zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
As a Brit I'm not a huge fan of the royal family on principle, but Queen Elizabeth has been such an excellent head of state for us you really can't fault her.

People like to make out her life was easy and that it's not fair that she inherited such a privileged position, but I think the exact opposite. Her life seemed like living hell to me. Every day for the last 70 years she's had to serve this largely ungrateful country, and she did so without complaint. Even in her 90s she took her duties extremely seriously, and I respect the hell out of her for that.

It was only a couple of days ago she invited our new PM to Balmoral Castle to form a government. She was clearly looking weak and it's been no secret that she's been struggling to fulfil her duties as Queen for a while, but even just two days before her death at the age of 96 she put on the performance that was expected of her. And she did this practically every day of her life.

RIP. I doubt anyone will ever live up to her legacy. Despite all the problems I have with the royal family, I couldn't feel more pride that she was our Queen.

>>kypro+Ph
She could have abolished the monarchy and quit at any time. Monarchies are inherently undemocratic and she was the head of that undemocratic class system for decades while people suffered under the British empire.

I don’t doubt your sincerity, but these feelings in you and others were intentionally cultivated by decades of propaganda. There is no such thing as a rightful king or queen, and certainly no such thing as someone who rules by divine right.

>>Pulcin+xz
I think it’s incredibly naive to suggest that she could have abolished the monarchy just like that.

What about the legal system in the UK/Canada/Australia that have it in constitution that she as a veto to the passing of new laws as a balance.

Could the system be made not to require the monarchy anymore? Sure, it’s purely ceremonial and has been for her entire reign, but to say that the monarch can make that decision at whim on behalf of 15 countries is just not true.

>>highwa+qB
One of the interesting quirks of losing the empire is that there are a lot of precedents for 'Westminster model' countries becoming republics. The straightforward way is to give the reserve powers of the monarch to a mostly-ceremonial President on the Irish or Israeli model, and vest the rest formally in the government (which coincidentally also makes them subject to more parliamentary oversight). In the case of Canada/Australia etc. the Governors-General are already performing such a ceremonial presidency in reality. All that's needed is a process for electing new ones; fairly straightforward.

You're right that it would require international cooperation, though: the British parliament doesn't legislate for the other Commonwealth Realms any more.