Unfortunately I choose to migrate from one constitutional monarchy to another, which seems to have just as much fun with all the ceremonies, days off and drunken patriotism as back home. Peer Netherlands
We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.
The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when public support is at its lowest.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian, Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance, individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of them.
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/
I've heard a few years ago that Hollande, to break with his predecessor Sarkozy, wanted to travel by train rather than by plane whenever possible, in order to look less costly for the French citizen. However it wasn't the case : a train is way more complex to secure than a plane.
Basically in order to secure a train, you need to put an agent at every junction/bridge/tunnel to look for saboteur or terrorist, whereas a plane can take off (resp. land) from (resp. on) a military airport (national airspace is being monitored anyway).
I'm also quite sure that most of the Royal Family do more work than most people do.
A visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge probably eclipses either.
The goodwill benefit to the UK is immense. Taking the politics out of it is also very useful, see the recent state visit to Ireland, any elected British head of state would not have been able to produce such a meaningful and symbolic event.
I encourage you to look here: https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/To... where you can see exactly what they all get up to.
Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch?
[edit: grammar]
No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
EDIT: yes she can choose to abdicate, but not exactly as easily and free from consequence as anyone else could quit their job.
I'm pretty sure she can abdicate if she feels like it.
Fun to think about!
Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all?
My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
*(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
The British monarch acts as a very gentle but constant steadying hand on the tiller of government. The queen meets in private with the prime minister weekly and holds regular meetings with a group of senior politicians (the Privy Council) as well as performing the functions described in the OP. These things help to inculcate British political life with a sense of permanence and continuity, and of duty and service to the country - the latter two being especially well exemplified by the monarchy. The day to day scrapping at PMQs doesn't reflect this on the surface, but read any retired PM's memoirs for some color on how important that aspect of her role really is. This would utterly disappear with an elected head of state, leaving British politics to collapse (some would add 'further') into the kind of rampant short-termism which afflicts most Western republics.
True, she's not elected. True, perhaps, that her position isn't 'fair' in some arbitrarily egalitarian sense, but that cuts both ways: she can't escape her position. The steady state which Britain has reached over the last thousand years of experimentation is proving remarkably resilient, given that supposed lack of fairness and accountability at the very top.
Perhaps it's just that theoretical concerns of absolute fairness and accountability don't really matter when you have a system which works well and allows its people full participatory rights in its government.
That's what Charles I thought......
I would like to see the Monarchy take a more active role in the government of the country, but even without that they remain a theoretical counter to the foolishness of our current leadership.
That said, I think it's ok to honor a deal of, "Walk away, and we let your offspring pretend they are important, and we won't expropriate your wealth." And as much of a shmuck Prince Harry seems to be, I respect that he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, where he knew he would be a target. That's more brave than any president that the US has seen in the past 20 years.
They also pay tax: "In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." I also assume that she does minimal tax avoidance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxa...