For bigger and wealthier Commonwealth realms, it is not much of a problem to host the monarch for a week. Howsoever meagre it may be, the nation still has to pay respect to their Queen, host her, and therefore some official money collected from tax payers is spent on the Queen. Are there any advantages for the other nations to still call the British monarch their monarch?

Not to be confused with : Commonwealth of Nations : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

  • 3
    The Queen has visited many countries. Do you have evidence that visits to Commonwealth realms cost the host country more than visits to other places? Oct 29, 2020 at 11:59
  • 1
    Related quesiton: Why are so many countries still in the Commonwealth? (speaking about the Commonwealth of Nations, not the Commonwealth Realms)
    – Philipp
    Oct 29, 2020 at 13:01
  • One example is Tuvalu, the smallest Commonwealth realm nation. The net benefit from being a member is much greater than the cost of the very rare visits (one so far, in 1982) from the monarch. Tuvalu gets 15% of its income from the Tuvalu Trust Fund. (Aside: Tuvalu also gets a good deal of income thanks to its .tv internet domain name, but not as much as it gets from the trust fund.) Oct 29, 2020 at 14:54

1 Answer 1


It's cheap and easy for a country like Canada or Australia or even Barbados. The alternative, elections of a figurehead president, would doubtless cost more. The process of rewriting the constitution would raise issues: should the President be given reserve powers. How do you stop the President from abusing their powers? With the Queen as Head of State, it is clear that she has no democratic mandate, and so can't claim a mandate from the masses, which practically ensures that she remains a figurehead.

There is some who enjoy the tradition of having a Queen: the pomp and circumstance that you don't get with a President.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .