Australia: Senator Lidia Thorpe escorted out of the Great Hall after disturbance at the end of King Charles's speech.

[Augustus]

I don't see how having a king saves us from elections, as we have a king and still have elections.

If you need to elect a ceremonial head of state then you need elections for that too and these would not necessarily align with parliamentary elections. They also cost a lot of money.

We could simply add ceremonial duties to the job description of the Governer General or other government lackey for a fraction of what it costs us to maintain the royals in my view.

Inviting foreign rulers to have a pie and chips on an industrial estate with some nondescript bureaucrat is probably less diplomatically effective though.

(It’s different for countries that are not Britain, but for them they are getting the head of state without paying their general expenses)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inviting foreign rulers to have a pie and chips on an industrial estate with some nondescript bureaucrat is probably less diplomatically effective though.

(It’s different for countries that are not Britain, but for them they are getting the head of state without paying their general expenses)

It's also different for countries that are not Britain, since they aren't even getting the dubious benefits you suggest.

Charles - like his mother before him - just doesn't do anything to promote Australian or Canadian interests.

The British monarch doesn't really represent the other Commonwealth Realms except by pretending that they're still part of the British Empire.

This story is from a Canadian perspective, but it could very well have been written by an Australian, Kiwi, Bsjan, etc. official:

The royal family themselves are under no illusion about who they are – British; where they live – Britain; and what they represent – the United Kingdom. When I was posted to Bonn in the nineties, Queen Elizabeth paid an official visit to Berlin largely to promote British industry. Ambassadors from Commonwealth countries were convened to Berlin, at their countries' expense, to greet the Queen (in reality a photo-op). Because there were Canadian firms in Germany that could have used some high-level support, and because my credentials said that it was in her name and on her behalf that I was accredited as the Ambassador of Canada to Germany, I decided to test what the Monarchists' assertions – that she is our Queen, too – meant in practice.

Not much, as it turned out. I asked an aide at the photo-op whether while promoting UK business her majesty might put in a good word for Canadian business too. It was evident from his reaction that such an idea was as unwelcome as it was novel.

The monarchy hurts Canada’s standing in the world. It’s time to let go

The need for a truly Canadian head of state is nowhere more apparent than in our international affairs, writes a former ambassador to the United Nations and foreign-policy advisor to Brian Mulroney

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Augustus]

70 of those 100 years were the reign of Elizabeth II. Don't confuse her "hands-off" personal style with actual limitations on power.

Nothing in the law has changed to prevent a similar incident from happening today in any Commonwealth Realm.

Charles wasn’t even allowed to give a speech to a UN environmental conference because the government told him not to as they deemed it too political.

It's not simply that the monarch "chooses" to play by the rules. it's that if they didn't the Parliament can simply enact legislation that makes it law. The parliament can end the monarchy if they want after all, and anything up to that point too. They don't rely on the King playing ball.

Also, it is not correct to say nothing in the law has changed. The common law system is built on precedent and reasoning when there is no explicit statute, and any relevant case brought help establish this.

For example:

Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament unlawful, supreme court rules

Judges rule on PM’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks at height of Brexit crisis

www.theguardian.com

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Both of these clearly ruled against the exercise of royal prerogative without parliamentary support or legal justification. In both cases politicians had sought to use it to 'game the system' but this had been ruled not to be legitimate.

If you have a republic with a written, single constitution you still end up with fringe constitutional issues being decided in law courts, and as we see in America, these can be even more open to political abuse by politicised judges.

 

[Augustus]

It's also different for countries that are not Britain, since they aren't even getting the dubious benefits you suggest.

Charles - like his mother before him - just doesn't do anything to promote Australian or Canadian interests.

The British monarch doesn't really represent the other Commonwealth Realms except by pretending that they're still part of the British Empire.

This story is from a Canadian perspective, but it could very well have been written by an Australian, Kiwi, Bsjan, etc. official:

The monarchy hurts Canada’s standing in the world. It’s time to let go

The need for a truly Canadian head of state is nowhere more apparent than in our international affairs, writes a former ambassador to the United Nations and foreign-policy advisor to Brian Mulroney

www.theglobeandmail.com

As I said, I find it a bit odd that they are head of state for other countries still and this is a completely different question which is up to them to decide.

 

[danieldemol]

If you need to elect a ceremonial head of state then you need elections for that too and these would not necessarily align with parliamentary elections. They also cost a lot of money.

You don't need to elect them directly though. The Governer General is appointed by our elected parliament according to my understanding.

Inviting foreign rulers to have a pie and chips on an industrial estate with some nondescript bureaucrat is probably less diplomatically effective though.

They can lunch with our Prime Minister whilst the governer General overseas ceromonies, or the Prime Minister could take on the ceremonial duties in my view

(It’s different for countries that are not Britain, but for them they are getting the head of state without paying their general expenses)

We only get him when he visits (and at our expense of he is invited), all the rest of time the lunching and ceremonies for foreign leaders are taken care of by Australia, not the king in my view

 

[Augustus]

Yep, I think some recent fiascos with Macron, Trump, etc., further demonstrate that an elected head of state could still act arrogantly and push unpopular policies down people's throats (e.g., raising the retirement age in France). I'm not sure that it will always or even usually be much of an improvement to go one rung up the ladder and have the head of state rather than the prime minister be the de facto leader of the country.

Ironically, a Presidential system is more 'monarchical' than a parliamentary system with a constitutional monarch is, it's just the 'king' is elected.

I quite like the idea that the PM has to be deferential to someone to remind them it's not all about them (even if just a little bit). The only way this really works is with a strange anachronism like a monarch who has no actual power themselves.