Edit: to the comment below, now you're advocating for ilegitimacy as a benefit to a position that "holds no power". It's a very weird position to hold, but if you believe that, then do an opt-in lottery system among all your citizens, not something predetermined by birth with a bunch of lies and religion around it. I'd like to read your arguments about dictatorships too, they're probably great.
And if you do like them, the same, maybe they've got a brilliant smile, they like the long floral outfits you prefer, they think kittens are better than puppies like you do, but nobody picked them.
They don't have any democratic legitimacy, which is crucial because this means it's clear that democratically the elected legislature is in charge. The monarch can't be making rules, they're not a government they're just a living symbol.
Whereas if you vote for somebody to be President or whatever, that person now has democratic legitimacy. Their preference for kittens is granted the legitimacy of the masses, even though probably most people didn't vote for them because they believe kittens are better, too bad, that's all endorsed. If the Elected President disagrees with the Elected Legislature, somehow their meddling is legitimate, even they can argue, rightfully endorsed by The People.
Unless you're confident that everything you believe can be summarised as a single living individual, and that the majority of other people agree with you, an Elected President is clearly worse than a Monarch.
This is the same in the UK I’m not sure I see the stark difference. The Monarch doesn’t really have power over parliament.
It also states that this is a purely formal part of the parliamentary process and she never refused something being debated, even if she did parliament could override it.
I’d argue that if David Beckham tweeted his annoyance at a bill being passed it would have more influence. Not to mention the hundreds of lobby groups that get their way.
I think people forget that the relationship between Monarch and people in Britain has always been different to the rest of Europe. No Magna Carta or equivalent document was signed anywhere else in Europe in the 1200s. It took the famously rebellious France 150 years to abolish their monarch after the English did.
Personally I don’t mind the monarchy, if they replace it then fine, but I want it replaced with something decent. I definitely don’t want to see a US style presidential republic set up here, with executive orders, etc.
I’ve said this before in another thread but growing up as a not very well off ethnic minority the Queen seemed to care more about me than anyone in parliament. The monarch in the UK shows more civil devotion and service than any politician.
It's exactly like you've described for the Netherlands. Our Monarchs have no actual power, beyond the power that comes with being famous wealthy old white people anyway. English Kings haven't had real power over the Westminster Parliament since it executed King Charles in 1649.
Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted, Parliament disagreed, Parliament won and since he didn't accept that outcome they executed him. That's pretty definitive. He was dead, they were not.
That song and dance to beguile the masses is how the ruling keep ruling. Does this really need to be spelled out?
Charles was executed because he, as king, was in conflict with his own set: the ruling class. It was a civil war. But if he was in accord with his class you can bet your pretty neck that it would be in jeopardy if you went againt that ruling class.
> Charles thought as King he could do whatever he wanted
That is right. A monarch is there so that an entire class can do whatever it wants. But s/he will not fare well if they act against the class that upholds their reign. It is the same exact precise equation the world over modulo some rare historic exceptions.
No, it's operated for and on behalf of the Government. Notionally "His" Government, but we elected it, so it's ultimately our fault.
It's probably hard to build an honest accounting of the financial benefits of having a monarch. The diplomatic missions and relations they maintain probably have some (hard to measure) benefit. They have an entertainment value (for some). Tourism income (especially in the UK)?
This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still.
Its less "people approve of the system" and more "people don't have any issues with the system". Anti-monarchism just isn't really a thing here because the monarchy is just... kinda bland? The most solid argument here is that it's a money sink, which is a fair point but not enough for most to protest it.