Political Crossfire Forums

Some of us think otherwise.

your thinking that the queen does something significant for the government of britain does not change the fact that she is nothing more than a money sink.

Considering the Queen and monarchy are currently constitutionally central, and, thus, would require nearly entirely new constitutional settlements for any of the commonwealth nations that decided to become a republic. A time consuming and costly process. It's not something that should be high on the priority list right now.

Especially as almost every commonwealth nation (not all) has a bi-partisan legislature or something close to it, having an elected executive would in reality just bring about the sort of pointless partisan loggerheads that is currently crippling the U.S system.

That being said, in terms of guiding a state upon presumably rational principles, and, thus a institution should be assessed in terms of an empirical cost-benefit analysis. Having a monarch makes as much sense as having a magician in charge. After all the only, real, tangible benefit is some sort of public spectacle. Why not make it more exciting?

She is not state sponsored at all.