I’m a republican in the classic sense. I dislike the entire concept of royalty and would do away with it in an instant if I could.
My question is: What is attractive about royalty? Why do people afford them so much worship and respect simply by dint of birth?
(thats not meant to be snide, I’ve always been genuinely puzzled why the concept is attractive, but then I’ve never really “got” celebrities either.)
So…Royalty…Yay or Nay? 
Well, the attraction isn’t “Royalty”, it’s the function of that office in a modern democracy that’s the issue. If it doesn’t work, throw it out or ammend it. It’s not exactly sacred. And it’s not about “cute” castles, either.
For me though, it means the Head of State is not party political, (under the present system of funding) is ring-fenced from corporate influence and takes the long view, the one beyond the 4 or 5 years of the elected and self-serving Government.
Probably the most significant aspect – an indirect benefit, almost – is that it permits the Executive (through Parliament) to be surprisingly dynamic, no need for ‘deal-making’, compromising to the point of redundancy, etc. – in that sense, it’s what the whole shape of ‘Government’ (in the wider sense) allows, of which the Monarchy is a component.
I also think there’s a relevant ‘continuity’ issue, I always have trouble putting my finger on that – but somehow, it’s useful that the present head of State learned her trade when Churchill was PM.
And I’m not overly keen on the military owing allegiance to a (by definition) transient, self-interested politician, either.
My main concern is that we don’t know how, in a modern setting, the dynamic/Constitutional checks and balances between the Monarch, the Government, Parliament, the media and the people works in a genuine crisis. For example, if the PM pushes his/her mandate too far.
In theory, it’s a great system (in a Heath-Robinson fashion), but we don’t actually know for sure.
The cost, for me, is irrelevant - I just want the best system possible and anything less is a false economy.
But what does a “head of state” do that is completely unique and special to being a “head of state” that is so very vital and necessary that a “head of state” must exist?
IMHO the head of state is the ultimate representative of the nation. Like the ‘head of the family’. Not in terms of wielding the greatest power, or even having the highest profile, but rather, as L_C put it above, supplying a continuity and stability which transcends short-term party politics.
Example - (and I speak as a European so forgive my ignorance of US constitutional matters, no offence intended by this): a generation ago in the US, Watergate and the downfall of Nixon seemed to represent a serious national trauma; the commander-in-chief, head of state and national figurehead were all in one and when he was disgraced, who was there to provide stability? Who could, at that moment, have represented the nation (other than as a short-term, hastily appointed stand-in)?
Perhaps an answer is that republics have a similar need for symbolism and stability, but choose not to embody that need in an individual - rather, in inanimate but real concepts, ideas, such as “the flag”, “the constitution”… does that make any sense?
I think our attraction stems from childhood fantasies. E.g., Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, etc.
As much as US citizens enjoy a good romantic story about knights and damsels in distress, I rather suspect that an real proposal to install a monarchy would cause a fair amount of antipathy.
Tinker
Installing a monarch is a much different case than having one already, especially having one who has dynastic connections into several previous millenia.
The main benefit I can see, it is much simpler to be loyal to a person, than an intellectual concept without physical reality. Britons don’t fervently cry “God Bless the Magna Carta!” or patriotically leap to the defense of their Parliament. They define national loyalty as loyalty to the person of the monarch.
It works better for a lot of folks.
Tris
In Belgium the monarchy plays also a great role in keeping the country together, actually.
The same counts for many other countries and this includes those who can’t be defined as “democratic” at all.
As for people’s fascination for “royalty” and especially when it comes from people to whom the monarchy is an alien form of government:
I guess it is a combination of fairy tale and some kind of admiration for and fascination with the power that a monarch - and his/her family - represents (in their eyes or in reality, this doesn’t matter).
Salaam. A
So, why not just install a dynasty of potted plants? Much cheaper. They can still symbolize the whole shebang.
What does a “head of state” do that is completely unique to being a “head of state” that cannot be handled equally as well by a potted plant?
