Why shouldn't more countries have Queen Elizabeth II equivalents?

Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead head of state. She has no real power, and she's basically a nonpartisan ambassador for Great Britain. Nobody really knows what she thinks about politics or anything else. As a result, she's an inoffensive and very popular head of state. Why shouldn't more countries... show more Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead head of state. She has no real power, and she's basically a nonpartisan ambassador for Great Britain. Nobody really knows what she thinks about politics or anything else. As a result, she's an inoffensive and very popular head of state.

Why shouldn't more countries have constitutional monarchies, with kings and queens like her? Powerless, inoffensive, nonpartisan ceremonial heads of state like that are very popular in the few countries that still have kings and queens like that, primarily in northwestern Europe.

(This does NOT mean that power should be taken away from elected leaders--it should not be. I wouldn't dare suggest giving a king or queen any real power, since that would be undemocratic. Running governments should be done by elected leaders, of course.)
Update: OK, Her Majesty has a lot of theoretical power, and executive power is vested in her. Even navy ships are "Her Majesty's", and government-run companies in Canada are "Crown Corporations". But she alone can't exercise any of it. (She doesn't even vote in elections.) The elected... show more OK, Her Majesty has a lot of theoretical power, and executive power is vested in her. Even navy ships are "Her Majesty's", and government-run companies in Canada are "Crown Corporations". But she alone can't exercise any of it. (She doesn't even vote in elections.) The elected government exercises those powers in her name.
10 answers 10