I'd say the grand parent view comes from an uneasiness at anything hereditary, although there's much less objection to hereditary wealth for some reason.

So I'd say it comes from a dichotomy between hereditary wealth and hereditary power, although it's well known that monarchs in democracies are tightly constrained while hereditary wealth brings hereditary power.

It might be the inevitable tie between monarchy and religion which creates a de facto most "correct" national religion. Along with the occasional claim that mythical origins are literally true.

And while comforting, historical and even stabilizing at the moment, it's worth noting that a great many monarchs were quick to join the wrong side of history in WWII.

So, for those without a monarch and the attendant enthusiasm, the institution looks like an extremely expensive and potentially dangerous embodiment of unfairness. Without commenting on the correctness of this view, one can see how it would make monarchies and monarchists incomprehensible to outsiders.

I don't think it necessarily reflects what people think, average folks can do very little to shape the narrative.

I think you mean “partly” rather than “strictly.” Even if you remove the supernatural element (the part that calls for faith, which is not rational), you’re still left with a political, philosophical, and moral framework. Such frameworks aren’t irrational any more than say “social democracy” as a political framework is irrational. The you have the utilitarian social functions. Serving as places for members of the community to interact, a place for children to be socialized, a place to help elderly people stay connected, a vehicle for addressing local social issues.

I'd rather have a city full of churches/mosques/temples, which are at least generally interesting public use buildings, than a skyline dominated by glass towers occupied by banks, insurance and consulting companies.

And anyway at least as far as the Catholic church is concerned, most money ends up in social causes.

I think you are confusing correlation with causation there

That's not an argument that something is good. Civilizations willing to perpetuate genocide tend to survive longer and achieve more economic success than those unwilling to, for instance (they face fewer external threats).

To be clear I disagree with the person you're responding to - I just think we should be careful about counterarguments with significant collateral moral damage.

The Republic of Venice was a rare exception in a world of kings/queens/emperors - and also exceptionally stable, prosperous, and quite possibly (depending on how one regards the Meiji Restoration, to return to topic) the long-lasting nation state in history.

The US president has a higher % of support than prime ministers in most EU countries due to the nature of the two party system. E.g. Trump has higher approval ratings than Macron amongst the relative populations. Each system has advantages/disadvantages.

The queen is not your representative, but you are all her “subjects”. She is literally above the law and is thus, by law, some kind of “higher” human than others, which is hilarious.

I actually respect your current queen, Elizabeth 2, a person - she is doing great given the situation she was born into. But I despise royals as an institution of power and priveledge.