Depends. US different from UK, which is different from France, which is different . . . etc. As regards here abouts, this is how Queenie describes her UK role (Commonwealth not included);
“Until the end of the 17th century, British monarchs were executive monarchs - that is, they had the right to make and pass legislation. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarch has become a constitutional monarch, which means that he or she is bound by rules and conventions and remains politically impartial.
On almost all matters he or she acts on the advice of ministers. While acting constitutionally, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.
The Queen also has important roles to play in other organisations, including the Armed Forces and the Church of England.”
Now as we can all see, that’s a plie of not-very-much - at best it takes some of the workload away from the PM. However, I’m sure you know as well as I do that it’s not always about what power you have, it can equally be about *limiting the power of others *i.e. in the UK because some power is vested in the Monarch, it means - more importantly - it ain’t vested in the PM.
So in terms of your question, what the “head of state” does is, by assuming some Constitutional powers, limits the power of the transient, self-serving politican who happens to be temporarily residing at Number Ten. Also, in theory, the Monarch has quite powerful Constitutional powers, 'cept in the modern age, it’s inappropriate to use them.
So, yep, a potted plant *could *also do a very good job, especially when it came to another Constitutional duty which she will be enduring next week , that of entertaining the president of the United States – boom, tish!
When was the last time this alleged “head of state” for the UK actually exercised powers in direct opposition to the PM?
A potted plant could have exactly the same “constitutional powers” and exercise them with the exact same amount of will and discretion.
Right, but she does all that at the request of of somebody else. The majority party in Parliament comes to her and says, “We want x as PM. Name him.” Parliament passes an act, they say, “We passed this act, assent to it”. The PM’s office sends her the honours list and says “knight these people”.
You say those powers are vested in her, but that’s obviously one of those pleasant fictions. If she were to try to exercise those powers independently, you would have a major constitutional crisis.
The way I see it, the only purpose of the monarchy is to let Britons feel good. It’s to let them pretend that there is some check on the power of the PM.
The only check on the power of the PM is a party vote.
Thanks for the replies.
What I really don’t understand is the automatic reverence for royals, they’re just people.
Someone else on another board said it better than I could, posted soon after the Queen Mothers death:
My main problem with the monarchy is this:
I simply don’t agree with putting people who deserve nothing more than the rest of us onto a pedestal, paying them lots of unearned money, giving them lots of unearned homes etc. It’s a pride thing. How many homeless people have died on the street since the Queen Mother’s death? Will I get front page news when I die? A day of national mourning?
The Queen Mother was no better a human being than the rest of us. And neither are any of the Royal Family.
Additionally, we have Prince Philip. It’s no secret: the man hates “commoners”. That’s you and me. That’s most of the people who pay the tax that keeps him in the life to which he has become accustomed.
I don’t like to speak ill of the dead, but better and more deserving people, people who’ve had much harder lives and come through a lot more, have died in the past few days in villages, towns and cities up and down the country. We don’t know their names, we don’t know what they did, but I can bet they’re out there, and none of them will get the level of recognition and respect that the entire Royal Family has inherited.
And before anyone says it, my point is not that we need to seek out these nameless people and put them on the front pages.
My point is that to me, as someone who is a working and productive citizen, who has to earn money to live my life, it is degrading to regard people who have their needs automatically catered for with any kind of respect. The Royal Family has only a borderline understanding of what normal life is like for the citizens of this country, they are so far removed from it. What have they done to deserve the honour and respect they get?
What I never understood is the relationship between England and former colonies. Canadians are technically still subjects of the Queen.
Well I for one don’t like the idea of the only requirements for rule being born to the right family.
Doesn’t matter though because people create their own royalty. Look at the attention paid to these idiot celebrities. Some of them have entire industries that have sprouted up around them.
The vice president - in this case Spirow Agnew
And when he resigned for an unrelated reason, the House Minority Leader - Gerald R. Ford