best answer 10 points
eg england and australia
2007-08-20 00:42:52 · 6 answers · asked by Dothery D 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because it's always good to have someone who is above partisan politics in a position to right wrongs. The Monarch may not have actual authority, but does have the Moral Authority to call attention to problems and shame folks into doing the Right thing. Even on behalf of those who aren't special interests.
Besides, having a Monarch relieves the PM of ceremonial duties that would otherwise eat up a great deal of time.
But most importantly, as we Yanks are learning the hard way, having a Monarch keeps people from thinking that loyalty to the Chief Executive is the same thing as loyalty to the Nation.
I doubt that any Brit has ever been called "Unpatriotic" for criticizing a PM.
And only 10 points? I want a thumbs up from you, too.
2007-08-20 01:00:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
cause a king is a symbol, vocal point of loyalty, while constitutions make sure that people do get to run thier own lives
2007-08-20 07:51:58 · answer #2 · answered by ABDULLATIF 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because governments can be corrupt. Of course the monarchy could be corrupt too... but the odds are that 2/2 won't be. So if one is, it could be offset by the other.
2007-08-20 08:00:24 · answer #3 · answered by - 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's good to be the king.
2007-08-20 07:47:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think they are.
2007-08-20 07:46:41 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it isnt
2007-08-20 07:47:23 · answer #6 · answered by karl k 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