Queen Elizabeth, Too Much power...

[Hafezudine]

i just realized that Queen Elizabeth, is the Head Monrach for several of the most powerfull countries on Earth, Including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, PNG, Jamaica, Bahamas and ofcourse the United Kingdom...

i know she has no significant role as a "politician" or "Leader", but can anyone answer me, why ON EARTH does Canada, Australia, NZ, etc... agree on having a non-Native to form and act as their highest Rank...

 

[Dachs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

 

[xchen08]

Lol, I love how you said "some of the most powerful countries," then start giving examples like PNG, New Zealand, and the Bahamas. Really, the only Commonwealth realm with any claim to being a Great Power would be the UK, with Canada close, but not quite there.

And she's a figurehead, with in most cases, no power either in theory or in fact. Only in the UK does she have a great deal of theoretical power, but she still can't use it.

 

[civ_king]

Lol, I love how you said "some of the most powerful countries," then start giving examples like PNG, New Zealand, and the Bahamas. Really, the only Commonwealth realm with any claim to being a Great Power would be the UK, with Canada close, but not quite there.

And she's a figurehead, with in most cases, no power either in theory or in fact. Only in the UK does she have a great deal of theoretical power, but she still can't use it.

yes

And for the reason they have her in 'power' is that they are all former territories of the British Empire

 

[aronnax]

The Queen is like the joining link between the British Empire and the Commonwealth Kingdoms. It is how the usual commonwealth Kingdoms (white dominions of the late 19th and early 20th century) still connect to Britain along with new additions like Bahamas and Jamaica(?). Which is why the Canadians, Australian, South Africans and New Zealanders, despite being independent countries, fought for Britain in the two world wars.

Unfortunately, many people outside of Britain chant "Lizzy the Last" as the a foreign head of state of a somewhat outdated ideal grows more of a concern to the people.

 

[Tee Kay]

The Queen is like the joining link between the British Empire and the Commonwealth Kingdoms. It is how the usual commonwealth Kingdoms (white dominions of the late 19th and early 20th century) still connect to Britain along with new additions like Bahamas and Jamaica(?). Which is why the Canadians, Australian, South Africans and New Zealanders, despite being independent countries, fought for Britain in the two world wars.

Yep, though South Africa became a republic in the 1960s.

These days though, her role is entirely symbolic.

Unfortunately, many people outside of Britain chant "Lizzy the Last" as the a foreign head of state of a somewhat outdated ideal grows more of a concern to the people.

It's about time Australia has our own head of state anyway.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Mmmm. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, Bahamas.

Definitely some of the the most powerful countries in the world. No doubt.

 

[say1988]

i know she has no significant role as a "politician" or "Leader", but can anyone answer me, why ON EARTH does Canada, Australia, NZ, etc... agree on having a non-Native to form and act as their highest Rank...

Heh, the representative of our Queen is foreign too. She was born and raised in Haiti. And the one before her lived in Hong Kong until she was 3, at least she was from the Empire, though

Unfortunately, many people outside of Britain chant "Lizzy the Last" as the a foreign head of state of a somewhat outdated ideal grows more of a concern to the people.

This isn't very strong in Canada. I believe Australia and New Zealand have much stronger republicanism movements, though.
As much as anything, I believe the biggest thing that will hold back republicanism in Canada is simply people wanting to differentiate from the US.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I am amazed Baast didn't make this thread.

 

[Dachs]

Why would Bast think QE2 has too much power?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Because clearly she is ACTUALLY running those countries, and not a figurehead, she is such a brilliant political genius that she only gives the appearance as such, and so she has not only control over all these nations, but the ability to dupe the entire world, and the very people she rules.

 

[Dachs]

Why would that be too much?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Fair enough.

 

[Lord Baal]

I am amazed Baast didn't make this thread.

She'd be concerned that she didn't have enough power.

 

[Plotinus]

I was amazed, when in New Zealand, to see how popular the royal family appeared to be. Every single magazine in every shop seemed to have Prince William on the cover. (Maybe this has changed since then as he's not quite as photogenic any more.)

Really, it's no odder having a foreigner as your monarch than it is having a monarch in the first place. One may ask why Canadians et al. want the Queen to be their head of state, but it's just as pertinent a question to ask why the British do. It's beyond me but the best answer I can think of is just sheer conservatism for the sake of it.

 

[Lord Baal]

I was amazed, when in New Zealand, to see how popular the royal family appeared to be. Every single magazine in every shop seemed to have Prince William on the cover. (Maybe this has changed since then as he's not quite as photogenic any more.)

