Royalty and democracy

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Celyn

I have no idea, really. The monarchy thing continues because of a sort of inertia, really, given that there are usually more urgent political problems to deal with on any given day.

Still, you never know, once Lizzie dies, it might begin to unravel a bit. I think a lot of the “Daily Mail” crowd will sulk at the idea of Charles and Camilla. And that might be quite fun to watch.

I’d be okay if Canada passed a law declaring that the end of the reign of Elizabeth II was also the end of Canada’s official fealty to the British monarchy, but it’s not exactly a priority for me. Maybe I’ll write a letter to my MP, once I go to the trouble of finding out who he is.

Tommy Mulcair, really? Huh, leader of the opposition. I guess if my letter was going to have any effect at all, now’s the time.

[Northern_Piper]

What do you replace it with, Bryan?

[Human_Action]

@Malden_Capell

Good point. In this case clearly a monarch who had cooked his own goose by violating the basis of constitutional monarchy by bringing in a fascist dictator.

Right. So, inertia is indeed a powerful force in this matter, monarchies seem to only get abolished after they’ve done something to outrage the people.

Greece seems like its own special case, with the King backing the military junta until launching a failed counter-coup, and the King being barred from the nation and unable to campaign for the 1974 referendum.

@Malden Capell

Although, weren’t there also accusations (real or unfounded) that the Communists had conducted some fraudulent voting? No idea if there’s anything in that…

The only references I can find are that allegations of fraud were never proven.

[Malden_Capell]

@Human_Action

Right. So, inertia is indeed a powerful force in this matter, monarchies seem to only get abolished after they’ve done something to outrage the people.

Greece seems like its own special case, with the King backing the military junta until launching a failed counter-coup, and the King being barred from the nation and unable to campaign for the 1974 referendum.

Makes sense to me - I think it’s quite proper that a constitutional monarch who fails to behave constitutionally so spectacularly deserves to be removed.

The only references I can find are that allegations of fraud were never proven.

Good to know

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Northern_Piper

What do you replace it with, Bryan?

The head of state can remain the Governor-General, an appointed but almost entirely ceremonial post. I certainly don’t want to emulate the American example of a year-long popularity contest.

[Malden_Capell]

@Bryan_Ekers

The head of state can remain the Governor-General, an appointed but almost entirely ceremonial post. I certainly don’t want to emulate the American example of a year-long popularity contest.

So pretty much like what you at present, right?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Sure, it would be an almost entirely just-on-paper transition, which is why it’s not a priority with me.

[bump]

@Freddy_the_Pig

They DO, however, have to lift a finger. The implict tradeoff in modern European monarchy is that the royals can keep their titles and live comfortably, but in return must work as goodwill ambassadors, charity publicists, and tourism promoters. They don’t sit on cushions all day throwing chicken legs on the floor.

And, at least in the UK, there seems to be a very clear expectation that the Royals serve in the country’s military, if only for a short period. The Queen, Prince Philip, William, Harry, Prince Andrew, great granddad George VI, Prince Charles, etc… all served in one branch or another of the UK military.

I think the primary reason though, that the Royals are still around is history- the UK governmental system sort of grew fungus-like over nearly 1000 years, and has had a King/Queen nearly the entire time; getting rid of them willy-nilly would be a major break with that tradition and continuity, and would require more work and trouble than just keeping someone around to fill that role would be, IMO.

[Northern_Piper]

@Bryan_Ekers

The head of state can remain the Governor-General, an appointed but almost entirely ceremonial post. I certainly don’t want to emulate the American example of a year-long popularity contest.

And who will appoint the Governor General? And how can a Governor General be removed for misconduct?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@MrDibble

One question would be - is the UK Royalty a nett drain on the economy, or do they bring in enough in tourist pounds to offset their upkeep (leaving aside income from estates because that’s just a wealthy landowner issue, not a royalty one)? Would there be a visible drop in tourism if there wasn’t an active Royal Family in Buck Palace?

@Malden_Capell

…since the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011, Parliament no longer votes for the Civil List; instead, the List is a cut of the profits from the Crown Estate (about 15%), the remainder of which goes into the Treasury for public enjoyment. So technically it could be said the monarchy is now self-funding in this regard.

In other words, whether the monarchy is a net benefit or drain on the economy depends on what you think of the monarch holding public lands in trust. If you took away all the land held by the Crown in trust, and left the royal family with just the lands they own by virtue of being Windsors, they’d just about break even IIRC.

