In the contemporary European model of the constitutional monarchy, the ʻsovereignʻ is a living, breathing version of the flag … a symbol of no party, but of the nation as a whole. The monarchy embodies the nationʻs history—it is literally in the monarchʻs DNA. As an institution that all citizens can relate to, the monarchy is part of the glue that binds the citizenry together as one nation. Or, at least in theory it can be all of those things.

And yes, on admittedly rare occasion, the monarchy can literally pull a country back from the brink—you may recall that the direct intervention of Juan Carlos was needed to foil the Spanish coup attempt in 1981. I could provide several similar examples, so the notion of a safety valve has some reality to it.

And letʻs face it: people love pomp and pageantry. Republics, with their pared down, business-oriented institutions and traditions, canʻt compete with monarchies. But of course, that brings us to a monarchyʻs Achilleʻs heel: cost. The benefits offered by a monarchy rarely justify the kind of expenditures needed to maintain the British royal family. Here is one area where King Charles III could perform a real service and make a positive impact: the UK doesnt need a host of “working royals,” unless they are going to dispatch them off to the other commonwealth realms. Nor do they require 14 crown properties to reside in (not counting the three estates owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, or their seven ʻprivateʻ castles and manor houses). And there are more than 120 ʻhistoricʻ royal homes also being maintained at public expense. If the Windsors can seriously slash the budget and copy their Scandinavian cousins, they may yet have a future.