A genuine question for royalists.

[Tutorpuzzle]

I am a republican. I believe that absolute power can only end in disaster. Trump appears to want absolute power. Boris Johnson tried it (proroguing of parliament, amongst other things.)
Please can you tell me why you think (ignoring the Windsors self-destructive present tendencies), having a head of state who is in position only by accident of birth is a good thing?

They are not Head of State by an "accident of birth". They are Head of State because Parliament says so. Go and google the "Act of Settlement".

Then, as a republican, explain to me how anyone is one whit better off by having the Head of State elected in some way. Either it would be from a bunch of second rate politicians, which is generally the way in most republics, or directly voted for by the electorate and given real powers that no UK sovereign has exercised since the Middle Ages?

IMO a constitutional monarchy is the finest system of government ever devised (an opinion the Netherlands, Spain and the Scandinavian countries, among others, seem to share).

The individuals may need to change (we got rid of the Stuarts, and Edward VIII after all), but I cannot see any system, anywhere - with the possible exception of the Irish Republic - that is any better.

I like the idea of continuity that the Royal family gives us especially as we have had different waves of incomers. Vikings, Normans who took over entirely as well as other immigrants such as Huguenots fleeing Catholic France.

Almost all executive power has been taken from out Royal Family and absorbed by Govt.
Many Republics have a President with few exec powers. eg. Ireland and Germany. That seems to work well for them.
Executives like Trump and Macron may not be the best system. USA had a bit of trouble with Nixon as well.

Well, semantics aside, @JamesClyman , you’ve not really answered my question. Why do you think ‘it’s the finest system of government ever devised?’.

And, as a republican, I’ve often thought perhaps we don’t need a separate head of state at all.

Your answer is rather aggressive. Plenty of people are asking these sorts of questions at the moment. And not all politicians are second rate.

Yes, continuity is an interesting reason, @JoyintheMorning , but to your point about Nixon, he certainly was trouble, but he was pretty quickly dispensed with, which we can’t often do with an hereditary monarch!

The style of monarchy we have in the UK is a good compromise. We have a head of state with effectively no real political power, but who possesses a lot of symbolic power that gives us - all of us, even 'republicans' - a higher global status than we would otherwise have. Only a naive fool who doesn't understand the history of these islands would throw away the parliament/monarchal settlement we have now, in the early 21st century.

No system is perfect, but I think the current senior Royals are doing a great job.

Our King doesn’t actually have much power though does he- I wouldn’t want an unelected head of state with absolute power but also wouldn’t want a system like America with an elected president who is affiliated with a political party. I like that our royal family are politically neutral. The King represents the country not the current government.
I think we’re going the right way with a smaller less formal, less expensive RF

I’m interested by the concept of ‘higher global status.’ Along with ‘finest system of government,’ it sounds good, but what does it actually mean? How is it measured?

^ I agree with all of this.

My view on why I prefer monarchy over republic:

1. I do not trust anyone who chooses to put themselves forward for a position with that much power and prestige - Those born into the role with no choice are in my view more likely to put the nation before self interest.
2. The royal family contribute economically to the UK. It is hard to find exact figures but the majority of studies agree that the royal family are net contributors to the UK economy via tourism etc. Yes people would still come to see palaces etc without them but not on the same scale, you will never convince me that there will be as much interest in a historic relic as there is in a working palace.
3. I do not trust the British public to vote for anyone decent. Look at our history of MP's and PM's they are shocking, the general public are shocking at picking leaders.
4. As Trump has shown an elected leader with enough support and desire can override checks and balances and take more and more power. How would republicans (who as a generalisation tend to be left wing / left leaning) feel if Farage was voted in as President and begun to dismantle the checks put in to limit his power?
5. I agree with your statement absolute power results in disaster, this is why our current system works. The King has very little real power.

I’d say a good example of the soft power of the royal family is the recent Trump visit ?

That's a fair question, but the point is that it can't be measured. It's a form of symbolic power that can effect change but without fighting. For example, King Charles and the other royals were wheeled out when Trump visited. Can you measure the effect of this? Perhaps not directly, but the massaging of Trump's ego has very likely done us, the UK, a lot of good. This is what I mean by Global Impact.

