So Monarchy's Anachronistic. What's your Point?

Canadian television personality and columnist, Michael Coren, is a monarchist:

"One of the most inane criticisms of the British monarchy, or for that matter of any genuinely viable royal establishment, is that it is anachronistic. The whole point of monarchy is to be anachronistic, in that it is supposed to represent the ripples of the ancient in a time of change, signify the past at a time when people obsess about the present and the future. So those people who lauded Princess Diana for her baseball caps, friendships with clothing designers and pop stars and embracing of fashionable causes simply didn't understand the nature of the timeless icon. Majesty requires distance. Once the curtain is pulled back, we tend to see not irresistible glamour, but the achingly ordinary."

As Jeremy Paxman reminds us, who is "rather taken with Prince Philip's utter refusal to care what people think about him, and his contempt for the gutter press and the dumb, numb culture of cool Britannia":

"Monarchies do not function by logic. If they work, they do so by appealing to other instincts, of history, emotion, imagination and mythology, and we have to acknowledge that many of the most stable societies in Europe are monarchies, while some of the most unstable and corrupt have presidents."

"He's largely right, of course...As much as it may pain the cynical and the radical, millions of people still weep at God Save the Queen, but nobody cries while reading a political treatise about responsible garbage recycling. If they did, the monarchy would die within a week and life would suddenly become far more tedious than it already is."