6 ms·

Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to repl

by retrac 6y ago

Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.

etrevino 6y ago
You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.
- gruffalowboy 6y ago
  > nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.
  - retrac 6y ago
    Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.) Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into political debates, and not opening up the office to the vulgarities of electoral politics. For example, Germany elects its president by convening both the Federal and State legislatures together, who then vote. By pulling in all the regional parties and legislators, the President has to have broad support across party lines. It's also convention that the President doesn't wade into daily political issues. The result is a largely ceremonial office, usually held by a broadly respected statesperson with former government experience. Which is what you want for the "emergency button" you hope you don't have to push in the first place.
    - User23 6y ago
      A monarch actually holds a higher office than a dictator in the Western tradition. This is relevant because Western monarchs claim the office of Rex/Regina.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Monarchs are just as bad if not worse than dictators. There are also non-tyrannical dictators. The issue with dictators is an issue of incentives, not an issue of immediate result. Unelected officials should never have significant power. This led to a harmful coup d'etat in Australia. It's not a ceremonial office, and simply the fact that the emergency button exists makes it possible for perversions to continue and cause serious issues (and it has). Partisanship is very far from the only cause of dysfunction in governments. I'd argue it's not even the worst.
      - Retric 6y ago
        The difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is a question of tradition and the concentration of power not the line of succession. North Korea for example moved from father to son as a Dictatorship, give it 5 generations and you could call it a Monarchy. However, even if it’s generally accepted that the child or close relative of the current leader should become the new leader there will eventually be back and forth over time between the royal family and other members of government. In theory they might have absolute authority, but in both practice and tradition there will be many informal limits.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Dictators absolutely don't have absolute power either - they have to juggle it with the military, the private sector, and so on, at the very least. In practice, the concentration of power between a dictator and a monarch is very similar. There are monarchs that hold a lot more power than the average dictators, and dictators that hold a lot less power than the average monarch (Marxist-Leninist states such as the USSR or China have their dictator share quite a bit of power to the Politburo, lower cadres, and so on, for example). In general, monarchies pretty much have had the absolute maximum of power concentration possible without disastrous consequences.
  - gumby 6y ago
    Consider the examples given, countries like Germany, Ireland, India, etc Where presidents have actual executive power such as USA, France, Russia, the issue you bring up can, at least in theory, occur.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.
  - retrac 6y ago
    Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. If QE II were to abdicate, for example, she would not get to keep all of it. It's the property of the Crown, the office of the head of state. It belongs to the state, in practice. If she's advised to abdicate, she would, and she's advised to transfer all Crown property to a republic, she would. The royal family does have many billions in personal holdings as well, of course.
    - mattmanser 6y ago
      Do they actually though? If they do, how come Edward VIII had to go begging after his abdication?
      - retrac 6y ago
        AIUI he was effectively disowned by the rest of them, for placing his marriage above the stability of the institution. It could well have led to a British republic. And the next king did pay him an allowance anyway, apparently.
    - skissane 6y ago
      > Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II are different persons. Queen Elizabeth II is a natural person. The Crown is a legal person, a corporation sole – a corporation with only one member, who right now is Queen Elizabeth II. Actually the Crown is not a single corporation, but a number of legally distinct corporations which all have identical membership. There is "the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", "the Crown in Right of Canada", "the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia", "the Crown in Right of New Zealand", etc. All up, there are 16 nations with Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, and each of those nations is a distinct corporation "the Crown in Right of X". But, also there exist distinct "the Crown in Right of X" corporations for each Australian state (6) and each Canadian province (10), and also each of the three British crown dependencies (Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey). So there are 35 legal persons (corporations sole) "the Crown in Right of X", and one natural person who is presently the sole common member of all of them. Each of those 35 corporations has distinct assets, which in turn are distinct from the personal assets of the natural person called Elizabeth. If any of those 35 entities became a republic, the assets of the "Crown in Right of X" corporation would pass to its republican successor.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  All the evidence is that you'll end up with something more like a Kardashian and I doubt they'll bring in the billions of tourism dollars world royal fans do. Stay Classy, Britain.
