7 ms·

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), an

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

wikfwikf 4y ago
Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of. France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.
- onychomys 4y ago
  The US doesn't have a prime minister at all. The president is head of the cabinet, they get to appoint all the heads of the various departments, and then the senate confirms them. The cabinet heads are usually not even from congress, they're often just random governors and politicians who lost during the primary voting for the last election and whatnot.
  - bena 4y ago
    That's because, in the US, the Executive Branch is vested in the singular person known as the President. The Cabinet is an optional body comprised of the heads of the various Departments of the Federal government. The Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate, but every other member of the Executive Branch serves at the pleasure of the President. I don't think you can be a Cabinet member and a member of Congress. As Cabinet members are officers of the United States and you cannot hold another office while also being a member of Congress (Article 1, Section 6). It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers.
    - culturestate 4y ago
      > It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers. Given that the first time the Speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem were proposed as successors under Article II was during the literal 1st Congress in 1792, I think it’s pretty unlikely that any modern court would find that to be unconstitutional. “Many of the actual people who signed the Constitution thought this was okay and demonstrated their belief by introducing legislation to that effect” is about as ironclad a precedent as you can hope to find.
      - bena 4y ago
        Yes, I understand it's been like this for a while, but that doesn't make the law Constitutional. Several things the "actual people who signed the Constitution" did were deemed to be unconstitutional. Why? Because there were many people who ratified the Constitution, each with their own ideas. Even when the 1792 version of the bill was signed, the issue was brought up. By the "actual people who signed the Constitution". And we've never had to actually test the Presidential Succession Act, which is where the courts would decide if it actually meets the Constitutional standard. The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal.
        culturestate 4y ago
        > The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal. This is true! But it’s also immaterial to the point I’m trying to make. I’m not arguing for or against the de jure constitutionality of the law; I’m saying that it’s unlikely any modern-day court would find it within themselves to overrule the de facto state of affairs that was created by the framers themselves.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I think Europe often had somewhat bad experience with overly strong heads of state. Reigning from relatively benign to pretty bad. Thus I think their roles have generally lessened and more power being moved to governments and parliaments.
- shortsightedsid 4y ago
  Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. One advantage is that you know who to blame, especially when it elections come around. Instead of the "dead lock" that can occur when both the Legislature and Executive say they have 'mandates' that are opposing to each other.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary. I don't know of any cases among the developed English-speaking countries with Westminster-style governments where your latter sentence is meaningful. The Canadian Prime Minister, especially, is said to be the most powerful single government leader in the world, but really is merely the (to coin a phrase) first among equals among his peers in other countries. For others' benefit, a Canadian Prime Minister can * Appoint anyone he wants to cabinet positions * Appoint anyone he wants to the Supreme Court[1] * Appoint anyone he wants to ambassadorships and other high positions * Sign any treaty he wants * Call an election whenever he thinks he has the best chance of winning more seats than his party possesses in Parliament at the moment * Get any law passed he wants (assuming that his party has a majority or equivalent thereof), with no meaningful need to deal with an upper house * Run for reelection as Prime Minister as often as he wants Most of the above apply to the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. The Irish and British upper houses have little power, and New Zealand no longer has an upper house; only Australia has an upper house in the legislature with significant power. [1] Yes, yes, I know about the convention that the PM names someone from a list of suggestions. That's all that is; a convention. The only actual requirement is that three of the nine justices have to be from Quebec.
simonh 4y ago
I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s not working and we can’t fix it sure. At that point we should find a new way, and our monarchs should know that. I think so far the queen and our new King do know that. Until then as a pragmatist I see no need to upend the status quo.
- ajvs 4y ago
  Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
  - simonh 4y ago
    I don’t think you have the right to speak for the British people. Neither do I. Let’s see.
    - smcl 4y ago
      Lets take a look at what the British people think so far: https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1568923296753762304 https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/156892329675376230...
      - maccard 4y ago
        Scottish people.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Considering they recently publicly decided to be British, they're about as British as you can be.
ensignavenger 4y ago
Its pretty much for ceremony. In most cases, the Prime Minister or President would be give the duties, if there are any. The article mentioned Barbados gave the duties to the President.
ckdarby 4y ago
I am not sure of reasoning behind the downvotes on your comment. I am Canadian and I do not have a good answer either of why we have a head of state aside from historical tradition.
- Veen 4y ago
  That is the answer: tradition.
deskamess 4y ago
There is no need for it. That Royal Assent requirement is both BS and law and needs to be done away with. But Canadians who love monarchy are happy to require others to 'swear allegiance to the King/Queen AND heirs' - which includes the pedophile Andrew. There really is no need for this third party to be involved in Canadian affairs. Yes it is in the constitution right now but if you have some self respect and feel that swearing allegiance to some other person is not in line with equality of human beings then you have to stand against it. Props to Australia for taking the first step and making it not part of the citizenship oath. The other ties are still there but at least you are not making people swear allegiance.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Prince Andrew is not an heir to the throne. Well, he is, but he's so far down the list that we can safely ignore him.
mightypirate 4y ago
defrost 4y ago
The notion of some abstraction beyond and devoid of day to day | year to year to year political grubbing has some value. The US has its Constitution, Canada and Australia (my country) have had the Queen. The monarchy in many Commonwealth countries is effectively toothless having no actual power (certainly in Australia; following the Queens GG in Australia dismissing the Whitlam government some years ago that last loophole of power was written out) but they serve as some notion of something that binds us and transcends party politics. I'm not sure whether Australia will stay the course with the monarchy now the Queen has passed, the Republicans here have been a growing force and Charles III doesn't have the respect his mother had. I certainly have no particular attachment to the UK firm.
