Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmdkeen | Hacker News Reader

We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job.

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.

View on HN

Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free.

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]

Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.

> It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter.

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?

Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.

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.

Hear hear. Good show, my Commonwealth sibling.

> I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.

I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com