roelschroeven 6y ago
> It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. Why not? I admit I'm more familiar with the Belgian situation than the British Crown, but to me it always seems not very difficult to replace the monarch with almost nothing. I don't see why we need any kind of president, even though that's what people always talk when there's talk of doing away with the monarchy. The real leader of the country is the prime minister anyway.
- graeme 6y ago
  The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? This happened in 2007-11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_cr... In Brazil in the 19th century liberal democrats thought a monarch was unnecessary, after 67 years of successful politics under a king. Upon abolition the country devolved into a long succession of military coups and dictatorial governments. There have obviously been successful countries without monarchy, but it is very risky to say that a figurehead does nothing. Reserve powers are a pretty real restraint.
  - roelschroeven 6y ago
    > The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? The monarch appoints "preformateurs" and "formateur" who are elections start talks between people from the different political parties and (try to) form a cabinet, in different stages of the process. That's where he (or possibly she in a few decades, when Filip dies or abdicates and Elisabeth becomes Belgian's first Queen, if that's still a thing then) has by far the most influence in politics. Some people he shouldn't even have that influence, and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, finding another process for that is probably the most difficult issue to deal with in case we would transform to a pure parliamentary democracy. Reserve power ... I don't know. I don't think he has enough power for that. Maybe symbolically, maybe that counts for more than I think. Some say the king and/or the whole royal family is one of the few things that still hold Belgium more or less together. If indeed having a figurehead can protect us from civil war and other kinds of chaos, then by all means, let us have a figurehead.
Pulcinella 6y ago
Monarchy is inherently undemocratic and has no place in a modern democracy. I am quite certain Canada would continue to function just fine (or even better) without someone pretending they were divinely appointed at the top.
- dmatech 6y ago
  You'd have to be prepared to get rid of the entire concept of the "head of state". The USA has proven quite well that having the head of government and head of state combined has substantial problems. A head of government needs to be somewhat competent and deliver results, but a head of state needs to project "gravitas", "dignitas", and other virtues. In the case of the UK, the prime minister has been relieved of the need to project these qualities and be a "mascot", but a US president has not. In theory, the people themselves are the source of legitimacy for modern governments. But the media and some of the population demands a figurehead that provides centralized moral leadership.
pmoriarty 6y ago
"The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system." What role does it play that an elected official isn't better suited for?
- ColFrancis 6y ago
  I'll bite. One way to look at it is that with a portfolio of investments you want to spread your risk amongst different classes. If you are securing an IT system then you have defence in depth. If you produce medical devices you want to have physical and logical locking mechanisms (see Therac-25). The US style is to make everything elected: judges, sheriffs, presidents, governors, DAs and school boards are all elected. Which means that they are all vulnerable to the same class of failure. Note: This particular role mentioned in the article, of providing consent/impact to certain broad classes of legislation, are not included in my argument above. I'm merely replying to your statement that an elected official is always better suited to all roles.
philistine 6y ago
Here’s my point of view: it would be extremely simple to change our system to give reduced powers of our Governor General to an unelected president named by our prime minister every five years. But because the Canadian government rammed the constitution down the throat of the Quebec government, any constitutional change is now a political impossibility. And now Indigenous groups are demanding a seat at any constitutional discussion, which is absolutely appropriate but also fraught with uncertainty. So the lack of change to our constitutional monarchy is not because we cannot think of how to replace it: it’s because Pierre Elliot Trudeau done goofed.
- retrac 6y ago
  You're certainly right. It's generally agreed that Canada could become a republic simply by amending the constitution to outline a new law of succession that established a de facto presidency, that would be "heir" to the monarchy, and then advising the Queen to abdicate as Queen of Canada. Then the new head of state inherits the office of the Crown, and is now the President as outlined in law. Elegant, really. But, politically, the unanimous consent of the provinces to do so is essentially impossible to obtain, due to the history you mention. Canadians also simply don't care much about this. My impression is that most people are basically republicans by sentiment, but their level of actually caring about this is near zero. I'm in that camp myself. I'd like a republic. But the headache of opening up constitutional negotiations? Gah! That has never ended well in our history.

