The Monarchy Effect?

[thelordemperor]

I feel the need to clarify the Queen's political influence in Canada.

The Queen appoints a Governer General who can, at his/her discretion, veto bills passed by the House of Commons. However, this has happened ONCE in teh history of Canada, adn the prime minister at the time raised all hell and the bill was passed anyway. Never since has teh Gov. General or Quess interfered in Canada's politiclal system.

Personally I don't mind haveing a Royal Family, after all, who else are we going to put on our money? I shudder to think of coins with Paul Martin on them.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: thelordemperor
I feel the need to clarify the Queen's political influence in Canada.

The Queen appoints a Governer General who can, at his/her discretion, veto bills passed by the House of Commons. However, this has happened ONCE in teh history of Canada, adn the prime minister at the time raised all hell and the bill was passed anyway. Never since has teh Gov. General or Quess interfered in Canada's politiclal system.

Personally I don't mind haveing a Royal Family, after all, who else are we going to put on our money? I shudder to think of coins with Paul Martin on them.

I don't think anyone in this thread is stating that the Queen has real, used often political power despite her theoretical powers. It can be argued that she has political influence though.

What did the GG veto?

You can put anything else on money - former statesmen, famous Canadians, national landmarks, etc.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: thelordemperor
I feel the need to clarify the Queen's political influence in Canada.

The Queen appoints a Governer General who can, at his/her discretion, veto bills passed by the House of Commons. However, this has happened ONCE in teh history of Canada, adn the prime minister at the time raised all hell and the bill was passed anyway. Never since has teh Gov. General or Quess interfered in Canada's politiclal system.

Personally I don't mind haveing a Royal Family, after all, who else are we going to put on our money? I shudder to think of coins with Paul Martin on them.

I don't think anyone in this thread is stating that the Queen has real, used often political power despite her theoretical powers. It can be argued that she has political influence though.

What did the GG veto?

You can put anything else on money - former statesmen, famous Canadians, national landmarks, etc.

The GG vetoed new passports for members of a family with terrorist ties. IIRC there was no direct link to the person asking for the passport, but some of his immediate family members were known to be problematic, and had repeatedly 'lost' passports in the past. Lacking any specific legislation to deal with this rather unusual situation, the royal prerogative was invoked to allow the denial of the passport.(Actually, come to think of it, I believe it was the foreign affairs Minister who exercised the royal prerogative in this case; he being an elected member of the government. It's just a name for a power, like your President's power to lead unilaterally in times of crisis, and sortout the details after the fact).

And it should be mentioned that the GG is not appointed by the Queen; they are appointed by, and serve 'at the pleasure of' the Prime Minister. In effect if a GG wanted to veto an act of parliament, they could in reality do no more than resign to voice their displeasure, since they serve the government, not the other way around.

 

[MadRat]

Without the Queen and the Royal family wouldn't the House of Lords lose its meaning?

This privatize club pretty much controls the fate of the UK more than the prime minister, right?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Without the Queen and the Royal family wouldn't the House of Lords lose its meaning?

This privatize club pretty much controls the fate of the UK more than the prime minister, right?

that sounds too crazy to be true... but then again, we're talking about monarchies in the 21st century

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: thelordemperor
I feel the need to clarify the Queen's political influence in Canada.

The Queen appoints a Governer General who can, at his/her discretion, veto bills passed by the House of Commons. However, this has happened ONCE in teh history of Canada, adn the prime minister at the time raised all hell and the bill was passed anyway. Never since has teh Gov. General or Quess interfered in Canada's politiclal system.

Personally I don't mind haveing a Royal Family, after all, who else are we going to put on our money? I shudder to think of coins with Paul Martin on them.

I don't think anyone in this thread is stating that the Queen has real, used often political power despite her theoretical powers. It can be argued that she has political influence though.

What did the GG veto?

You can put anything else on money - former statesmen, famous Canadians, national landmarks, etc.

