At this late date, surely not.
"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. "
No, you’re making the mistake that because there is no direct hand in management then there is no ownership. If someone has formal title, they own something.
If you have freehold from The Crown, you don’t own your land - simple.
Lastly, if it is a mere formality, of absolutely no importance - then it can be done away with very easily with no fuss - the citizenry can have their ownership properly recognised, and the sovereignty of the monarch done away with.
You would have no objection to that, of course - because it’s only a formality.
An hereditary head is the very epitome of non-democratic - doesn’t matter whether other states don’t elect their heads. I’m sorry, I would question whether you even understand what democracy means if you think like this.
I’ve never seen the queen’s name on any ballot paper, or been presented with any of her ideas for my assent.
I’m afraid it is you who is mistaken. Democracy is government by the people, that is, the people make law through their chosen representatives. For this reason the Commons is directly elected. That is literally all that is needed, as its very simplest.
The monarchy, like other ceremonial Head of State, is not involved in making law or directing policy, so it is not required to be elected. Sure, you can choose to elect it if you want to, but it won’t make you more democratic.
In fact, it could be argued that by electing the office and thereby creating an office with equal democratic presence to Parliament or the Government, you’re dividing power and thereby undermining the direct link between electoral will and policymaking.
It’s for this reason that most countries expressly do not elect the Head of State, but either instead leave it to inheritance or have Parliament or the PM choose them instead.
Well, as above, what you’re complaining of isn’t a bug, it’s a feature - most countries do not have the office elected anyway.
The amount of actual democracy in the so-called “representative democracy” is so minimal as to be almost non-existing. Personally I’d rather abolish our politicians than our royals. At least the royals are more entertaining; the politicians aren’t even proper whores.
Oh whoa there a minute, the commons isn’t the whole of government. If there is a part of government over which there is no public say, then that part is undemocratic. The Queen is, of course, a part of the government - ceremonial or no.
The assertion that most states do not have elected heads - do you have the data to prove that ?
Answering myself, Wikipedia lists 44 countries with sovereign monarchs, many of whom are under QEII - hardly something they chose freely, BTW, and many opt out when they get the chance, of course.
The list of sovereign states is much longer - I couldn’t be bothered to tot it up because the nays obviously have it. Not forgetting that the US has 50 states alone with elected heads.
They can opt out whenever they like. The fact that 16 countries haven’t done so should tell you something. The Queen’s not going to send a gunboat to quell the rebels.
What does it tell me ? Doesn’t tell me anything such as ‘we love the queen so we want her as our monarch’.
I wouldn’t presume to know the reasons until I’d read up properly on whatever territories stay under the Sovereign.
Sure. An independent judiciary is undemocratic, too. Democracy, like capitalism, needs a few checks and balances.
Since she makes no policy, there are no ideas for you to assent to. As far as the ballot, you vote for Members of Parliament. If the will of the electorate is that the monarchy be abolished, it will.
Why do royalists always produce the laziest, most fact free arguments ?
I guess it’s because they feel they don’t have to try, because meritocracy is not a monarchical principle.
Or is it because the monarchy is so ridden with myth and spectacle that myth and spectacle take on a greater respectability than reality ?
Are you referring to me? Do you object to having an independent judiciary? What makes you think I’m a “royalist”?
Yep.
The US presidency combines the job of head of state and head of government, so our presidents get the royal treatment. For example, the US president has an executive chef, with a staff of sous-chefs. Unless something has changed since Thatcher’s time, the prime minister’s family prepares its own meals.
Those who think the republican form of government is thrifty might want to check out the Élysée Palace.
But in practical terms, she isn’t. I’d hate to think we should choose how to handle things based on labels instead of what they actually do.
In practical terms, the House of Commons is the governing portion of the constitution - it holds sole power over taxing and spending, and almost total control over legislation (the Lords can only delay, and even only uses that sparingly), while to all intents and purposes the Queen’s interaction with legislation is nil.
Why don’t you look abroad and see for yourself? Germany and Italy do not elect their Heads of State, and nor do the Commonwealth Realms elect their Governors-General (which is essentially a president in all but name), same with India and a couple of others.
Granted, Ireland does, and a fair number of east European countries and Finland - but a lot of those are down to the need for a powerful foreign policy to meet with Russia (definitely in Finland’s case) or some other foreign power.
Anyway, the point is that electing a ceremonial Head of State is absolutely not necessary in a parliamentary democracy. In fact, the Economist has an annual review of democracy worldwide and routinely monarchies dominate the top rankings.
Just a half-thought:
Since the UK’s head of state isn’t elected or making policy, we’re free to wave flags like idiots in her name when we feel like it, with no real consequences. More importantly, perhaps it also makes it a lot easier for us to criticize our de facto “leader”, the Prime Minister. Our irrational loyalty and adoration stays fairly harmless as it’s all aimed at the Queen. In the US, a lot of it is directed at the (officially) most powerful man in the country.
Wikipedia entry for German President
"The president is elected by secret ballot, without debate, by the Federal Convention, a body established solely for that purpose. "
France
“Since the Referendum on the Direct Election of the President of the French Republic, 1962, the President has been directly elected by universal suffrage; he or she was previously elected by an electoral college.”
Ballot, election, universal suffrage.
Not only is there no hereditary component to those heads of state but they are elected.
Been there, done that. In primary school they marched us out to wave flags for Charles after he opened a fish finger factory.
France is not a parliamentary system, so is irrelevant as an example.
In Germany, the average citizen never gets a chance to vote for the President.
Either it’s a democracy or it’s not - don’t know why the economist would put monarchies in a list of democracies.
But of course, the former empires maintain a lot of the wealth and power they once had. And often this necessarily meant a reduction of the wealth and power of their dominions.
Sitting on a fat pile of diamonds and gold doesn’t mean a monarchy is superior, if that’s what you’re trying to get at.
The main reason for a countries wealth is geographical luck - does it have oil, good food supplies, ice free ports, minerals, easily defended borders etc.
UK had lots of that, got rich with a monarch/parliament mish mash system.
USA has lots of that, got rich as a republic.
Monarchy doesn’t make for wealth or happiness - often it means the reverse.
Where is your link to your data ?
The Fifth Republic: The fifth republic was established in 1958, and was largely the work of General de Gaulle - its first president, and Michel Debré his prime minister. It has been amended 17 times. Though the French constitution is parliamentary, it gave relatively extensive powers to the executive (President and Ministers) compared to other western democracies.
If it’s got a parliament, and it has, then it is parliamentary.
Who said they did ?
Election of the president is still part of the democratic process, even if it is a stage removed. As is the House of Lords, in part.
The man claimed that France and Germany have unelected heads of state.
Why those claims were made, I don’t know.