Our constitutional monarchy is an accident of history.  If one were designing a constitution for a new state, it is highly unlikely that a solution based on the Windsor Dynasty would come out top of the list as the best way of organising a modern state. In fact our monarchy is such an anachronism, that it has a certain cache that makes it incredibly fascinating to citizens of nations all over the world.  The affairs of our Royal family are followed with avid interest in many corners of the world not least the USA for good or for ill.

It is extraordinary that our former colonies such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia still retain Queen Elizabeth the Second as their own head of state.  The prediction made many decades ago that Australia in particular, would move to a Republic headed by a president has proved inaccurate. On the last occasion in 1999, Australia rejected a move to a Republic despite support from the ruling Labour government of the time.  Yes, it was anachronistic but did Australians really want to move to a system where a group of has-been politicians vied for the job of head of state.  The answer at that time was no and there appears to be little appetite for a new go at changing the system.

One of the problems with a dynastic system, is that as well as a Head of State, one also gets a family.  Whilst it is this very fact that leads to world interest in the institution, it also comes at a price. We all know that family life is hard enough; but when every move and event in the life of a family is the subject of incredible public interest in every intimate detail, then it becomes impossible.  On the whole, my own family is devoid of scandal and I am sure many regard us as rather a boring lot. However, if we had been under the same scrutiny as the Windsors, it might have been a very different story with those additional pressures. Who knows what the Tabloid press would have made of me and my lot.

At a time when we have a potential war in the Middle East and the tragic loss of life in an airline disaster, (which is now verified as a linked story) the saga of Harry and Megan continues to assume mega proportions and consume acres of newspaper pages and hours of rolling news content. I am not surprised that the two of them have asked the question as to whether enough is enough.  Whether this very interest in royalty will eventually consume the institution, remains to be seen. Certainly whilst we have an occupant of the throne who is dedicated to service and duty, the threat still seems to be remote. Perhaps the answer is to have a Royal family that does less and is very much slimmed down.

So what about a different system?  The Founding Fathers of the USA had a wonderful opportunity to develop a brand new solution.  They did have a blank sheet of paper and it all seemed to be working rather well. However, when you end up with a head of state like Donald J Trump, you might begin to wonder whether they might have retained a constitutional monarch after all. At least it does create a clear line between the dirty world of politics and the dignity and office of the head of state. And that is the problem.  Of course your head of state can be elected and purely ceremonial such as in Ireland.  That system raised up Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese although Michael D Higgins, the current President, does not have such a high profile.

So perhaps our current system is the best for us for now.  It is not perfect but on the other hand it has served our nation well for a long time and still seems to command overwhelming public support; for without that, it would surely cease to exist.  How the institution will continue to cope with the very interest it arouses, is quite another matter; but for now we are likely to muddle on and that may be no bad thing.