# What, exactly, does the British monarch do for the Commonwealth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 1, 2015, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707 "2015-08-01T05:37:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/61 "2015-08-04T03:39:00Z")
> [@Shakester](#): > > Yeah, basically the dumber people of Australia get their history from American films, which tend to portray the royals as tyrants or, at best, expensive relics of a bygone age. > > I was a republican (in the Australian sense, of course) and am now a monarchist, because I grew up and realised that we’re better off with the system we have. It is a long way from broken and does not need fixing. So the fact monarchy is an inherently racist system doesn’t hurt it in your eyes? Because that really says something. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/62 "2015-08-04T04:26:20Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > AFAIK every elected president of Ireland has had a party political background, but managed to do the job independently and without favouring their own party. Usually, they will be people with broader cultural interests, experiences and capabilities, and not a machine politician. The present president is a published poet, his predecessor was an academic, reporter and TV presenter, as well as having been involved in party politics. Yup, since the 1990s it has generally been seen as electorally disadvantageous for any party to nominate a “machine” politician for the post as a kind of transition-to-retirement perk. The people who have held the post since have generally had some party background, but they have not been conspicuously successful as party politicians and they are generally better known for other achievements. The last presidential election which was contested between, basically, close-to-retirement figures from the party political establishment was in 1983. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/63 "2015-08-04T05:07:27Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > No, absolutely not. She is there because a past Parliament, on behalf of the people (or at least, that part of the people who were considered to count enough to be allowed to vote), decreed who should be monarch, and on what terms - and subsequent Parliaments have gradually taken over the substantive powers of the monarch. By extension, the peoples and parliaments of the other countries hold the whip hand over whether or not there should be a monarch. But your opening point is right - the inertial power simply of the monarch’s existence is key to the survival of the system. The trouble with this argument is it still has no root. It remains turtles all the way down. If you unwind the logic you get the historical story, and eventually you end up with a divine monarch. The current monarch has no divine right, but the laws of succession are rooted in one that did. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/64 "2015-08-04T06:00:00Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > The trouble with this argument is it still has no root. It remains turtles all the way down. If you unwind the logic you get the historical story, and eventually you end up with a divine monarch. The current monarch has no divine right, but the laws of succession are rooted in one that did. I don’t agree. Divinity doesn’t come into it. The root is an (inertial) acceptance of the primacy of the decisions of a long-ago Parliament, that could be overturned at any time if there were sufficient will in the politicians and support among the public. Charles II probably understood that being invited back by Parliament wasn’t a matter of divine intervention (any more than Parliament’s victory in the Civil War had been, whatever Cromwell affected to believe), but James II presumed too much: so William and Mary and their successors can have been under no illusions. That Parliament decided the right was to continue to be transferred by heredity rather than election doesn’t remove the reality cloaked by inertia - that the right derives from Parliament, and therefore indirectly from the people. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/65 "2015-08-04T06:10:32Z")
I think we are slightly cross purposes. Way back at the start, I was talking about the manner in which dominion over the territory was assumed. Not dominion over the people. Sure, people can work out any way they like to be ruled. But what gives them the right to claim the land over which they rule? Of course the real answer is force of arms, in so far as it repels invaders, but from a legalistic point of view, from whence does the power to rule the land devolve? Why do nations have treaties with the previous landholders (well most nations do that displaced earlier residents.) If it were nothing but force of arms and force, there would be no need for a legal framework to describe the passing of rule. Australia is one of the few places where no notice was taken of the existing residents. The USA famously has treaties with the native nations. There is still a very real sense where the land and the monarch are considered as one. Where the role of monarch represents the land over which dominion is claimed. That is what I refer to (no doubt incorrectly) as divine right. (Not the right of the monarch to rule absolutely - although the world still has a few of those.