I doubt we would get rid of the homeless if we got rid of the monarchy.
Or is there evidence to prove that those countries who no longer have monarchies and now have presidents, with all the expense that entails, no longer have homeless or extreme poverty?
As a pragmatist I think they are good value for money, a lot cheaper than a presidential system and I, for one, could not stand the months of build-up every four years before a presidential election and all the money thrown around and the cheering, jeering crowds. So unseemly, such a waste of money, and causing instability to the country as a whole.
It is bad enough having all the elections and all the layers of government that we do have without adding another elected layer in place of the monarch.
in an hereditary system the mad or bad may pop up in the future,
Possibly, lazigirl but they do not have political power do they. Unlike mad, bad Presidents who persuade their daft allies to go to war with them.