East asked in Society & CultureRoyalty · 6 months ago

Why shouldn't more countries have Queen Elizabeth II equivalents?

Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead head of state. She has no real power, and she's basically a nonpartisan ambassador for Great Britain. Nobody really knows what she thinks about politics or anything else. As a result, she's an inoffensive and very popular head of state.

Why shouldn't more countries have constitutional monarchies, with kings and queens like her? Powerless, inoffensive, nonpartisan ceremonial heads of state like that are very popular in the few countries that still have kings and queens like that, primarily in northwestern Europe.

(This does NOT mean that power should be taken away from elected leaders--it should not be. I wouldn't dare suggest giving a king or queen any real power, since that would be undemocratic. Running governments should be done by elected leaders, of course.)

Update:

OK, Her Majesty has a lot of theoretical power, and executive power is vested in her. Even navy ships are "Her Majesty's", and government-run companies in Canada are "Crown Corporations". But she alone can't exercise any of it. (She doesn't even vote in elections.) The elected government exercises those powers in her name.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Monarchs are largely relics of the past in most parts and nations that developed without having ever been monarchies tend not to want to now adopt this custom. But even countries with non-monarchical histories tend to create their own. Here in the US people still revere the Kennedy family as if they were royals.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    Yes indeed. When you look what happens if you leave it to an electorate, you end up with Donald Trump as your head of state.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    This isn't the year 1600.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Rico
    Lv 5
    6 months ago

    Her Majesty has a lot more political power, both within the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms than you realise.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    You are incorrect. Elizabeth II, as Queen of Canada has a great deal of power, that she wields very lightly. But, don't be fooled - she still has it! Of course, she cannot act without "the advice of Parliament." Of course, Parliament can do nothing without her. Both are needed, and both work together, each balancing the other. Which works very well, which is why 8 of the world's top 10 countries are constitutional monarchies.

    • Rico
      Lv 5
      6 months agoReport

      She can and has acted without 'advice of parliament'. In 1975, she allowed the Governor General of Australia to sack her Australian Prime Minister, such a thing does not need the 'advice' of the parliament.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    Queen Elizabeth II has Lots more power! She just dose not feel the need to use them.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Bob
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Our much respected constitutional monarchy was gained at the cost of many lives during the English Civil War when Charles 1 tried to usurp parliament and crush the fledgling democracy. For that he lost his head and during the interregnum, when Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector, we had no monarch at all. This changed when Charles 2 was crowned after the death of Cromwell and the failure of his son to run the country properly. Parliament invited Charles 2 to return, but place strict limitations to his power. He was the first 'Constitutional Monarch of Great Britain.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    Queen Elizabeth II is benign and has been “inoffensive”, but the same cannot be said about her son and heir, Charles. This is because of negative feelings generated in the populace by his political meddling and his handling of his first marriage which involved a mistress, who he went on to marry. He is more controversial than his mother, so the monarchy will be tested by his reign.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Most parliamentary democracies, whether monarchies or republics, have figurehead heads of state. The politics stays in Parliament where the Prime Minister is the political leader while the monarch or the President has powers similar to those of the Queen. The USA is one of the few republics in which the President has actual power. Even where the President is elected, as in Ireland, the President has no political power.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Clo
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Simply put, it is the wish of the countries to be elected republics or constitutional monarchies. There are different types of government in the world that are workable and the constitutional monarchy is one form. Britain's monarchy is mostly self-funded through the Crown Estates which has been built up over the years; British tax payers fund some monarchical expenses while in a republic, tax payers funds all government, federal, state, municipal, et cetera.

    In the US, the monarchy didn't work out for the developing country so government leaders chose a new model, the elected republic. An elected republic is not a perfect form of government and right now is highly partisan, not working correctly, having lost a moral core.

    What is important is that there is the choice---the citizens choose. Most British citizens prefer the monarchy while in the US, the presidential government is the preferred form.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.