[cyberax]

> Monarchy makes for some of both the best and worst governments on record.

The best monarchs were the ones deposed by the revolutionaries, or the ones who abdicated the real power. There are 2 problems:

1. _Nobody_ should be ruling for more than 8-10 years.

2. You can't have a real monarchy without feudalism. And feudalism _always_ sucks.

[quink]

lol. I lived under the same monarch, QEII, who has ruled for seventy years, and I assure you that I and my compatriots feel far, far, freer in practice and guided more well than any single American ought to feel currently.

[cyberax]

The UK monarchs don't rule. They are for show only.

[eszed]

They don't have power, but they do have influence. Every Prime Minister has a weekly meeting with the... King (still hard to type that, isn't it?), an off-the-record discussion of what they're doing and thinking, with someone who (theoretically, at least) has the long view interests of the nation in mind. Most have said it's immensely valuable.

That apart, the "show" function is important, too. It separates the Head of State and Head of Government functions, which makes it easier to dismiss the Head of Government, without disturbing the stability of the State. The US system fuses the two, which (in my view) is part of what makes the Congress reluctant to follow through on impeachment. (To avoid recent examples: had Bill Clinton been (treated like) a British Prime Minister in 1998 he'd have lost a no-confidence vote among his own party, and Al Gore would have served out his term. I think that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened, and followed.)

[quink]

> or the ones who abdicated the real power

Missed that part in your parent reply originally, you're right of course, cheers :)