> Strangely (to me) people sing the praises of democracy and disparage their existing democratically elected government with the same breath.

There's nothing strange about that. The point of democracy is not to make governments great, it's to be able to throw them out when they suck. There's not contradiction in thinking that your government sucks and in being happy about your ability to throw them out.

> And most citizens of countries led by monarchs have far less to complain about governance (and not, as many keyboard pundits may guess, because of something crass like they'd get executed for voicing dissent).

There are plenty of terrible monarchs. And some good ones as well. Monarchy's problem isn't that it makes the ruler bad. It is that if the ruler is bad, there's not much you can do about it.

> Are you operating from the premise that a non-monarchy is strictly and uniformly superior?

I do, from a moral point of view, before even going into the than a practical one (even though there are practical reasons as well). I believe that all people should be equal before the law, and that this is the point of the law: replace the arbitrary with the fair and predictable. All people. Not "all except this one family". Both the duties and the rights that royal families have make them unequal, mostly in ways that are favorable to them, but not only.

To take an example from the news item we are talking about, it is absurd that a person may denied from the right to quit his job, even if that job is being the Emperor. It certainly is a fancy job, but a job to which you are compelled by birth and may not leave does not match my conception of a free society, no matter how good the job is. And it certainly goes the other way as well, as royalty comes with its fair share of privileges that are not accessible to others.

The idea that monarchies are The Worst is meme that has permeated Western culture. Because of a long history of fighting against them.

I don't think they are the worst, but they definitely have problems. They tend to be very conservative. They tend to heavily favor the upper class. They tend to be more likely to start and maintain terrible wars. And the system encourages civil wars. And the lack of selection means there is no guarantee the monarch is competent, more than just any random person.

Is this true? Lots of Europe decided to keep their monarchies, as does Australia, NZ and Canada. This leaves out the US which is not solely the definition of 'Western Culture'

Also they don't tend to favour the upper class there's broad support across ideologies and social class that support them. In fact, the republican movements tend to come from upper classes, well true in New Zealand and Australia anyway (not sure of the other monarchies)

They keep them in symbolic roles only. They have no real power. And even then there are movements to abolish them for consuming public tax dollars. Not every country had a violent or sudden change to democracy. But supporters of democracy still won in the West. Despite massive resistance at first.

I mean that the monarchs themselves favor the upper class. They are, after all, members of it, and exposed mainly to their issues and their side of things. Europe has a terrible history of a ridiculously unequal and unfair aristocracy.

Regarding 'no real power', This is often said but its not true. There have been occasions the monarchy have used their power but it goes largely unreported. One such occasion is 1975 in Australia where the government was thrown out using the monarch's power. The monarch hardly uses this power but it does if things go awry.

Also the 'consuming public tax dollars' argument is incorrect. The monarchy of the UK pays net tax-in through a deal the government did with monarchy 300 years ago (in short the UK government earns a tidy profit (about £300m/y) from the management of their estate in exchange for a small stipend each year, consistently renewed every period). The monarchs of other countries also have their estates that pay for them in a similar way (don't count Spain though)

Perhaps the monarchs favour the upper class though this has changed largely for the positive over the past hundred years. I would hardly say that today it is an unfair aristocracy, though.

On the democracy argument, there have been multiple referendums to put in place a republic but they don't go through.

To add to this, Canada in 2008 went through a "parliamentary dispute" that Canada's Governor General played a large part in the resolution of. While the Governor General is pretty much chosen by Canadian ministers in a democratic fashion, on paper the officer is appointed by the Queen and ideally represents her in Canada.

So I do agree that the monarchy has some influence on the Commonwealth, more than just having "the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn".

I'm familiar that some monarchs technically still have some ability to influence government. But they use it very rarely, because they know if they overuse it, it will be taken away. You mention Australia, but Australia did try to leave the commonwealth in 1999, perhaps in response to that. The only reason they didn't is because the vote was split on exactly what system of government to replace it with.

I've heard the argument that royalty is a net gain in taxes. My point was that they aren't universally popular and there are movements to remove them. Anyway the fact they own lots of land is silly, since it was inherited from centuries ago, when it was originally taken by force. There is nothing stopping the government from cutting them off and continuing to use their land.

The 1999 vote wasn't to leave the Commonwealth, it was an explicit referendum on whether Australia should become a republic (and it would remain part of the commonwealth). Australia is a 'Commonwealth' in itself. Australia's movement away as a reaction of the monarch's use of power in 1975 was the 1984 Australia act where the references to the UK were removed from the constitution (Queen of the UK -> Queen of Australia).

It's hard to argue using the popularity argument. In Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the monarch is near universally popular.

The argument for a sovereign head of state is a complex one, the Queen isn't considered as an ordinary family inheriting a lot, its a family which is essentially the head of state and the 'inheritance' goes towards running the country and the benefit of all.

I would understand the disdain from an American perspective, but there's a lot more to it than what is conveyed - the constitutional monarchy system of today isn't like the one 300 years ago, its a wonderful system - to many better than the US system of government, admittedly myself included (I'm an American Politics major if you think there's any bias).

Keep in mind the monarch is there by choice - through democratic vote. As for Australia the 1999 referendum wasn't the first one of its sort either.

But you would admit that Democracy and Republics are far superior in almost every way?