Monarchists: can you explain the appeal?

The British Monarch isn't really a leader any more it's mostly ceremonial.

They look fancy and bring in money, so with bother removing them?

How do they bring in money?

People like to say they bring money in through tourism. How much? I don't know, but I have to imagine the percentage of tourists who come here because of the monarchy is very small.

I can understand this leading to a neutral or slightly positive view of the monarchy, but I'm not sure it explains people who actively support and say things like "God save the King" or have photos of them in their homes.

Unless it's just a reflex/kitschy tradition at this point?

It do not bring money, it waste money

By wasting money on the monarchy

My guess? Monarchies are likely to lean conservative and uphold "tradition".

There are many who'd love to live in a monarchy and do away with all the lib/woke/left stuff they so much despise. Throw in some disregard for the dangers of absolute power and a sprinkle of love for a "strong leader" and voilà.

The question can also be applied to why people believe in God / follow a religion. The notion of monarchy has (in the UK at least) been tied into pseudo religious notions of 'chosen by god' or similar, so it ties into that belief system for better or worse. (Historically the tie-in was to co-opt the obedience baked into faith, but that's probably lost on modern monarchists and believers.)

People everywhere develop unhealthy relationships with those that are oblivious to them, or outright parasitic and damaging. This is another of those that's been wrapped up in tradition and ceremony under the guise of 'normality' and the status quo. 'Ignorance is bliss' may apply.

I think it's just another fandom.

Some people do the same thing for Kardashians

Same appeal as religion... delusions can be, and often are, comfortable.

Having an inert (a-political) monarch provides a figurehead and commander of the nations military, making it less likely that coups and fascist takeover occurs because all the soldiers swear an allegiance to the king. They don't have to agree with him, or even with monarchy, but as the big boss ultimately in command of the entire army, an allegiance to him is allegiance to protecting all your comrades and countryfolk.

The monarch is usually unlikely to collapse the country and then flee to another one with their winnings, as a prime minister might do. You could say they have commitment to it, since it's essentially their family business. Theoretically it should be a blessing that, in a monarchy, we have leadership who actually inherit that position and are raised from birth to lead.

One reason people don't like monarchy is because there are past case studies of it causing problems, e.g just one legitimacy crisis and civil war breaks out, or if a monarch gets to greedy they will emnroil you in war with your nearest neighbouring state for ages.

But people need to realise, it was never just the monarch in charge. There exist pressure groups, the aristocracy, the church, merchant class; these sorts of organisations have a lot of say in when a war happens and what gets done. The truth of power is oligarchy - an organised minority of the population will always be best suited to maneuveur a takeover of the rest of the popupation. It has to be larger than 1 person, though.

In my eyes, therefore, the king exists not as the leadership but as the figurehead of the organisational force of the country. For instance in the UK the civil service works for the king - this is again superior to them working for the party government, as they have more reason to be unbiased than just "please don't do that, it wouldn't be fair." The monarchy is a real thing, bigger/more important than the party politics, even if less flavourful.

I wholeheartedly also believe that the British Crown provides superior organisation of our secret service/intelligence agency (nope, its not just movie-slop!) - we actually have the oldest standing secret service of any country, i believe, and it's pretty impressive russia hasn't completely destabilised britain yet. I would chalk that up to the crown.

- - - -
The british monarchy is all of these things, but for countries across the world. It therefore has staying power. Getting rid of it isn't merely a question of how would the people of the UK feel - it may lead to little crises across the world. It's a big reason why the british army is called out to fight wars in african nations (they do this a lot btw)

The only problem I see with this is: where is the safeguard it doesn’t swing in the other direction when someone new takes over?

Because they're parasites?

I'm not sure the argument that they bring in money via tourism is accurate. No tourist comes to see them, they come to see the Palace etc. Tourists still visit the Palace of Versailles even though there's no monarchy in France.

Former monarchist here: it was nationalism. Simple as that. Bavarian nationalism.

But that stemmed from self hatred and well thats why i am no longer in the right spectrum ^^