But because the Canadian government rammed the constitution down the throat of the Quebec government, any constitutional change is now a political impossibility. And now Indigenous groups are demanding a seat at any constitutional discussion, which is absolutely appropriate but also fraught with uncertainty.

So the lack of change to our constitutional monarchy is not because we cannot think of how to replace it: it’s because Pierre Elliot Trudeau done goofed.

But, politically, the unanimous consent of the provinces to do so is essentially impossible to obtain, due to the history you mention. Canadians also simply don't care much about this. My impression is that most people are basically republicans by sentiment, but their level of actually caring about this is near zero. I'm in that camp myself. I'd like a republic. But the headache of opening up constitutional negotiations? Gah! That has never ended well in our history.

In theory, the people themselves are the source of legitimacy for modern governments. But the media and some of the population demands a figurehead that provides centralized moral leadership.

Why not? I admit I'm more familiar with the Belgian situation than the British Crown, but to me it always seems not very difficult to replace the monarch with almost nothing. I don't see why we need any kind of president, even though that's what people always talk when there's talk of doing away with the monarchy. The real leader of the country is the prime minister anyway.

In Brazil in the 19th century liberal democrats thought a monarch was unnecessary, after 67 years of successful politics under a king. Upon abolition the country devolved into a long succession of military coups and dictatorial governments.

There have obviously been successful countries without monarchy, but it is very risky to say that a figurehead does nothing. Reserve powers are a pretty real restraint.

The monarch appoints "preformateurs" and "formateur" who are elections start talks between people from the different political parties and (try to) form a cabinet, in different stages of the process. That's where he (or possibly she in a few decades, when Filip dies or abdicates and Elisabeth becomes Belgian's first Queen, if that's still a thing then) has by far the most influence in politics.

Some people he shouldn't even have that influence, and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, finding another process for that is probably the most difficult issue to deal with in case we would transform to a pure parliamentary democracy.

Reserve power ... I don't know. I don't think he has enough power for that. Maybe symbolically, maybe that counts for more than I think. Some say the king and/or the whole royal family is one of the few things that still hold Belgium more or less together.

If indeed having a figurehead can protect us from civil war and other kinds of chaos, then by all means, let us have a figurehead.

None of these problems are insurmountable, of course. And you could just keep an executive -- I personally prefer just replacing the Governor General in Canada with a president, preferably indirectly elected. Still, patching the constitution would be pretty involved, if you wish to fully excise the executive in its current form from the Westminster system.

Stay Classy, Britain.

Oxymoron.

You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.

Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into political debates, and not opening up the office to the vulgarities of electoral politics.

For example, Germany elects its president by convening both the Federal and State legislatures together, who then vote. By pulling in all the regional parties and legislators, the President has to have broad support across party lines. It's also convention that the President doesn't wade into daily political issues. The result is a largely ceremonial office, usually held by a broadly respected statesperson with former government experience. Which is what you want for the "emergency button" you hope you don't have to push in the first place.

This is relevant because Western monarchs claim the office of Rex/Regina.

Unelected officials should never have significant power. This led to a harmful coup d'etat in Australia. It's not a ceremonial office, and simply the fact that the emergency button exists makes it possible for perversions to continue and cause serious issues (and it has).

Partisanship is very far from the only cause of dysfunction in governments. I'd argue it's not even the worst.

However, even if it’s generally accepted that the child or close relative of the current leader should become the new leader there will eventually be back and forth over time between the royal family and other members of government. In theory they might have absolute authority, but in both practice and tradition there will be many informal limits.

In general, monarchies pretty much have had the absolute maximum of power concentration possible without disastrous consequences.

Where presidents have actual executive power such as USA, France, Russia, the issue you bring up can, at least in theory, occur.

I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.

The royal family does have many billions in personal holdings as well, of course.

The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II are different persons. Queen Elizabeth II is a natural person. The Crown is a legal person, a corporation sole – a corporation with only one member, who right now is Queen Elizabeth II. Actually the Crown is not a single corporation, but a number of legally distinct corporations which all have identical membership. There is "the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", "the Crown in Right of Canada", "the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia", "the Crown in Right of New Zealand", etc. All up, there are 16 nations with Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, and each of those nations is a distinct corporation "the Crown in Right of X". But, also there exist distinct "the Crown in Right of X" corporations for each Australian state (6) and each Canadian province (10), and also each of the three British crown dependencies (Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey). So there are 35 legal persons (corporations sole) "the Crown in Right of X", and one natural person who is presently the sole common member of all of them. Each of those 35 corporations has distinct assets, which in turn are distinct from the personal assets of the natural person called Elizabeth. If any of those 35 entities became a republic, the assets of the "Crown in Right of X" corporation would pass to its republican successor.

That said, there are some Duchies that are privately owned. In my opinion, these should be seized by the state during the establishment of a republic - if we're going to abolish the monarchy, we need to go the whole way and strip each member of all their inherited wealth too.

It's the very least they deserve, and would provide a much needed clean slate for New Britain.

What role does it play that an elected official isn't better suited for?

One way to look at it is that with a portfolio of investments you want to spread your risk amongst different classes. If you are securing an IT system then you have defence in depth. If you produce medical devices you want to have physical and logical locking mechanisms (see Therac-25). The US style is to make everything elected: judges, sheriffs, presidents, governors, DAs and school boards are all elected. Which means that they are all vulnerable to the same class of failure.

Note: This particular role mentioned in the article, of providing consent/impact to certain broad classes of legislation, are not included in my argument above. I'm merely replying to your statement that an elected official is always better suited to all roles.