Actually, they fixed the sexist thing in NIAA 2002, and then again in BCIA 2009. My understanding is that as a result of these changes, everyone who would have been eligible for citizenship if descent via the female line were allowed in the past are now eligible.
For this type of scenario, I think the only difference between a Commonwealth citizen and a non-citizen is that a Commonwealth citizen can apply for a Certificate of Entitlement without becoming a British Citizen. The CoE gives the holder almost all the privileges of a British Citizen. Probably the only difference is when it comes to jobs that require security clearances. This option is not available to non-Commonwealth citizen, and he or she will have to become a British Citizen in order to exercise its privileges. This can make a difference if he or she is also a citizen of a country that doesn’t allow dual-nationality.
My understanding is that the monarchy is responsible for a huge chunk of Britain’s tourism sector. A good number of private concerns and their employees depend on the existence of the monarchy for their livelihoods.
The monarch has lots of power, in theory. In practice, day to day, very little power. In a constitutional crisis, lots of power in practice as well as theory. That a constitutional crisis would result in the monarchy having lots of real power is one of the things that prevents constitutional crises from occurring.
For one, to a certain extent it seperates the ceremonial/popular functions from the practical functions of government.
The Monarch (or her representatives) make excellent “goodwill ambassadors”, preside over the ribbon-cutting of public works, organize for good causes and charities. Being non-partisan, such events need not take on any political tone or be seen as part of politicing for any party or faction - they can represent, as it were, the country as a whole, above politics.
Like when people in the US get into arguments about how the other side is disrespecting the office of the Presidency, while when their guy was in office we never would have done that, and it’s just about the office and the respect it deserves, not the guy in the office, and blah blah blah. Whereas in the UK, the Prime Minister is obviously a partisan figure, and the monarch is the one that’s above it all, and treated as such.
Meh. Tourism goes up when monarchs do things*, but I’m not sure they make that much of a difference otherwise. I mean, if QEII, bless her soul, snuffed it tomorrow, people would still want to tour Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Tower of London and all that stuff, even if Parliament decided to hold a referendum and the people voted not to bother with a new monarch.
The other thing is that Britain’s economic reliance on its past glories sometimes appears to stifle future growth. Look at Oxford and Cambridge - a zillion students reading classics and philosophy (and nearly as many people teaching them), and half as many doing something useful.
This. Separating the politician from the national symbolism is very important, and it’s a weakness of the US system that these can be confused in the person of the executive. Makes it more susceptible to demagoguery.