The GG vetoed new passports for members of a family with terrorist ties. IIRC there was no direct link to the person asking for the passport, but some of his immediate family members were known to be problematic, and had repeatedly 'lost' passports in the past. Lacking any specific legislation to deal with this rather unusual situation, the royal prerogative was invoked to allow the denial of the passport.(Actually, come to think of it, I believe it was the foreign affairs Minister who exercised the royal prerogative in this case; he being an elected member of the government. It's just a name for a power, like your President's power to lead unilaterally in times of crisis, and sortout the details after the fact).

And it should be mentioned that the GG is not appointed by the Queen; they are appointed by, and serve 'at the pleasure of' the Prime Minister. In effect if a GG wanted to veto an act of parliament, they could in reality do no more than resign to voice their displeasure, since they serve the government, not the other way around.

I think you guys are talking about 2 different situations.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: DefRef
Who the hell is the King/Queen of Canada?!?!? Are you a royalist who yearns to be ruled by a kind and benevolent monarch? If so, come to America and vote for the Democrats, who while are more Socialist-Fascist than anything, are always looking for people to subjugate.

Worst partisan attack I have read on these forums.

 

[oreagan]

Original poster:
The monarchies are likely fairly harmless these days because their powers are nill. That said, I refer your to Misters Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Jefferson, Pericles, and history books.

 

[Kibbo]

The two greatest dictators in history, Hitler and Napoleon, rose to power in countries who cut ties (or heads) to their royal houses and formed Republics.

Are there any similar cases of royalty reasserting absolute power after democratic institutions have handled governing powers for a time?

My basic thought is that people in crisis will be willing to hand over absolute power to someone. This is human nature. In a republic, a charismatic leader can harness this fact to his own ends, to the detriment of the people.

In a constitutional monarchy, the charismatic leader has an obstacle to capturing the nation's vision of itself, because there is already a personal symbol at the top. As long as the monarch is there, the proto-dictator cannot overwhelm the nation's self-identity.

In this model, the only way for a constitutional monarchy can decend into dictatorship is if a royal is also a charismatic leader. Which has maybe happened two or three times in the past 1000 years in England. And then that would have to be coincident with a crisis.

I agree that this model is simplistic, many of the same things that could lead to an elected charismatic leader in a republic could happen in a constitutional democracy, but I suggest that a monarch is one more obstacle for that to happen.

Edit: In response to Can 'o worms:

1) The fact that there are a greater number of Quebecers who oppose the monarchy does not mean that it's a problem. Separatists are pissed off because:

We instituted martial law in their Province after two government officials were kidnapped by terrorists.
We repatriated the constitution and enacted the charter of rights when their government opposed it.
We drafted their boys into WWI and several protesters were killed by the police (still smarts for them)
We consistently elect centralizing governments when they want more freedom to govern as they see fit.
Alberta gets pissed whenever we let them out of centralized programs, and that offends them.
Several attempts to reform the constitution since the repatriation have been thwarted by Alberta and interest groups.
They fear the loss of their language and culture.
The only reason that they don't like the crown are because of the draft thing and the whole conquering thing. Both history out of most people's living memory. Small potatoes.

2)I cite my argument above, and point out that it can be dangerous. But a republic may be more dangerous. Lesser of two evils.

3)Both Sweden and Norway spend about 8.5 million dollars to support their monarchs. A drop in the bucket.Link Canada spends no money for the day to day activities of their monarchs. We only spend money on them when they make official visits, which is rare. And we probably spend alot when foreign heads of state visit, which we would still have to do when they came. What we spend on the Governor General is what we would likely spend on an elected head of state, plus the cost of the election. Possibly more, since an election might make them more popular, and therefore more likely to recieve funds.

4)An irrelevant question until the heir is no longer an Anglican. Call me when Prince William becomes a Buddhist. (Come on, you know it's gonna happen)

5)The royal family represents the history of our nation. I'd rather have that than someone who represents nothing more than the money they could cobble together to win an election. Since the hypothetical "President" would have no real power, so the election would be no more than a popularity contest. I shudder at the thought of Celine Dion as our head of state.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


The GG vetoed new passports for members of a family with terrorist ties. IIRC there was no direct link to the person asking for the passport, but some of his immediate family members were known to be problematic, and had repeatedly 'lost' passports in the past. Lacking any specific legislation to deal with this rather unusual situation, the royal prerogative was invoked to allow the denial of the passport.(Actually, come to think of it, I believe it was the foreign affairs Minister who exercised the royal prerogative in this case; he being an elected member of the government. It's just a name for a power, like your President's power to lead unilaterally in times of crisis, and sortout the details after the fact).