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/66 "2015-08-04T14:22:40Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > How would the McGarvie model give _more_ power to the PM or weaken the power of the GG? Isn’t the GG _already_ likely to be the PM’s personal toady, since the PM has no actual check on who he or she selects? > > You seem to be arguing (and I realize some of you may be presenting the arguments of others) against solving one problem because it doesn’t also solve a second, mostly unrelated problem: Since the primary purpose of everyone serving in Australian government should surely be to serve the interests of the Australian people, and an appointed GG would be unable to do so by granting magical wishes, an appointed GG is a bad idea. By the same argument, since the Labour party has historically been unable to bring about world peace, you should vote for Abbott in the next election. I wasn’t discussing the McGarvie model, but rather the “hard” republicans in Australia (and to some extent in Canada, although they are few) who have this strange idea that the only true republic is one with a popularly elected President. If people want to get rid of the monarchy, that’s their right. But, that’s a different question from the type of republic that you want to have. There are at least three republican models to choose from: 1. a parliamentary republic, with a strong PM responsible to the parliament, and a weak President (Ireland, India, Germany); 2. a congressional/presidential republic, like the US, with a strong President independent of the congress; 3. a mixed system, like France and Poland (and I think South Africa?), with a strong President and a prime Minister with defined powers. The ardent republicans described by **Giles** and **penultima thule** seem to think that only option 2 is a true republic. My response is that you shouldn’t confuse the issue of getting rid of the monarchy with the issue of the type of republican government you wish to have. The McGarvie model may be a workable option, if you want a parliamentary republic, but as previously noted, that wasn’t on the table in the Australian referendum, and in any event hard republicans appeared to vote against the proposed option because it didn’t have a popularly elected President, which is their only vision of a republic, as far as I can tell from this distance. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/67 "2015-08-04T15:25:22Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > So the fact monarchy is an inherently racist system doesn’t hurt it in your eyes? Because that really says something. It is? That’s the first I’ve heard of it. Have you got any facts to back that up, or are you just assuming it’s true because you think it should be true? Now, monarchy is an _exclusive_ system, sure, but guttersnipes like me are just as excluded from the corridors of power in the USA as they are in the Commonwealth. For all the talk of Obama’s race, the side of the family that raised him is the same patrician class that all US presidents come from, and have done for at least a century. Elect a president that grew up poor and is the child of factory workers, like I was, and I’ll be impressed. To me, it seems a lot more honest to just have a royal family and be done with it than pretend that anyone can grow up to be president. So much more honest that it’s made a monarchist out of me. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/68 "2015-08-04T22:24:31Z")
> [@Shakester](#): > > It is? That’s the first I’ve heard of it. Have you got any facts to back that up, or are you just assuming it’s true because you think it should be true? OK, when was the last non-White British monarch? > [@](#): > > Now, monarchy is an _exclusive_ system, sure, but guttersnipes like me are just as excluded from the corridors of power in the USA as they are in the Commonwealth. Obviously untrue. You’re excluded from the Royal Family completely, whereas it’s possible to rise to a political post without having been from a specific family. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/69 "2015-08-04T22:42:14Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > OK, when was the last non-White British monarch? When was the first woman head of state of the US? Or head of government? (I know it’s not directly comparable to the UK system, but still) ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/70 "2015-08-04T22:43:24Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > OK, when was the last non-White British monarch? Since all of the British monarchs are related to each other (that’s kinda the point of a royal _ **family** _), they’re not going to be switching races suddenly. For a vaguely related question, when was the last non-white British prime minister? > [@Derleth](#): > > Obviously untrue. You’re excluded from the Royal Family completely, whereas it’s possible to rise to a political post without having been from a specific family. The argument, however, is that almost everyone who rises to the top political posts in the U.S. today comes from the same sorts of families (many but not all of whom are named Bush, Kennedy, Gore, etc.), even if they are not from one of those specific families. People from other families outside that narrow band DON’T have the same ability to rise to top political posts, and haven’t in many years. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/71 "2015-08-04T22:54:28Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > When was the first woman head of state of the US? Or head of government? (I know it’s not directly comparable to the UK system, but still) My point is, women aren’t forbidden from being President. Non-Whites are forbidden from being a British Monarch. