I am a pretty firm constitutional monarchist. Oh, I am sure we could manage as a republic easily enough. For all the hassle involved, however, I am not sure the juice would be worth the squeeze. Our present arrangements, however, seem pretty ideal to me.
With equal firmness, I reject the idea that I am in any way a "royalist" and it annoys me when politicians like Jenny Shipley and John Key use it to describe themselves.
Monarchists support the monarchist system generally. Royalists, on the other hand, support particular claimants to the throne. You can be a monarchist without being a royalist for the House of Windsor, for example, or a royalist but not a monarchist by supporting a transition to a republic following the death of Her Majesty.
If this seems like pedantry then fair enough. Except that our present arrangements are grounded in monarchism and not royalism. Our Parliament could easily switch its allegiance to the Duke of Bavaria - the King-over-the-Water - without really missing much of a beat. Maybe we should think about doing that.
But exactly who the Sovereign is should make very little difference. So when members of the Queen's family are exposed as being fools (or, in the case of the eighth in line to the throne, potentially much worse) it is hard to see why that should be cause for constitutional introspection. The royal family lacks legitimacy, yes, but that is kind of the point.
In relation to New Zealand, the Windsors have no mandate. Not being resident in this country, they do not even really have an interest in what goes on here. It is an attitude similar to what was once known as the Crown's "Salutary Neglect" of pre-revolutionary America.
The Sovereign reigns but does not rule, as the saying goes. However, through the Governor-General, His or Her Majesty retains what are known as reserve powers, such as the power to appoint a prime minister, dissolve parliament or refuse to assent to legislation. Through our traditions of good government, the existence of these powers have not been a problem.
It is not beyond the realm of imagination, however, to imagine a situation in which our parliamentary democracy ceases to function properly. This is especially true in the context of MMP, where minority governments will continue to be common. It might be that, one day, things devolve into a damaging stalemate or impasse that can only be resolved through the exercise of the reserve powers.
If that were to happen, the "illegitimacy" of the Sovereign would be a crucial asset in restoring parliamentary normalcy. It would not be open for an overseas monarch to exploit the situation to use the reserve powers to do anything other than reset the system by holding new elections. To do anything else would be to pronounce a death sentence on their own dynasty.
If the head of state had been chosen by a popular vote, on the other hand, he or she might feel justified in exercising his or her powers in some substantive way.
It is something which has happened before.
Anyone who sees the value of constitutional monarchy is at least a little bit conservative in their outlook. And at the heart of conservatism is the confidence not to be bothered by cosmetic contradictions. Something that looks like a paradox on the surface may rest on harmonious truths below.
In the case of our monarchy, we have a very good illustration of the value of vesting ultimate power in the hands of who will be most reluctant to use it. And the stupider those people are, the wiser that principle seems.