QEII/Charles III/Heads of State etc
The Constitutional Monarchy of the UK is a political system. Nothing more, nothing less. Numerous countries have a Head of State who is separate or less enmeshed in the politics of the country than the President of the US. Lists and further explanations can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government
I have skin in this game. Born in Scotland, with no real reason to love the monarchy; child migrant to Australia within a wrinkle in time that granted me automatic permanent residency. ERII has been the only head of state I have known my entire life. Conversely, I have direct experience of probably eighteen or twenty political leaders on both sides of the spectrum.
The word that best describes the role of a unique head of state, as opposed to one who is also a political leader, is "Ceremonial". To a greater or lesser degree, nearly all humans need some kind of ceremony in their lives. Even as a recalcitrant and vehement iconoclast, I burn incense and play soft classical music while I do yoga; it's a ceremony of sorts. Ceremonies bring comfort, stability, the known and expected. Leaving aside the Proud Louts and their torch rally ceremonies, ceremonies in general are a good, respectful and character building thing to do.
I've never really felt proud or emotional over the Queen and her family. I neither love nor hate any of them but accept that they are born into a position that makes them no better or worse than I, just different. To be honest, I wouldn't trade my life for theirs, despite my penury compared to their wealth. As a child in primary school in the UK in the early 60s, I was handed a little Union Flag, shunted out onto the road and told to wave at the Queen when she visited our town. She looked pretty much like her head on the shillings and pennies. The car? I'd never seen anything like it.
Although half-a-dozen years older than I, Charles is my contemporary. I feel for him. The three preceding Princes of Wales had been profligate to varying degrees; he found himself in this position as a direct result of great-uncle's abdication. Charles was caught between a rock and a hard place; a mother who righteously disavowed the departure from duty of her uncle versus growing up in a modern, changing world. He's OK in my book. He loves the planet, the air and the trees. And he loves Camilla. If anyone thinks that the electronically spied upon, personal conversation reported by UK tabloids represents the man, I'd ask you to stop reading now.
Since the Queen's death I've not watched much footage, but what I've seen shows Charles in a new light. At last he fulfils his destiny, even at an age that's fairly advanced in the general scheme of things. I wish both King Charles and Queen Camilla a wise and peaceful reign and when the time comes for William to take up the challenge, I believe it will be with the dignity and love for a parent that Charles is exhibiting now.
*A callout to Sympthsical for this post. I'd started to reply and express my thanks and it just went on and on....
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17146437
= new reply since forum marked as read
Hope you are well buddy. 
Is your sister back on her feet?
I'm glad you gained a little historical perspective on it. 
I have no skin in this game except a fairly human sympathy for a family with its own troubles. I wouldn’t want their life for anything. The prospect of having the likes of Piers Morgan pass judgment on my life is gag-inducing.
Well, and a sympathy for the young couple who decided to get the heck out for their mental health and ended up 30 miles up the freeway from me.
I’m happy for King Charles that he finally got to marry his Camilla. He’d have been a happier man if he’d had the go-ahead from the beginning. He is within a year of my age.
What I’ve absorbed about his character is fairly positive. He’s duty-bound like his mother. He’s had a lifetime of waiting for this job and has apparently filled his time with essentially trying to save the planet, or at least his own piece of it.
Beyond that, what he and his country decide to do about the future of their monarchy is hardly my business to judge. There have been times this week when the over the top judgmentalism here has made me want to throw my iPad across the room. We in the US have enough troubles of our own to clean up.
Hope all is well with you. The heat here is about to melt me.
We all need stability, not extremism. I believe a happy, contented electorate votes left wing.
An angry resentful electorate votes right wing.
That looks like cold beer to me (she said longingly). I would love to have some. I’d love to have some scotch, for that matter, but that requires ice and we have no ice.
Our refrigerator decided to definitively die last week in the midst of a heat dome event that covered the state. The new one is in the garage in its box because the dead one that came with the house is extra-tall and needs a bigger dolly. The installers will be back tomorrow.
Oh all right, the fridge is a first-world problem, I admit it. But the heat is global climate change.
I have both, the former pretty standard BA but the Honorary Chairman of a company I founded was Secretary to the King of Thailand and I learned more of the complexities of what a Monarchy actually is.
Really the best source for understanding what a HOS comes by living abroad and seeing how each country has one and while handling it differently still has some basic similarities.
1) Head of States is a universal office for modern democracies and it is not a ceremonial one.
Since we combine both roles into a single office Americans are universally uninformed that virtually all other countries have two different positions, Head of Government and Head of State. In Russia, for example, Putin destroyed term limitations by running for Head of State after he was termed out for HOG and then usurped the power of HOG. Virtually every country has a constitutional office for Head of State and it isn't for "ceremonies".
