How is it that in the modern world where democracy is the prevailing political ideology, some people still feel that the idea of a royal family is necessary. A democracy and meritocracy which aren’t exactly the same but are similar in the idea of equality and rewarding people based on their achievements doesn’t make sense when you have a group of people that never have to lift a finger in their lives yet will always live reasonably comfortably purely by virtue of birth. Look at some of their ‘subjects’ who live in poverty, are unemployed or homeless, now tell me how this can be justified.
Did you have any particular royal family in mind?
My local one, the British.
And which of them do you think are particularly lazy?
I have no idea, really. The monarchy thing continues because of a sort of inertia, really, given that there are usually more urgent political problems to deal with on any given day.
Still, you never know, once Lizzie dies, it might begin to unravel a bit. 
I think a lot of the “Daily Mail” crowd will sulk at the idea of Charles and Camilla. And that might be quite fun to watch. 
It’s just a mechanism, if you don’t have that mob you still need a Head of State - who in turns apparently needs suitable accommodation and the rest of the trappings as an embodiment of the nation state: checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.
It’s also probably worth remembering the Monarchy prevails because of its popularity - the people do have a choice and they continue to support this: witness the Jubilee celebrations, and opinion polls.
Imo, a far better target for democratic reform is the House of Lords…
Put your affairs in order. The Imperial Stormtroopers will arrive in 15 minutes.
Respected royalty may add stability to a country. Most of Western Europe is stable politically; they mostly have royalty – Spain even reverted voluntarily. Thailand has been stabler than its neighbors and it has a respected King. At its best, a system of King and Parliament works well: the King protects the country from anarchy, Parliament protects it from tyranny.
Inherited wealth is a separate issue. In America we have Kochs, Rockefellers and Waltons who never needed to work a day in their lives and are richer than Elizabeth. Why would it be “fair” to confiscate Elizabeth’s wealth but not that of Kochs, Waltons, or big U.K. landlords like Charles Cadogan or Gerald Grosvenor?
In fact, the British royalty has already had most of its wealth confiscated by Parliament over the centuries, with the King or Queen acceding because of an implicit promise they could keep what was left!
Unusual username/topic combination.
I used to feel like the OP and still do to some extent but the thing is the common people just loves themselves some royalty. They love the glamour. They like the idea of leadership embodied in a person. The royalty/democracy combination works well. The parliament and elected executive do the real governing. The royalty do the ceremonial and head of state/armed forces thing and keep the masses happy.
The US has a similar system, they just elect their royalty every few years. Plus their “king” has more actual power. Which is both great and a leetle bit dangerous because the elected king is in a better position to become a tyrant.
The UK royalty have a long tradition of doing what they are supposed to without going tyrant: that’s a pretty good argument for leaving them where they are.
You worry about the cost but Presidents etc cost money too.
A couple centuries ago, we Yanks dumped your monarchy. We even wrote a formal document explaining why:
From the Declaration of Independence: " Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers ** from the consent of the governed.** "
So as long as you Brits offer your "consent of the governed " then your monarchy has legitimately derived its just powers. See? it’s easy and logical.
Now, why you guys consent to it is another question.
I think your answer is something like “We think it’s fun to watch a real-life fairy tale. Like supporting your favorite football team, but more dignified.”
In theory, the monarch has final authority. In practice, they cannot exercise that authority. Hence, nobody can claim and exercise final authority, keeping the country free of would-be dictators who would seize power.
Rather like the bacteria between human teeth that serve no actual purpose but manage to keep potentially harmful bacteria from moving in.
Because most monarchies (excepting those in the Middle East) are constitutional these days and actual power is in the hands of an elected government. And as others have pointed out, there are plenty of degenerates and workers of iniquity living on the benefits of inherited wealth in republics. For that matter wealth inequality is far more severe in the American Republic than in the monarchies such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK.
In addition while my personal preferences are generally republican, I also support keeping traditional institutions such as monarchy (if they are not impediments to a liberal and constitutional government) as part of forming and maintaining a national identity.
As has already been pointed out, the presence or absence of poverty in a country doesn’t make much different to the merits or lack thereof of having a monarchy. We could have a filthy rich president as Head of State who got there by simply being rich enough to have a highly sophisticated publicity campaign in his election.
There’s a flawed assumption I’ve observed that people believe monarchies are doomed to die as soon as society reaches some arbitrary level of political ‘maturity’ and people have a firm belief in democracy and equality. In fact no monarchies, at least as far as I am aware, have been removed after a solemn, democratic and reasoned debate (at least so far!). The closest example I can think of is the US, and Australia almost did; Greece removed its monarchy after several years of ‘republican’ dictatorship, so any affection for the monarchy had died away.
Quite simply humans are instinctively hostile to continuous tinkering and if the monarchy is a popular symbol (which it is), then it will remain.
Also, the British monarchy does actually work very hard. Certainly the job is approximate to the offices of president in, say, Germany or Italy, and I’ve never heard the incumbents of either of those posts to be accused of having an easy life. Heck, the Queen and the royals don’t get [i[paid a salary*.
There are other constitutional reasons why a ceremonial monarchy makes good sense, but I don’t want to dump a wall of text unless someone really wants to know 
One question would be - is the UK Royalty a nett drain on the economy, or do they bring in enough in tourist pounds to offset their upkeep (leaving aside income from estates because that’s just a wealthy landowner issue, not a royalty one)? Would there be a visible drop in tourism if there wasn’t an active Royal Family in Buck Palace?
Personally I don’t like the tourism argument, on both sides: monarchists say the royals bring it in, and republicans saying they prohibit it by occupying Buck House. I think the evidence for both is anecdotal in general and not really the best way to decide what type of Head of State we should have.
But on how much it costs, I think the monarchy is actually cheaper, if by a whisker. The money which until recently was routinely voted for by Parliament for the maintenance of the Queen is used explicitly for upholding the office of Head of State. Not a penny of it is accessible by the Queen for her personal enjoyment.
That cost would remain intact under a republic.
However, since the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011, Parliament no longer votes for the Civil List; instead, the List is a cut of the profits from the Crown Estate (about 15%), the remainder of which goes into the Treasury for public enjoyment. So technically it could be said the monarchy is now self-funding in this regard.
The tourism argument is completely bogus imo. Spearation of powers/check and balances means you need to fund some kind of Head of State/President set up anyway.
Also, a G8, first world economy can afford what bests suits the nation, it’s really not about VFM - potentially the ultimate of false economy’s.
Most Heads of State aren’t huge tourist draws, though, are they?
True enough - but it looks like a majority of Britons think that it’s the monarchy that suits the nation.
I should point out that I don’t agree. I’m as anti-monarchist as they come.
Even in the SCA
Italy, as well: Italian constitutional referendum, 1946
The King had been so tainted by his support for Mussolini that even his abdication in favor of his son wasn’t enough to save the monarchy in the referendum, though it was close: 12,717,923 votes for a republic, 10,719,284 votes for monarchy.
Good point. In this case clearly a monarch who had cooked his own goose by violating the basis of constitutional monarchy by bringing in a fascist dictator.
Although, weren’t there also accusations (real or unfounded) that the Communists had conducted some fraudulent voting? No idea if there’s anything in that…
They DO, however, have to lift a finger. The implict tradeoff in modern European monarchy is that the royals can keep their titles and live comfortably, but in return must work as goodwill ambassadors, charity publicists, and tourism promoters. They don’t sit on cushions all day throwing chicken legs on the floor.