"often" - are you sure? Any examples of any?Yeah, there’s no reason why it would be so - but it often is.
I expect there are some, but I can't actually think of any where they have no political function and are purely meeters and greeters.
These same arguments are always trotted out, but they seldom hold up to any scrutiny or rational debate.
I'm still British, British domiciled, and pay British taxes.Why do you care anyway? You live in Thailand don’t you? Maybe have a pop at the Chakri lot?
I'm not against monarchies per se at all - in my view it depends entirely on the country's circumstances, culture, democratic system, etc, and the alternatives.
In Bhutan, for example, I think they currently have the ideal solution for them with their monarchy.
I simply don't see the rationale behind a primo genitur monarchy in the UK in the 21st century.
Even with "Blair / Blair or Bercow, Kinnock Junior or Prescott Junior, Straw senior or junior or any Milliband / Thatcher; May; Cameron; Farage; Salmond; Cable, etc, etc." plus countless others who may be equally unsuitable ( Carter, Peach, Houghton, Richards, etc, etc) and a few who may be rather more suitable at least you have a choice.
Under the present system there's none, and while Brenda may have done nothing wrong there's no possible reason to think that will apply to Charles, William, George, etc. Had Edward VIII not been otherwise distracted by his particular American divorcee, for example, things may have been very different, and rather more recently if Charles had had his way the UK wouldn't have either a Human Rights Act or any Health and Safety at Work legislation .....
and for a considerable time Mr M-W was unavoidably third in line to the throne, just as his Uncle Andy was for a couple of decades.
For the UK in the 21st century it simply makes no rational sense.