Really, it's no odder having a foreigner as your monarch than it is having a monarch in the first place. One may ask why Canadians et al. want the Queen to be their head of state, but it's just as pertinent a question to ask why the British do. It's beyond me but the best answer I can think of is just sheer conservatism for the sake of it.

He's not popular, it's just the royal family beng used to sell idiotic women's magazines. They're actually pretty roundly despised, though secretly loved by idiots yearning looking for a celebrity fix without actual celebrities.

 

[Masada]

It's about time Australia has our own head of state anyway.

No, it's not. I'd rather have a foreigner on the throne than let our profoundly un-democratic and pseudo-authoritarian major parties select how and by whom we should be governed. The last time evidenced a profound show of contempt by our political elites for the voting Australian public and nothing has led me to believe they've changed. I find it only logical to conclude that none of our parties are above selling out our political system and fundamental rights for their own petty point-scoring and that correspondingly our system as is, is the best of all possible worlds (barring superlative divine intervention).

Lord Baal as a resident of the Soviet Socialist State of New South Wales should be well aware of why I'm worried. It would seem that when our current Dear Leader at the Federal level topples from power the dominant faction in the Labor Party will be the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party. They represent the most authoritarian political force in Australia -- and they've thought nothing of suspending just about every right you can shake at stick at. Remember that whole APEC security debacle?

They could be in power when the decision comes to select the options and I, for one, do not want my options to be (1) Nazi Germany, (2) Stalin's Russia or (3) Tojo's Japan.

 

[Lord Baal]

No, it's not. I'd rather have a foreigner on the throne than let our profoundly un-democratic and pseudo-authoritarian major parties select how and by whom we should be governed. The last time evidenced a profound show of contempt by our political elites for the voting Australian public and nothing has led me to believe they've changed. I find it only logical to conclude that none of our parties are above selling out our political system and fundamental rights for their own petty point-scoring and that correspondingly our system as is, is the best of all possible worlds (barring superlative divine intervention).

Lord Baal as a resident of the Soviet Socialist State of New South Wales should be well aware of why I'm worried. It would seem that when our current Dear Leader at the Federal level topples from power the dominant faction in the Labor Party will be the right wing of the New South Wales Labor Party. They represent the most authoritarian political force in Australia -- and they've thought nothing of suspending just about every right you can shake at stick at. Remember that whole APEC security debacle?

They could be in power when the decision comes to select the options and I, for one, do not want my options to be (1) Nazi Germany, (2) Stalin's Russia or (3) Tojo's Japan.

It is true that constitutional monarchy is indeed a defence against tyranny, albeit an inadequate one - think Mussolini. But despite our constitution's flaws, its limited protection against someone like David Clarke or Frank Sartor gaining power in this country is better than nothing. While I would definitely support an Australian head-of-state, it is on the condition that we underrgo a massive revamping of our electoral system and constitution in order to defend against such people gaining power.

A constitutional monarchy with an Australian on the throne would be my preferred choice. The problem is finding someone capable of weilding a monarch's power without abusing it, and that's a problem, as most of the possibilities are either politicians or businessmen, all of whom would abuse it. The few people who wouldn't abuse the power, such as Dick Smith, are too frigging stupid to entrust with it.

Sigh. We're all going to hell. Where's a military coup when you need one? I'd prefer Tojo to Nathan Rees.

 

[say1988]

It is true that constitutional monarchy is indeed a defence against tyranny, albeit an inadequate one

No system can prevent tyranny if the right situation should arise.

Really, for all intents and purposes, the Governor General is the Head of State. And said person is simply selected by the Prime Minister.`

Our government could function fine without a Monarchy (though Canada recently showed that there would need to be some minor changes). The biggest thing is we would still need someone to fill the various ceremonial roles that the GG currently does. For example in the US the GG role is split, largely, between the President and Vice President. In Canada nobody cares who the deputy PM is, and most don't even know as he has no powers.
Since the Monarchy's role is almost purely ceremonial there is no need for it to be elected.

In Canada, at least, if you want government reform (or to cut down on waste), make the senate useful. It has less use than the Monarchy.

 

[aronnax]

I wonder what the Canadians and Australians and New Zealanders feel if say, Prince Henry became the new King of Canada, Princess Beatrice, the Australian Throne and Princess Eugenie with New Zealand's.

Or something like that.

And they move there, live there.