Why should Elizabeth II be the reigning monarch of the United

>>3017295
Because the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a quintessentially british dynasty.

>>3017295

Because she's the heir. As to why no republic: Republics don't cost less to run, and having a partisan hack as head of state is objectively worse than having someone born and raised to be as apolitical as possible in the job. I mean who would we even elect? President Blair? Is THAT what you want?

>>3017295

Because it's written into law that she and her heirs get the job. Because most people love her or don't give a shit, there is a tiny number of actual republicans in the UK.

>>3017307
>>3017314
The heir thing is kind of what I struggle with, as much as I'm not sure how else it could be done. I explained to a friend all the benefits of constitutional monarchy, and they said they saw my points, but that is was fundamentally unfair and non-meritocratic for leadership of such an institution to be based on birthright. I wasn't sure how to reply.

the monarchy is basically just a branding at this point

if they get rid of it they'll have to get a new one

File: Za4AC.jpg (45KB, 550x731px)

45KB, 550x731px

What is the point of having a monarch in title only?

>>3017328
There is no response to this from an egalitarian classicist viewpoint. The only way you can respond is that it is a necessary cost of social organization and stability.