The UK monarch's power is largely based on convention more than active decision making. For example, a government is formed at the invitation of the monarch, but that's long reflected the results of an election. Getting rid of a PM generally happens when they run out of luck. That sometimes coincides with the ruling party/coalition imploding. The next PM is then shortlisted by MPs and selected by a minority of the electorate.

I guess the US equivalent is the leader of the house being unable to hold their majority together. In some ways the presidential election feels more democratic if a relative outsider (like Trump was) can win. But a 2 year lead up is crazy.

> And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state

One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is the head of state did not campaign for the position.

I’ve become a bit of fan of it over the last few years. That said, I don’t think the UK can be replicated.

It wraps ultimate power up in a contradiction, you have it but you can’t use it. Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act.

Another important aspect, the for and against is currently split between parties, so there’s somewhat of unification factor between parties on that divide as well.

It gets a lot of hate, because it is imperfect, but I don’t think it gets its fair shake. My views more of, if it ain’t broke is it really worth the risk changing it.

> Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act.

It was used in Australia in the 1970s