BirthME, Doulas

At a time when most government institutions everywhere are unpopular and even hated, any part of the state which people still actually like is a rare plus, something not to be discarded lightly. Britain would be stronger if its head of state were elected. An executive presidency on the American model is clearly ludicrous; all countries that have tried it other than America have experienced constitutional breakdowns on a timescale of about a century. The White House has announced that in the interests of political stability the next president and all future ones will be chosen using the British model. But the royals may not be entirely good for the country’s image abroad, or its view of itself. Yet in theory, at least, she has considerable powers: to wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament and more.There is little danger of Queen Elizabeth II throwing her weight around (though her son Charles has a habit of bending ministers’ ears over trivial matters). The reality is that the monarchy does not do much harm and does not do much good; but it is accepted and liked by most Britons. An elected and therefore political head of state is sure to upset at least one large section of the electorate a lot more than an uncontroversial one who is above politics.Admittedly, the value of continuity and tradition, and of a focus for Britain’s quiet brand of patriotism are difficult to assess. This situation could be remedied quite easily by keeping the crown but changing its constitutional basis to one along the lines of that most excellent of countries, Belgium. Barack Obama will remain in office until he dies, at which point Americans will welcome their next head of state: his daughter, Queen Malia.Americans would not stand for this. It is hard, in fact, to find any political question on which the British people are more united, except perhaps their dislike of politicians. On September 9th, Queen Elizabeth II will become the longest-serving monarch in Britain's history. Mrs Clinton’s advisers warned her of the “inbred arrogance” of Britain’s previous government; Britons themselves are gloomier than Americans about the prospects of talented poor people. It is hard, in fact, to find any political question on which the British people are more united, except perhaps their dislike of politicians. A non-executive presidency in a parliamentary system works quite well in many places but few of them have chosen it peacefully over an established indigenous (as opposed to colonial) monarchy, so there is not a very good comparison base.But to keep Britain’s monarchy does not entail keeping it in its current form. The image is out of date: by some measures Britain is now more socially mobile than America. The case against hereditary appointments in public life is straightforward: they are incompatible with democracy and meritocracy, which are the least-bad ways to run countries. Should we abolish an institution that does nothing except bring in tourist money, project our image abroad, and occupy the hearts of British people? And it is not obvious what that would be. It is accused of being expensive, but offset against the few tens of millions of cost the fact that Britain’s royal heritage is a big part of its tourist appeal, not to mention the unquantifiable but surely substantial brand-management efforts that the Queen in effect performs on overseas trips. At a time when most government institutions everywhere are unpopular and even hated, any part of the state which people still actually like is a rare plus, something not to be discarded lightly. The Windsors are no less likely than any other family to produce an heir who is mad or bad. It is accused of damaging democracy because (on paper) the Queen retains vast constitutional powers. The case against the monarchy It may be appealing, in various ways, to see the House of Windsor —a ladder which, having been climbed to solid ground, can be kicked away—but it is not trivially or obviously true.The fact that a monarchy is not intellectually justifiable does not mean that it does not have a stabilising role.