Queen Elizabeth II #46

Queen Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom, has been on the Forbes' "World's 100 Most Powerful Women" list for many years. This year she is ranked #46 (German Chancellor Merkel is #1, taking over the slot from US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, who is now ranked #2.)

This woman is the Head of State (sometimes Chief of State) of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, The Bahamas, Jamaica, and the other "commonwealth" countries.

I suppose my question - I have been wondering such for awhile - is, why? I could not find an answer that satisfied me - apparently the British PMs have met with her regularly for awhile, but again - why? Her monetary wealth is paltry (for the upper-class standards - hovering around $500M USD), and her presence seems only for the media.

What do you, loyal subjects of Britain, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, The Bahamas, et alia. think of her/the monarchy in general?

there is a great number of canadian maybe even so far as to say the majority do not appresiate the queen as head of our nation. as nice as the queen is, bear in mind the next in line is a big eared, in-bred, rich boy, party man, unfaithful, and out of touch prince who will be the king on our money.not alot of canuck are too keen on that either.

I don't think about them at all, except for when they come to visit.

Technically, she can intervene in our politics but that would never happen. I don't care one way or the other.

I got to give her flowers when I was a little girl and she seemed very nice. Kind of reminded me of my grandmother.

Well speaking as an Englishman who lives in Australia, I find the Queen completely benign and benevolent. I found more antipathy to the Queen in England, than here in Australia.

The Queen is a figurehead, nothing more. As Duzey points out, she technically has the power to intervene in politics but she never would. The only controversy of this nature, that I remember hearing about, is when she approved the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam in 1975.

The Queen didnt instigate it, just had her technical authourity exercised via her representative - the Governor General of Australia.

I rejected the removal of the Queen as our head of state (Australia) for two reasons. 1) It would be incredibly expensive to change our money, legislation, constitution etc. and 2) It is a part of our long history and has served us well.

When the Queen dies, I would be completely neutral on whether Australia became a republic. Since our money would eventually have to be changed anyway the cost would be reduced.

In regards to the Forbes list putting the Queen at #46, I disagree. The Queen is the most recognizable woman on the planet, bar none. With that comes a lot of influence and prestige. Compare that to, say, Angela Merkel's notority, and you would see just how much potential the Queen truly has. If she wanted to exercise that potential she would rocket up the list instantly IMHO.

Also, in regards to power, the Queen of England certainly has more influence than, say, Merkel, despite any magazine's ranking. If a catastrophe hits the western world, its traditional, authoritative, respected positions like the sovreigns that the people will rally around, and its their will that they can be roused to strive or fight for.

For the record, here is the rating system used by Forbes to determine placement on the list - I'm sure many would disagree with parts of it (I'd link to the website article, but its junk compared to the print article):

Our power rankings are based on a composite of visibility (measured by press citations) and economic impact. The latter, in turn, reflects three things: resume (a prime minister is more powerful than a senator), the size of economic sphere over which a leader holds sway; and a multiplier that aims to make different financial yardsticks comparable. For example, a politician is assigned a GDP number but gets a low multiplier, while a foundation executive is assigned the foundation's assets but gets a high multiplier.

- Forbes - Outfront: September, 18, 2006.

I understand the queen is probably the most recognizable non-entertainment woman in the world as a whole - but show the average person in the US (and maybe the entire western hemisphere save Canada and UK's past Caribbean holdings) a picture of her and they'd probably guess she was just somebody's grandmother. Just a note - the only other monarch on the list is Queen Rania of Jordan (#81, list is of world's top 100) - someone every male over the age of 12 can probably recognize if shown a picture

edit - I originally said "person" not "woman", and I corrected a typo in my transcription of the magazine article.

edit - Took Subz' tip to use external tags and "source" the snippet - I had mentioned the source several times, forgive me if I caused confusion, Subz - thanks for the tip!
[edit on 14-9-2006 by AlphaHumana]

[edit on 14-9-2006 by AlphaHumana]

AlphaHumana, unfortunately you have to source your quoted section. Also you must remember to use the [ex] tag instead of the [quote] tag when quoting external articles.

