2 ms·
It's so much more complicated that this. In modern times the UK monarch fulfils the role of an apolitical leader of the UK and commonwealth nations. Just imagi
by kypro 4y ago
It's so much more complicated that this. In modern times the UK monarch fulfils the role of an apolitical leader of the UK and commonwealth nations.
Just imagine for a moment if the PM was head of state... Who would be leader of commonwealth? Liz Truss? Boris Johnson? Can you see how this would cause conflict? Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Electing someone would introduce politics and that isn't feasible when you need someone who can represent such a diverse range of views.
I also think the UK monarch serves as a unifying voice for the UK. No matter our political differences we can still all turn to the monarch as voice of unity for the nation during difficult times. I think this lack of an apolitical leader is quite noticeable in the US and other nations.
I don't like all of the tradition and baggage that comes with the Royal Family and I think they would benefit from trying to modernise their public perception, but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. I think the question really is how much we should be spending on that. At the moment it does seem a bit excessive...
- usrbinbash 4y ago> Who would be leader of commonwealth? Does it need one? For doing what exactly? And why is a hereditary position better for this than one elected by democratic means? > Having a heredity apolitical monarch works really well in the context of a commonwealth of nation. Why? > , but I do think there is value in having an heredity head of state with very limited powers. Such as? Because tons of countries in the world don't spend huge sums of money on such an institution, and don't seem to miss out on anything.