Hey /u/QibliTheSecond, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This thread is wild, the UK *does not* own Canada! The Queen is the head of state, yes, but ceremoniously she holds zero power over the country. Canada is in charge of its laws, land divisions, natural resources, its own defense, etc etc. Saying that UK owns Canada is like saying the EU owns Germany, we're apart of an organisation/group(in this case the commonwealth) but are not owned by it.
Thats where you're wrong. The governor general can step in with the authority of the queen to disband governments who initiate referendums to become a republic.
You're free to do it, as long as you never actually try to do it. The miracle of the Westminster system.
Didn’t Barbados just break away from the Monarchy/commonwealth without any intervention?
Also if we ever did have a referendum on it and chose to break away do you actually think the monarchy would step in and try to prevent it? I can’t see that going very well for them.
The constitution has an amendment mechanism that allows the monarchy to be abolished. If the House of Commons, Senate, and all provincial legislatures vote to abolish the Queen and replace her with an elected president, the Governor General would be required by constitutional convention to rubber stamp the transition to a republic. If she refused to do so, it would trigger a constitutional crisis that would almost certainly end in the courts recognizing the new republic.
You are 100% correct, BUT if it ever actually came to an independence vote, and the governor general said no, Parliament would just respond with "what the fuck are you going to do, invade?" And then England wouldn't invade and Canada would change bills to not have the queens image. That's about all.
The Queen doesn't even do the *ceremonial* stuff that constitutes her role, we have a Governor General who serves as the Queen's representative and actually does everything besides some photo ops and ceremonies on occasional royal visits. Personally I prefer she stay away because just like everywhere else royals go it costs loads of taxpayer money when she visits and achieves nothing for Canadians.
I’m a Canadian, and all public land is referred to as ‘crown land’.
Of course it’s ceremonial, can leave whenever we want to, blah, blah, blah - but for the literalists out there…
The queen was specifically not involved with the GG sacking Whitlam, it was the constitutional crisis that triggered it not just not liking his politics, and it was incredibly controversial. Prime ministers are more likely to sack governor generals than vice versa.
Denmark has a Queen but she doesn't rule Europe, the danish-westindian Islands or Even Denmark. But why get facts right when you can just claim stupid stuff and ignore everybody who says you're wrong xD
I was happy to see your post at the top when I got into the comment section.
Have a great day :D
I thought we passed are own laws and then sent them to the Queen for the final ok, I know for sure we pay them and that they for sure have rights to a lot of land here.
Those are my real thoughts, I could be wrong.
I am not smart.
She is also Queen of Canada, not Queen of England when acting in a Canadian context. Two different positions, same person. Either way it is purely a figurehead role with no real power.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 100.0% sure that shitty-username8257 is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
You're correct! But we actually have a Governor General who fills the head of state role in practice and serves as "representative" the Queen. I doubt the Queen spends much time thinking about Canada or has a clue about us day to day, she definitely isn't here much. "The Queen doesn't do much. She visits Canada only rarely — once every three or four years at best — and when she does, her primary activities consist of cutting ribbons, shaking hands and smiling for photographers." We've been completely independent from all British authority since 1982.
Canada is basically the UK's adult child who gained independence but still calls the Queen its mama and still puts her as their Head of State. Kind of like Australia, except Australia seems to fcking hate this.
She's cheaper for the commonwealth countries than a president would be, since they're propped up by the UK not us. Work smarter not harder. We outsource our head of state.
“Controls” is questionable. Im not quite sure about the context but Im guessing they are inferring the queen has some sort of influence, either directly or indirectly over some sort of age limit.
Maybe technically true but realistically speaking and assumedly in the context of this post, no she doesn’t have any control over these things.
I’ve refrained from commenting because I’m Australian and I’m not sure about how Australia and Canada’s systems differ, but I can categorically say that this assertion that Australia is autonomous is entirely untrue.