And it should be mentioned that the GG is not appointed by the Queen; they are appointed by, and serve 'at the pleasure of' the Prime Minister. In effect if a GG wanted to veto an act of parliament, they could in reality do no more than resign to voice their displeasure, since they serve the government, not the other way around.

I think you guys are talking about 2 different situations.

Yeah you're right - I should have read the other post more closely, though I was answering your questions.

At any rate, the current arrangement in Canada is as I described, and the GG is nothing more than a figurehead. The only issue is the prima donna currently in the GG office likes to spend money on trips as though it's going out of style. The total cost is still something less than $5/person/year though, so it's a waste, but not economically crippling. A reasonable GG could be kept in trips and appearances for much less.

 

[f95toli]

I think the House of Lords is another "because it works" thing.

AFAIK they haven't blocked a decision by the House of Commons in about 30 years and according to the rules they can only block it for a year; after that the bill will pass anyway.

The House of Lords does have some real power since a few members (I think they are called the "lords or law" or something like that) form what I guess you could call the "Supreme Court" of the UK but as far as I know the they are appointed by the goverment.

The House of Lors is undergoing major changes and eventually it will be replaced by something else, but as with everything else in the UK it will take time.

I think some are missing an important point: In most countries in Europe we do not really care that much about the the constitution, as long as it works everything is fine and if there are problems we simply change it (in Sweden we have changed the constitution 4 or 5 times over the past 30 years).
So sure, according to the constitution the King is head of state, but everyone (including him) knows that if he would try to get involved in poltics he would be forced to abdicate and we would change the consitition and become a republic. It is that simple. As long as he doesn't have a point of view on anything no one cares.

I imagine the same thing is true in the UK.

 

[chess9]

Stunt:

Well, spending all that money on the monarchy is pretty foolish. If you knew how to spend your money you'd use it wisely...invading Iraq.

-Robert

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Edit: In response to Can 'o worms:

1) The fact that there are a greater number of Quebecers who oppose the monarchy does not mean that it's a problem. Separatists are pissed off because:

We instituted martial law in their Province after two government officials were kidnapped by terrorists.
We repatriated the constitution and enacted the charter of rights when their government opposed it.
We drafted their boys into WWI and several protesters were killed by the police (still smarts for them)
We consistently elect centralizing governments when they want more freedom to govern as they see fit.
Alberta gets pissed whenever we let them out of centralized programs, and that offends them.
Several attempts to reform the constitution since the repatriation have been thwarted by Alberta and interest groups.
They fear the loss of their language and culture.
The only reason that they don't like the crown are because of the draft thing and the whole conquering thing. Both history out of most people's living memory. Small potatoes.

The monarchy is a problem for Quebec. It doesn't matter if there are all sorts of other problems. Are we to dismiss the state of the economy because Iraq seems like a bigger issue/problem in the current elections? No.

2)I cite my argument above, and point out that it can be dangerous. But a republic may be more dangerous. Lesser of two evils.

ok then!

3)Both Sweden and Norway spend about 8.5 million dollars to support their monarchs. A drop in the bucket.Link Canada spends no money for the day to day activities of their monarchs. We only spend money on them when they make official visits, which is rare. And we probably spend alot when foreign heads of state visit, which we would still have to do when they came. What we spend on the Governor General is what we would likely spend on an elected head of state, plus the cost of the election. Possibly more, since an election might make them more popular, and therefore more likely to recieve funds.

Canada spends over $40 million for the monarch's servants (governor general). This money is being spent to represent someone who is given their position by birth, not experience/qualifications and holds a position which clearly discriminates against people.

