Enlightenment ideals are an affront to all that is good in humanity and the victims of Robespierre and the industrial revolution know it better than anyone.
Let us push to the opposite side and make away with enlightenment and its destructive path. In a couple centuries enlightenment has put us closer to death than any and all kings.
As much as I love Enlightenment principles, I've learned with age that Reason is not enough for human society to flourish. People need something that goes beyond reason, or even explicitly against reason, to find meaning in their own existence.
A constitutional monarchy is an unreasonable construct, but its perseverance is a symbol of continuity and certainty in an existence that is so often chaotic and uncertain. It provides reassurance to many, and mutes the worst excesses of political turmoil. As long as it really stays out of the fray (and that's sadly not always been the case, with Elizabeth II, and it's likely her son will be even worse), then I don't have a problem with it. Like religion, I don't need it, you don't need it, but many do - and they might as well have it.
Elizabeth nor Charles are claiming devine right. They are a unfiying vestige of times past, providing as she did a human constant, an embodiment of the Commonwealth.
So long as their heredity isn't overtly providing them the ability or write or enforce law, it does not seem an affront to democracy.
The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.
While Elizabeth has CHOSEN to not use these powers much, any future monarch can. Just look at the U.S. in the last 6 years to see what happens when a country relies more on historical norms rather than law.
> The royal prerogative includes the powers to ...
Not really. In practice these powers belong to parliament and the monarch performs a merely ceremonial role; actions are performed in his or her name but not at her behest. In the English constitution parliament is sovereign and the monarch acts on its instructions.
Really, that's not true and hasn't been since 1688.
She held the power of royal prerogative but couldn't ever exercise it because Parliament retains the right to dismiss and choose a new monarch anytime they like.
The issue of royal prerogative was settled in the Glorious Revolution when Parliament decided it didn't like the King, James II and just selected a new one.
Every year we remind the monarch at the State Opening of Parliament that they can't ever use their royal prerogative.
The monarch might have influence but ultimate power rests with Parliament.
She has had weekly un-recorded meetings with the head of government for seven decades. I don't know the degree to which these influence policy or not, but if that isn't an affront to democracy I don't know what is.
