No it doesn’t. Many - probably the majority - of democracies have both these posts, and they are filled by locals. The US is the outlier here, having them rolled into one.
What else is Joe Biden going to do if he can’t go to funerals?
In this day and age, it really makes no sense at all for any country to spend one dime on people who pretend they are in charge of the country, when they really are figureheads. The idea that it makes sense because it’s a “tourist attraction” is dumb.
Apart from the legitimate heir, James III & VIII, the Old Pretender to most, there were around 60 people in line before the Guelphs. They were either catholic, and the fucking parliament gang had just disallowed catholics, or they honorably refused since James was the rightful King and they weren’t. Only the Guelphs were despicable enough to usurp the throne.
As for them being German then, what the hell does that matter ? All monarchs have a majority of ‘foreign’ blood. The Romanovs were mostly German towards the end ( and am now, since the present heir, Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia is Prussian ); whilst I once worked out that King Charles I of the Three Kingdoms had more Hohenzollern blood, going back to his xG-Great-Grandparents, than any other.
‘Foreignness’ is utterly inconsequential.
Do you apply that analysis to Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece, Portugal, Israel, India and other parliamentary republics with figurehead presidents?
Since the royals don’t spend very much time in either Australia or Canada, that argument is irrelevant to your OP.
Sure, nobody should waste money on figureheads.
Now if the Queen wants to pretend to be in charge let her pay for everything - no tax money goes to her at all. She’s got billions last I heard.
BTW, I’m not an anti-tax guy. I’m a liberal on most topics.
One major factor is that the current system seems to be working pretty well. If you removed the monarch from the political system, you’d have to find somebody else to be the head of state. Agreeing to change the system would be one big political battle, establishing a new system would be a second big political battle, and choosing an individual under the new system would be a third big political battle. And after all of this, there’s no guarantee you’d be any better off. If you’re going to go to that much effort, it should at least be directed at something that’s more clearly a problem.
This is such a meaningless statement. So the royal family is of German origin? It’s also of English origin and Scottish origin and Danish origin and Greek origin…but so what? They’re obviously not German now.
As for Queen Elizabeth herself:
- her two parents were born in the UK;
- her four grandparents were born in the UK;
- five of her eight great-grandparents were born in the UK; the sixth was born in Hanover but was a member of the British royal family and lived her life in the UK; the seventh was born in Denmark; and the eighth was born in Croatia and was a member of a minor German royal family.
That makes one German among the Queen’s fourteen most recent antecedents.
She and the royal family are there (Australian here) just to give us somebody we can pretend to hate but secretly most people think she is pretty cool. Which I guess is fair enough - I don’t get the pomp and the lavishness with which they live, but they do seem to do good work around the world (Princess Di was probably the best at this) and if worse ever comes to the worst, they make a good rallying point for the masses in times of peril. Although, [rant] it really is time to stop fawning over royal newborns. Who cares! A baby is a baby is a baby, the world over. When they can grow up and have thoughts, then they can be interesting [rant].
Three parts pomp, two parts circumstance.
I love that the current royals are “German” because ten generations ago a German born ancestor inherited the throne, yet somehow that German born ancestor is not a Scot despite having a Scottish born Grandmother. Got that? Ten generations in England = not English. Two generations in Germany = German.
So you’re opposed to parliamentary systems of government generally, then. It’s not just monarchical ones.
I understand that this is theoretically the case, but as near as I can tell it seems like the ceremonial workload prime ministers of the various Commonwealth is pretty comparable to that of a US President, at least internationally. They’re the ones you expect to see at funerals and Olympic opening ceremonies and such, not the Queen or other royal representatives.
Oh, the argument is just silly. If the British royal family are not British because they are descended from a German ten generations ago, then the great bulk of Canadians are not Canadian, and the great bulk of Australians are not Australian. As an argument for persuading Australians and Canadians to ditch the monarchy, I can’t see it having huge appeal.
What makes a person German? George III, born in 1738, was born in England. Every one of his successors were born in England, which if you are not the sort of person who memorizes this stuff, were:
George IV
William IV
Victoria
Edward VII
George V
Edward VIII
George VI
Elizabetg II
That’s eight straight generations born in England. Just how long do these people have to live in England to be English? Surely well over two hundred years must count, right? Am I not Canadian because six generations ago my family was European?
For what possible reason?
We did our monarch chopping in 1649, thank you very much, well over a century before the French took up the idea.
Do you actually have any clue at all about British history or the British system of government?
This is as about as accurate a view I have ever seen. It seems to work and well why muck about with it.
The idea of having a “fail safe” in case of blockage of supply etc gives me some solace.
You would also get people who want a popularly elected president, those that want one elected by the parliament and many versions in between. Whilst most Aussies think that a President would be cool we are a but reluctant to stuff up a perfectly adequate system today.
One thing I hadn’t known until just now was that Queen Elizabeth is the direct descendant (great-great-great-granddaughter) of Prime Minister Portland.
There have been many good responses in this thread so I have little to add. In particular, Francis Vaughan raising the “root of power” argument and Little Nemo pointing out how fundamentally difficult it would be to change the system, and many other excellent comments.
The bottom line is that while the monarchy appears to be entirely ceremonial, it is both deeply ingrained in the system of government of a constitutional monarchy and fulfills actual functional roles. As mentioned, the monarch or his/her representative (in Canada, the Governor General) opens Parliament and gives the Speech from the Throne setting out the government’s agenda, dissolves and prorogues Parliament, and gives Royal Assent to actually make legislation the law of the land. After an election, the Queen or the GG is the entity (the “root of power”) that invites the leader of the winning party to form a government.
Those things might all seem ceremonial and even frivolous but they are not. What if, for instance, in a three-party system Party A wins a plurality of seats but not a majority, and Parties B and C form a coalition and demand to form the government as a ruling coalition. Or what if a contentious issue arises and the government, fearful of a vote of no confidence, decides to prorogue Parliament?
Those things have happened or nearly happened on a number of occasions, and the answer is that the GG must give assent to such actions, and in such cases of political bickering the nation is well served by having a higher authority that is above political partisanship. A few years ago when Prime Minister Harper tried to prorogue Parliament under controversial circumstances, an action generally considered to be the government’s prerogative and automatically rubber-stamped by the GG, that did not happen. The then Governor General took time to carefully consider the request, consulted with Constitutional experts, and eventually assented subject to the condition that Parliament reconvene in a timely fashion and at that time hold a budget vote which is a confidence vote. One might argue that there are other ways to handle these situations and maybe even better ways, but one can’t argue that the function is useless – it is a critically important function in a constitutional monarchy.
Charles’ accession doesn’t change the basic points that:
-
It is difficult to get constitutional amendments passed in both Australia and Canada;
-
There is the issue of what do you replace the monarch with, as Head of State?
Charles’ accession will occur automatically at law; it’s not like it needs to be ratified or anything.