[AmadsSalvage]

I'm no expert, but I'll try to take a stab at your second paragraph! There is value in having someone there to remind the leader that they are a "Servant" and not the "Master" in a state. The King (and by extension his viceregal representatives in Canada) is the steward of the power, and lends it to whoever the people choose via democratic elections through our constitution. When a new Prime Minister is chosen through election, the transition of power is made safer in that the previous Prime Minister does not "own" that power. I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety - arguably because we have a head of state, but even assuming not, this is why we don't dwell on these kind of concerns.

Another reason is the relationship between the King with our Federal & Provincial governments as well as First Nations. With a head of state, all three are able to have a direct relationship with the head of state without being subservient to one. King Charles is the premiers' boss, not Trudeau. Indigenous people have a special relationship with the crown that similarly avoids placing them directly under the other two bodies entirely. It means all three have a certain sense (and reality) of being peers - Trudeau cannot sack Ford, and vice versa.

Sort of related to my first point, but while the King limits himself extraordinarily via the binds of a constitution, the relationship works both ways. It is his duty to make sure that the elected leaders are fulfilling their duties to form government and not violate the law just because they are the ones on top.

In theory, the head of state is also meant to represent the nation outside of party lines - someone that left, right, and everyone else can support. It would be impossible for a staunch conservative to truly count Trudeau as "his" Prime Minister, or a liberal to count on Harper as a leader he could possibly respect. Not everyone has to like the head of state, but everyone has the option without betraying their other beliefs. I think Canada has sadly in recent years done this poorly - while loved, the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.

I hope this helps somewhat. It's a weird nebulous subject that deals with questions that often settled long before our time and so arent intuitive at times after living under them so long. Happy to elaborate further - I'm a boring plain-old constitutional monarchist, but I know I'm in the minority these days :)

[deskamess]

Its not just checks and balances though. You have to pledge allegiance to these arbitrary people. No self-respecting individual would do that.

> I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety

Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy.

> the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.

We can get away with that because in reality that is what she is.

In these modern times there is no reason to have some special family enshrined to the the point you have to pledge allegiance to them or a country has to depend on them.

[AmadsSalvage]

Society functions precisely because we have collectively agreed to acknowledge that the individual is not the highest and only form of authority. Formally, we agree to follow the laws in place. Informally, we agree to act with respect to each other. This requires some form of self sacrifice on our part. By swearing allegiance to the King, or a President, we are saying "I am willing to follow the rules which result from your exercise of power". These laws are the ones delegated through our legislative and judicial systems - the King in our case does not exercise it himself in Canada. Sure it's symbolic, but so is making a promise to a friend. Keeping our word is important to us. We could swear it to someone further down the line, like to "all police officers", but I think that would be far less self-respecting than forging that agreement with the highest level of power directly.

Don't get me wrong, I am not some rabid anti-republican, republics absolutely do work! But I think monarchies also work, and each have different benefits. A republic is more representative demographically speaking, for example, whereas a monarchy is more impartial and has a stronger line of succesion to name a few distinct traits. I don't feel like our system is broken, nor do I feel that a republic would solve any problems (and it may come with its own fresh ones).

The "In modern times" argument comes up a lot, but I'm not sure it applies. Just because something is old, even anachronistic, does not mean it is invalid. In fact, such things are more valuable precisely because they are no longer found today. However, I think you are right in that there is a disconnect between these rituals and symbols and our modern conception of society, and that is why I think Canada has poorly managed the relationship between monarch and everyday people, and let the institution decay. One solution is to rebuild everything from the ground up with a republic, and its not going to be the end of the world, but I am personally in favour of renewing our longstanding existing commitment.

[cmrdporcupine]

Indeed my own father waited almost 30 years before he finally got his Canadian citizenship, and lived as a landed immigrant (with German citizenship); paying his taxes and participating in society but not becoming a citizen (and not getting to vote despite being a strong NDP supporter...) and his stated reason for this was his abhorrence for declaring allegiance to the monarchy. A monarchy which many Germans blame for the mass firebombing of civilians at the end of WWII.

It's fine for you and I who are born into citizenship without having to do this ritual. For immigrants, this can be very jarring.