4)An irrelevant question until the heir is no longer an Anglican. Call me when Prince William becomes a Buddhist. (Come on, you know it's gonna happen)

It is no irrelevant. This is one of the biggest issues. It is discrimination, pure and simple, and it's against the fundamentals of Canadian society. I can't believe you're just brushing away a purely discriminatory action.

If the US enacted a law right now stating that no president can be black, that would be wrong. It doesn't matter if the current president isn't black or that the next president isn't either.

5)The royal family represents the history of our nation. I'd rather have that than someone who represents nothing more than the money they could cobble together to win an election. Since the hypothetical "President" would have no real power, so the election would be no more than a popularity contest. I shudder at the thought of Celine Dion as our head of state.

Seppuku, sati, caste systems, apartheid, slavery, etc. are all also part of the history of nations.

You seem like a very staunch royalist. Am I right?

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: sandorskiIt should be noted that long before the US gained Independence from Britain, Cromwell had established a US styled system of Government in Britain

and got his head on a pike for his troubles

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms


The monarchy is a problem for Quebec. It doesn't matter if there are all sorts of other problems. Are we to dismiss the state of the economy because Iraq seems like a bigger issue/problem in the current elections? No.

The fact that many Quebecers oppose the monarchy does not mean that it is a "problem." It is not a primary motivation of the Separatists. Separatism is the primary problem in Quebec. They'd possibly have the same problem with an old-school toronto WASP as head of state. Or an old money Montreal anglophone for that matter. Exactly how do you see it as a "problem?" When is the last time you watched a political debate about Quebec? When is the last time you discussed politics with a francophone? You are talking out of your ass. My best friend's family is Quebequois, they think that it is a bit of an anachronism, don't really want it, but they hardly have strong feelings about it. You are taking one statistic you read off a Google, and drawing the conclusion that it is a "problem." You have no idea what they are thinking.

ok then!

Wow, nice response. If you are not going to put up an argument for this one, I guess you are conceding it to me.

Canada spends over $40 million for the monarch's servants (governor general). This money is being spent to represent someone who is given their position by birth, not experience/qualifications and holds a position which clearly discriminates against people.

The money is spent on someone who is appointed based on their experience/qualifications. That same money would be spent on an elected head of state. Even more, perhaps. What is your problem here?

It is no irrelevant. This is one of the biggest issues. It is discrimination, pure and simple, and it's against the fundamentals of Canadian society. I can't believe you're just brushing away a purely discriminatory action.

The ascension discriminates against any person who is not the heir. The religious aspect of the discrimination is secondary. I would advocate changing this part of the constitution. Problem is, we're in a political situation where talking about changing one part of it leads to a bunch of other groups wanting to change it in other parts. It's a political deadlock that will cause us problems. But that law will have no practical effect on any policy as long as the heir is Anglican. So it is a low priority for me.

If the US enacted a law right now stating that no president can be black, that would be wrong. It doesn't matter if the current president isn't black or that the next president isn't either.

Your analogy is invalid because the president holds real power, and it is not predetermined who will be president decades in advance.

Seppuku, sati, caste systems, apartheid, slavery, etc. are all also part of the history of nations.

You seem like a very staunch royalist. Am I right?

Not staunch, but I would probably vote to keep them. I think that an elected head of state would end up costing us more money, that giving them legitimacy with an election would destabalize the balance of power in our government, and I kinda like keeping the tradition. Don't have strong feelings either way. I think that is how most people feel up here, which is why it is not a "problem" in Quebec. Remember that private property, democracy, literature and art are also part of the history of nations. Unless you can prove that the monarchy is as hamful as slavery, any analogy you draw is invalid. Also, remember that the crown also serves as the head of the anglican church. This shouldn't affect our laws, but again weighing the trouble it would take to change it, against the practical effects it has on us, leaves a movement for change wanting.

I think that we are better off with her than without her, but that the difference is so slight, that the debate can rest for awhile. It does not cause us significant problems. It has certain advantages. You seem to think that the royal family is an anachronism, and that it harkens back to a system that was class-based. I agree with you. But I'd rather have political debates about issues that have real, practical effects on the people in this country, rather than

 

[RabidMongoose]

The two greatest dictators in history, Hitler and Napoleon, rose to power in countries who cut ties (or heads) to their royal houses and formed Republics.

