I have no particualr feelings on the monarchy, but as to the point of the Royals, hasnt Queen Elizabeth long been recognised as one of the most influential ambassadors in the world? International politics isnt all law and textbooks, its people as well, and I suspect Queen Elizabeth is still very effective on that side of things.
Exactly right.
I’m a republican at heart but even I bow (only metaphorically) to the Queen’s ability to act as our foremost ambassador.
I’ve never been sold on the need for an elected head of state
The sort of person who would run for head of state is precisely the sort of person who shouldn’t get it. How can they possibly be anything other than a self-serving political animal?
And cost? All research suggests they are at worst revenue neutral and actually
bring in more money than they cost us.
Privileged? of course they are, born in to a life of wealth and comfort but also a unending spotlight. it is their blessing and their curse and I wouldn’t swap with them for a second.
Power?..to any practical extent they have none. The public would not stand for any political interference.
They are figureheads. I have likened them to regimental goat mascots and the analogy stands. Look pretty, be pampered, carry on the line and don’t get too involved.
So I say keep the Royals in a truncated fashion (a small cull of minor aristocrats wouldn’t be a bad idea) on the understanding that if Charles acts like a dick he’ll be nudged aside.
They only exist on the UK because we find them aesthetically pleasing. That can change and I think they know that only too well. William more than most which is why I think he’ll make a good King.
As I said, I am a republican at heart. I’d prefer to only have the government. A separate head of state is unnecessary but I am also a pragmatist. While they bring in the tourists and act (as the queen has done) in the best interests of the country and stand outside of the political system, then I am fine to see it continue.
I hadn’t considered the Queen’s role as ambassador. I can see the importance of that. I live on the opposite side of the ocean and know little besides what is reported on the news. It’s very interesting to learn more. Thanks.
Well, at least Harry already has the fascist uniform, right?
(Sorry, cheap shot)
Me? I always figured that they were kept around as back up. Zombie-pocalypse happens on the island and Cameron is running around saying ‘braaaiiins’ in a well-cultured accent the British people can rally around the sovereign until order is restored.
Never hurts to have back up. The UK has the monarchy. We have Joe Biden. Who’s better off, honestly?
The Queen as abassador shouldn’t be underestimated. She has personally known more kings, queens, prime prime ministers, presidents, etc., in her long reign than almost any politician or diplomat alive. She has been doing the job for so long that she’s seen everything, and what she offers is priceless.
David Cameron, or Barack Obama, etc. - they’re short-lived stars. They have a lot of power for a short time. The Queen has seen thousands like them.
Her advice - while not legally binding in any way - is very valuable. As are her personal influence and connections, her experience, her reputation, and a whole lot more that has nothing to do with direct legal powers.
The fact that all this comes at a net cost of zero is even better; while I don’t have any figures to cite, I’ve read so many times that the Royal Family’s worth to the economy greatly exceeds its direct cost, making them a profitable institution for the country.
I can see a lot of upside to having your head of state not be the same person as your head of government. Like, when George W. Bush was President, I wouldn’t have had him over to my house for dinner. But then you’re being rude to the President of the United States! When you just wanted to be rude to the head of government. It’s nice to have a head of government who you can hate and who gets all down in the muck of stuff and runs the place and then have a head of state who doesn’t.
This is an important distinction.
People who see pictures of the inside of the residence at 10 Downing Street (where the Prime Minister’s offices and official residence are*) are pretty much universally shocked at how cramped the whole thing is. Well, they used to be; I gather they don’t publish pictures anymore for security reasons.
I mean, the President of the United States gets to live in the White House, which is huge and opulent and imposing. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom lives in a tiny apartment above the Cabinet Office. Up until about 1990, you could walk right up to the front door, where a policeman would tell you to piss off.
There are two reasons for this.
One, property in Whitehall was already incredibly expensive in 1732, when Robert Walpole took up residence at Number 10, while property in DC could be had for a song when the White House was being built.