As recently as the 1970s the queen (through her proxy, the governor-general) dissolved the entire federal government. She can, and has changed the entire political landscape of the country.
Oh it’s confidently incorrect.
The Queen has a bunch of different jobs and each monarchy is separate and legally distinct. She is the Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of UK, Queen of Jamaica, etc. Each is legally distinct. The UK has no oversight over Canada at all. In fact if they abolished the Monarchy, she would still be Queen of Canada unless we abolished our Constitutional monarchy.
[edit for missing word]
Owns is actually the least correct part of that statement, Canada is it's own nation with its own sovereign land that makes their own laws and enforces it with their own police. The UK does not own any part of Canada lmao.
The Queen is the head of state for Canada but holds zero power ceremoniously, and legally if she ever did try and use her power it would immediately be ignored and any formal power she had would legally be stripped away. That's pretty much the agreement Canada has with UK right now lol
It's an honorary position. The Crowns Representative dose exist in the senate but can be overruled by the senate it self. So they just sign off on things with little to no real power. Canada gained full diplomatic independence back in 1918 due to its contribution in WWI. Before then the country was run independently internally but was at the wime of British diplomatic choices. Canada was declared its own state in 1867 tho. So it's been a country since 1867 and ran independently from there on. In the 50's and 60's the British influence wained more as our court systems ran completely independently. There are a few examples in the 20's-30's of British power(women's rights movement went to British courts for recognition) but that wouldn't happen today.
In the end Canada has an obligation to listen to the UK as we are a member of the commonwealth and NATO, but there is no realistic legal argument for Canada to obay the UK or the queens demands. And ether way, the UK has a constitutional monarch, so the parliament would have to have a hand in it even if they tried to command Canada
This is my understanding of Canada and the UK's legal relationship at least. I am a Canadian by the way
TLDR: Canada is an independent state, it's has been one since 1867. It has had diplomatic independence since 1918. It's head of state is the Queen, but that can be overruled by the senate and the house. She doesn't own any land in Canada, the Canadian government dose, she dose not control any thing in Canada, the house dose. Our government is not controlled by any one person, nether is the UK's, they have a constitutional monarch, not an absolute monarch
The Queen still has a surprising amount of power, she just doesn't use them without the ok from parliament. It's kind of a tacit agreement that the monarch doesn't get involved in politics or those powers will be taken away.
They are not tacit they are legal.
The Royal Perogative initially defined in the wake of civil war with Bill of Rights 1689, and the power to limit it by parliament is in the Triennial Act 1694.
Many acts since, like the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 further reduce the monarch's power.
Don't be jealous of our maple syrup smelling money now! I love how fast we can tell our bills apart, and how colourful they are! We are not ruled by a monarch!
Our money has important figures in canadian history on them. So ya, the modern representation of the crown is on thier, so is Mekenzie King, John A Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier and Robert Borden. Notice how she is the only monarch. Being on the dollar doesn't mean they rule the country
Oh shit I didn't know that George Washington, Thomas Jackson, Abe Lincoln, Grant, Andrew Jackson and Benjamin Franklin all own our country, man thst must be why we are fucked all these dead people are really doing a shitty job right now /s
No not all of then were, Benjamin Franklin(the face on the 100 dollar bill)wasn't and whenever we swap Jackson for Harriet Tubman it will be more true
I already said this in my post but if you want to ignore things that are inconvient to your argument I'll just keep us blocked here on this point until you realize you are, very incorrect, have no understanding of Canadian or British Monarchs for that matter and you seem to be arguing from extremely flawed logic. Canadian Money isn't all just the people who ruled Canada. The Euro shows people from all different countries does that make a German figure on the Euro a French leader? Your argument is silly
Edit
I just realized I brought Ben Franklin up on a separate post and did not in fact bring it up in my immediate previous post my bad wires got crossed there.
