Originally Posted by wanderingnana
Well, what kind of monarcy are you looking at? If you are looking at the British Monarchy and several of the others, they don't rule, they reign. So if we were going for that kind, we would still need a prime minister or premier to do the actual governing along with a parliament or congress, so what exactly would be the point of having a monarch? If it is only to go around opening hospitals etc., quite frankly that would be a waste of our money and enough of it is being wasted already.
Yes. As they do reign and not rule, their value is in their link to the history and tradition of Britain - a thing not "insertable" in practical terms and having no value if inserted. The Queen is the Queen (and the King will be the King) because that is the way it has always been. No created monarchy could survive and would bring nothing of value if it existed. Our monarchy (I am Canadian) is valuable to us because it is a part of our tradition - a thing, quite literally - not creatable.
That said, in the fantasy answer ... I would say if they WERE to have such an ill-fated endeavour, that it should be the result of a selection of existing royals-without-throne. It's either a monarchy with "royals" running it or it's a political institution that is run by popular vote. Not since the Magna Carta and the Boston Tea Party have those two ideas been able to share a church pew with comfort.
edited to say: I mean to say that while the British decidedly separated throne from politics, they did so without dethroning the Monarch. The Americans decidedly separated the two as well, but did take that extra step. It is the bell that CANNOT be unrung.