by retrac 6y ago

etrevino 6y ago

You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.

gruffalowboy 6y ago
> nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.
- retrac 6y ago
  Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.) Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into political debates, and not opening up the office to the vulgarities of electoral politics. For example, Germany elects its president by convening both the Federal and State legislatures together, who then vote. By pulling in all the regional parties and legislators, the President has to have broad support across party lines. It's also convention that the President doesn't wade into daily political issues. The result is a largely ceremonial office, usually held by a broadly respected statesperson with former government experience. Which is what you want for the "emergency button" you hope you don't have to push in the first place.
  - User23 6y ago
    A monarch actually holds a higher office than a dictator in the Western tradition. This is relevant because Western monarchs claim the office of Rex/Regina.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Monarchs are just as bad if not worse than dictators. There are also non-tyrannical dictators. The issue with dictators is an issue of incentives, not an issue of immediate result. Unelected officials should never have significant power. This led to a harmful coup d'etat in Australia. It's not a ceremonial office, and simply the fact that the emergency button exists makes it possible for perversions to continue and cause serious issues (and it has). Partisanship is very far from the only cause of dysfunction in governments. I'd argue it's not even the worst.
    - Retric 6y ago
      The difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is a question of tradition and the concentration of power not the line of succession. North Korea for example moved from father to son as a Dictatorship, give it 5 generations and you could call it a Monarchy. However, even if it’s generally accepted that the child or close relative of the current leader should become the new leader there will eventually be back and forth over time between the royal family and other members of government. In theory they might have absolute authority, but in both practice and tradition there will be many informal limits.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Dictators absolutely don't have absolute power either - they have to juggle it with the military, the private sector, and so on, at the very least. In practice, the concentration of power between a dictator and a monarch is very similar. There are monarchs that hold a lot more power than the average dictators, and dictators that hold a lot less power than the average monarch (Marxist-Leninist states such as the USSR or China have their dictator share quite a bit of power to the Politburo, lower cadres, and so on, for example). In general, monarchies pretty much have had the absolute maximum of power concentration possible without disastrous consequences.
- gumby 6y ago
  Consider the examples given, countries like Germany, Ireland, India, etc Where presidents have actual executive power such as USA, France, Russia, the issue you bring up can, at least in theory, occur.
Chris2048 6y ago
And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.
- retrac 6y ago
  Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. If QE II were to abdicate, for example, she would not get to keep all of it. It's the property of the Crown, the office of the head of state. It belongs to the state, in practice. If she's advised to abdicate, she would, and she's advised to transfer all Crown property to a republic, she would. The royal family does have many billions in personal holdings as well, of course.
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    Do they actually though? If they do, how come Edward VIII had to go begging after his abdication?
    - retrac 6y ago
      AIUI he was effectively disowned by the rest of them, for placing his marriage above the stability of the institution. It could well have led to a British republic. And the next king did pay him an allowance anyway, apparently.
  - skissane 6y ago
    > Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II are different persons. Queen Elizabeth II is a natural person. The Crown is a legal person, a corporation sole – a corporation with only one member, who right now is Queen Elizabeth II. Actually the Crown is not a single corporation, but a number of legally distinct corporations which all have identical membership. There is "the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", "the Crown in Right of Canada", "the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia", "the Crown in Right of New Zealand", etc. All up, there are 16 nations with Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, and each of those nations is a distinct corporation "the Crown in Right of X". But, also there exist distinct "the Crown in Right of X" corporations for each Australian state (6) and each Canadian province (10), and also each of the three British crown dependencies (Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey). So there are 35 legal persons (corporations sole) "the Crown in Right of X", and one natural person who is presently the sole common member of all of them. Each of those 35 corporations has distinct assets, which in turn are distinct from the personal assets of the natural person called Elizabeth. If any of those 35 entities became a republic, the assets of the "Crown in Right of X" corporation would pass to its republican successor.
hindsightbias 6y ago
All the evidence is that you'll end up with something more like a Kardashian and I doubt they'll bring in the billions of tourism dollars world royal fans do. Stay Classy, Britain.