Well some of the greatest democracies rose to power in countries who cut ties to their monarchies as well. I think you're grasping for straws here with this Hitler and Napoleon argument.

Are there any similar cases of royalty reasserting absolute power after democratic institutions have handled governing powers for a time?

Cromwell? Not that I remember too much about it and absolute power wasn't re-obtained.

My basic thought is that people in crisis will be willing to hand over absolute power to someone. This is human nature. In a republic, a charismatic leader can harness this fact to his own ends, to the detriment of the people.

In a constitutional monarchy, the charismatic leader has an obstacle to capturing the nation's vision of itself, because there is already a personal symbol at the top. As long as the monarch is there, the proto-dictator cannot overwhelm the nation's self-identity.

I disagree with this, unless you are saying that the Queen is the single most important person of Canadian identity and culture...this would be rather sad if this were the case. Either way, I don't think that this would be much of a roadblock for the charismatic leader. In fact, I would say that it could be the most likely path to going towards a dictatorship.

In this model, the only way for a constitutional monarchy can decend into dictatorship is if a royal is also a charismatic leader. Which has maybe happened two or three times in the past 1000 years in England. And then that would have to be coincident with a crisis.

I disagree. I don't see how in a constitutional monarchy only a royal can become a dictator. I don't see how it really has any significant difference to any similar republic that has no dictator. Using your same logic, I would then say that the only way any republic could have a dictator is if it had ties to a monarchy. Any republic that does not have such a tie would have an extra obstacle in the road to becoming a dictator.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms


The monarchy is a problem for Quebec. It doesn't matter if there are all sorts of other problems. Are we to dismiss the state of the economy because Iraq seems like a bigger issue/problem in the current elections? No.

The fact that many Quebecers oppose the monarchy does not mean that it is a "problem." It is not a primary motivation of the Separatists. Separatism is the primary problem in Quebec. They'd possibly have the same problem with an old-school toronto WASP as head of state. Or an old money Montreal anglophone for that matter. Exactly how do you see it as a "problem?" When is the last time you watched a political debate about Quebec? When is the last time you discussed politics with a francophone? You are talking out of your ass. My best friend's family is Quebequois, they think that it is a bit of an anachronism, don't really want it, but they hardly have strong feelings about it. You are taking one statistic you read off a Google, and drawing the conclusion that it is a "problem." You have no idea what they are thinking.

OK, we'll just ignore all the protests that the Queen gets the few times she visits Quebec. Oh, and we'll ignore the statements that the Bloc Quebecois refuse to acknowledge because they refer to Canadians as dutiful and loyal subjects of the Queen :roll:

ok then!

Wow, nice response. If you are not going to put up an argument for this one, I guess you are conceding it to me.

Your statement was just pure child-like. You didn't even say anything real. It was just your opinion. Good for you!

Many of your arguments are pretty strange. OMG, Hitler and this guy and this went from democracy to dictators so that means our queen will protect us with her Godly endowed powers! Russia went from monarchy to communists. The US, the most powerful democracy & country in the world, went from dominated by a monarchy to a democracy. India, the largest democracy in the world, shed its British monarch.

Canada spends over $40 million for the monarch's servants (governor general). This money is being spent to represent someone who is given their position by birth, not experience/qualifications and holds a position which clearly discriminates against people.

The money is spent on someone who is appointed based on their experience/qualifications. That same money would be spent on an elected head of state. Even more, perhaps. What is your problem here?

The problem is that it goes to represent someone who is a symbol of discrimination, which is something against the fundamentals of Canadian society. And let's face it, nobody gives a crap about the GG and the Queen's representatives. They're not viewed positively in the world. All that money goes to waste when it could go to someone who is a real figure.

Also, don't be so close minded. By abolishing the monarchy, you can choose several types of governments, you're not only limited to 1 or 2 choices.