With regards to the average American not recognizing the Queen of England, I completely disagree. She is not just the most recognizable non-entertainment woman in the World, but the most recognizable woman. Her face is the most reproduced face in history.

With regards to Queen Rania, I honestly would not be able to pick her out of a line up. I've seen her image once, maybe twice.

[edit on 14/9/06 by subz]

Thank you, Subz, I corrected that post as well as I could. Forgive me if I came off as confusing regarding where the ranking rubric came from. I honestly have no idea if Forbes is even remotely as well known in other parts of the world as it is here - I never really thought about it.

The Queen Rania reference was kind of a joke - she's on the TIME magazine "World's Most Beautiful People" list, and she makes appearences on American TV fairly regularly (I can't remember the last time I saw Elizabeth on TV here - if I had to guess I'd say the 2004 Reagan funeral parade, I remember Thatcher was there, not sure if the Queen was) - and I just brought her up because she's the only other royalty on the list.

I must say though that I really don't think a vast majority of people over here would recognize the queen - maybe if she was wearing a crown or holding a scepter in her picture though they would! I don't want to argue over how recognizable the queen is, I was just curious of what people thought of maintaining what many of us in the US see as an anachronism, especially considered that the UK people support her with their taxes.

A more interesting question in my opinion - do the UK Commonwealth countries' people pay any kind of taxes or support for the queen's upkeep (on the few times I've seen her on TV, her security detail entourage appears to be more elaborate than Blair's!)?

Your support of her makes the list even more interesting to discuss, especially using her in comparison with others on the list. I appreciate your input!

edit- I wanted to add the web version of the list concerning the discussion, though as I noted the online version is, naturally, missing a lot from the print (i.e. not free) edition - www.forbes.com...

[edit on 14-9-2006 by AlphaHumana]

Thanks for the edited quote

Well Forbes is famous over here, we hear of the the Forbes richest list every year.

We dont pay anything towards the upkeep of the monarchy here in Australia, and I assume the same is true for the rest of the Commonwealth. So that probably explains the increased antipathy towards the monarchy within Britain, who do have to contribute.

But when you think about it you have to contribute to quite a lot of things, via taxes, that you dont a) necessarily use or b) necessarily like. So why would the monarchy be any different to say certain roadways or the public health system (NHS)? There is no doubt that the monarchy is a major tourist attraction. Whether or not the cost of maintaining the monarchy is more than what it attracts in tourism is another point entirely.

I can understand why people get angry at having to subsidize such extravagent lifestyles, but I see it as a component of government. Britain is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen is an integral part of that government. Without the Queen our system would not work. If we did away with the monarch we would have to redesign our governmental system and would end over 1,000 years of tradition.

It's that tradition that has me wanting Britain to hold on to the monarchy. It's something you cannot buy, and it's something owned by every citizen.

I think a compromise could be sought in having the Queen finance herself and her family. But then we would have to compensate her for the public apperances and events she attends, just as any other private citizen would be paid. This would see the Queen as basically equal to any other public servant. Not a bad irony in the end

[edit on 14/9/06 by subz]

I would rather have a Constituional Monarchy than having a President of a Republic. (President Blair) god help us.

Alot of people around the world are still interested by the awe off royalty weither you agree with that or not. Look at the amount of tourists/people who visit the royal palaces over here in the UK.

The queen has more influence in the world than the German Chancellor. She may have dropped to 46 or 47, but she is still an influensial figure.

Paying for her I do not mind, but paying for the hanger ons of the royal family that annoys me.



[edit on 15-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by subz
The Queen is the most recognizable woman on the planet, bar none. With that comes a lot of influence and prestige.

Maybe, but what about Paris Hilton?