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?

A civil war and interregnum are definitely something I don’t want repeated, but I think democracy has moved on a bit (even the Diggers might approve to a degree!) in the last 400 years.

Because it is the status quo in this country and no-one showed them anything substantially better for this country (yet).

That true I think for monachists - it's what they know and apparently love - and true for many more people like me not really royalist but very much not republicans.

I think as a Brit it is easy to underestimate how the royal family and the monarch is viewed by the rest of the world. We sort of take for granted the soft power that they hold. The monarch holds next to no power politically and are neutral. But they do hold a level of consistency and continuity for the country. The Queen for example was the consistent through 15 prime ministers. Whilst being politically neutral she was the consistent confidant throughout. I don’t think the power of that symbolically should be underestimated.

Because if we didn’t, we might end up with either Simon Cowell or Tony Blair ( voting British public ) - not sure who would be worse!

I used to think the Irish used to choose. Presidents well but the latest was much more political and I don’t like her politics or gender views . Don’t think you can really get a non political president tbf.

But they do hold a level of consistency and continuity for the country. The Queen for example was the consistent through 15 prime ministers.

This is a bit disingenuous given Charles is not likely to be on the throne for more than a decade at most.

Charles is already on his 3rd Prime Minister. If he reigns for 10 years (2032) he looks likely to see at least 1 more. If Reform win that means the government would have seen three different parties in power during his reign.

So whatever your political views the monarchy is for sure more stable.

The advantage of the separate head of state is that it means the prime minister is not it. It keeps the PM out of the 'top' role. It keeps grubby self-serving politicians out of the dignity and ceremony of state occasions.
People who want power and status are usually the least fit to have it.
Yes, not all politicians are "second-rate", but we don't want a politician in what is essentially a non-political role.

Which is why having a hereditary monarch and royal family is great - as long as they don't actually have any political power.

It stops anyone else getting into the role of head of state and trying to exercise power (e.g. Cromwell).

The trouble @EuclidianGeometryFan , is when those who do hold hereditary positions of state become ‘grubby and self serving’. The late queen’s lobbying of the Scottish govt to avoid environmental rules and charges, very dodgy cash donations to Charles’ charities, tax avoidance strategies, treatment of tenants on Duchy estates. It just goes on and on…before we even start on the alleged cover up’s surrounding Andrew. And we can’t vote them out.

That is for government to sort out, not a reason to abolish monarchy.
Lobbying should be ignored, tax rules tightened, Duchy estates abolished, etc.. All within parliament's power.

If a monarch is considered totally unsuitable, they can be "forced to abdicate" by parliament, e.g. Edward 8th.

What I hate is when it's reported as 'Charles will pay for Andrew to be moved to Sandringham' for example. I always think - 'Urrr... No, WE will'.

That's a weirdly rude and lazy assumption to make about my post.

I think there are some very good points here.

If we were starting from scratch, a monarchy is not what I would expect us to come up with, but we are not starting from scratch and, on the whole, I think our present arrangements do us pretty well.

I feel a similar way about The House of Lords.

What on earth does Princess Catherine being (in your opinion, not mine!) 'gorgeous' have to do with anything!?

Nobody has given a single good argument for the Monarchy. I hope to see it gone in my lifetime. Bunch of mediocre grifters.

I think we forget the powerful effect our monarchy has in other countries which helps us out. The way Trump views the monarchy is useful to us for example and King Charles used that recently to assist good relations with them on his recent visit. Look at how just how much the Queen was regarded and mourned worldwide.

They are an asset, we can't always see that because we are too close them But they have this global effect.

I love that we have a royal family - we've had Kings and Queen's going back to Saxon times, this is our heritage and history in front of us and part of our national identity.

I don't think there would be much difference if the country became a republic. The royals hardly interfere with everyday matters so they.

They do. They meddle with laws all the time behind the scenes to get themselves nice little exemptions from things like environmental and equality legislation. Us plebs just aren't told about it.

Most of the time, even people with republican tendencies don't really give the Royal Family much thought. It's only when there are scandals that are impossible to ignore that people begin wondering whether there are better options than a heriditary monarchy.

For people brought up on fairy tales, the reality of our Royal Family is always going to be a disappoinment as they seem to lack beauty, brains, generosity and kindness. Their sense of entitlemen is off the charts, particularly with Andrew (formerly known as Prince) and the anecdotes about him in Andrew Lownie's book 'Entitled' are jaw dropping. You could probably pull a random person off the streets and they would be better than Andrew.

Donald Trump has been elected but is behaving in his second term as though he has the 'divine right of Kings' and whatever checks and balances exist in the USA to prevent the slide into dictatorship, they aren't working.

I can't see any moves to get rid of our inherited monarchy any time soon as there is no obviously better system to replace them.

I wouldn’t describe myself as an ardent ‘Royalist’ as such but I prefer our system over others for exactly the reason you give (although not sure you intended it this way?)

Trump appears to want absolute power. Boris Johnson tried it (proroguing of parliament, amongst other things.)

Noone has given a good reason not to have a monarchy either.

It is frighteningly easy for a president to be voted in, amend the laws and become a dictator for life making sure that other parties don't come into power.

I'm allowed to fangirl a bit, and she is our future Queen. Sorry if that pains you, but it is what it is.

It's not a good thing. But it's better than the alternatives, IMO.

It's always easy to point out flaws, of which there are many to do with hereditary monarchy. But it's harder to design a better system. The Americans tried it, and haven't been without their problems.

How does the monarchy add to the government? And how is the constitutional monarchy the finest?

Our head of state, i.e. the King, has no powers over the running of the country, unlike Presidents elsewhere, really unsure why republicans feel a potential megalomaniac is a better option