Monarchy? Republic?

I need information on opinions on the British Monarchy (a.k.a The House of Windsor) for a report i am currently writing for an assignment.

Under the circumstances this is directed at members from Britain and Commonwealth nations that recognise Elizabeth II as Head of State (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica) but anyone else who has an opinion is welcome to comment.

What are your opinions on the British monarchy? Would you prefer a republic or prefer to stay a monarchy?

As for me I am a monarchist and i strongly oppose the republican movement down here in Australia but for the moment my opinion is irrelevant.

any responses would be helpful, thanks

-Bevo

[dictionary]

I Like the idea of a republic... to think out head of state isnt elected... isnt in this country.... and dosent visit verry often.....

And her representitive in australia the Govener General... can dismiss a government whenever he wants... aka Goulf Whitlam...

What is the benifit to being a constatutional monarcy?

Anarchy in the UK !

[UnderARock]

I am a very very VERY strong republican. As soon i become a student again I'll join the Australian Republican Movement (im cheap and waiting till i can join under the student fees) I am opposed to the idea of our head of state being a foreign power and a birth right. I personally don't understand the logic behind being a monarchist. If some1 could explain that to me that would be great. As far as I can tell the only argument is not wanting change, but democracy is all about change. If there were any other reason to be a monarchy you would think that this debate would also be happing in countries that are a republic such as the USA and France. To my knowledge there does seem to be a serious debate in those countries. Plz correct if im wrong about this.
As for models i would like a model where the president is directly elected but the general public but any model would be an improvement coz it make the head of state an Australian rather than a Brit. It would be able to direct elect a leader, incase you didnt realise we dont vote for the prime minster but that another rant for another time.
So yea im pro-republic. If i did get something there wrong plz let me no.

[Gumtree]

I don't really mind, the British monarchy interferes very little with the running of our country (Australia) but is capable of stepping in when/IF things go wrong. Plus they all have funky accents...

BTW, the Australian Governor General is now a Women as of 2 days ago

[UnderARock]

Originally Posted by YourAnswers

BTW, the Australian Governor General is now a Women as of 2 days ago

Well actually it was only announced that Ms Bryce would be the next GG. Michael Jeffery was still the GG for the last 2 days and will be until September.

All your commonwealth are belong to us!

[Gumtree]

Originally Posted by UnderARock

Well actually it was only announced that Ms Bryce would be the next GG. Michael Jeffery was still the GG for the last 2 days and will be until September.

Are blast, i am victim of the grape-vine again.

Thanks for informing me

[joeyconnick]

I'm Canadian and I'm fine with us being a constitutional monarchy. Unlike in Australia, our Governor General has never interferred with our politics as much as Australia's has in the past. (Was reading about Australian politics in the 70s and 80s when the last federal Australian election happened and holy shit!)

In particular, I like anything that very clearly distinguishes Canada from the US because a lot of people don't realise how different we are and being a constitutional monarchy with a parliament is a pretty clear thing to point to. Yes, it would be kinda nice to elect our "leader" directly but given how dysfunctional the 3 branches of the US government have become, I'm not really convinced that's a better system.

I also really like the idea of having hot King William on our "throne."

A lot of people in Canada against the monarchy seem to dislike "wasting" money on the Governor General and her office (yes, we have a woman as GG... again) but they are too stupid to realise that if we didn't have a GG, we'd still have some type of "head of state" and it's not like that wouldn't cost money.

Plus Canada is barely over 100 years old--I don't think we should be throwing any (relatively harmless from what I can see) traditions out; it's not like we have that many.

The best thing I heard about Canada and the UK's relationship is that Canada is like the child who grew up and moved out of its parents' house, whereas the US is like the rebellious child who started doing drugs and ran away from home to live on the streets after getting into huge fights with its parents.

It's important to remind the Americans that they're just as "British" as the Canadians in origin... more, even, given that Canada has the whole history of first having been a French colony. It's just that Americans like to gloss over that fact with a lot of patriotic rhetoric that makes it sound like they invented democracy and somehow have a worldwide patent on it, whereas Canadians are more willing to admit they have a history with Britain.

Originally Posted by joeyconnick

I'm Canadian and I'm fine with us being a constitutional monarchy. Unlike in Australia, our Governor General has never interferred with our politics as much as Australia's has in the past. (Was reading about Australian politics in the 70s and 80s when the last federal Australian election happened and holy shit!)

In particular, I like anything that very clearly distinguishes Canada from the US because a lot of people don't realise how different we are and being a constitutional monarchy with a parliament is a pretty clear thing to point to. Yes, it would be kinda nice to elect our "leader" directly but given how dysfunctional the 3 branches of the US government have become, I'm not really convinced that's a better system.

I also really like the idea of having hot King William on our "throne."

A lot of people in Canada against the monarchy seem to dislike "wasting" money on the Governor General and her office (yes, we have a woman as GG... again) but they are too stupid to realise that if we didn't have a GG, we'd still have some type of "head of state" and it's not like that wouldn't cost money.

Plus Canada is barely over 100 years old--I don't think we should be throwing any (relatively harmless from what I can see) traditions out; it's not like we have that many.

