That’s what Alexander Hamilton advocated, if I remember correctly. Short answer is, no.
Many assume that in this day an age Monarchy is useless, but that is ignorance plain and simple.For instance let us take the example of the United Kingdom.
The monarch is a political referee, not a political player, she is
beholden by virtue of her birth to no one but God, unlike politicians
who owe their souls to the ones who bankrolled them; and there is a lot
of sense in choosing the referee by a different principle from the
players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start
playing.
It also prevents (as so often happens in America)
political disagreements with current policy becoming viewed as
un-patriotic. In a Constitutional Monarchy one can damn the government
and still cheer the crown.
You should also bear carefully in mind the constitutional safeguards inherent in the monarchy: While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army. The Queen’s only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else.
This is more than mere theory. King Juan Carlos single-handedly saved democracy in Spain by taking personal command of the Armed Forces and crushing a military coup.
Nor is this the only example. Winston Churchill was convinced that WWII would never have come unless, under American pressure, we had not driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By creating these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones.
Another example is Russia under Nicholas II, which with all the survivals of
feudalism, had opposition political parties, independent trade unions
and newspapers, a rather radical parliament and a modern legal system.
Its agriculture was on the level of the USA, with industry rapidly
approaching the West European level. In the USSR there was total
tyranny, no political liberties and practically no human rights. Its
economy was not viable; agriculture was destroyed. The terror against the population reached a scope unprecedented in history.
To those who would abolish the Monarchy....be careful what you wish for.
Absolutely NO.
Works well while Elizabeth is Queen, wait until ... Charlie is King.
Long live the Queen.
Well off the top of the head Elizabeth II and whoever’s the monarch of Sweden comes to mind as constitutional monarchs and they both seem pretty useless in stopping what’s going on in their respective countries.
If someone claims a right to reign over you as a monarch, and their name isn’t Jesus..... they should expect violence as an instant response.
“In a world filling with tyrants, Queen Elizabeth and her descendants represent a sort of anti-tyranny.”
Oh yeah? Tell it to Tommy Robinson. The crazy old bat isn’t giving him a royal pardon last I’ve heard. How infantile to wish for a monarch.
Yes.
Because the structure of the government is still feudal. Just the means of filling the positions is changed when democracy arrives.
For better governance it is the structure of the government that must change.
And only the US has done that.
How dumb does someone have to be to think a monarchy and a democracy are compatible??
Elizabeth has been an exceptional sovereign. When Charles accends the throne this may come up again.
Not only No but F NO!!
Just in time for Cindy McCain and Chelsea Hubble...