roelschroeven 6y ago

> It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. Why not? I admit I'm more familiar with the Belgian situation than the British Crown, but to me it always seems not very difficult to replace the monarch with almost nothing. I don't see why we need any kind of president, even though that's what people always talk when there's talk of doing away with the monarchy. The real leader of the country is the prime minister anyway.

graeme 6y ago
The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? This happened in 2007-11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_cr... In Brazil in the 19th century liberal democrats thought a monarch was unnecessary, after 67 years of successful politics under a king. Upon abolition the country devolved into a long succession of military coups and dictatorial governments. There have obviously been successful countries without monarchy, but it is very risky to say that a figurehead does nothing. Reserve powers are a pretty real restraint.
- roelschroeven 6y ago
  > The Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? The monarch appoints "preformateurs" and "formateur" who are elections start talks between people from the different political parties and (try to) form a cabinet, in different stages of the process. That's where he (or possibly she in a few decades, when Filip dies or abdicates and Elisabeth becomes Belgian's first Queen, if that's still a thing then) has by far the most influence in politics. Some people he shouldn't even have that influence, and I'm inclined to agree. In any case, finding another process for that is probably the most difficult issue to deal with in case we would transform to a pure parliamentary democracy. Reserve power ... I don't know. I don't think he has enough power for that. Maybe symbolically, maybe that counts for more than I think. Some say the king and/or the whole royal family is one of the few things that still hold Belgium more or less together. If indeed having a figurehead can protect us from civil war and other kinds of chaos, then by all means, let us have a figurehead.

Pulcinella 6y ago

Monarchy is inherently undemocratic and has no place in a modern democracy. I am quite certain Canada would continue to function just fine (or even better) without someone pretending they were divinely appointed at the top.

dmatech 6y ago
You'd have to be prepared to get rid of the entire concept of the "head of state". The USA has proven quite well that having the head of government and head of state combined has substantial problems. A head of government needs to be somewhat competent and deliver results, but a head of state needs to project "gravitas", "dignitas", and other virtues. In the case of the UK, the prime minister has been relieved of the need to project these qualities and be a "mascot", but a US president has not. In theory, the people themselves are the source of legitimacy for modern governments. But the media and some of the population demands a figurehead that provides centralized moral leadership.

pmoriarty 6y ago

"The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system." What role does it play that an elected official isn't better suited for?

ColFrancis 6y ago
I'll bite. One way to look at it is that with a portfolio of investments you want to spread your risk amongst different classes. If you are securing an IT system then you have defence in depth. If you produce medical devices you want to have physical and logical locking mechanisms (see Therac-25). The US style is to make everything elected: judges, sheriffs, presidents, governors, DAs and school boards are all elected. Which means that they are all vulnerable to the same class of failure. Note: This particular role mentioned in the article, of providing consent/impact to certain broad classes of legislation, are not included in my argument above. I'm merely replying to your statement that an elected official is always better suited to all roles.

philistine 6y ago

Here’s my point of view: it would be extremely simple to change our system to give reduced powers of our Governor General to an unelected president named by our prime minister every five years. But because the Canadian government rammed the constitution down the throat of the Quebec government, any constitutional change is now a political impossibility. And now Indigenous groups are demanding a seat at any constitutional discussion, which is absolutely appropriate but also fraught with uncertainty. So the lack of change to our constitutional monarchy is not because we cannot think of how to replace it: it’s because Pierre Elliot Trudeau done goofed.

retrac 6y ago
You're certainly right. It's generally agreed that Canada could become a republic simply by amending the constitution to outline a new law of succession that established a de facto presidency, that would be "heir" to the monarchy, and then advising the Queen to abdicate as Queen of Canada. Then the new head of state inherits the office of the Crown, and is now the President as outlined in law. Elegant, really. But, politically, the unanimous consent of the provinces to do so is essentially impossible to obtain, due to the history you mention. Canadians also simply don't care much about this. My impression is that most people are basically republicans by sentiment, but their level of actually caring about this is near zero. I'm in that camp myself. I'd like a republic. But the headache of opening up constitutional negotiations? Gah! That has never ended well in our history.