A constitutional Monarchy is more stable than a republic because the head of State embodies a country whilst remaining politically neutral and weak whilst uniting the nation behind one individual whom none can dislike (except a small minority of republicans). Citizens in constitutional monarchies enjoy more freedom, more unity and more prosperity than unstable, petty republics that are ruled by rich oligarchs that buy votes and corrupt the government
As all those in public offices swear loyalty to the Queen and not the President/Prime Minister, revolutions are much less likely. With the Queen's power to dissolve parliaments, turning Britain into an Autocrasy is near impossible.
As well as this, having a head of state helps unify the county's identity which could otherwise be split by political divisions. God bless the Queen, for her and her family's hard work day in day out maintains Britain's cultural influence on the rest of the world.
The British monarchy is a unitary government that extends power to local levels. If the centralized government is responsible, it is by far the most effective system. A centralized government can cater to the needs of the entire country. Historically centralized governments have been affiliated with the most advanced societies, starting with Rome.
In the US, our President has to perform all kinds of ceremonial and figurehead duties, but in the UK, the royal family serve that purpose so that the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament can focus on governing. I like the idea of shielding the true functionaries of the government somewhat from all of the gossip and attention.
There is a reason we in the United States rebelled against the British all those years ago it's because our system of doing things is better.
No disrespect to our allies on the other side of the pond but the British monarchy is not the best system of government there is no way I would trade with them for what we do here at home.
The Brits do a lot of things well and their system is not terrible but it's not the best either.
With so many people impoverished in the world, the British Monarchy's wealth and traditions almost have no place in modern society. The perks are nice and the royals do a lot of hard work, employ thousands of people and inspire others. However, the amazing wealth, jewels and land owned by the royal aristocracy seems out of place in a globe festered with famine, disease and hunger.
No, it is not, but you have to remember that the country has not been a direct monarchy since 1651 when the parliamentarians won the civil war, our system of governments is very good, very modern, very liberal, but also fundamentally flawed, but then again, what system of government is not fundamentally flawed, from the UK and the USA to Saudi Arabia and China, I don't really think there is a best system, all systems have their perks, most have a serious downside.