rsynnott 4y ago
Probably a non-executive elected president, like Ireland or Germany. The Irish position, in particular, was fairly explicitly created as a monarch substitute. Though, Barbados went with a somewhat more powerful president; their one appears to have a veto.
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  Sort of. It definitely substitutes for a bunch of monarchial stuff, but the major function of the Presidency was to provide Dev someplace to retire to where he could still influence things. Since he's gone it's been almost entirely ceremonial with the exception of the constitutionality of new laws part (and the dissolving of government, but that hasn't come up since 1994).
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
One fairly thorough answer: https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state > The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to: * represent the nation * defend our democracy * act as referee in the political process * offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration > The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).
- throwaway47263 4y ago
  - triceratops 4y ago
    Countries with ceremonial presidents don't necessarily have career politicians in the role. The easiest example I can think of is India's ex-president Kalam, who was a scientist. And I think republicans prefer the scoundrel chosen by the people than the one descended from a long line of worse and worse scoundrels, the further you go back. (I personally don't have strong opinions either way).
- bombcar 4y ago
  > Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way). How do you judge the internal forum in that case? If the head of state says that they chose X because it is the right choice, but it's pretty clear to everyone that they wanted to choose X for personal political reasons, how do you prove it? And if you have a method to prove it, why not use that method to arbitrate instead?
AmadsSalvage 4y ago
I'm no expert, but I'll try to take a stab at your second paragraph! There is value in having someone there to remind the leader that they are a "Servant" and not the "Master" in a state. The King (and by extension his viceregal representatives in Canada) is the steward of the power, and lends it to whoever the people choose via democratic elections through our constitution. When a new Prime Minister is chosen through election, the transition of power is made safer in that the previous Prime Minister does not "own" that power. I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety - arguably because we have a head of state, but even assuming not, this is why we don't dwell on these kind of concerns. Another reason is the relationship between the King with our Federal & Provincial governments as well as First Nations. With a head of state, all three are able to have a direct relationship with the head of state without being subservient to one. King Charles is the premiers' boss, not Trudeau. Indigenous people have a special relationship with the crown that similarly avoids placing them directly under the other two bodies entirely. It means all three have a certain sense (and reality) of being peers - Trudeau cannot sack Ford, and vice versa. Sort of related to my first point, but while the King limits himself extraordinarily via the binds of a constitution, the relationship works both ways. It is his duty to make sure that the elected leaders are fulfilling their duties to form government and not violate the law just because they are the ones on top. In theory, the head of state is also meant to represent the nation outside of party lines - someone that left, right, and everyone else can support. It would be impossible for a staunch conservative to truly count Trudeau as "his" Prime Minister, or a liberal to count on Harper as a leader he could possibly respect. Not everyone has to like the head of state, but everyone has the option without betraying their other beliefs. I think Canada has sadly in recent years done this poorly - while loved, the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf. I hope this helps somewhat. It's a weird nebulous subject that deals with questions that often settled long before our time and so arent intuitive at times after living under them so long. Happy to elaborate further - I'm a boring plain-old constitutional monarchist, but I know I'm in the minority these days :)
- deskamess 4y ago
  Its not just checks and balances though. You have to pledge allegiance to these arbitrary people. No self-respecting individual would do that. > I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy. > the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf. We can get away with that because in reality that is what she is. In these modern times there is no reason to have some special family enshrined to the the point you have to pledge allegiance to them or a country has to depend on them.
mc32 4y ago
All those countries, except Scotland and Wales, NI, Mann should do away with the monarchy. The UK may if the whish so, but other countries should have done so a long time ago.
afavour 4y ago
This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic towards the royal family: I simply have no faith that the process to replace the monarchy would result in something better. I guess I'm claiming my membership of the "better things aren't possible" party here but I'm imagining such a vacuum at the head of state level would be filled with something politically motivated that would be to the detriment of most.
- pjc50 4y ago
  > the "better things aren't possible" party Very popular in the UK. We don't like to imagine that things could be different, let alone better. The monarchy represents the eternal status quo, which is deemed "apolitical" because it's always been like that. I'm a soft republican on this: the monarchy obviously has no place in a truly egalitarian society, but on the other hand its practical impact, positive or negative, is pretty small. The House of Lords, the voting system(s) and the constitutional settlement of devolution are far more pressing issues.
  - dontlaugh 4y ago
    The same revolutionary movement resulting in workers gaining state power is necessary for any of those changes. In practice it is the same struggle and it's useful to build as large an alliance as possible.
benj111 4y ago
I would describe myself as a practical royalist. If I were writing a constitution from scratch I'd never have an undemocratically elected head of state. But, what we have works. Id rather have the queen any day over another politician. I'm British I can understand other nations having differing pov. I don't know how Canada does it but in the UK the prime minister is chosen by the party. You don't vote directly for them. As such it isn't a democratically elected position so it isn't really any better than the status quo.
melesian 4y ago
In Ireland we have an elected President whose duties are largely ceremonial (laying wreaths, giving speeches, meeting dignitaries incl newly appointed diplomats etc) but include one v important constitutional duty: to sign legislation into law. It has happened that a President refused to sign without first referring controversial legislation to the Supreme Court. In the UK the Crown has nominally comparable authority but is in fact nothing but a glove puppet, or at least that has been the case to date. See e.g., the Queen's acquiescence to the illegal prorogation of parliament. She did was she was told to do in her own name. Her son may not be so accommodating and this may lead to a constitutional crisis. Some check on an overweening executive is always good.
petre 4y ago
You should look into how Adolf Hitler became a Führer to get an answer to that one. The reason is accountability and checks and ballances.

