Monarchy versus republic

George Jonas weighs in on the debate:

... My friend Jonathan Kay may or may not describe himself as a republican, but he’s certainly taking the republican position vis-à-vis my friend Andrew Coyne, who (whether or not he would describe himself as a monarchist) dazzles on the tightrope as he demonstrates a loyal subject’s fealty and affection for a hereditary monarch. Kay calls Coyne’s declaration for the monarchy “feudalism lite” and for the concept of royal descent coins ... the enviable word “crotchocracy.”As if anticipating Kay, “A constitutional order founded on love strikes me as no bad thing,” Coyne writes, conflating the high wire of real, DNA-testable monarchy with the safety net of constitutionality that protects plucky Alice in Wonderland in case the monarch turns out to be the Red Queen. Spectacular, but don’t try it at home.

... Another friend who has written on the subject is John O’Sullivan. He points out that “political reforms work better when they follow the grain of historical experience.” This is very likely true. It means that I’m wrong about not trying Coyne’s high wire act of monarchy conducted over constitutionality’s safety net at home. That’s exactly where we should try it — and so we have, for the past 60 years.

Or as Chris Selley said: The monarchy is a terrible idea, except for the alternatives