> A modern constitutional monarch holds no real power
This is not the case. The monarchy is extremely wealthy, and a large landowner over what should be public land.
Powerwise, the queen had plenty of involvement in a coup in Australia.
This is not the case. The monarchy is extremely wealthy, and a large landowner over what should be public land.
Powerwise, the queen had plenty of involvement in a coup in Australia.
The Queen's involvement seems to have been little or none. They is some suggestion that her advisors might have know that the Govenor General was contemplating it, but not much beyond that.
Certainly she wasn't pulling this strings behind it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
Imagine leaving a backdoor lying around in a piece of software because it's been there for so long that it's nostalgic, and everyone pinky promises not to abuse it.
A more relevant example to the queen is Queen's Consent, which the royal family has used to influence legislation and further enrich themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
Returning to the royal family, it seems to me that even if they were "ceremonial", royal families are a monarchy hazard; letting them hold onto their status as a "royal family" invites the possibility of a monarchist revolution to reinstate them. You say they're just ordinary citizens who happen to be billionaires with gorgeous hats? Fine, let's make it official.
You might say that's ridiculous, that there is no monarchist revolution on the horizon; I don't see any reason to believe there is either. But if we let them stay royalty for the next hundred years - what probability would you assign it? It's not zero, right? Personally I'd say between 1% and 5% (that's of course a number I made up based on my intuition), and I don't see that as a good risk/reward.
Real power doesn't shout. It whispers.
"Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the Treasury,[5] thus relieving him of the responsibility of paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List."
That's really true in name only. I have about as much power over "Crown Lands" as the monarch does. Even when it comes to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, these are essentially perpetual trusts used to pay the monarch and his/her heir for their jobs and maintenance of their offices.
Obviously with royalty and nobility it is difficult to separate the personal from the public, but honestly I think the UK royal family probably does that separation better than most. And to be honest, you have lots of rich families in the US who are of the "born on third base and think they hit a home run" type. At least with the monarchy in the UK, they know that 100% of their position is due to pure hereditary luck, so at least they throw in some concept of "duty" to make the bargain palatable.