Nope, can’t think of any advantage there.
Britain has already made one reform which makes a hell of a lot of difference to some people (it would to me.) Citizens are now citizens, and not “subjects.”
Sure, sure, it’s just a label. But labels are sometimes important enough to fight over. Anyway, I’m glad they made that change.
Ceremonial monarchy is a little like ceremonial deism. The U.S. Constitution says no to both, although the latter has gotten itself established and won’t go away. If Britain wants to live with it, and if ordinary citizens have protections from intrusions on their liberty, well, have fun and go to blazes.
(If the Queen is opening a supermarket, and I walk by and don’t bow, or turn my back to her, or whatnot, are there civil or criminal penalties for lese majeste?)
No, you would just get to keep your dignity.
I’ve been at concerts where some people stand when the national anthem starts up, but many just stay sat.
So, I’ve got a book here, it says -
http://archive.org/details/TheAnglo-americanEstablishment
"The secret society of Cecil Rhodes is mentioned in the first five of his seven wills. In
the fifth it was supplemented by the idea of an educational institution with scholarships,
whose alumni would be bound together by common ideals—Rhodes’s ideals. In the sixth
and seventh wills the secret society was not mentioned, and the scholarships monopolized
the estate. But Rhodes still had the same ideals and still believed that they could be
carried out best by a secret society of men devotedto a common cause. The scholarships
were merely a facade to conceal the secret society,or, more accurately, they were to be
one of the instruments by which the members of the secret society could carry out his
purpose. This purpose, as expressed in the first will (1877), was:
“The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of
emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all
lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and
enterprise, . . . the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral
part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of
a system of Colonial Representation in the ImperialParliament which may tend to
weld together the disjointed members of the Empire,and finally the foundation of so
great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests
of humanity.”
How’s that plan coming along ?
If she’s not even the monarch of most of the Commonwealth, why would she be the technical rightful owner of the whole thing? At most it would be 15* of the 55 countries.
*She’s queen of 16 countries but only sovereign in 15 at most. In Papua New Guinea the people are sovereign and she just occupies an office they created. By the logic that the Queen is the technical rightful owner of all the land elsewhere, the people would be the technical rightful owners of all the land in PNG, I think.
They did ? Was it just a portacabin next to a Taro field ?
Please say more!
Ah, but says here
"The world’s primary feudal landowner is Queen Elizabeth II. She is Queen of 32 countries, head of a Commonwealth of 54 countries in which a quarter of the world’s population lives, and legal owner of about 6.6 billion acres of land, one-sixth of the earth’s land surface. "
So why does he say that, where did those lost realms go to ?
From an American perspective, I would say “a lot”. Every royal birth, wedding, and funeral is heavily covered here and keeps London in front of the eyes of Americans who can’t always be bothered to think about foreign countries. It’s tremendous advertising.
I dunno. Underdark?
Well, as I said, I don’t want to walldump, but thanks for the flippant comment.
A few short bullet points, then ?
I think so too. I bet most Americans can’t name a single head of state of another country besides the US & UK. If they abolished the Monarchy - I doubt most Americans would know who the Prime Minister was. The Royal Family might be unfair and undemocratic - but it seems fun.
Geeze - I bet Pippa’s ass in that dress alone was worth millions of pounds to the UK economy.
“Seems fun”? Oh, I suppose they can be amusing, sort of. 
Diana Spencer getting her beloved’s name wrong at the wedding was worth a giggle. William casually borrowing helicopters to go to his friend’s party was funny, but “funny” in the sense of “oh, can’t he afford to pay for his own travel costs? Oh, the poor dear/spoilt brat”.
Prince Charles and his reluctance to pay tax is an odd sort of fun too.
I suppose it must be terrible to be like France, or Germany, or Italy, or the USA or lots of places that cannot have any tourism because there’s no monarchy. 
No, for two reasons.
First, the courts don’t make decisions quickly. When an issue comes up that involves the GovGen’s reserve powers, it needs to be made quickly; the PM comes in and asks for a dissolution of Parliament today, even though a vote of non-confidence is scheduled for tomorrow (essentially the case that triggered the King-Byng fling). The GovGen has to decide right away.
Similarly, the case a few years ago where the PM asked for a prorogation of a month, when the three Opposition parties had announced a coalition that could bring down the gov’t. Gov Gen Jean had to decide right away whether to grant the prorogation.
