of the house of Saud well, just a few friends with alcohol-free umbrella drinks, yes?
Americans’ obsession with the British monarchy is not quite the same as British monarchs being the only ones who have big parties.
Wait, of the top ten, Norway, Qatar and Denmark are the only Monarchies. And In Scandinavia, the Monarchs are pure figureheads. Qatar is indeed a monarchy, but it’s has many issues, it is wealthy only due to the fortunate accident of having lots of oil. Luxembourg does have a Grand Duchess, again, nothing but a left over figurehead. I guess you could count Australia.
But yeah, the Western Euro nations mostly still have a figurehead Monarch, of whom QE2 actually has the most power- which she cant use, and is only theoretical. Harald V of Norway is in a similar position.
Mostly Middle eastern and two euro micro-states.
It’s more like, no other countries hold big royal shindigs that Americans and uninvolved third parties care about as much as they do the UK’s. Unless it’s an actual American involved a-la Grace or Noor.
And FWIW the UK weddings are big pointless shows but at least there is some ROI in tourism interest and *public *entertainment that you aren’t getting for a Saudi or Qatari royal wedding even if they spend five times as much. And sure, at the other end, compared with the Brits the Scandinavian royals look modest and frugal and low-key but how hard is that?
Meanwhile back to the question at hand – in modern *Western *constitutional monarchies, the persistence of the monarchy is more often an “if it ain’t broke…” kind of phenomenon. The Norther European realms have organically evolved into parliamentary democracies and the monarchs have been reduced to ceremonial figureheads, and ocassionally as nominal “moderator” if the political officials can’t get around to forming a government properly in a timely manner.
This means that if you got rid of them you would then have to periodically elect some retired politician or academic as figurehead/moderator State President a-la Israel/Germany/Italy. Probably more economical but not devoid of its own issues. Or switch to a Presidentialist-CEO system which right now to many of them may look like an iffy proposition.
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita: five out of the top ten.:
-
Luxembourg (Grand Duke Henri)
… -
Norway (King Harald V)
… -
Qatar (Emir Tamim bin Hamad)
… -
Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)
-
Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)
Global Competitiveness Report: five out of the top ten.: -
Japan (Emperor Naruhito)
-
Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)
… -
United Kingdom (Queen Elizabeth II)
-
Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)
-
Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)
Corruption Perceptions Index: seven out of the top ten. (i.e. least corrupt perception, in case there was any ambiguity there 
)
-
Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)
-
New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II)
-
Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf) (four-way tie for 3rd rank)
-
Norway (King Harald V)
-
Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)
-
Canada (Queen Elizabeth II)
-
Luxembourg (Grand Duke Henri)
Human Development Index: four of the top ten.
- Norway (King Harald V)
… - Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)
… - Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)
… - Netherlands (King Willem-Alexander)
Democracy Index: six of the top ten.
-
Norway (King Harald V)
… -
Sweden (King Carl XVI Gustaf)
-
New Zealand (Queen Elizabeth II)
-
Denmark (Queen Margrethe II)
-
Canada (Queen Elizabeth II) (two-way tie for 6th rank)
… -
Australia (Queen Elizabeth II)
Interestingly, the United States only appears in the top ten on two lists, GDP (ranked as # 8) and Global Competitiveness (#1).
And with the exception of Emir Tamim bin Hamad, they are all powerless figureheads. None of the others are Monarchies, they are Parliamentary Democracies with a Constitutional figurehead Monarch.
Luxembourg does have Grand Duke Henri, but they describe themselves as a “full democracy”.
Constitutional monarchies are democratic, but also monarchies. For example, the Queen has powers under the constitution of Canada which only she can exercise.
Who knows? It’s not been discussed in Parliament and not seriously discussed outside organisations like Republic.
Disagreement over how to appoint a ceremonial President arguably swung the 1999 Australian referendum on the monarchy - disagreement over whether it should be directly elected (what! and make it political?!) versus having it appointed by Parliament (what! then what’s the point if it’s not more democracy?!)
We had a lengthy thread a few years ago on this very issue, Re Wiggler. My point was that it’s easy to say “Let’s get rid of the monarchy!” The hard question is “What do you replace it with?” That’s why the Aussie proposal was defeated, as Malden Capell comments, and why in my opinion we’ll never see a Republic of Canada - the current system is working, and trying to come up with a replacement that has the unanimous consent of all ten provinces and the federal Parliament is just not doable, in my opinion.
But, you never know. Someday the horse may learn to sing.
Causation may run the other way, though. A high GDP/capita, good human development, low corruption etc may be conducive to the kind of political stability that enables otherwise anachronisti monarchies to survive. Monarchies are frequently overthrown by revolutions, or following unsuccessful wars. They will tend to be overrepresented among countries that haven’t experienced either.
Commander in chief is a figurehead?
Well, it comes with a spiffy uniform, but “However, Title IV of the constitution vests the administration of the armed forces and formulation of national defense policy with the President of the Government, a civil officer who is nominated and appointed by the king, confirmed by the elected Congress of Deputies and, as such, is representative of the Spanish people.” wiki.
You know. at times they will show a blurb on tv or it might get a notice in the newspaper of a non-UK wedding. However the UK ones are shown live. As was Dianes funeral.
Yes, but that’s because, despite that stuff with the tea, y’all still see them as YOUR royals.
I believe if you check the history of the various monarchies, both extant and defunct, you’ll discover that they most definitely could–and were–bought by special interests. You will also discover that there have been monarchies where the monarch is elected, and IIRC there is at least one monarchy where the monarch is elected today.
Day to day management of the country is done by the government, yes. Day to day. Note that, while I’m quoting that because I expect foreigners to be able to read it, being CiC is actually one of the reasons Spanish Republicans have for getting rid of the monarch, and “so who would you put in charge? A politician?” is the usual response. Load “politician” with more scorn than American movies put into “used car salesman”.
I read that they attempted to coax Afghanistans last king to come back to try and help unify that country.
When communism fell in Eastern Europe there were also some countries who looked into getting their monarchs back as a kind of symbol of national pride.
In Hawaii they still maintain the last queens garden and Iolani Palace on Maui and the islands most famous song is “Aloha Oe” which was written by the last queen.
So its not so much as I want a monarch to actually rule, I do see some benefit in their use as a national symbol.
HERE is an article about some countries where people are pushing a return of monarchs. Poland, Hungary, Russia, Serbia and Brazil.
There’s too many different “monarchies” to fully generalize. but the main issue, I think is the hereditary principle — the child of a monarch becomes the new monarch. Obviously there’s a risk of getting a very bad King by chance, but the hereditary principle does have advantages.
A royal family may be so rich as to be incorruptible. The heir of a King may be raised from birth impressed that service is his only duty. Can anyone possibly believe that the wealthy son of a respected family taught that service was his duty would be likely to be as horrid a Head of State as Donald Trump?
Wealth is not 100% protection from corruption. A man with $20 billion might want $30 billion. Or might want to bring back Droit du seigneur. But most people in such a family would understand that theirs was an ancient privilege derived from the honor of their great-great grandfathers, and might think the preservation of that honor for their great-great grandchildren as worth more than an extra billion dollars.
Strongly disagree. And note that most leaders require at least the implicit consent of (at least many of) those they govern.
Yes, I agree with Septimus on this point. Specifically, there was a very strong incentive for Charles II to pay attention to what his subjects wanted. Ditto for William & Mary, Anne, George I and so on.