Queen? In Canada? Since when?

Post Reply New Topic

I am no monarchist and am not dissing the queen, but I would have to say that I question the UK's claim of Canada's "throne" that is not there (aka "realm"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Canada has been free unofficially since 1867 and officially since 1931 (the year I see that Britain officially loses a realm/dominion of Canada). I am just wondering why Britain is still spreading the lie of still claiming various independent states (like Canada) as realm/dominion that have since gone from the former empire. The only answer I see is for them to feel better about themselves after losing more than half (maybe up to 3/4ths) of their empire. Your majesty, if you just happen to be reading this and you feel offended after reading this, I would love for you to come over (or bring me over to your castle once I have a passport) if you want to try to convince or talk to me about this claim to status. To whomelse is reading, give me your opinion about this (please) and I don't honestly care if you tell your queen on me if your a British reading this.

I do not think highly of the monarchy. Monarchy in general is something I disagree with. I think association with the other parts of the former empire is a good thing though. Even if the monarchy were to be abolished, I would want a close alliance with the UK/Australia/NZ to name the most obvious ones.

If Canada doesn't want a throne, they need a war. If they joined ours, they would be free of any monarchs already!

Because the Queen is still head of state of those countries.

...?

I thought this was about the band Queen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgM&ob=av2e[/youtube]

Because Britain has zero claim. Queen Elizabeth here, is Queen of Canada ... not Queen of England. Completely separate office. British Parliament isn't even allowed to talk to her about Canada. Not to mention she has basically no power. The US president has vastly more concentrated executive power than any office in the entire Westminster system, including the monarch. Much, much more power. No one individual in the Westminster system has anything like that kind of power.

Elizabeth II is Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc., in personnal union, just as the Hannoverian dynasty were King of Great Britain and Elector (later, King) of Hannover.

Uh... no. It has already been made clear in Australia that should there be a referendum that showed people did not want the monarchy, the queen would sign away her powers there and the country would become a republic. The same could happen in Canada if there was the will. As it is, the monarchy is an old fashioned tradition which costs more than it should but is otherwise harmless. The queen has no real power. So people generally don't think about it and can't be bothered to make a fuss.

The other point is that there's no office of "Queen of England" outside the heads of Americans and Irish republicans. Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom.

Personal union, that's it. Separate kingdoms/dominions, same monarch. People - especially Americans - get very confused because they have a hard time grasping what existed before there was such a thing as national states. They literally can't imagine anything outside the concept of the national state, in my experience.

I was very tired when I wrote that, disregard Queen of England (though technically, I didn't claim there was any such thing)

And much more heavily in debt, and losing economically-motivated wars against poorly-armed militias and overhyped 'terrorists'. Lovely.
But, realistically, I think Canada should have a referendum. Monarchy isn't something I enjoy either, and I wish I could vote against it.

If Canada doesn't want a throne, it can declare itself a republic. It's that simple.

Myself, I'm no monarchist, but I do see the value of separating the roles of head of state and head of government, which most countries do but the U.S. doesn't, & which can be done whether a country is a monarchy or a republic. My understanding is that Canada has a "governor general" who serves as head of state and basically has ceremonial duties but no political power, and who technically serves as the representative of Queen Elizabeth II but who accedes to the office through the Canadian political process, not appointment by the British monarchy. It hardly seems an abridgment of the country's sovereignty, but if Canadians decide to do away with this formality, it's within their power to do so.

There is one little power the GG has, its a safeguard in the Westminster parliamentary system against something that happens sometimes in republics (eg Enabling Act) - the GG has what's called Royal Assent, which is required to pass any bill. Theoretically, the GG can refuse to sign. This power is almost never used - its generally just a formality - but it can be used under exceptional circumstances. The benefit of having this power in the hands of the GG is that the GG is a nonpartisan safeguard, something that does not exist in a republic.

Canada is one of the 16 Common Wealth realms, (former colonies within the British Empire that still have the British monarch as their monarch as well). Most of 54 Common Wealth countries are former British colonies but only 16 of them are Common Wealth realms in that sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm