The advantage of a Monarchy
It was amusing to hear people who criticised Bush/Obama as being unpatriotic, in the UK and other realms it is seen as being patriotic to criticise the PM and other ministers.
For they are just the hired help .
The Crown persists in the UK (and 15 other Commonwealth Realms that have voluntarily kept the shared monarch) for several reasons.
1. The Crown separates patriotism from politics. No British politician has ever been accused of being unpatriotic when they criticise a Prime Minister. Something that often happens in the US.
2. The Prime Minister may be master of the political landscape and have the power to fire nuclear weapons, but authority for that power is vested in the Crown and the Constitution, not in him. He may issue orders but it is still considered advice that the Crown is bound to act on.
He must address the Queen and senior members of the royal family as Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Maam, or Sir. He gets a townhouse and a small country retreat, while the Royal Family has multiple palaces. And while the Queen is first in precedence at all state occasions, the Prime Minister comes in 19th. It teaches humility to politicians, who are not noted for their humility.
3. The Crown makes Prime Ministers and cabinet members disposable. Because a President is both Head of State (symbolic leader of the nation) and Head of Government (in charge of running the government). They are very difficult to get rid of when scandal hits. Had Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton been Prime Ministers they would have been dumped in a matter of weeks instead of dragging the issue out for months.
And while a King is difficult to force out, when push comes to shove an unsuitable King has been forced out, twice, in 1688 and 1936.
4. What is now the UK had a republic. Parliament killed King Charles I and established Cromwell as Lord Protector (effectively President-for-Life). England was mired in war and became a military dictatorship until the Restoration. Not a good record.
Objections based on egalitarianism ("no one should be raised above anyone else") are also not germane: every nation or state will have an head of state, even in cases such as the Swiss Confederation where the headship of state is exercised collectively. Simply by virtue of their office the head of state is "raised above" other citizens: this is inherent in the function.
That leaves two serious questions, which shouldn't be conflated but usually are. The first is the superiority of systems which distinguish between the roles of head of state and head of government over systems which conflate the two roles. The second is whether, among systems which divide the two roles, a hereditary head of state is superior to one who is elected or selected.
The argument for separating the two roles (which, recall, makes up the greater part of the case made by the OP) is clear enough but unfamiliar to Americans. Almost all systems which divide the roles allocate the functional executive duty to a democratically-elected political leader, while confiding the ceremonial and representative duty to a "figurehead".
The only real question in this case is whether executive power should better be entrusted to the same person exercising ceremonial or representational power. Because, increasingly in a media-saturated age, ceremony or representation is power (see under "Riefenstahl, Leni" for extreme examples).
It seems clear that one reason the American presidency has increased in power in the modern age, since Roosevelt's innovation of the "fireside chat", is its greater ability to wield the ceremonial and representational powers of the office. One clear argument in favor of separating the roles of heads of state and of government is to deprive one political faction of this undue advantage over their competitors: in our media-driven age, allowing the leader of one party to increase his standing by wearing a second hat as symbolic head of the nation, by for instance presiding over military funerals or greeting sailors on the flightdeck of aircraft carriers, is an unfair and possibly dangerous way of warping the democratic process.
But if the argument for separating the roles is accepted, then one must confront the next question: which is better, an elected ceremonial headship of state, such as the Irish or Italian presidency, or an hereditary headship, such as the Danish or Spanish monarchies. The arguments typically break down as follows: raising an individual above all other citizens to be ceremonial head of state by election is more faithful to the democratic principles of modern Western society.
The problem is that in a system with divided headship, the office of head of state is not only ceremonial. It is also responsible for some hopefully rare but crucial tasks, usually involving a mediating or "umpire" role, and in any ultimate crisis, as the last defense of constitutional government.
In other words, in addition to ceremonially representing the state or nation, the head of state is also charged in most Western democracies with a crisis-management role when all other safety-valves fail. In the words of a Canadian senator and constitutional scholar, the ceremonial head of state is a fire-extinguisher: most of the time, it's simply a shiny, brightly-painted object which is mounted for all to see, but if the house should ever catch fire you need it desperately.
On this last point, the argument is also clear enough: elected ceremonial heads of state rarely have the moral authority to act successfully in a profound crisis, while recent history provides several examples of constitutional "figurehead" monarchs doing exactly that: King Juan Carlos of Spain's personal intervention against the Francoist coup d'etat in 1981, for example. There have been a few elected ceremonial presidents who have gained the moral authority to carry out such an act, but for the most part their authority is diminished by the fact of their election rather than enhanced.
Therefore, setting aside silly things like whether King George VI ate hotdogs, the real issues in this question are whether separating the ceremonial and executive roles in government is a good idea, and if so, how to select the ceremonial head. In my opinion, separating ceremonial "media power" from executive power is a crucial check on government: in fact, in the modern age, much more important than any of the now-archaic checks on executive power built into America's aging constitution. And on the subsidiary question of how best to select a ceremonial head of state, the residual "constitutional emergency" powers exercised by most Western heads of state decides the question in favor of the greater moral authority (not to mention often longer experience) of a hereditary head over an elected one.
It was amusing to hear people who criticised Bush/Obama as being unpatriotic, in the UK and other realms it is seen as being patriotic to criticise the PM and other ministers.
For they are just the hired help .
The Crown persists in the UK (and 15 other Commonwealth Realms that have voluntarily kept the shared monarch) for several reasons.
1. The Crown separates patriotism from politics. No British politician has ever been accused of being unpatriotic when they criticise a Prime Minister. Something that often happens in the US.
2. The Prime Minister may be master of the political landscape and have the power to fire nuclear weapons, but authority for that power is vested in the Crown and the Constitution, not in him. He may issue orders but it is still considered advice that the Crown is bound to act on.
He must address the Queen and senior members of the royal family as Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Maam, or Sir. He gets a townhouse and a small country retreat, while the Royal Family has multiple palaces. And while the Queen is first in precedence at all state occasions, the Prime Minister comes in 19th. It teaches humility to politicians, who are not noted for their humility.
3. The Crown makes Prime Ministers and cabinet members disposable. Because a President is both Head of State (symbolic leader of the nation) and Head of Government (in charge of running the government). They are very difficult to get rid of when scandal hits. Had Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton been Prime Ministers they would have been dumped in a matter of weeks instead of dragging the issue out for months.
And while a King is difficult to force out, when push comes to shove an unsuitable King has been forced out, twice, in 1688 and 1936.
4. What is now the UK had a republic. Parliament killed King Charles I and established Cromwell as Lord Protector (effectively President-for-Life). England was mired in war and became a military dictatorship until the Restoration. Not a good record.
Objections based on egalitarianism ("no one should be raised above anyone else") are also not germane: every nation or state will have an head of state, even in cases such as the Swiss Confederation where the headship of state is exercised collectively. Simply by virtue of their office the head of state is "raised above" other citizens: this is inherent in the function.
That leaves two serious questions, which shouldn't be conflated but usually are. The first is the superiority of systems which distinguish between the roles of head of state and head of government over systems which conflate the two roles. The second is whether, among systems which divide the two roles, a hereditary head of state is superior to one who is elected or selected.
The argument for separating the two roles (which, recall, makes up the greater part of the case made by the OP) is clear enough but unfamiliar to Americans. Almost all systems which divide the roles allocate the functional executive duty to a democratically-elected political leader, while confiding the ceremonial and representative duty to a "figurehead".
The only real question in this case is whether executive power should better be entrusted to the same person exercising ceremonial or representational power. Because, increasingly in a media-saturated age, ceremony or representation is power (see under "Riefenstahl, Leni" for extreme examples).
It seems clear that one reason the American presidency has increased in power in the modern age, since Roosevelt's innovation of the "fireside chat", is its greater ability to wield the ceremonial and representational powers of the office. One clear argument in favor of separating the roles of heads of state and of government is to deprive one political faction of this undue advantage over their competitors: in our media-driven age, allowing the leader of one party to increase his standing by wearing a second hat as symbolic head of the nation, by for instance presiding over military funerals or greeting sailors on the flightdeck of aircraft carriers, is an unfair and possibly dangerous way of warping the democratic process.
But if the argument for separating the roles is accepted, then one must confront the next question: which is better, an elected ceremonial headship of state, such as the Irish or Italian presidency, or an hereditary headship, such as the Danish or Spanish monarchies. The arguments typically break down as follows: raising an individual above all other citizens to be ceremonial head of state by election is more faithful to the democratic principles of modern Western society.
The problem is that in a system with divided headship, the office of head of state is not only ceremonial. It is also responsible for some hopefully rare but crucial tasks, usually involving a mediating or "umpire" role, and in any ultimate crisis, as the last defense of constitutional government.
In other words, in addition to ceremonially representing the state or nation, the head of state is also charged in most Western democracies with a crisis-management role when all other safety-valves fail. In the words of a Canadian senator and constitutional scholar, the ceremonial head of state is a fire-extinguisher: most of the time, it's simply a shiny, brightly-painted object which is mounted for all to see, but if the house should ever catch fire you need it desperately.
On this last point, the argument is also clear enough: elected ceremonial heads of state rarely have the moral authority to act successfully in a profound crisis, while recent history provides several examples of constitutional "figurehead" monarchs doing exactly that: King Juan Carlos of Spain's personal intervention against the Francoist coup d'etat in 1981, for example. There have been a few elected ceremonial presidents who have gained the moral authority to carry out such an act, but for the most part their authority is diminished by the fact of their election rather than enhanced.
Therefore, setting aside silly things like whether King George VI ate hotdogs, the real issues in this question are whether separating the ceremonial and executive roles in government is a good idea, and if so, how to select the ceremonial head. In my opinion, separating ceremonial "media power" from executive power is a crucial check on government: in fact, in the modern age, much more important than any of the now-archaic checks on executive power built into America's aging constitution. And on the subsidiary question of how best to select a ceremonial head of state, the residual "constitutional emergency" powers exercised by most Western heads of state decides the question in favor of the greater moral authority (not to mention often longer experience) of a hereditary head over an elected one.
