Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#111

Post by kergonath »

bombcar wrote: post #107
kergonath wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Lol. No offense to the memory of Queen Liz, but she could not have done a thing had the US decided to do something stupid like that. That said, just the notion is preposterous. The US would have lost much more than the Queen’s approbation, in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe the Queen was the only thing holding back an invasion of the US … I saw a documentary about that once called Canadian Bacon I think.

Yeah, that was satire (for those who don’t know the movie).

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#112

Post by felipellrocha »

giarc wrote: post #30
cfcf14 wrote: post #21

As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.

As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…

I think the main benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that you split the job of appearance of propriety away from the job of actual governance. Look at the US for example, the selection of a president is both trying to figure out who can do the best job for the country but also who can look the best at it.

Presumably, with a monarchy, the monarchy takes care of looking good, and the PM takes care of governing.

This works specially well for the UK since the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends (Due to mostly tourism) and you have a setup that works for most everyone.

The negative I see, is that you always have in the back of your mind the possibility that one of these monarchs might, from time to time, want to exceed the powers given to them.

Not saying I agree with the system, nor do I have a fight into this, I'm Brazilian living in the US so I've never been under such system, but this is my impartial, look at this system.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#113

Post by true_religion »

nemothekid wrote: post #69
visiblink wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.

> You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That is, by definition, not a monarchy

I wanted to disagree with you and say that is simply not a hereditary monarchy, but after a moment I think you are right.

Monarchy connotes the existence of some sort of elite class and even in cases the monarch was elected it was always from the aristocracy, founding families, or royal family.

The idea that a leader chosen randomly from the general population is a monarch feels like it would muddy the meaning of monarchy to the point of uselessness.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#114

Post by pessimizer »

visiblink wrote: post #49
cfcf14 wrote: post #21

As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.

Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch. The constitutional monarch is a figurehead without much of a day to day role, but who ensures that the demagogue we elect is not at the pinnacle of the political hierarchy. That's more important than most people understand. A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.

Executive-branch head style presidents are a silly, bad idea. They only serve to give a single person a huge mandate that places them in a position to disregard the local mandates of the legislature, and at least in the US they appoint the judicial branch. So they pick the judges and can ignore the laws.

Prime ministers are representatives of the legislature, not above it, and presidents in a normal parliamentary system are like VPs in a US-style system - really just there for tiebreaking (and in that the responsibility for organizing government succession in ambiguous situations, but no real latitude.)

A monarch does nothing but make sure that a country always has race and rule by blood at the center of its constitution.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#115

Post by bombcar »

kergonath wrote: post #111
bombcar wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the Queen was the only thing holding back an invasion of the US … I saw a documentary about that once called Canadian Bacon I think.

Yeah, that was satire (for those who don’t know the movie).

This whole comment thread was satire (for those who can't recognize it on the internet).

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#116

Post by Symbiote »

felipellrocha wrote: post #112
giarc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…

I think the main benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that you split the job of appearance of propriety away from the job of actual governance. Look at the US for example, the selection of a president is both trying to figure out who can do the best job for the country but also who can look the best at it. Presumably, with a monarchy, the monarchy takes care of looking good, and the PM takes care of governing. Thi…

> the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends

Only with very creative accounting, typically favoured and repeated by pro-monarchists (including the government).

People would visit the palaces without the royal family in them, and we'd be able to charge £20 a ticket to look around inside. (See: Versailles, or the Tower of London.)

See https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#117

Post by crossroadsguy »

Tsarbomb wrote: post #95
Wildgoose wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the Canadian monarchy just as much as it's the English monarchy.

It's wild how many people don't understand this. To help spell it out for those who keep misunderstanding, when the Queen visited the USA in 2010, she did it as Queen of Canada, under the Canadian flag, with Canadian staff and security.

Flag shifter. Huh never knew she had that kind of tricks.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#118

Post by throw0101c »

jasonjei wrote: post #94
Wildgoose wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the Canadian monarchy just as much as it's the English monarchy.

Even though the crowns are distinct, the crown resides primarily in the UK, no?

> Even though the crowns are distinct, the crown resides primarily in the UK, no?

Nope. Wholly domestic in Canadian law.

> This division is illustrated in a number of ways: The sovereign, for example, holds a unique Canadian title and,[82] when he and other members of the royal family are acting in public specifically as representatives of Canada, they use, where possible, Canadian symbols, including the country's national flag, unique royal symbols, armed forces uniforms,[87] and the like, as well as Canadian Forces aircraft or other Canadian-owned vehicles for travel.[88] Once in Canadian airspace, or arrived at a Canadian event taking place abroad, the Canadian Secretary to the King, officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other Canadian officials will take over from whichever of their other realms' counterparts were previously escorting the King or other member of the royal family.[88][89]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#119

Post by throw0101c »

Symbiote wrote: post #86
unpopularopp wrote: post #67

I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. I live in a country where we have a PM and president too which is elected by the parliament (which means it's just another random career politician so it might as well be Joe from the corner shop). At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy. There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden,…

You've named all the European monarchies other than Luxembourg, Spain and microstates. I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc. See map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe

> I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc.

One metric:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country

Most of the top ones are constitutional monarchies. Next up seem to be countries that have symbolic heads of state, with mostly ceremonial duties (and "reserve" powers like the UK HoS/crown).

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#120

Post by throw0101c »

shortsightedsid wrote: post #43
wikfwikf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of. France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.

Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary.

> Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode.

One advantage is that you know who to blame, especially when it elections come around. Instead of the "dead lock" that can occur when both the Legislature and Executive say they have 'mandates' that are opposing to each other.

Post reply on HN