-Living in Norway, whose monarchy is basically reduced to being on hand for when we need someone to officially open a new bridge to nowhere or provide apolitical statements in time of need, I am a pragmatic monarchist.
In the sense that keeping the royals around probably is cheaper and creating less fuss than becoming a republic. Precisely as the monarch is not elected, there is (the odd left fringe aside) very little controversy to be had.
Rather than electing a president (which, of course, will lead to a fraction of the population seeing their candidate lose), we've got our (ceremonial) head of state and everybody just deals with it. The monarch is very much aware that the survival of the institution he represents relies on him being apolitical and not attempting to boss parliament around.
Heck, the grandfather of the current monarch even won over a lot of the left when pointing out (in the late 1920s sometime) that he was the king of the communists, too - not just the bourgeousie, and asked the head of the labour party to form a government when election results indicated that was what the electorate wanted - despite attempts from the establishment to have him appoint anybody but the election winners.
Basically, as long as the royal family are as well behaved as they mostly are, they are probably cheaper and less controversial than any alternative. (While still being outrageously undemocratic, of course).
The main argument for abolishing monarchy around here probably is on humanitarian grounds - basically, it is hardly fair to have one's life cut out for oneself from birth?
In the sense that keeping the royals around probably is cheaper and creating less fuss than becoming a republic. Precisely as the monarch is not elected, there is (the odd left fringe aside) very little controversy to be had.
Rather than electing a president (which, of course, will lead to a fraction of the population seeing their candidate lose), we've got our (ceremonial) head of state and everybody just deals with it. The monarch is very much aware that the survival of the institution he represents relies on him being apolitical and not attempting to boss parliament around.
Heck, the grandfather of the current monarch even won over a lot of the left when pointing out (in the late 1920s sometime) that he was the king of the communists, too - not just the bourgeousie, and asked the head of the labour party to form a government when election results indicated that was what the electorate wanted - despite attempts from the establishment to have him appoint anybody but the election winners.
Basically, as long as the royal family are as well behaved as they mostly are, they are probably cheaper and less controversial than any alternative. (While still being outrageously undemocratic, of course).
The main argument for abolishing monarchy around here probably is on humanitarian grounds - basically, it is hardly fair to have one's life cut out for oneself from birth?