Take Singapore, for example, where the democratically elected Prime Minister has been either the founder or son of the founder for almost all of its entirety and ruled by the popular ruling party for its entire history. The current President is not only a woman Malay Muslim in a country dominated by Chinese Christian Patriarchy, she was one of only a few minority party candidates in Parliament.
2) Under Parliamentary System the Head of State holds real political power although it almost only used in rare situations when a crises prevents the normal processes to take place.
The unifying role of the Head of State is the reason that virtually all countries have an office for that purpose. One of the reasons that these countries need it is that parliamentary systems do not have fixed terms. When the majority party or coalition loses its voting majority in government there has to be an outside legal authority to govern the transition and the invitation to form a new government, that is one of the most important roles of a HOS. It is quite common in most countries that the largest party does not have an actual majority in Parliament (UK is somewhat of an exception with only 2 1/2 parties).
While it is customary for the Head of State to offer the largest party an opportunity to form a government there are important reasons why this is only a custom and that right is left to the HOS and it is NOT ceremonial. Take this hypothetical: The country has 7 parties with roughly two left, two right, two tied historically to the majority/minority ethnic group and a centrist party.
Lets say an entertainer takes over one of the far right party and runs a campaign that is anti immigration, racist and attacks inclusion of people from LGBTQ community and this party wins 38% of the vote and is the largest party. In this scenario the Head of State would not invite that party to form a majority because the other 62% of the country is united in opposition. The role of the HOS would be to offer the party with the leadership most likely to form a government that reflects the majority of the country.
During the time when elections are announced and Parliament forms a new government actions by the existing government are limited and can be restricted by the HOS if they violate the constitutional process.
3) The Head of State as a unifying force.
In England the Monarch also serves as "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England" which for centuries was the unifying institution in the UK. As countries became more diverse this role has evolved so that Monarchies and HOS are specifically designed to speak on the defense of religious and ethnic minorities. In Thailand, for example, the King is not the protector of Buddhism but of all religions. An anti Christian attack on a Church, for example, could be legally prosecuted as an attack on the Monarchy, again not a ceremonial function.
To answer your point on Head of State I have had to mix both Monarchical (England/Thailand) and constitutional (Singapore) examples. It should be pointed out that the Monarchy is an institution that extends beyond the holder of the office. It is an institution that includes a Privy Council, Crown Properties, and the informal community of the Royal Family.
Monarchs are constrained by constitutional restrictions (both formal and informal). They cannot just do what they want to do. King Edward was not permitted to marry Wallis Simpson. The divorce of Prince Charles and Princess Diana could have made him ineligible for Ascension to King. It didn't but it could have.
A clearer example of this can be seen in the Thai Monarchy:
Despite the growth of Buddhism as the main religion of the Thai kingdoms, the existence of Hinduism and the exalted role of the Brahman caste was not diminished. Although the kings were Buddhists they surrounded themselves with the accoutrements of Khmer royalty, including the services of court Brahmins. Buddhism was considered the religion of the people, while Hinduism (in particular Shaivism) was suitable only for royalty. However, the king must defend both.
Thailand is 94% Buddhist and 5% Muslim. So why are the key ceremonies for the Thai King Hindu and not Buddhist? There is no Theology for Kingship in Buddhism so Buddhist countries borrow the Theology of Kingship from the Hindu devarāja kjor god-king.
The Monarch must be seen as morally up right. They don't have to perceived as morally perfect but must carry a perception that they are morally upright in the traditions in the country. In 2014 the wife of the Crown Prince of Thailand was found to be corrumpt and her family involved in criminal activities. The Privy Council forced the Prince to divorce his wife, she lost all royal titles and had to leave the country.
4) Head of State Financial Responsibilities
As stated above the Head of State has political and moral responsibilities that go beyond ceremonial. They also have fiduciary responsibilities.
Monarchies hold vast wealth usually called "Crown Properties" that are besides the Monarch's personal wealth. These Crown Properties serve as a kind of Soveriegn fund that are used as a trust to raise money for Monarch sponsored charities like the Red Cross/Red Crescent, etc. The stewardship of these assets are usually guided by the Privy Council or other management committees that serve the Monarch.
Non Monarchy Heads of States also have fiduciary responsibility that go beyond the power of the Government. In Singapore for example President Yacob had to approve the government's request to use funds from past reserves to fight Covid 19. She was not obligated to do so, the decision was hers alone and the government could not over ride it, and it was not a ceremonial decision.