The best thing I heard about Canada and the UK's relationship is that Canada is like the child who grew up and moved out of its parents' house, whereas the US is like the rebellious child who started doing drugs and ran away from home to live on the streets after getting into huge fights with its parents.

It's important to remind the Americans that they're just as "British" as the Canadians in origin... more, even, given that Canada has the whole history of first having been a French colony. It's just that Americans like to gloss over that fact with a lot of patriotic rhetoric that makes it sound like they invented democracy and somehow have a worldwide patent on it, whereas Canadians are more willing to admit they have a history with Britain.

Quoted for truth I also like the comparison of Canada and the United States XD

I think monarchy is ridicuols,
What's the logic behind monarchy? haven't we evolved past the fact that people shouldn't have exclusive advantages just because of their genetics?
to me all people are equal,
The head of state needs to earn his/her place than simply inhert it.

[Alexander]

I like the monarchy. They represent the country more than prime ministers or presidents, because they last through all of the governmental changes and times. (*is pro-monarchial representatives*)

[Behling]

go queen XD, meh monarchy's are fine in my opinion.

[awesomeap88]

i am a monarchist. i dont see what is wrong with the constitutional monarchy. we have survived 107 years since federation with the current system and we survived quite well before federation as individual colonies with it too. however, i dont believe that Prince Charles should become king. why should he be able to become king when he is in the same situation as (Russian) Tsar Nicholas II's brother was not able to at the beginning of the Russian Revolution (even though there were other issues in Russia at the time).

as for the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 which has been mentioned a few times, it is a lot more complicated than just saying "the government was sacked by the governor general because he could interfere and did". there were concerns with the Labor government at the time spending too much money and appropriation bills (bills to spend money), as well as others, were not passing the Senate due to the senate majority being with the Liberal/Country (now Liberal/National) coalition and not with the Labor Party, who were in power in the House of Representatives (lower house). the GG, as the Queen's representative in Australia, was asked to find a solution by the government and he used his power, as per the Constitution of Australia, and declared a double dissolution, ie sacked both houses of parliament. although i am no expert at constitutional law (especially in other countries), chances are there are similar clauses in other constitutions to allow the same thing in both republics and monarchies. if the Queen really wanted to interfere, she could have overridden the GG's decision.

in all seriousness, the monarchy really does have very limited constitutional powers and very rarely (if ever) uses them, particularly in countries like Australia.

Many responders have mentioned the dismissal of the Labor government in 1975 by the Governor-General John Kerr. As mentioned the Senate had refused to pass any budget bills and had caused a deadlock in government; the reasons for this are difficult to explain but there were several scandals involving bad investments and frivolous ministers. Kerr, on the advice of the Chief justice of the High Court dissmissed the government and placed the Liberal Party under Fraser in power.

This has happened once before in Australia on a state level in New South Wales.
In 1932 the Labor government of Jack Lang had been acting illegally in regards to the state budget and their reports to the Federal government. The Governor (which holds the same rank as the Governor-General but on a state level), Sir Phillip Game, called Lang to government house and dismissed him.

The former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, reminded us that most of the world’s monarchies are free and democratic, while most of the world’s republics are not. In Australia we are fond of describing ourselves as a young nation, but the fact is that we are the sixth oldest continuous democracy in the world, though our experience of parliamentary government is scarcely 150 years old, and our Constitution is just over 100 years old. Only Britain, the United States, Canada, Switzerland and Sweden are able to look back on longer periods of democratic rule, uninterrupted by dictatorship of the left or right, or by foreign conquest and occupation, than we are.

[Psychedelic Bookmarks]

I'm British, and I would prefer a republic. Something like France or Germany. The monarchy is a waste of money.

Originally Posted by Arneneithel

I'm British, and I would prefer a republic. Something like France or Germany. The monarchy is a waste of money.

It attracts tourists and I think it's nice to have something that defines us.

And in any case, im sure were not able to get rid of the Queen/King without their consent, and I doubt that would happen

[UnderARock]

Oh man I not sure when to begin. Well idk too much about Canada's history so i cant comment too much on that. According to Stephen Harper Australia has a better Senate since our senate is elected where in Canada its appointed. I think that all members of government should be elected. Elections hold the government accountable to the ppl.
I am a dual citizen of Australia and the United States of America so I feel can make points about both countries. IMO the only reason the US government is dysfunctional the way it is atm is because President Bush have undermined the constitution and separation of power of the branches of government. Bush does have a time limit imagine if u would that he was King George & would be in power until his death. I rather not have him as a monarch.
Personally the Princes dont much for me (not that i'd say no to them) regardless i dont think that has an relevance. Charles is the next in line to the throne anyway. Prince William did say that he wanted to be the Australian Governor General. That didnt go over too well here at the time.
Since the Queen is also the head of the Church of England. Does that not go against the separation of church and state?
I should probably stop b4 i burst a vain. I have to say im quite surprised about the amount of monarchist sentiment in this thread.

Um the Queen doesn't actually do anything political in the UK, Canada or Australia, as she's usually just remained quiet or neutral on matters.
The only instances of her using any political power is in Jamaica, where I think she did something behind the scenes.
She's more of a representitive of the country than anything else.

I'm for our Queen, she brings money by tourism and does basically nothing else!

However the Queen doesn't have any real power - she needs to agree to everything that the Prime Minister says. She's a figurehead.