Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?

I think you are making Dr. A's point. Some Republicans do treat the president disrespectfully, and you seem to agree that such treatment is not to be emulated. Surely you are not recommending behaving like people you consider to be idiots.When you call a foreign monarch by his title, or "your highness", or whatever, you aren't acknowledging any relationship whatsoever between the monarch and you, because you are not his subject. Using such a title would be mere politeness. Kinda like calling a judge "your honor" regardless of whether that judge is a buffoon. There are good and bad kings. We can judge them on their merits regardless of how they come to power. And despite the fact that ascendancy usually has a hereditary component, there can be some merit considerations also. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not necessarily. The Governor-General in Australia is nominated by the Prime Minister and then appointed by the monarch and it seems to work pretty well. All we need to do here is remove the need for royal assent. I'm sure you could do the same.One negative of this system is that the G-G's tend to be high profile judges, lawyers and politicians, which in some ways means they don't have much connection with the majority of the Australian public, however I myself think that's a small price to pay compared to introducing another round of electioneering. Interestingly the Australian states have a similar Governor system representing the monarchy, and in many of these states more recent appointments to Governor have moved away from the political and legal regimes and include former sporting heroes such as the Lithgow Flash, prominent business people and health professionals. There has even been the odd scientist in there. Maybe this will start to happen federally as well. Would seem like a good way of antagonising our former colonial masters, but it would be at the risk of some international embarrassment. I'm sure some would think we were being ruled by G W Bush.

I've been wondering for a while what, really, is the point of a Head of State? In a parliamentary republic, the President tends to have veto powers, and plays in a role in the formation and dismissal of governments. But then you look at the consitutional monarchy next door, where everything seems to trundle along in a similar way, and the head of state doesn't, in actuality, really possess these powers, regardless of their technical constitutional role.The only universal role for heads of state seems to be the ceremonial, but this all leaves me scratching my head as to what the point of it all is. If people want to prance around in daft costumes or what-have-you on their own times because it gives them a warm cozt feeling of tradition, all well and good. But it all seems a bit of a waste of public money to go doing it officially.

Yes - You and Mod both make the valid point that a head of state appointment can be made without either an election or reliance on hereditary mechanisms.I'm still trying to think of a way to get my "national treasure" suggestion implemented.... Blimey!! Separated at birth!!!

I pretty much agree. But it does seem to be a key part of international relations to do these things.I don't really understand why either.All I can think of is that no-one wants to be the party pooper, weak link or first to flinch. Can you imagine if Obama decided to do away with all that pomp and ceremony stuff? The next world leader that pitched up in America got a taxi to the White House and a TV dinner at home with the pres rather than a parade and a star studded banquet.....The world media would start reading all sorts of underlying meaning into it and an international incident would ensue....Lots of headlines proclaiming the end of the (Aaargghh!!) "Special Relationship".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Possibly. Personally I like the idea that the government publicly and officially recognises it's citizens for meritorious work in the community (eg Order of Australia award) or has a representative at important memorials or to receive and entertain foreign dignitaries. I just don't want the Prime Minister to waste her time on those things.

Honours systems often just seem to be a way of old boys patting each other on the back, and I wouldn't be too sad to see them go, but if we think this has a useful function in society we can always keep them. Instead of the award being presented by a President, or by a Prime Minister who should be busy with the actual process of governing, we could appoint a Master of Ceremonies who turns up just for such events, and solemnly gives some speech about how 'on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, in recognition of your selfless sacrifice...' and so on and so forth. Such a job could be accomplished as a part-time position, with far lower cost than a permanent President. Perhaps we don't even pay the Master of Ceremonies - treat the position itself as an honour for a distinguished civil servant or somesuch.As for foreign delegations, I have even less interest in granting them all this pomp and circumstance. I get deeply annoyed when Obama and Medvedev have to turn up here for some formal treaty signing, with all sorts of ceremonial nonsense (paid for out of the public purses of US, Russian and Czech citizens) and disruption to people's travel and work. Politicians, I imagine, have plenty of work to occupy ther time without jaunting off on jollies to foreign parts which, in the age of instant global telecommunication, are rarely necessary.I'd probably make a poor diplomat, though.

Nothing beats a face-to-face meeting. It's much easier to prevaricate or outright lie to someone who's just a face on a screen, but when you have to shake their hand, sit next to them at a press conference or dinner, and get a chance at some small talk, they become people and that greases the wheels of diplomacy as much, if not more so, as treaties and agreements. I agree that this is annoying. When the President stops by to give a speech (or a candidate campaigning) it ties up traffic for miles, requires a large influx of cops, and just generally disrupts the day, all at our very own expense. Of course, I don't see much way around this. As long as assassination is possible, there will need to be security and motorcades, and as long as those exist, it will tie up traffic. The only thing I could say is, if the President sees it as beneficial to come to town to make a speech, shouldn't he be the one footing the bill? I know, I know, we still pay for it either way, but this way the cost is spread out across the country and not just our little municipality.

But when it comes to modern diplomacy, the actual work has been done already by career diplomats by the time Barack and Dmitri are shaking hands in Prague Castle. This is just a formality and a photo opportunity. I'm not sure any personal relationship between the Presidents has the same impact on international diplomacy as we are led to believe. I agree that security is necessary for such a high profile target as the President of the US. I just don't agree that his prescence here is necessary. I'm sure it's perfectly possible for him to sign something in Washingon. But, no, he has to come and do it in a castle instead.

Very true, but those career diplomats are not authorized to enact the treaty they signed. But again, not everything about diplomacy is about treaties. Obama going to Prague to shake Dmitri's hand is a symbol, a sign of respect. You might be surprised. In democracies, where the leader of a country could be very different in just a couple years, it may have less of an impact, but all you'd have to do is look at the relationship Tony Blair and Bush II had. Do you really think the UK would have followed the US to war in Iraq if those two hadn't developed some sort of rapport? Yeah, it's probably not essential, but it does two things. 1) It shows respect to the country he's visiting. It shows that what he's signing is important enough to get him to go halfway around the world.2) It gives him an excuse to travel. I've often wished my job would send me to other places and let me fly, eat and be a tourist on someone else's dime. (Of course, the one time I get the opportunity, my wife is pregnant and I can't risk going.)

well how about URGBNI or maybe URoGBaNIUrogbani (ur-oh-gban-E) - (United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)YEAH! good call that sounds much better than the uck (UK).Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

I'm still Her Majesty's subject though a long-time resident of Texas.I don't have any good answers to the questions asked by the OP. (This is my first post so be easy on me .) My best guesses would be that (a) the Queen and the royal family are considered entertaining, harmless, and a generator of tourist revenues by most UK citizens and (b) a minority of people, such as myself, who think it's wrong to appoint people on a hereditary basis, are mostly not so worked up about it as to do anything about it because we see the role, in practice, as just ceremonial.To me, the monarchy is distasteful and useless but not positively harmful. I'd still like to get rid of it. I wouldn't want to lumber the PM with more ceremonial duties so I would favor an elected figurehead (or a somehow appointed figurehead) to replace the monarch.I don't think the monarchy provides anything by way of checks and balances. Although the monarch may have some theoretical role in restraining the excesses of the parliamentary government, I don't think that role has been exercised in hundreds of years and if it were to be exercised today, the government would probably respond by abolishing the monarchy.if one thinks that more checks and balances are needed, I think that one would have to look to reforming the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the judiciary. Maybe a written constitution would be helpful. Abolishing the monarchy would, in itself, in no way lead to destabilization of the country since the monarch invariably just "rubber stamps" the decisions of the government.