And stepped in to the 21st century. I can not believe this archaic system is still being used today. Being an Australian, I really can not stand the fact the Queen is our head of state. What did she ever do to deserve that position? I’ll tell you what, she popped out first and had no brothers. What a crock of shit. I think it is appauling that someone can get in to a position of power without earning it, without being mildly intelligent, without being VOTED in. Tony Blair (British PM) has regular correspondence with The Queen over public matters, becuase he is obligated to. What the hell does it matter what the Queen thinks? What has she EVER DONE that shows HER OPINION should be valued over anybody else’s?
It is time the Royal family left. Adios, goodbye, good riddance. Any positions of power that people are BORN in to are old, out-dated, obselete and should be ousted. NO EXCEPTIONS.
I believe we should not get rid of the monarchy - just update it. My plan is to turn Buckingham Palace into a swanky hotel with Her Maj-ness as the hostess-with-the-mostest. You would have to keep Philip away from the foreign guests though.
I’m from a country with a monarchy that happens to work very well. Having a head of state with integrity and who doesn’t have to check the polls before taking a stand - it’s downright refreshing. The Queen’s New Years speech is the most watched TV broadcast and with good reason - she is one smart lady and totally unafraid of bringing up touchy subjects. I believe her son is going to be one hell of a king, and I really like the sense of continuity involved with monarchy.
Of course, our Queen’s only political function is to be the neutral arbiter when governments are formed.
I might understand why Australia has no wish to be under the British Crown, but don’t knock monarchy as such. It can work.
No, they were just born into positions of eligibility for power. Both raised and groomed for power. Both with access to resources and influence that you and I can only dream of.
As you originally said:
I agree. It’s just a shame that it happens in every system, but some are more open about it than others.
I’m not sure that it works, so much as it doesn’t work any worse than the alternatives. Either way though, the Royal family provide great entertainment, at almost nil cost after you balance out the tourist income they generate.
Hell - look at how much the cast of Friends get paid. Now tell me, are they any funnier to watch?
The Queen may never have been voted in as Australia’s head of state, but it wasn’t that long ago that she wasn’t voted out of that position. (Yes, I know that it’s a bit more complicated than that, but you did raise the issue of election.)
I’d like to see some evidence for the oft-asserted proposition that the Royal Family generates tourist income.
It was often alleged that Royal visits overseas promoted British Trade until somebody at the Foreign Office did the maths and worked out that, in many cases, trade with foreign countries fell after Royal visits (it didn’t say whether or not they were the ones that Philip was on).
In any case, if you’re looking to maximise tourist revenue, why not have Mickey Mouse as Head of State: that would pull in the punters.
APB,
A better way of putting it might have been, “it wasn’t that long ago that the Australian people decided that the Queen was marginally better than an obviously flawed alternative.”
Are you trying to tell me that the best person for the job should not even be SNEEZED on, and that it should be handed on a silver platter to the next in line? Are you saying you should totally, utterly, whole heartedly IGNORE the fact of whether or not they are worthy for the position, but just smile and nod and say “Yeah, that’s the way I like it.” What can bring you to such ludicrous reasoning?
Yes, it is more complicated then that. In fact, a recent survey showed that over 80% of Australian’s want a Republic. The model we voted on was heavily flawed, and it was the same model decided upon buy our monarchist Prime Minister.
As I said, it is a bit more complicated. Those complications include the disagreements over possible alternatives and a divided country. What you are proposing is short-term political division for the most marginal of long-term benefits.
If I were to reason out the best way to arrange a state from scratch, it wouldn’t be monarchy. It’s very hard to defend from a logical point of view. That doesn’t mean I’m unable to recognize something that works when I see it. The Danish monarchy certainly runs with the consent of the governed and if the Royals were to screw up too badly, the system would be modified. It has happened before - the possibility of a Queen regent was added to the constitution in 1953, IIRC, because the old King had no sons and the fellow then in line for the throne was not exactly desirable.
But personally, I have absolutely no problems with the arrangement. Wait and see - when Australia gets to be a thousand years old, I’ll bet a cold Carlsberg against a ditto Foster’s that you’ll have some institutions in place purely out of tradition and a feeling of “ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it”.
Let’s not forget England tried doing without the monarchy for a while and found they needed to bring it back! Oh, please…don’t tell me you never heard of “The Protectorate.”
Tom, I remember watching a Parliamentary debate about money allocated to the Royals and it was decided that they would be given 7 million a year for the next 10 years. Now I seem to remember hearing that they Royal family generates in excess of 115 million in tourist money every year. I’ll try to find a cite for that tonight.
humour