In the typical modern mindset, monarchy is something antiquated, an institution of those fabled “Dark Ages,” which humanity has allegedly outgrown. The chronological snobbery of humanism is a topic deserving of its own blog, but right now I want to defend the institution of monarchy from its slander. You may well be surprised that a site called Echoes of the Republic would defend monarchy when half the definition of a republic is a government which has no monarch. Fair enough; However, republics rely on what monarchies are most capable of maintaining: Tradition.
There is a case to be had even for absolute monarchy, but I only want to defend the most well known monarchy today. That is, constitutional monarchy, and the United Kingdom in particular. As is known well enough, the Queen has very little power in effect. Certainly, she has theoretical emergency powers, but it would require a fascist coup in Parliament before she could ever get away with exercising them without an instantaneous revolution. She is a symbol. But a symbol is powerful.
Being unelected, the Queen stands above the grime of party politics. She was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury like so many of her predecessors for over a thousand years, not by dubious politicians after a contested election. She alone can truly embody all British citizens and all of British tradition, culture, and history. No elected head of state can accomplish this, because they will always have a large and determined opposition, for they have played in the pig pen that is Congress or Parliament and gotten muddied. Only an apolitical leader can bring this level of unity, and an apolitical leader must be hereditary or it inevitably becomes political. Naturally, anti-monarchists may scoff at the notion of hereditary positions no matter how symbolic and powerless, but popularity ratings show that monarchies across the world are overwhelmingly more favored than presidents, premiers, and prime ministers.
The constitutional monarchy provides something else that heads of states elected for four or five years cannot hope to achieve: longevity and stability. Elizabeth II has reigned for what is now nearly 70 years. She has seen Germany split in two and reunited again, and a European Continent in total war that is now in economic union. She has seen the British Empire as the largest power in the history of the world, and she has seen it dissolved. She has seen decades of unprecedented peace and prosperity, and decades of terror. Throughout all these uncertain times, one thing has been constant since 1953: Elizabeth II was queen of the Britons.
The queen also provides a separation between the head of state and the head of government. Not all republics have this problem like the US and France do (Germany and Israel come immediately to mind, having both a president and a prime minister), but again, it helps that the head of state is not elected like the head of government in a monarchy. This separation means that politicians must know they never will be and never can be the highest authority of the land. There are fundamental principles and traditions of the nation that the queen safeguards from the likes of Parliament. Indeed, the crown is fundamental to the unwritten constitution, thus to be rid of the monarchy would be to uproot their governing system, including the legitimacy of Parliament. In that way, the very existence of the monarchy protects the rule of law.
And why not a sort of hereditary, unelected president of sorts? Why prop up the royal family and all their expensive jewels and palaces on taxpayers dollars? Well, firstly, the Queen in particular is of monetary benefit to the United Kingdom, not an expense. The revenue from her estates all goes back to Parliament, not to mention tourism-- Which would certainly take a hit if the United Kingdom became the United Republic. Secondly, for all the reasons stated, it would be worth the taxes to maintain the institution. Finally, even if all other prerequisites and benefits mentioned above could be met, no replacement for the monarch could ever embody the United Kingdom. A replacement would be an usurpation. There would be no defense of tradition, which means there would be no defense of law and precedence, and thus no stability.