wikfwikf 4y ago

Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of. France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.

onychomys 4y ago
The US doesn't have a prime minister at all. The president is head of the cabinet, they get to appoint all the heads of the various departments, and then the senate confirms them. The cabinet heads are usually not even from congress, they're often just random governors and politicians who lost during the primary voting for the last election and whatnot.
- bena 4y ago
  That's because, in the US, the Executive Branch is vested in the singular person known as the President. The Cabinet is an optional body comprised of the heads of the various Departments of the Federal government. The Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate, but every other member of the Executive Branch serves at the pleasure of the President. I don't think you can be a Cabinet member and a member of Congress. As Cabinet members are officers of the United States and you cannot hold another office while also being a member of Congress (Article 1, Section 6). It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers.
  - culturestate 4y ago
    > It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers. Given that the first time the Speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem were proposed as successors under Article II was during the literal 1st Congress in 1792, I think it’s pretty unlikely that any modern court would find that to be unconstitutional. “Many of the actual people who signed the Constitution thought this was okay and demonstrated their belief by introducing legislation to that effect” is about as ironclad a precedent as you can hope to find.
    - bena 4y ago
      Yes, I understand it's been like this for a while, but that doesn't make the law Constitutional. Several things the "actual people who signed the Constitution" did were deemed to be unconstitutional. Why? Because there were many people who ratified the Constitution, each with their own ideas. Even when the 1792 version of the bill was signed, the issue was brought up. By the "actual people who signed the Constitution". And we've never had to actually test the Presidential Succession Act, which is where the courts would decide if it actually meets the Constitutional standard. The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal.
      - culturestate 4y ago
        > The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal. This is true! But it’s also immaterial to the point I’m trying to make. I’m not arguing for or against the de jure constitutionality of the law; I’m saying that it’s unlikely any modern-day court would find it within themselves to overrule the de facto state of affairs that was created by the framers themselves.
Ekaros 4y ago
I think Europe often had somewhat bad experience with overly strong heads of state. Reigning from relatively benign to pretty bad. Thus I think their roles have generally lessened and more power being moved to governments and parliaments.
shortsightedsid 4y ago
Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. One advantage is that you know who to blame, especially when it elections come around. Instead of the "dead lock" that can occur when both the Legislature and Executive say they have 'mandates' that are opposing to each other.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary. I don't know of any cases among the developed English-speaking countries with Westminster-style governments where your latter sentence is meaningful. The Canadian Prime Minister, especially, is said to be the most powerful single government leader in the world, but really is merely the (to coin a phrase) first among equals among his peers in other countries. For others' benefit, a Canadian Prime Minister can * Appoint anyone he wants to cabinet positions * Appoint anyone he wants to the Supreme Court[1] * Appoint anyone he wants to ambassadorships and other high positions * Sign any treaty he wants * Call an election whenever he thinks he has the best chance of winning more seats than his party possesses in Parliament at the moment * Get any law passed he wants (assuming that his party has a majority or equivalent thereof), with no meaningful need to deal with an upper house * Run for reelection as Prime Minister as often as he wants Most of the above apply to the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. The Irish and British upper houses have little power, and New Zealand no longer has an upper house; only Australia has an upper house in the legislature with significant power. [1] Yes, yes, I know about the convention that the PM names someone from a list of suggestions. That's all that is; a convention. The only actual requirement is that three of the nine justices have to be from Quebec.