Second, and more importantly, the White House is where the US’ head of state lives, not just its head of government. That means it has to be big and shiny and opulent. If the US had a Prime Minister, he’d probably live in a suite stuffed in the back of the Capitol. The UK has Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and Holyrood and all those other places to serve this function.
*technically, 10 Downing Street is the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, but in practice this is always the PM.
The advice bit has got to be incredibly valuable, given that she’s known the prime ministers back to Churchill and can advise the current PM (I think there’s a weekly scheduled meeting between the PM and the Queen) what worked before and what didn’t. And it helps that unlike almost anyone else, her advice is really about what’s best for the country. She really has no political interest otherwise. Once she passes on, the UK is going to lose quite a valuable resource. I doubt that Charles is as clever as she is.
Ah. My undoing here was my failure to remember that þhe UK constitution is essentially a collection of the way things are done instead of a single written document (not that the US follows the letter of its written constitution in all particulars, but I digress). I was thinking along the lines of the recent GD thread outlining a way that the president and three people could seize power within the bounds of the rules (perhaps–I haven’t followed the whole discussion). It makes sense that there’s less abilitÝ to game a common law system as opposed to a system with discrete written rules.
This is simply untrue. The monarchy isn’t now, and has never been, apolitical. They may (though aren’t really) be above party politics, but they are a conservative institution with conservative views. Even those who defend the ridiculous institution often claim its great benefit is that it acts as a brake on extremism. Of course, the extremism it slows would be extremism from the left, as members of the Royal Family were quite enamored with the Nazis, and I sincerely doubt any of them would have had any problem with joining Germany in an anti-communist front if the Empire hadn’t been threatened.
AFAIK Royal Assent can theoretically be refused at both the state and federal levels. It’s never been refused at the federal level and the last time it was refused at the “state” lever was pre-Federation when the states were crown colonies and the Governors took orders from the Colonial Office in London. “Reserving a bill for Her Majesty’s Pleasure” was originaly a way for a colonial governor to kick it back to the boss (ie Colonial Office) back home, but’s now used only when the Prime Minister (state Premier) was the Queen to sign a bill in person during an upcoming royal visit. Like Canada did when it patriated it’s constitution or passed it’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Not only that , but in nations without a separated Head of State, the actual head of government wastes a LOT of time cutting ribbons, attending funerals, giving speeches and what not. Now sure, in many of the Euro nations, they have a mostly ceremonial President to do those duties (while the Prime Minister or whatever runs the country) , but here we waste the head Honchos time.
If I called you quaint for thinking that, I’d have to call myself quaint also. And how can we be too romantic? 
But when is the last time the British sovereign actually intervened in a significant and relevant way?
(Thailand has a constitutional monarch, and the occasion when he solved the Crisis of May 1992 is etched in my memory. He did iit with just words as, in principle, he is as powerless as Elizabeth II.)
BTW, are those calling for the abolition of the British Monarchy worried mostly about the expense? The U.S. NBA, is far more expensive I think, and I’d be happy to get rid of it! 
Be it so, but I don’t think there are many tourists whose main reason for going to Britain is to gape at royals.
I wouldn’t really call it a monarchy even though there are two co-princes sharing the job as head of state: the president of France and the bishop of Urgell in Spain.
That’s what the vice president is for.
No, but I bet there are rather a lot of people who would be less interested in The Buckingham Palace Hotel Presented by Sheraton Properties.
And outside of Europe, there’s New Zealand, Jordan, Thailand, Japan, Jamaica, Barbados, Lesotho, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Cambodia, Bhutan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Swaziland, Kuwait, Qatar, and Vatican City.
You forgot Oman.
No, when we send the VP, everyone whines that we’re sending someone not really important. I mean, he’s Ok for some duties, but not others. But in the UK, when the Queen attends, no one thinks they are sending in the 2nd string.
Well, that’s largely because the idiom “second string” is not used in the UK 