Kings and queens were always loved and praised by other people. Although they are a few monarchies left, and we are no longer subjects of the King and Queen, citizens of our countries, who, in most cases, participate in electing or voting out, our political leaders and other officials. Though most of us no longer answer to the “Mother Country or the Throne,” kings and queens are still relevant today as they are not only a significant link to our past, but also a perfect symbol of head of state. Antiques, historical sites, quaint customs are all part of the history, and so is the tradition of kings and queens.
Preserving it is an essential way to connect with the past. The king or queen represents a historical authority, who serve nation in history. The king or queen represents and upholds the history, tradition, culture of the country. They are the living history of the country. There is no need to elect a new person for a new term, in short, elected government comes and goes, whereas the king or queen remains in power. This continuity makes for stable regime. In addition, there will not be heavy amounts of expenditures for an election.
A monarch will not have lust for money or misuse their authority, which is minimising chance of corruption. Political stability is essential to solve long-term issues. The primary issue of one political party may be a secondary issue to others. If the party fails in the next election, the long term project may not succeed. But a Monarchical government does not have this problem as a Monarch reigns for life. Thus monarchy gives continuity over a long period of time. There are benefits from keeping the head of state out of party politics – the crown is above the temporary squabble of the political parties.
A monarch gives us some chance of being represented by a politically neutral figure. A President or Prime Minister represents a minority group or political party, whereas a Monarch represents a whole society or nation. Until the head of the state represents the whole nation, the actions thereof cannot reflect the will of the people. Without them, there will be political controversy. A monarch who’s reigned for more than a few years can have a valuable perspective and deeper knowledge of affairs than a politician who has only been in power for months.
If a monarch is in power, decisions concerning the response or reaction to a crisis are quickly determined without any delay from legislative or external governing bodies. However, in a Democracy or a Republic, each and every issue goes through a process which cannot be implemented quickly. Monarchs, by their very nature, are more patriotic than either Prime Ministers or Presidents. They hold great affection for their respective countries: a Prime Minister or President may be at the same post in other countries but Monarchs never have this conflict of interest. So, fundamentally, it is in the interest of any monarch to work towards greater patriotism.
Every monarch makes a considerable contribution in the building of his or her nation. One who contributes or invests in anything has more affection for the result - and thus Monarchs love their countries. So Monarchy serves the interest of patriotism far better than a Republican system. Kings and queens are loved and respected by many people. They are more experienced, have great affection for their respected countries and gives continuity over a long period of time. Furthermore, they are part of the tradition, heritage and history. So why should we get rid of them?