The Monarchy. What is it for?

Given the imminent arrival of another new heir-in-waiting, it seems this is a timely opportunity to review what function this institution serves in a (supposedly) modern democracy.  

Aside from the glamour an prestige which is decreed to be inherent in having a Royal Family, is there any aspect of this form of head of state which could not be carried out equally well by an elected president?   Is there something mystical about being born into this role, rather than chosen on merit?  Does the Divine Right of Kings still hold so much sway in what is supposed to be a secular state?

I throw these questions, and doubless many others, open to the learned commetators of these forums.  Please feel free to argue, for or against, but please have good reasoning behind your answers. 

Yeah is see what your saying, i sort of neither am for or against them, it is what it is. Its part of our heritage which the rest of the world seem to like as well, well some of it at least. Harry seems alright, Wills is a bit of a helmet but i think he takes after his dad more. Queeny seems ok, I tell ya what i wouldnt mind having a chat with her about the people she has met over the years. 

over a nice cup of no dought expceptional palace tea

Of course, it's an archaic comedy for the thought-filled peeps of the world. It can only be celebrity and power which keeps any amount of interest. The "Game of Thrones" is a great example of the power of elitist propaganda bestowing the virtues of power-soap operas reminicent of Greek mythology. The more things change, the more things stay the same...

If you think the monarchy is expensive, imagine our past prime ministers as presidents and the expenses they would rack up. President Tony Blair? president David Cameron? At least the queen isnt corrupt and working to her own agenda. She is non political but represents us abroad, she brings in half a billion a year in tourism and is a great diplomat respected the world over.

Could be, but why her and not me?! I'd love to be Queen on the Islands. Do you know our Philip the Second was about to be King of England? And that they made him promise he would renounce if the crow... I mean Arthur, came back? British are like Galicians, if they didn't exist it would be a must to invent them.

Good point, but you'll notice that I say nothing at all about individual members of that outfit or how good or bad they may be at the "job". The real issue is with the whole institution, and how immovable it seems to be.

The problem with family-owned businesses, like the Royal Family, is that there is no real safeguard against the inevitable idiot family members.  You are stuck with whoever is in the line of succession, and do not get to pick and choose who should be next.  Hence the advantage of an elected head of state.

Indeed, this is a throwback to our feudal past, and iniquitous class system.  Your life is determined by the lottery of an accident of birth, and there is not much anyone can do about it.  In a way, this is a form of mental cruelty to the (admittedly highly privileged) incumbents: forced to live life in a gilded fishbowl, forever under scrutiny, brought up in an artificial world with their lives determined for them.  It is, as you point out, the ultimate embodiment of celebrity worship. 

Quite possibly, but it is not beyond the bounds of imagination that an elected president could be reigned in somewhat by legislation.  And who is to say we could not have a prime minister and a non-political president?   You could even keep the current Queen as head of state, change the job title and have some sort of democratic vote to give that position some legitemacy. 

As for being a tourist draw, that is undeniable; and Royal ceremonies are one of the few things this country still excels at.  We have all the paraphenalia of pageantry, the palaces, castles, gold coaches, Household Cavalry, it would seem a shame to let all this go to waste.  In this capacity, the Monarchy is essentially a branch of the tourist/entertainment industry, somewhat like the British version of Disneyland, complete with beloved cartoon characters.  If that is their true function, maybe they should be paid for by the British Tourist Board, or the National Heritge Trust, rather than out of general taxation.  

Monarchy is clearly the best form of government. 

1) The Republicans in the U.S. always talk about having a smaller government. What would be smaller than one person!!

2) Nations that have monarchies are less oppressive to women. Case in point: why hasn't the U.S. elected a single female to the nation's highest office in all its chances over 200+ years. Women in power is old hat for the English, our ostensibly tyrannous parents. 

3) No need to haggle over voter ID laws.  

4) Most citizens in democracy don't have any idea how government functions any way, why not a king--an expert in governing-- handle everything? Besides, after looking at the chess.com forums in recent years, it's not clear that most of these people (including myself) know what is good for our countries. 

I rest my case. 

1. The Monarchy, at last in Britain, is not the government.  The political power of monarchs in this country has been in decline since Magna Carta,  and now we have a situation where the present Queen must remain apolitical, and is not permitted to even voice political opinions.

2. "Nations with monarchies are less oppressive to women" - try telling that to the women of, say, Saudi Arabia.  Or, don't bother, they are not allowed to speak to you anyway. 

3. Voter ID laws have nothing to do with whether your head of state was born into that position.  There was a drive a few years ago to introduce ID cards in this country, thankfully rejected by public (ie voter) resistance.

4. I would refer to point (1).  The queen is not the "ruler" of this nation, that task is wholly a matter for elected governments.  She is more of a national figurehead, rather like a ship's figurehead, and performs a roughly similay function.  She does not command or steer the ship.  

Case dismissed.

@jason: I sincerely hope you are just trolling. I can feel the stink of that post even at the other side of the pond.

Chairmaker: if legislation could stop reckless expense payments how come it hasnt worked with politicians. It would be much worse with a president. The queen draws tourists because of the historical connection. Pointless having a non political president as they would be neither useful nor a historical figure. The monarchy works but there are too many hangers on and tax payers shouldnt fund aunts, uncles, cousins etc.

True, and whatever form of head of state you can think of to replace the existing one may have similar problems.

But that does not mean we should be uncritical of the current set-up, or assume it is the best possible state of affairs just because it has been in place for so long.  It is agruable that the French Revolution was a failure because of the rise of figures like Napoleon; I am not saying that some form of elected presidency would be perfect in every way, just that it would be more democratic, and could be made to be more accountable. 

I agree with the fact the monarchy is inherited not elected etc, also think it may cost too much in its present form, but a president is transitory, can be disastrous and may not have the diplomatic credence of a monarch..

Not sure that he's trolling, Pulp.  He may just not understand how Monarchies work in Europe these days.  

Is the president of the USA or France regarded internationally as having less credence than the Queen?   Somehow, I don't think so.  And I don't see anything inherently wrong with a position being transitory.   In the case of the head of state,  it could even be a positive advantage. 

Another possibility, as practised by the ancient Greeks, would be select the head of state by means of a national lottery.  How do you fancy that, fathamster?  You could be our first rodent president.  

Laughing too much to respond:-))

I'll vote for hammy. :)

As for our royal family, I think there are several countries around the world that would be please to have them. We know they attract tourists from far and wide. They are both an expense and an asset. I would however, like to see a lesser number paid for by the taxpayer. 

Come on Chair. Put your spuds up. Where have you gone?