simonh 4y ago

I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s not working and we can’t fix it sure. At that point we should find a new way, and our monarchs should know that. I think so far the queen and our new King do know that. Until then as a pragmatist I see no need to upend the status quo.

ajvs 4y ago
Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
- simonh 4y ago
  I don’t think you have the right to speak for the British people. Neither do I. Let’s see.
  - smcl 4y ago
    Lets take a look at what the British people think so far: https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1568923296753762304 https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/156892329675376230...
    - maccard 4y ago
      Scottish people.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Considering they recently publicly decided to be British, they're about as British as you can be.

ensignavenger 4y ago

Its pretty much for ceremony. In most cases, the Prime Minister or President would be give the duties, if there are any. The article mentioned Barbados gave the duties to the President.

ckdarby 4y ago

I am not sure of reasoning behind the downvotes on your comment. I am Canadian and I do not have a good answer either of why we have a head of state aside from historical tradition.

Veen 4y ago
That is the answer: tradition.

deskamess 4y ago

There is no need for it. That Royal Assent requirement is both BS and law and needs to be done away with. But Canadians who love monarchy are happy to require others to 'swear allegiance to the King/Queen AND heirs' - which includes the pedophile Andrew. There really is no need for this third party to be involved in Canadian affairs. Yes it is in the constitution right now but if you have some self respect and feel that swearing allegiance to some other person is not in line with equality of human beings then you have to stand against it. Props to Australia for taking the first step and making it not part of the citizenship oath. The other ties are still there but at least you are not making people swear allegiance.

frosted-flakes 4y ago
Prince Andrew is not an heir to the throne. Well, he is, but he's so far down the list that we can safely ignore him.

mightypirate 4y ago

defrost 4y ago

The notion of some abstraction beyond and devoid of day to day | year to year to year political grubbing has some value. The US has its Constitution, Canada and Australia (my country) have had the Queen. The monarchy in many Commonwealth countries is effectively toothless having no actual power (certainly in Australia; following the Queens GG in Australia dismissing the Whitlam government some years ago that last loophole of power was written out) but they serve as some notion of something that binds us and transcends party politics. I'm not sure whether Australia will stay the course with the monarchy now the Queen has passed, the Republicans here have been a growing force and Charles III doesn't have the respect his mother had. I certainly have no particular attachment to the UK firm.

rsynnott 4y ago

Probably a non-executive elected president, like Ireland or Germany. The Irish position, in particular, was fairly explicitly created as a monarch substitute. Though, Barbados went with a somewhat more powerful president; their one appears to have a veto.

disgruntledphd2 4y ago
Sort of. It definitely substitutes for a bunch of monarchial stuff, but the major function of the Presidency was to provide Dev someplace to retire to where he could still influence things. Since he's gone it's been almost entirely ceremonial with the exception of the constitutionality of new laws part (and the dissolving of government, but that hasn't come up since 1994).

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

One fairly thorough answer: https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state > The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to: * represent the nation * defend our democracy * act as referee in the political process * offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration > The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

throwaway47263 4y ago
- triceratops 4y ago
  Countries with ceremonial presidents don't necessarily have career politicians in the role. The easiest example I can think of is India's ex-president Kalam, who was a scientist. And I think republicans prefer the scoundrel chosen by the people than the one descended from a long line of worse and worse scoundrels, the further you go back. (I personally don't have strong opinions either way).
bombcar 4y ago
> Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way). How do you judge the internal forum in that case? If the head of state says that they chose X because it is the right choice, but it's pretty clear to everyone that they wanted to choose X for personal political reasons, how do you prove it? And if you have a method to prove it, why not use that method to arbitrate instead?