Why do you think ‘it’s the finest system of government ever devised?’

It's the least worst in my opinion. I can't think of a system that works better.

I used to be republican. I sort of still am in principle

But our head of state doesnt have any real power and a lot of other political systems the head of state does.

We've gone with a constitutional monarchy that has a lot if symbolism in it. I have wondered if it could all be replaced literally with a crown. So our head of state was an inanimate object symbolising all that had gone before it. It could be brought out at state functions and ceremonies, opening if parliament but with no wearer, going forward.

I think you’ve summed up very well well a lot of pro monarchy points, @KoiTetra , but France is the most visited country in the world, and hasn’t had a monarchy for quite some time.

And if the elected officials decide to ‘land grab’ power, there is little a head of state with no power can do about it. Which is why Trump is going for the judiciary.

If you want a Republic, it's probably a good time to see what happened in Nepal recently. France is also a good place to look, they're on their 6th Republic.

Some people in the Royal Family are entitled sleazebags, but you have to admit there has been no such instability.

To even consider doing away with a constitutional monarch like that of what we have is to erase thousands of years of history. When Tony Blair came along, he stripped as much as he could to European-ise us, and now we have David Lammy.....

I prefer stability, I'm a Royalist, plus Princess Catherine is gorgeous.

Just my two pennies.

Yes, to those who are saying ‘soft power,’ I think you have a point. But then the obvious response would be risk of abuse of position by individuals who can’t be got rid of, which brings the soft power into much disrepute.

Doesn't the King have a right to veto an Act of Parliament and refuse to sign? Apologies if I'm not using the correct terms here. Surely that's a very important safety net to protect the people from a corrupt government. If the Royal family existed just for that function alone it would be worth it.

Many politicians are motivated by personal enrichment and their policies reflect that - look at DT for a start and the "real estate possibilities of Gaza" 🤑

UK politicians aren't much better, look at the Blairs or the Kinnocks and the lining of their pockets. The current bunch are no better.

QE2 was a formidable woman with more political and diplomatic skill and greater value than our last ten prime ministers combined.

I prefer the royal family to some bullshit political appointment.

I can’t see it ever being used, @Dontlletmedownbruce , I mean, going back to the corrupt/illegal proroging of parliament, the queen signed it off, it was down to the speaker to sort it out!

I’m not sure what to say about the Catherine comment!

Interested by people who need someone around for "stability" and "consistency". I can't imagine describing myself like that as it's very infantilising, no?

Not to me.
Have there been lots of peaceful revolutions, it is easy to build a community or a home in a society that keeps drastically changing.

Couldn’t agree more. But why do we need a head of state in addition to an elected pm? I know, I know, ‘just look at America’ . But Trump can be voted out! And has been voted out already.

The two examples in the OP (Trump and Johnson) are elected officials and only in power for a set amount of time. It’s a risk with any elected official - they can say one thing to get into power and then completely turn the tables once they’re in (**looks sternly in the direction of Keir and co).

For me the British RF don’t really have that much power. The King signs off on bills but he’s never going to go against the will of his PM and other elected officials.

I quite enjoy all the pomp and ceremony that goes with royalty but also like the clear moves to stripping it back to the bare minimum and clearing out all the ‘hangers on’. More needs to be done on this - for example I don’t see why Harry and Meghan should keep their Sussex titles when they do nothing to represent the county and are able to use these titles to make a commercial living. Monarchy is effectively an ‘accident of birth’, comes with great privilege and therefore those lucky enough to have bestowed titles, shouldn’t be allowed to personally profit.

I wouldn’t describe myself as a monarchist but for reasons I couldn’t articulate, had a real lump in my throat when the Queen died. I realise now it’s because I think she genuinely loved and wanted to serve her country and she was a continuous presence for most people’s lives. I suspect there’s no one quite like her now.

The King has no power and limited influence. He is more of a figurehead to glad hand foreign dignitaries and boost tourism, which he does well.

Meanwhile his son and his grandson are being educated from birth to do that job. No doubt when their times come they will be ready to do a fine job too.

I can't see how an elected head of state would do a better job, and if we had one we would still have the cost of keeping up Windsor Castle as a national monument and paying for the presidents bodyguards etc.