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/72 "2015-08-04T22:55:48Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Since all of the British monarchs are related to each other (that’s kinda the point of a royal _ **family** _), they’re not going to be switching races suddenly. For a vaguely related question, when was the last non-white British prime minister? Are non-Whites excluded from becoming PM? If they’re not, there’s no relationship between the questions. > [@](#): > > The argument, however, is that almost everyone who rises to the top political posts in the U.S. today comes from the same sorts of families Where is the law saying that they _must_ come from those families? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/73 "2015-08-05T00:40:58Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Non-Whites are forbidden from being a British Monarch. Not really. Prince George could grow up and marry a nice black girl, as long as she isn’t Catholic\*. Then you could eventually have a “mixed-race” king or queen on the throne. \*Or have they repealed that rule? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/74 "2015-08-05T00:45:22Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Or have they repealed that rule? They have. He still can’t be a Catholic but he can marry one. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/75 "2015-08-05T00:52:10Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > My point is, women aren’t forbidden from being President. Non-Whites are forbidden from being a British Monarch. No, they’re not. There’s nothing to stop members of the British royal family from marrying non-white spouses and having non-white children. It hasn’t happened in practice so far, just like no woman has been elected US President in practice so far, but in neither case is there a formal ban. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/76 "2015-08-05T01:04:36Z")
[QUOTE=slash2k] The argument, however, is that almost everyone who rises to the top political posts in the U.S. today comes from the same sorts of families (many but not all of whom are named Bush, Kennedy, Gore, etc.), even if they are not from one of those specific families. People from other families outside that narrow band DON’T have the same ability to rise to top political posts, and haven’t in many years. [/QUOTE] That’s right. The Obama family with its roots in the American Revolution, the Clintons and their fabulous inherited wealth … Typical of the American aristocracy which has a headlock on the presidency. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/77 "2015-08-05T03:45:45Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > If you unwind the logic you get the historical story, and eventually you end up with a divine monarch. The current monarch has no divine right, but the laws of succession are rooted in one that did. No, because prior to the Glorious Revolution the last change in dynasty that didn’t depend on hereditary principles was Henry Tudor defeating Richard Plantagent. As Henry VII, he claimed the throne “by right of conquest”, not by any claim of a divine mandate. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/78 "2015-08-05T05:51:15Z")
The logic is that right of conquest takes the divine mandate from the person that had it - via the act of conquest. It should be noted that not all invasions do so - may times an invasion will keep the ruler and make them a puppet. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/79 "2015-08-05T10:19:51Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > What makes it so hard for Australia to become a republic? I understood that most Australians are republicans, One of the reasons is that Australia _is_ a republic, except in stupid meanings like “OED says” or, more widely “Wikipedia says”, or even more important **like Ireland**. It’s impossible to make a sensible technical argument for a “republic” in Australia because the underlying social/political position is **England out of Ireland**. (Also, **no to the Italian monarchy** and **no to the Greek Monarchy** , but that’s just the muscle to the Irish-Catholic backbone) Which is why the failed “republican” referendum wasn’t a referendum about a “republic”: there really isn’t anything you can put up that would be different, so they nailed the word “republican” to other things instead. Incidentally, I used to believe that “Irish-Catholic” was a misnomer for a group that is not Irish (I’m talking about Australians) and is not Catholic (although their grandparents were). But it’s the nature of labels to be partially false (I’m not actually “white” by any literal meaning), and Paul Keating changed my mind. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707/80 "2015-08-05T12:15:25Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > In addition, some Scots object to the current monarch being called Elizabeth II, because Elizabeth I was not Queen of Scotland. > > (There wasn’t the same problem with Mary II of England and Scotland, since there had been a Queen Mary I of England, and a Mary Queen of Scots.) This was sorted out under Churchill as a sop to the Scots - QE II would remain QE II but in future any monarchal name with different numbering in England and Scotland will default to the higher number. So if there is a King James in future, he will be James VIII, not James III. (Of course, Scottish devolution could make the whole thing moot anyway.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-does-the-british-monarch-do-for-the-commonwealth/726707.md?page=5)