It& #39;s also because we have a constitutional monarchy.

The only people we& #39;re obliged to show respect to have no real power.

Everyone else is fair game for challenge and for disrespect.

It& #39;s different where there& #39;s an elected, power-wielding, head of state. https://twitter.com/mattforde/status/1259396290120749056">https://twitter.com/mattforde...
The monarchy also acts as a subtle check on the power of the executive.

As certain powers ought only be wielded by the sovereign, no elected government would dare wield them. But then the monarch doesn& #39;t do it either.

So its effect is to put those powers off the table.
Constitutional monarchy also helps make adversarial government - vital to both freedom and effectiveness - possible.

The government can be intensely challenged on every single step it takes by the opposition.

Because this is neither disloyal nor deleterious to stability
- both sides are ultimately loyal to the Crown and therefore to the polity.

Hence why it& #39;s "Her Majesty& #39;s Government" and "Her Majesty& #39;s *Loyal* Opposition".

And hence the layout of the House of Commons, both sides facing each other head-on, with little side between them.
As opposed to the semi-circular, consensus-finding rather than adversarial, layouts we usually find in the chambers of republics.
An ancient monarchy also is a unifying principle in the country, a source of allegiance above the partisan - or ethnic, or religious, etc - fray.

This keeps the community bound together, providing us with identity and inocculating against balkanisation.
Royalty is also a check against demagoguery and intense partisanship in that, given we already have political figures to venerate for those inclined to find people to venerate, it& #39;s a lot harder for elected politicians to become foci for that instead.
Finally, insofar as the Crown - and the nobility, for that matter - see themselves and their bloodlines as inextricably tied to the land (from the ancient past to the distant future), they are able to take a longer view.
Our social contract is between the living, the dead, and the unborn.

No single generation - or ambitious / power craven government - should be able to prostitute out or dissolve our sacred inheritance for short term gain or their particular idiosyncratic vision.
A system where the Lords have no real power to enact provisions of their own, nor ultimately quash those proposed by the democratic chamber - but whose input is mandatory, and who have the power of delay - is one where we& #39;re never able to forget these obligations.
Turning back to the original photo: can one imagine a US President travelling without an extensive security detail, let alone being confronted like that, let alone so regularly?
There& #39;s something beautiful about a democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

It may achieve the republican ideal of liberty as freedom from the domination / arbitrary will of others better than republican government itself.
I should elaborate on this tweet.

The point is that our system remains ultimately entirely democratic, whilst also having mechanisms to ensure we don& #39;t forget our trans-generational obligations, limit power, and so on. https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/1259452394930348032?s=19">https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/...
There is also cause to be wary of the view that the state can only be justified via popular sovereignty, as I discussed in this thread: https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/status/935954750478090242?s=19">https://twitter.com/Evollaqi/...
https://twitter.com/weswpg/status/1259499745095057409?s=19">https://twitter.com/weswpg/st...
You can follow @Evollaqi.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: