From: sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: royal family
Date: 14 Aug 1992 12:55:01 GMT
Organization: TMC
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Aug13.895.15961@dosgate>, richard.tanner@canrem.com (richard tanner) writes:
|> 
|> 1. Those of us fortunate enough to live under a constitutional monarchy, 
|> as we do in Canada, are protected from the situation in the United States 
|> where a president is both political leader and head of state. We are much 
|> freer here to relate to our prime minister as a politician who is 
|> accountable to us as our elected representative. 

Absolutely, but, like many people, you are making the error that the American
presidential system is the inevitable alternative. In many constitutional
republics, the president is a figurative head of state with the same
constitutional powers as the monarch in a constitutional monarchy. Look at
the Federal Republic of Germany : the president is an elder statesman, who
gets elected by the parliament (not by the people) and has a nice soft job
shaking hands with visiting foreign potentates. Yes, he *has* a constitut-
ional role : he appoints the government. So does the Queen, technically.
When doing so, he has to conform to the majority of parliament, or there's
going to be trouble (whether or not that limitation is prescribed by the
constitution). So has the Queen. So what's the difference ? Well, for one,
it's a lot cheaper, and secondly, you get very few embarrassing situations
like divorce or other private scandals.

|> 2. The concept of a politician being commander in chief of the armed 
|> forces is highly dangerous. An ex-head of the CIA presently controls the 
|> American military machine. Having a constitutional monarch as commander in 
|> chief may not mean that s/he DOES anything in that regard. It's just a 
|> heck of a lot safer.

See above. The monarch or president is nominally the C-in-C but that does
not mean that he/she can start a war by her/himself. The Queen can order
the Guards to go arrest parliament ; I've no doubt the GovGen can do the
same thing in Canada. It is unlikely that the soldiers would follow the
order, but you never know. The last monarch who tried that kind of thing
(in Britain) was Charles I and he lost his head as a result. Similarly,
an elected, not hereditary, head of state can command the troops. But 
whether that poses any danger depends on whether the troops will follow
their oath of loyalty blindly. The oath sworn by the troops, after all,
(assuming they swear loyalty to the Queen, in Canada) is an emotional
issue as well, and I would say it is *less* likely that troops would
obey a president in what is clearly an unconstitutional act, than that 
they would obey a monarch.
The only thing Canada needs to do to become a republic is to rename the
office of Gov Gen to President and figure out some way to elect the man
(woman). There's no reason *at all* to give more power to the office.
In recent years, you have got yourself a flag and an anthem and a currency
and even the metric system, so you could just as well abolish the monarchy.
Not that I'm advocating it ; suit yourself. It's just that there's no
reason not to except tradition. Ireland did just that, though it took
them half a century. 

|> 3. The Queen of Canada provides for us a link with a human face to nations 
|> which share with us common traditions and values. 

That's is an emotional argument. And a very good one. And it's the reason
Ireland didn't have, nor India or Pakistan (which also became republics
by their own choice as soon as they had the power to do it legally).

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044