The Supreme Court doesn’t move that quickly. The case on appeal has to be filed. The briefs have to be filed. All the parties have to be heard in oral argument. The Court reserves its decision for several months. That process just doesn’t work for a snap decision.
Second, the decisions that the GovGen are asked to make are political, not legal. The two examples above illustrate it: should the GovGen have agreed with the PM in either of those cases? it depended on the GovGen’s read of the political situation. Did the PM have the political support for what he was asking in each case? That’s not a legal issue, and there’s no legal rule that the SCC would be relying on to make the decision. That process would turn the Court into an explicitly political actor, not a court of law.
I think you vastly underestimate the interest world wide in the British Royal family. In NZ and Australia all of the popular “womens magazines” have a royal story every week, often on the front page. Royalty are also on television news and in our newspapers.
There is a whole industry of photographers and journalists and that provides employment for people. Much of it is lightweight entertainment froth but nevertheless people lap it up. Harmless enough and generally positive stuff.
Everyone I know who has been to Britain has at least been past Buckingham Palace, some taking tours, and a few even being invited to the Queen’s Garden Party.
The author of the article has confused the Commonwealth republics with the Commonwealth realms.
There are 53 members of the Commonwealth: 32 are republics, 16 are monarchies with the Queen as the monarch; and 5 are monarchies with individuals other than Her Majesty as the monarch. See the wiki article on the Commonwealth.
That’s the most obvious error that the author of that article makes. The second, really big, error that he makes is to assume that because the Queen holds the formal title to public lands in some Commonwealth countries, that she “owns” all that land. That’s completely false.
The public lands in Commonwealth countries are under the control of the governments of each of those countries. Her Majesty has no independent power with respect to those lands. She can’t decide to buy or sell them, and her consent isn’t needed by the governments to buy or sell public lands, to use them in a particular way, or anything else. The lands are under the complete control of the governments. The fact that HM’s name may be on the formal title is just that: a legal formality.
Well put; and I’ll just add that this is why public lands (in Canada anyway) are owned by “Her Majesty in right of Canada,” “Her Majesty in right of Ontario,” and so on. The Queen plays no role in deciding what is to happen to such lands; that decision is made by the bodies–Parliament or the applicable provincial legislature–that were democratically elected by the people. As NP points out, it is a legal formality to put the Queen’s name on title.
Fair point well made.
Just off the top of my head, as I’m tired this morning from an evening of boozin’…
[ul]
[li]Not undemocratic – most parliamentary states explicitly don’t elect the Head of State to better ensure the officeholder remains impartial and restrained in power[/li][li]Celebration of history[/li][li]Impartial national symbol above the government[/li][li]Ability to nurture long-term experience into expertise[/li][li]Extensive charity work[/li][/ul]
On a personal basis, I subscribe to the view that rather than assuming elections are always the answer and then trying to crowbar it into an office, you should determine the objectives of the office and then choose a method of appointment that fulfils those objectives. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with hereditary succession but, as with everything, its place needs to be carefully chosen, and I think it does particularly well in a ceremonial Head of State.
Of course not. Plenty of people choose not to bow - it’s a curtesy, not a requirement. Just like you greeting Obama with ‘Good morning Mr President’ instead of ‘Yo Barry’.
You can be rude to the Queen if you want to. It would make you an oaf, but there’s no penalty for it.
I personally know of at least a half-dozen people who’ve travelled to the UK specifically to see Royal events - not just weddings, but funerals and Jubilees and the like, as well as several others for whom some of the biggest attractions of going to the UK was all the frou-frou around the Royals - Buckingham, Changing of the Guard etc. I think you might underestimate the attraction to a certain segment of Colonials (my parents’ and their parents’ generations, basically - nice old ladies who still have Silver Jubilee teasets they bring out for the grandkids and think fondly of Princess Elizabeth’s visit in '47)
Now, it could be argued that you could still have all the ceremony without the Royals, but I think without the tradition and history, it’s not going to have the same attraction - I mean, no-one’s going to book a flight from South Africa for the ceremonies around, say Obama’s mother’s funeral, are they? Guess where my great-aunt was, expressly for the Queen Mum’s funeral? Never mind all the fuss around Diana’s…