All the evidence is that you'll end up with something more like a Kardashian and I doubt they'll bring in the billions of tourism dollars world royal fans do.

Stay Classy, Britain.

> nonpartisan president

Oxymoron.

You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.

Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.)

Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into political debates, and not opening up the office to the vulgarities of electoral politics.

For example, Germany elects its president by convening both the Federal and State legislatures together, who then vote. By pulling in all the regional parties and legislators, the President has to have broad support across party lines. It's also convention that the President doesn't wade into daily political issues. The result is a largely ceremonial office, usually held by a broadly respected statesperson with former government experience. Which is what you want for the "emergency button" you hope you don't have to push in the first place.

A monarch actually holds a higher office than a dictator in the Western tradition.

This is relevant because Western monarchs claim the office of Rex/Regina.

Monarchs are just as bad if not worse than dictators. There are also non-tyrannical dictators. The issue with dictators is an issue of incentives, not an issue of immediate result.

Unelected officials should never have significant power. This led to a harmful coup d'etat in Australia. It's not a ceremonial office, and simply the fact that the emergency button exists makes it possible for perversions to continue and cause serious issues (and it has).

Partisanship is very far from the only cause of dysfunction in governments. I'd argue it's not even the worst.

The difference between a Monarchy and a Dictatorship is a question of tradition and the concentration of power not the line of succession. North Korea for example moved from father to son as a Dictatorship, give it 5 generations and you could call it a Monarchy.

However, even if it’s generally accepted that the child or close relative of the current leader should become the new leader there will eventually be back and forth over time between the royal family and other members of government. In theory they might have absolute authority, but in both practice and tradition there will be many informal limits.

Dictators absolutely don't have absolute power either - they have to juggle it with the military, the private sector, and so on, at the very least. In practice, the concentration of power between a dictator and a monarch is very similar. There are monarchs that hold a lot more power than the average dictators, and dictators that hold a lot less power than the average monarch (Marxist-Leninist states such as the USSR or China have their dictator share quite a bit of power to the Politburo, lower cadres, and so on, for example).

In general, monarchies pretty much have had the absolute maximum of power concentration possible without disastrous consequences.

I would say it's not even merely incentives, it's about a free people controlling their own destiny without a self-appointed father figure. Both aspects are important. Would you rather have a paternalistic boss or the freedom to choose your own destiny in consultation with your peers?

Consider the examples given, countries like Germany, Ireland, India, etc

Where presidents have actual executive power such as USA, France, Russia, the issue you bring up can, at least in theory, occur.

And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown?

I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.

Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. If QE II were to abdicate, for example, she would not get to keep all of it. It's the property of the Crown, the office of the head of state. It belongs to the state, in practice. If she's advised to abdicate, she would, and she's advised to transfer all Crown property to a republic, she would.

The royal family does have many billions in personal holdings as well, of course.

> Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person.

The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II are different persons. Queen Elizabeth II is a natural person. The Crown is a legal person, a corporation sole – a corporation with only one member, who right now is Queen Elizabeth II. Actually the Crown is not a single corporation, but a number of legally distinct corporations which all have identical membership. There is "the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom", "the Crown in Right of Canada", "the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia", "the Crown in Right of New Zealand", etc. All up, there are 16 nations with Queen Elizabeth II as monarch, and each of those nations is a distinct corporation "the Crown in Right of X". But, also there exist distinct "the Crown in Right of X" corporations for each Australian state (6) and each Canadian province (10), and also each of the three British crown dependencies (Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey). So there are 35 legal persons (corporations sole) "the Crown in Right of X", and one natural person who is presently the sole common member of all of them. Each of those 35 corporations has distinct assets, which in turn are distinct from the personal assets of the natural person called Elizabeth. If any of those 35 entities became a republic, the assets of the "Crown in Right of X" corporation would pass to its republican successor.

Do they actually though? If they do, how come Edward VIII had to go begging after his abdication?

AIUI he was effectively disowned by the rest of them, for placing his marriage above the stability of the institution. It could well have led to a British republic. And the next king did pay him an allowance anyway, apparently.

Royal Mail was privatised years ago.

Abolishing the monarchy would also obsolete the Sovereign Grant, so all the surplus income from the Crown Estate would go to the state without the royal family leeching their cut.

That said, there are some Duchies that are privately owned. In my opinion, these should be seized by the state during the establishment of a republic - if we're going to abolish the monarchy, we need to go the whole way and strip each member of all their inherited wealth too.

It's the very least they deserve, and would provide a much needed clean slate for New Britain.

I wasn’t aware of significant income flowing to the Queen from Papua New Guinea.