Outline case for status quo of monarchy in Britain?

President Thatcher................... 'Nuff said. Ok, I could go on, & I have not always been a monarchist, but I simply express the alternative that many people in Britain would find wholly abhorrent. Nonetheless it is a fact that the people of this country would have voted for her, & they call it Democracy. Oh deary deary me. Someone has got to do it, the job of head of state, and critiscism of the present incumbent would find great opposition, sure the Royal Family is dysfunctional, now tell me whose family isn't ? I understand Republicanism but in no case do I see a better alternative, particularly with a view to the political impartiality that our Queen demonstrates. The historical past that goes along with the present system is, in my view, worth holding on to. The alternative is, again a personal view, not worth consideration.

---

There are several advantages to monarchy in the UK:

The monarchy as an institution makes a net contribution to the finances of the UK - monarchy costs between £40m and £100m, but the Crown Estates makes profits of over £200m annually.

The monarchy is an apolitical head of state and a focus for national unity; someone who can represent the country without being politically partisan (or, in fact, a politician at all), or going through what's seen as the corrupt political parties. It also provides someone that even our head of government has to bow and scrape to, which is a strangely satisfying thing.

The monarchy part of the 'brand' of Britain; when people think of monarchy in the western world, they typically think of the British monarchy, and long-reigning British monarchs acquire a very high status of their own on the world stage. This adds to the PR value of state visits abroad for other countries, and so adds to our influence in diplomacy.

The monarch can provide a safety net for the country. As seen in Spain, King Juan Carlos I prevented a coup d'etat against the elected government.

The monarch also advises and counsels the prime minister, and the monarch can gain a great amount of experience and wisdom of government through hearing the problems of previous prime ministers and their many crises and feed it back to the current prime minister.

The monarch also plays a role as head of the commonwealth, and during the 1979 heads of government meeting in Lusanka, it was the Queen's presence and friendship with the other prime ministers and presidents (who had known and trusted her for many years) that prevented the Commonwealth suffering a crisis over the issue of Rhodesia according to the General Secretary of the Commonwealth at the time.

The emotional connection between Queen and country is strong and difficult to break - even during the decade of crises and scandals that was the 1990s, support for the monarchy was constant at 70% and opposition at 20%, as it has been for thirty years. The satisfaction rating of the monarch herself is more volatile but has never gone below 66% and, as of 2006, 85% are satisfied and only 8% are dissatisfied with her.

At its heart, the argument for monarchy in the UK is based around the fact that for everything a ceremonial president could do, the monarch can do just as well, if not better. When confronted with an American style presidential system or French style premier-presidential system, Britons are repulsed by the idea of a politician being their head of state and there is academic evidence that presidential systems are much less stable than parliamentary ones (see Juan J Linz's article: the Perils of Presidentialism).