Monarchy: For or Against?

Last week a Niniane asked me whether I was in favour of the monarchy. Now, when I think of our royal family, the first thing that springs to mind is them wrecking our economy and being mindless autocrats from about 1640-1900, so obviously I answered no. We've had no good male Oranges since Frederik Hendrik (although admittedly Willem III is debatable; but I personally tend to dislike him for undermining the navy and thus the economic motor behind the Republic). It's only been since Wilhelmina that we've had good rulers, but these had relatively little power so I find it hard to judge whether they would not have lapsed into the same errors as their ancestors had they been full-fledged rulers.

It turned out that Niniane is slightly more up-to-date than I am, and thought that the behaviour of kings in the 19th century has little to do with how we should value the monarchical institution today. This made me realise how important history is to my perception of reality. Not to say that I am always thinking of history, or how things would compare, but the historical "inheritance" does concern me.

The monarchy has to principal defensive arguments: firstly, it binds the nation together through a single monarchical figure, and secondly, more formally, the monarch has the right to appoint the person who forms the cabinet. The first part obviously has the most importance, because the second part can more easily be replaced, for example by letting parliament appoint this so-called informateur.
The role of the monarch as figurehead is, however, in my opinion debatable. The monarch is generally far removed from the ordinary citizen, as her accent and expensive hats quickly make clear, and can actually become object of popular scorn, herself, as happened with Elizabeth II after the death of Diana.

I am personally opposed to the idea of a president based on the model of the US. I do not want power struggles between parliament and head of state, with either sides trying to grab as much power as possible and treating politics as a playground.
What I do not oppose, however, is a president such as they have in Germany or France: here, the president, usually a retired politician, is purely head of state, not head of government as well, and has simply a ceremonial function, apart from being a central point for the country in case of emergency. This would save a lot of money annually.

I was going to write a paragraph here about the great historical value of keeping the monarchy, as a counter-argument to the previous sentences, but I discovered I can't do that without causing my brain to implode. After all, the Orange family was never monarchical in origin, nor were they granted this position by the people; they were thrust upon the country by foreign powers during the Congress of Vienna (1815) and not by popular support. To maintain that they should still be Kings and Queens because this was historically the case is therefore a fairly weak reason, and also a bit pointless; when time passes, things change.

Ah, if only Louis the Good was still our king!