what is the advantage of having a queen or a king versus a president?

Question

i have always wondered what it would be like to be ruled by a queen or king rather than by a president.

Answer 1

If you have a constitutional monarchy like England, the advantage is having a figurehead you can revere and respect and yet who has no real power to rule over you. The British feel free to respect Her Majesty while letting the Prime Minister have it if he/she deserves it. (By "let him have it", I mean the criticism, the insults, and so forth.)

If you have only one ruler as your figurehead, some people think it's unpatriotic to criticize that leader even if he's doing a sucky job--look at our current administration--even though he's elected and answerable to the people.

Also, with a king or queen, that person could rule for decades, providing a sense of stability, whereas the elected official is replaced every few years. I understand Queen Elizabeth has had ten prime ministers, with Number 11 on the way.

The big disadvantage of a king or queen, of course, is getting someone with absolute power or authority whom you can't vote out of office. Think of King Henry VIII who had many people executed at whim, including Sir Thomas More and two of Henry's own wives!

Of course, some presidents or other elected officials assume the power of an absolute monarch. Think of Adolf Hitler or Idi Amin.

You could try moving for a year to a country with a king or queen, and see how you like it. Lay low, though, if you want to keep your head! ;)

Answer 2

There are different kinds of presidents (America's and France's lead the government, Ireland and Germany's, for example, are ceremonial figureheads) and kings (most have little power, Nepal's and Swaziland's have and abuse their power). Using the examples of the US and UK (since most people on this site are from one of those two), the advantage, as others have said, is that the Queen provides a non-partisan head of state whom everyone can, and most people do, respect. In America half the population hates the figure who is not just leader of the govt but meant to embody the nation. This is regrettable. The other half is reluctant to criticise the head of the govt partly *because* he is head of state.

A tyrannical king for life would not be fun, but having had the same queen since before most people here were born gives us a strong attachment to her. It will feel very strange once she's gone as she has been a part of our lives for as long as we can remember.

Another nice advantage, for those who enjoy such things, is that monarchs tend to use more pomp and ceremony than presidents, and seeing the Household Cavlary riding through London, preceding the Queen's carriage as she goes to parliament with the bells of the Abbey pealing could fail to stir only the hardest of hearts.

Answer 3

The president is elected, the king/queen is chosen by birth. You'd have no say in it.

You didn't ask, but you might be interested:

A benefit of having BOTH a president (actually a prime minister) AND a king/queen is that the monarch (I'm sick of typing "king/queen") becomes the symbol of the nation. Notice how much Bush has played on patriotism and wrapped himself in the flag. Can't do that in England. As much as Blair could possibly try, he can't say the the Queen backs him (she tends to stay out of politics). If he did, she could possibly come out and make him look like a fool. So a monarch can serve a useful purpose.

Answer 4

What's the difference if a president can act just like a king?! Okay, but people don't elect such kings on purpose. There are corrupt kings and corrupt politicians, good kings and good politicians. I know that presidents have to work a lot harder to at least try to court the people where a king does as he pleases because he feels he's got the god-given right and if he's got a good enough army to defend him, he's unbeatable. If he's a bad king in this modern age of course, people just don't pay attention to him because he doesn't have that much power. If you're a bad president, they will impeach you and you'll have a bad reputation for all eternity.

Answer 5

actually the advantage of being a queen or king is that you have your own personal wealth , you can reign forever , and has the right to protect the nation's crown and jewels.
but actually there is more advantage if you are the president cause president can actually exercise his powers fully unlike a monarch has only limited powers in the country.but a monarch is also considered as an head of state w/ limited executive powers

Answer 6

Stability above all ! A king/ Queen knows all political decisions on the country for many years and act to the continuity. Concerning the "absolute" power....King Henry VIII is not an example to give ! We can see what G.W.B do now with Iraq and Afghanistan.....and he's not a king...

Answer 7

Part of the problem of 4 years then a change occurs is that policy and drive can suddenly shift directions causing wasted money if major initiatives are suddenly tossed aside. Also the politics of power struggles can choke a leader who is trying to make a real difference.

The problem with a monarchy is that if the people ruling are inept, short sighted or ambivalent to their country they can run it into the ground - at least with a 4 year ruler the theory is you can get rid of them with only 4 years of damage.

Answer 8

Think about it King/Queen forever, President 4 years.
You can get rid of one but not the other.
Unless you know about some perfect kingdom that will endure through your lifetime.

Answer 9

The queen of England performs NO USEFUL FUNCTION! The job of President is done by the Prime Minister. The queen is a financial drag on the economy. She and her royal family get exorbitant salaries and do nothing for it. Such is British socialism.

Crosschecking
(Crazy, not stupid)

Answer 10

if i were king, all your wildest dreams would come true