What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.
Sounds good to me, but the Monarchy isn't a particularly big part of that. Once we've solved or made at least some progress on fixing social mobility we can bother to get rid of powerless figureheads that bring us only profit.
And by the way, if you think is undemocratic to have an unelected head of state, just think about the reasons that supreme court members are not elected. Democracy has its limits :-)
But they are not so by birth, that was my point.
>supreme court members are not elected
I assume you are talking about the US? In any case, they are not nominated by right of their birth, but they are chosen by elected people.
How does such an undeserving leftover of the middle ages even have a say in this?