Why do we not have a president instead of the Queen?

Question

Why do we not have a president instead of a Queen? This would save a lot of our money as we spend on the Royal Family.

Answer 1

Because we are a kingdom and not a republic. Any republican thoughts I may slip into are quickly dispelled by muttering the phrase 'President Blair'!

Answer 2

Well, firstly, would you want a President Thatcher or a President Blair?

Secondly, it is a mistake to think that the royal family costs money, and for the following reason. The Crown Estate is land owned by the monarch valued at £6bn, and the income derived from these holdings is given to the exchequer each year in return for the civil list payment the monarch received.

The income far exceeds the value of the civil list. Were the monarch to be replaced as head of state, there would still be a need for a presidential (as opposed to a royal) flight, a presidential palace, etc etc, all of which would then be funded directly by the taxpayer without a balancing income.

Finally, theoretically the Crown still wields considerable power via the Royal Prerogative. Although administered in practise by the government, it remains the right of the monarch to declare war, dissolve parliament and call a general election, and to refuse to sign into law legislation passed by parliament by declining the Royal Assent. As the monarch is not elected, the idea is that in cases of dire emergency, they can act in the best interests of the nation, putting it above the political expediency fo governments.

In reality, it could only be used once, because the exercise of these powers now would precipitate a constitutional crisis, but once may well prove to be enough. The withholding of the Royal Assent was last used in 1708 by Queen Anne.

Answer 3

Constant attempts are made to suggest that it is an outdated anachronistic institution in spite of the fact that it like all other British institutions it has evolved steadily over all the years. To call it feudal which is often done by opponents is of course a nonsense and to suggest that it is at the head of the nobility and a class system is to talk about the past rather than the present. Like other institutions in a rapidly changing society it needs to be constantly examined to see whether improvements can be made so that its relevance to the current situation is maintained. This is regularly being done- there has for some time been a committee which meets for the sole purpose of discussing the way ahead for the monarchy.

It is sometimes said that Britain can never be a really modern state while it still has a monarchy. This of course ignores countries like Japan, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands and many others all of which are modern constitutional monarchies in modern countries where majority of the people of those nations have absolutely no intention of removing their monarchy because of the benefits they recognize they derive from it. In some countries where they have relinquished the monarchy in the past rather than reforming it or modernizing it, many people wish that there was a possibility of restoring it but often the passage of time has been too great. In some countries recently such as Afghanistan serious attempts were made to look at the restoration of the monarchy as a valuable uniting symbol of a disparate population but it was realised that in the meantime other factors had intervened which rendered this not practical.

The argument often put forward is that a monarchy it is not democratic. In fact it is that blissful combination of an institution which is entirely under democratic control yet above politics, faction, division, election, appointment, and short-term tenure providing a continuous thread from the past to a certain future

Answer 4

You guys have a monarchy because you haven't established a republic.

And you really should - most of the countries of Europe long ago abolished the monarchy (Switzerland 1814, France 1871, Portugal 1910, Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Poland 1918, Finland 1918, Austria 1918, Czechoslovakia 1918, Turkey 1918, Hungary 1945, Yugoslavia 1945, Albania 1945, Romania 1945, Bulgaria 1945, Ireland 1949, Italy 1949, Greece 1969)

And, of course, your former colony, America, abolished the monarchy way back in 1776.

Also, your royal family aren't even British!

They're German - the family name was Battenburg until 1914, when they Anglocized it to Windsor because England was at war with Germany (some of the family used an alternate Anglocized version - Mountbatten)

It's time you guys joined the club - kick the House of Windsor to the curb, and get an elected president!

Answer 5

The Royal family don't actually cost that much since they bring in so much tourism. Apparently per taxpayer it's something like the cost of a pint of milk per year. The royalty do a lot, most notably support charities, maintain stately homes, attend formal ceremonies here and abroad, act as ambassadors, and most importantly, give the tabloids something to write about.

After the Civil War, the UK was briefly a Republic, but since Oliver Cromwell was king in all but name (he was addressed "Your Highness"!) and the British hadn't yet mastered democracy, they ended up going back to the monarchy, no less than to the son of the king who'd been beheaded a few years earlier! Since then the royalty have been good for the image of the country, and probably too costly to get rid of.

Answer 6

George bush hardly brings the tourists to America does he? We are not a republic. There would be no point having a president aswell as there probably would be conflicts here in our country, it works in pakistan but I'm not sure if it would be worth it here. The Queen does not make many decisions, she has never objected to any laws or decisions made by the government. She is there meanly for ceremonial purposes and she brings in tourism. If we were to replace her we would lose valuable tourism and we would send the balance of power into dissary thats why we dont have a president instead,

Answer 7

Assuming you refer to the U.K, (and Commonwealth):

With Her Majesty we have continuity. The Royal Family has been in the business for over 1000 years. With a President, we'd just have one more politician who spends 3 years out of 4 campaigning for re-election (either his own or his party's).

Her Majesty, with over 50 years as Sovereign, can provide guidance to Prime Ministers who come and go. Tony, for example, wasn't even born when Her Majesty already was receiving Prime Ministers for weekly audience.

As for saving money ... most of the money is spent on politicians, members of Parliament, bureaucrats, "civil" servants, etc. And consider the amount of money which the Royal Family "donates" to the Civil List and in return only the Queen and Prince Philip receive Civil List monies -- which cover the Household expenses, etc. (not personal monies, expenses)

Answer 8

Because the royals control the brit social system, and they exercise that control ruthlessly. All critics are ostracized; some lose their chance for promotion at work, others get demoted and sometimes even fired, although nothing is said that the reason is because they spoke out against royals. Others simply give up and move out of britain to the US. Thats how the royals keep their power and their money, making the hapless brits pay for their support. Bringing in more money by their being around? Sure, but who gets most of it? They do, by selling all sorts of junk with their pictures on it.
They have one hand in every brit's pocket and the other hand over every brit's mouth.

Answer 9

Well, before I start, England is a democracy and their queen is just there for tradition.
In the 1780s when Americans were deciding to what to call the head of state, George Washington. Many people wanted to make George Washington "king of America" but Geroge Washington said no.

So we could have a constitutional monarchy if we did that back then.

But we have a president because that is waht the founding fathers created.

Answer 10

As much as i think the royal family is useless and expensive , they bring tourism to the UK which outweighs the cost of them. A president would not be an ideal situation for Britain in my view.

Answer 11

At the moment we have 2 Queens.One running the Labour party and the other running her vast empire.We can do without both, which would make our lives less expensive and a lot easier to live.Yes, lets become a Republic,but only allow those who are elected to have one term in office as this would cut down on the political corruptness that exists in our so called democratic country where some politicians have jobs for life.