It is no irrelevant. This is one of the biggest issues. It is discrimination, pure and simple, and it's against the fundamentals of Canadian society. I can't believe you're just brushing away a purely discriminatory action.

The ascension discriminates against any person who is not the heir. The religious aspect of the discrimination is secondary. I would advocate changing this part of the constitution. Problem is, we're in a political situation where talking about changing one part of it leads to a bunch of other groups wanting to change it in other parts. It's a political deadlock that will cause us problems. But that law will have no practical effect on any policy as long as the heir is Anglican. So it is a low priority for me.

However it's discrimination however you try to spin it. How can this discriminatory act be above the rights and freedoms of Canadians?

If the US enacted a law right now stating that no president can be black, that would be wrong. It doesn't matter if the current president isn't black or that the next president isn't either.

Your analogy is invalid because the president holds real power, and it is not predetermined who will be president decades in advance.

What about the VP? He doesn't hold much power. What about any other position which is appointed?

It doesn't matter decades in advance. According to you, it can just be dealt with when the time comes :roll: We know that the current VP is white and the next VP is going to be white.

Seppuku, sati, caste systems, apartheid, slavery, etc. are all also part of the history of nations.

You seem like a very staunch royalist. Am I right?

Not staunch, but I would probably vote to keep them. I think that an elected head of state would end up costing us more money, that giving them legitimacy with an election would destabalize the balance of power in our government, and I kinda like keeping the tradition. Don't have strong feelings either way. I think that is how most people feel up here, which is why it is not a "problem" in Quebec. Remember that private property, democracy, literature and art are also part of the history of nations. Unless you can prove that the monarchy is as hamful as slavery, any analogy you draw is invalid. Also, remember that the crown also serves as the head of the anglican church. This shouldn't affect our laws, but again weighing the trouble it would take to change it, against the practical effects it has on us, leaves a movement for change wanting.

It is a problem in Quebec and to many other Canadians. Monarchy is harmful to a society/country and I've given several examples in this thread. It's a caste system. It deserves to be abolished.

I think that we are better off with her than without her, but that the difference is so slight, that the debate can rest for awhile. It does not cause us significant problems. It has certain advantages. You seem to think that the royal family is an anachronism, and that it harkens back to a system that was class-based. I agree with you. But I'd rather have political debates about issues that have real, practical effects on the people in this country, rather than

Then why are you in this thread debating this monarchial caste system?

I disagree though. This is a real and important issue.

 

[f95toli]

I know the reason why I am debating: You are trying to convince us that constitutional monarchies are not really democratic, and that the fact that the head of state is not elected is a huge democratic problem.
Neither is true.

There are lots of problems with the democracy in Europe that are more important: The Media concentration in Italy (the fact that the prime minister controls most of the media), the increasing popularity right-wing extremist parties (Austria, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark) , that the number of people voting is decreasing, the influence of the Catholic church in Poland, securing the democratic rights of minorities in several European countries (Russians in the Baltic states, the Roma in for example Romania),?

I could go on for a while. I think we should worry more about these problems than who are in charge of the ribbon cutting in Europe.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: f95toli
I know the reason why I am debating: You are trying to convince us that constitutional monarchies are not really democratic, and that the fact that the head of state is not elected is a huge democratic problem.
Neither is true.

There are lots of problems with the democracy in Europe that are more important: The Media concentration in Italy (the fact that the prime minister controls most of the media), the increasing popularity right-wing extremist parties (Austria, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark) , that the number of people voting is decreasing, the influence of the Catholic church in Poland, securing the democratic rights of minorities in several European countries (Russians in the Baltic states, the Roma in for example Romania),?

I could go on for a while. I think we should worry more about these problems than who are in charge of the ribbon cutting in Europe.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that constitutional monarchies aren't really democratic. I'm debating the point of maintaining royalty.

 

[f95toli]

And our answer has been: Beacuse it works and has its advantages; and as long as there is no real problem there is no reason to change it, there are more important problems to worry about-

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: f95toli
And our answer has been: Beacuse it works and has its advantages; and as long as there is no real problem there is no reason to change it, there are more important problems to worry about-

And I've provided several examples of major disadvantages of the monarchial caste system. I'm arguing that there are more disadvantages to advantages, and that the advantages are almost inconsequential and useless, especially the ones you provided. Come on! More stuff for the tabloids to talk about? You're really stretching it there.

The case of Australia, Canada, etc. are even more special cases.

 

[CanOWorms]

some more examples of the disadvantages of maintaining a Monarchy:

6) Canadian, Australian, etc. natives view the monarchy as a symbol of oppression and imperialism
7) discriminatory sexist - I've already explained that in nature the UK & co. monarchy is discriminatory towards persons of non-Anglican religion. It's also sexist in that it favors males in the succession
8) another discriminatory religion - I believe people even married to a Catholic are forbidden
9) links between monarchy & church violates secular views many states hold
10) for Canada, Australia, etc., the head of state doesn't even reside in the country
11) Acadians view the monarchy as a symbol of their genocide
12) The Canadian Queen gave her blessings over Iraq, but the Canadian government didn't. The head of state supports it, but the government doesn't

 

[f95toli]

Well. I thought it was obvious that my comment about the tabloids was in part a joke.
But the fact remains that one reason why the Royal families in Europe are popular is that many people like to read about them. They are Popular fot the same reason that peole like Victoria Beckham is popular; people like the glamour. This is probably the main reason for the popularity of the Royal families, I have never meat a true "royalists".
Besides. even people like the King of Greece are popular, and he hasn't even got a country to "rule" anymore.

About the rest of the arguments; The PR factor IS important, at least for Sweden, as I have already written it is much more efficient to send a real king if you want to sell something than to send a President no one has ever heard of, the press coverage is much better.
The historic reasons are also important, it is a link to the past which is sometimes important.

The swedish courst costs about SEK 48M (I found the most recent figures) which is not much cosidering that the court employs more than 60 people. Just to compare: The building where I work cost about 960M to build two years ago.

But the main argument remains: Why bother? It would take time, we would need to figure out a sysmet for electing a president (we would probably end up with the same system as Germany where the President is elected by the Parliament and is generally some old politician), we would also give up a system which works for a new system with no clear advantages.

The free PR together with the "why bother?"-factor are the reason why I do not think we should change ther current system.

 

[CanOWorms]

BTW, I can't believe I forgot this point:

13) Let's not forget what happened in Australia in the 70s (1975?). The Governor General dismissing the PM and appointing another PM? That's a bit crazy.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Well. I thought it was obvious that my comment about the tabloids was in part a joke.
But the fact remains that one reason why the Royal families in Europe are popular is that many people like to read about them. They are Popular fot the same reason that peole like Victoria Beckham is popular; people like the glamour. This is probably the main reason for the popularity of the Royal families, I have never meat a true "royalists".
Besides. even people like the King of Greece are popular, and he hasn't even got a country to "rule" anymore.

So? People like reading about the Kennedys. They can still read about them when they've been stripped of all official titles and power. If they want to prance around and pretend to be a king, they can do that. Anyone can. They'll only be that in their mind for their position will be removed and they'll be equals to the rest of society.

About the rest of the arguments; The PR factor IS important, at least for Sweden, as I have already written it is much more efficient to send a real king if you want to sell something than to send a President no one has ever heard of, the press coverage is much better.
The historic reasons are also important, it is a link to the past which is sometimes important.

I'd think outside of Sweden's region, nobody even knows Sweden has a king.

The swedish courst costs about SEK 48M (I found the most recent figures) which is not much cosidering that the court employs more than 60 people. Just to compare: The building where I work cost about 960M to build two years ago.

But the main argument remains: Why bother? It would take time, we would need to figure out a sysmet for electing a president (we would probably end up with the same system as Germany where the President is elected by the Parliament and is generally some old politician), we would also give up a system which works for a new system with no clear advantages.

The free PR together with the "why bother?"-factor are the reason why I do not think we should change ther current system.

Why bother? I've provided several reasons. 13 of them, I believe. I really think you're overestimating the PR aspect, and it's your only argument.