2

I think it is somewhat understandable for small territories that are either still dependent on the United Kingdom or are independent but relying economically on the UK, but what about Canada, Belize, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea? Why do they keep Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state?

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    Partial duplicate: Why do Australians want to remain under British monarchy?. Perhaps this question is too broad?
    – CDJB ♦
    Jul 4, 2021 at 11:36
  • 6
    There is the possibility of a fundamental misunderstanding in this question. The Queen of Canada, Australia, and others is Queen of those countries, and they are free to determine their own rules of succession. It is not the case that "the British monarch" is head of state in Canada. It happens to be the same person with the same rules of succession, but the office which that person holds is entirely separate. The British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies are in a different relationship to the Crown.
    – Andrew Leach
    Jul 4, 2021 at 11:37
  • There are two aspects to the question: Why a monarch (not a president)? and Why Elizabeth II of England? However the answers in each case are similar to the ones already given for Australia.
    – James K
    Jul 4, 2021 at 12:15
  • @AndrewLeach although under the Perth agreement the independent laws of succession have been kept aligned while switching to absolute primogeniture (not that the change is likely to matter for quite a while) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement
    – origimbo
    Jul 4, 2021 at 15:09
  • @origimbo While this is true, they didn't have to be. If (say) Canada had declined to agree, then in sixty years time the UK might have a queen and Canada a king, and the Royal Families would have diverged — in much the same way as the personal union of the Crowns of Britain and Hanover was dissolved on the death of William IV.
    – Andrew Leach
    Jul 6, 2021 at 14:46

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
11

In part this is tied to the notion of the Commonwealth of Nations. Unlike the US, nations of the Commonwealth gained independence through civil and legal procedures as the British colonial system dissolved. Those nations with long, favorable histories as part of the Empire — like Canada and Australia — largely opted to retain the Queen and the constitutional monarchy system. Other nations — mainly those which were primarily economic colonies, not settlement areas — took on a monarchy-independent republican form of government.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    Nice. Other than the US, what are examples of former British colonies with a monarchy-independent government?
    – Burt_Harris
    Jul 7, 2021 at 17:00
  • 1
    @Burt_Harris: I suppose the most notable examples would be India and Kenya. But poke around on Commonwealth of Nations.
    – Ted Wrigley
    Jul 7, 2021 at 18:11
  • 2
    I don’t agree this is directly anything to do with the Commonwealth of Nations. This is just a loose association of countries that were once in the Empire and some are not even monarchies. If Australia left the Commonwealth for example it would have no impact on Australia’s monarchy. The retention of the British Queen has head of state has a much more complex explanation particular to each country and the evolution of their independence from the UK under a merely ceremonial monarch.
    – Orbital Aussie
    Aug 3, 2021 at 17:31
8

Not all countries are the same, and may have different reasons. The reasons given for Australia in this answer are likely to be common across other countries. To summarize:

  • For a lot of people having a Royal family is fun, people like reading about them in magazines, and in that way they're like celebrities.

  • Some people see the Royal family and the links to Britain, as an important part of the country's heritage. "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

  • Countries other than the UK don't pay anything for the Royal family.

  • The monarchy has the ability to remove a government if it's abusing its power and that way they're like an extra safety net for our democracy.

  • The Westminster system has been exported to many countries with success and is no less 'democratic' than Republican models. In the last four years this argument has been even more effective.

  • Republicanism would be more expensive than a monarchy.

  • There are benefits to having a head of state who is not a politician.

Improve this answer
5
  • This. It's more tradition, pageantry and shucks-who-cares than anything else here in Canada. Seems to be the same in Australia - there's a vocal minority of antis and a large uncaring majority. Support, or at least tolerance, is also based on the current Queen's generally good standing and tendency to stay out of public debates for the most part. Stay tuned when Charles takes over, he's nowhere as popular and has been somewhat fond of inserting his foot into his mouth.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Jul 7, 2021 at 15:09
  • 3
    And Canada has the clearest view of anyone of how bad it can get when your head of state is elected.
    – DJClayworth
    Jul 7, 2021 at 15:16
  • ? Oh, you mean Big Orange One down South? I don't think these are comparable positions at all. Tell you the truth, all this "heads of state" stuff confuses me. You either have strong executive powers or you don't. Rest is too theoretical for me. Queen has zilch actual power here, main reason I don't care.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Jul 7, 2021 at 15:23
  • 1
    Anything about fear of having the system change to a presidential system. And no perceived benefit of making the change
    – user1605665
    Jan 18, 2022 at 10:24
  • "Countries other than the UK don't pay anything for the Royal family." Mostly true, although they would pay for their local Governors-General and some Royal family expenses associated with visits to their country on tours.
    – ohwilleke ♦
    Sep 13, 2022 at 15:43
0

Why not?

You don't fix something unless it is broken.

There are enough broken things to be fixed.

Disclosure: I am a conservative, with conservative friends in AU, NZ, and CA. In some years we are the majority of those countries, and we take extra caution before changing something, unless it is proven to be broken.

The resource is limited and we need to focus more on other things that are clearly broken, for example the inflation, job-loss, etc

As a liberal, Australian PM holds similar beliefs.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
    – Alexei
    Sep 13, 2022 at 15:24
  • 2
    @Alexei I think it does, just without spelling it out. However colloquially it is stated, it does bring up a possibility that it is simply a system that's working. A working, but flawed, system maybe preferable to a new, but potentially broken system.
    – wrod
    Sep 13, 2022 at 17:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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