[Lemur866]

Nowadays the Canadian PM advises the Queen of Canada on who to appoint as GG, and she appoints whoever they advise. So skipping a step and have the PM appoint the GG seems like a merely cosmetic change.

[Northern_Piper]

Except, the GovGen has the power to sack the Prime Minister. How does it work if each has the power to sack the other, and there’s a conflict?

As it stands now, if the PM wants to sack the GovGen, the PM has to advise Her Majesty to do so. Her role is to be above politics and keep the constitutional system of government working, so she has some residual “reserve powers” in that situation.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Thunderdome. Duh.

[Northern_Piper]

Of course, it would make a great sketch:

Scene: the Governor General’s office, Rideau Hall. The GovGen is seated at his desk.

Enter the Prime Minister. GovGen rises and they shake hands

GovGen: “Prime Minister, regrettably, I’ve asked you to come today because …”

PM: “GovGen, you’re sacked!”

GovGen: “What? I was just going to sack you!”

PM: “I said it first!”

GovGen: “But I was being polite and leading into it! You interrupted me!”

PM: “Doesn’t matter - I was first!”

GovGen: “No fair!”

PM: “Nyah, Nyah!”

[RickJay]

I didn’t now any Canadians said “sacked.”

if the Governor-General’s position is purely ceremonial, it doesn’t matter. The Governor General’s job is to just do whatever the hell they’re supposed to. 99% of the time the GG’s next move is clearly identified in law and precedent.

The other 1% of the time you could refer it to the courts.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@RickJay

I didn’t now any Canadians said “sacked.”

Once we purge the monarchy, that practice will be banned as counter-republican.

[Baron_Greenback]

@chappachula

Now, why you guys consent to it is another question.
I think your answer is something like “We think it’s fun to watch a real-life fairy tale. Like supporting your favorite football team, but more dignified.”

National soap opera.

[BrokenBriton]

@MrDibble

Most Heads of State aren’t huge tourist draws, though, are they?

How many people do you really think visit the country to stare at Buckingham Palace? Tourists certainly go there, in the same way they go to The Tower or HoP, but honestly …

I’ll grant a few might arange their visit to coincide with a royal wedding but beyond that: nada.

[MrQwertyasd]

Respected royalty may add stability to a country. Most of Western Europe is stable politically; they mostly have royalty – Spain even reverted voluntarily. Thailand has been stabler than its neighbors and it has a respected King. At its best, a system of King and Parliament works well: the King protects the country from anarchy, Parliament protects it from tyranny.

I keep hearing this vague argument, but it really is vague - so I have some questions about that

1. What is stability ?
2. What’s so good about it ?
3. What calamity would befall us if we had an elected head and a written constitution ?
4. Are non-monarchical states so unstable ?
5. Wasn’t Europe under the monarchs constantly at war ?

In fact, the British royalty has already had most of its wealth confiscated by Parliament over the centuries, with the King or Queen acceding because of an implicit promise they could keep what was left!

In fact, technically, the Queen is the rightful owner of the entire commonwealth (one sixth of the world’s surface), and the only sovereign owner of land in the UK.

Few years out of date, but still probably accurate –

Largest five personal landowners on Earth

Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres
http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/

[Bozuit]

Longshanks, I’m not especially a monarchist or a republican, but if you think members of the British royal family never lift a finger, you’re very much mistaken. Elizabeth II is 87 years old, but do you really think she’s sitting in her comfy armchair watching Countdown every day, like all the other people her age?

@Bryan_Ekers

I’d be okay if Canada passed a law declaring that the end of the reign of Elizabeth II was also the end of Canada’s official fealty to the British monarchy, but it’s not exactly a priority for me. Maybe I’ll write a letter to my MP, once I go to the trouble of finding out who he is.

I didn’t think Canada owed any fealty to the British monarch, but that the Canadian monarch and British monarch just “happen” to be the same person.

@BrokenBriton

How many people do you really think visit the country to stare at Buckingham Palace? Tourists certainly go there, in the same way they go to The Tower or HoP, but honestly …

I’ll grant a few might arange their visit to coincide with a royal wedding but beyond that: nada.

France might make the same argument for the Eiffel Tower. I don’t think you appreciate how much of a difference it makes to some people if a big house has royalty living in it.