Many governments, like England, have what is called a dual executive branch, where there is a head of government (h.o.g) and a head of state (h.o.s). In England's case the h.o.g is the Prime Minister. He/she is the person who actually runs the government, day to day policies and procedures. The h.o.s, in England's case, is the queen. She is the moral anchor of the nation, the one who gets to be the celebrity, the one the people look up to in times of trouble.
In the United States we have what is called a fused executive branch. The president of the United States must serve both the functions of the h.o.g and h.o.s.
Of the people who wrote the Constitution, only one suggested that we have a dual executive branch: Alexander Hamilton. He suggested that we have a monarch to fulfill the obligation of the h.o.s, and leave the president to fulfill his (potentially her) job as h.o.g. Why didn't anybody listen to him? It might have worked out very well for the United States. But, hey, can't go back in time and it's a little late now.
Just my thought for the day.
Tata for now.