AmadsSalvage 4y ago

I'm no expert, but I'll try to take a stab at your second paragraph! There is value in having someone there to remind the leader that they are a "Servant" and not the "Master" in a state. The King (and by extension his viceregal representatives in Canada) is the steward of the power, and lends it to whoever the people choose via democratic elections through our constitution. When a new Prime Minister is chosen through election, the transition of power is made safer in that the previous Prime Minister does not "own" that power. I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety - arguably because we have a head of state, but even assuming not, this is why we don't dwell on these kind of concerns. Another reason is the relationship between the King with our Federal & Provincial governments as well as First Nations. With a head of state, all three are able to have a direct relationship with the head of state without being subservient to one. King Charles is the premiers' boss, not Trudeau. Indigenous people have a special relationship with the crown that similarly avoids placing them directly under the other two bodies entirely. It means all three have a certain sense (and reality) of being peers - Trudeau cannot sack Ford, and vice versa. Sort of related to my first point, but while the King limits himself extraordinarily via the binds of a constitution, the relationship works both ways. It is his duty to make sure that the elected leaders are fulfilling their duties to form government and not violate the law just because they are the ones on top. In theory, the head of state is also meant to represent the nation outside of party lines - someone that left, right, and everyone else can support. It would be impossible for a staunch conservative to truly count Trudeau as "his" Prime Minister, or a liberal to count on Harper as a leader he could possibly respect. Not everyone has to like the head of state, but everyone has the option without betraying their other beliefs. I think Canada has sadly in recent years done this poorly - while loved, the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf. I hope this helps somewhat. It's a weird nebulous subject that deals with questions that often settled long before our time and so arent intuitive at times after living under them so long. Happy to elaborate further - I'm a boring plain-old constitutional monarchist, but I know I'm in the minority these days :)

deskamess 4y ago
Its not just checks and balances though. You have to pledge allegiance to these arbitrary people. No self-respecting individual would do that. > I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy. > the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf. We can get away with that because in reality that is what she is. In these modern times there is no reason to have some special family enshrined to the the point you have to pledge allegiance to them or a country has to depend on them.

mc32 4y ago

All those countries, except Scotland and Wales, NI, Mann should do away with the monarchy. The UK may if the whish so, but other countries should have done so a long time ago.

afavour 4y ago

This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic towards the royal family: I simply have no faith that the process to replace the monarchy would result in something better. I guess I'm claiming my membership of the "better things aren't possible" party here but I'm imagining such a vacuum at the head of state level would be filled with something politically motivated that would be to the detriment of most.

pjc50 4y ago
> the "better things aren't possible" party Very popular in the UK. We don't like to imagine that things could be different, let alone better. The monarchy represents the eternal status quo, which is deemed "apolitical" because it's always been like that. I'm a soft republican on this: the monarchy obviously has no place in a truly egalitarian society, but on the other hand its practical impact, positive or negative, is pretty small. The House of Lords, the voting system(s) and the constitutional settlement of devolution are far more pressing issues.
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  The same revolutionary movement resulting in workers gaining state power is necessary for any of those changes. In practice it is the same struggle and it's useful to build as large an alliance as possible.

benj111 4y ago

I would describe myself as a practical royalist. If I were writing a constitution from scratch I'd never have an undemocratically elected head of state. But, what we have works. Id rather have the queen any day over another politician. I'm British I can understand other nations having differing pov. I don't know how Canada does it but in the UK the prime minister is chosen by the party. You don't vote directly for them. As such it isn't a democratically elected position so it isn't really any better than the status quo.

melesian 4y ago

In Ireland we have an elected President whose duties are largely ceremonial (laying wreaths, giving speeches, meeting dignitaries incl newly appointed diplomats etc) but include one v important constitutional duty: to sign legislation into law. It has happened that a President refused to sign without first referring controversial legislation to the Supreme Court. In the UK the Crown has nominally comparable authority but is in fact nothing but a glove puppet, or at least that has been the case to date. See e.g., the Queen's acquiescence to the illegal prorogation of parliament. She did was she was told to do in her own name. Her son may not be so accommodating and this may lead to a constitutional crisis. Some check on an overweening executive is always good.

petre 4y ago

You should look into how Adolf Hitler became a Führer to get an answer to that one. The reason is accountability and checks and ballances.