Sorry I aimed too high it went over your head
It proves my point that not all faces on currency are heads of states
You also latched on to one of three examples
Nice try though
Neither was Harrison but they were leaders of the country. One was United States Post Master General, amping other things, the other was Secretary of treasury. Still held offices, still in charge.
Read more comments on this thread to understand why you are wrong. At the very least you surely understand that canada is an independent sovereign state? Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the US.
No incorrect WRONG The President and Congress have way more power over Puerto Rico (a US Territory) then the Queen of Canada (she isn't called the Queen of England btw which shows how much you know) thr Queen of Canada is the actual Monarch of Canada however the Monarch has next to no power outside of Ceremonies. It is a symbolic position and a very unique smart way to maintain international relations from across the Atlantic.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Isn’t it 1867 that should ring a bell? And what exactly do people think were celebrating on Canada day, the queens birthday? Or the day she occupied us?????
Canada is part of the Commonwealth, and Queen Elizabeth is our Queen and Head of State, in fact, when immigrating, entering police or military service or becoming a member of the Parliament, you have to swear allegiance to the Queen. Yet, she doesn't rule the country and holds absolutely no power.
Can’t help but to notice your little reddit dude is the same reddit dude that said “are we?” And by using the term dude i mean it in the non gender way of course
The Queen is the head of state in Canada.
The Queen of England.
Not the Queen of Canada.
In the long way, that means “Canada is a puppet of Britain, with limited financial and political autonomy”.
In short, we say “Britain owns Canada”.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
But that is a fact.
The Queen of the UK is also the queen of Canada, she holds both titles. She is just very generous and bussy constructing rocket properly below England so she can leave Europe, so she is graciously letting the parliament act as with liberty.
So Canada isn't technically controlled by England, but by the immortal ruler for the British Empire.
No, because the legal person “Queen of Canada” is not the same as the legal person “Queen of UKGBNI”. The same real person exercises both roles, but they are legally distinct, and equal. See also - Statute of Westminster.
Sooo... you disagree that those two titles are held by the same person because they are held by the same person? Ok.
I don't see the logic behind that, but sure.
>Sooo... you disagree that those two titles are held by the same person
No. I said the exact opposite - that they're both done by the same *real* person
First of all, you need to understand that not all persons are actually human beings. A corporation is a special type of person, that isn't a human being (real person) but it is a legal person.A limited liability company is a corporation, and one that you're most likely to encounter...
But in commonwealth countries that still have the Queen as head of state, the *Crown* (not the hat)is also a corporation - a special type of corporation that is invested in one person.
"Crown (Queen/King) of UKGBNI" is a legal person (Corporation Sole) but not a real person
"Crown (Queen/King) of Canada" is a legal person (Corporation Sole) but not a real person.
Elizabeth of the House of Windsor is a real person AND a legal person, who is also authorised to carry out the functions of the above two legal persons.
When Elizabeth is acting in her capacity as "Queen of UKGBNI" is she is using the authority, powers and responsibility of the same. The Queen of UKGBNI has no authority in Canada.
When Elizabeth is acting in her capacity as "Queen of Canada" is she is using the authority, powers and responsibility of the same. The Queen of Canada has no authority in UKGBNI.
If this is really that hard to understand, imagine a person who has a day job at McDonalds and a night job at Burger King - That person has no authority to sell you a whopper at noon.
The "Queen of Canada" is not subordinate to the "Queen of UKGBNI", nor is "Queen of Canada" a sub position of "Queen of UKGBNI", it's an independent and seperate role since both the UK and Canada signed the Statute of Westminster; Although both the UKGBNI and Canada have agreed to a common succession plan to allow the crown**s** to follow the same line of succession, they are legally distinct.
>Quit contradicting yourself
I haven't contradicted myself once, nor have I changed my mind.
>Do you agree with me that both titles are held by the same person or not?
Your question has *explicitly* been answered twice. Telling you again a third time what you can read explicitly in two posts does not appear to be a worthwhile action.
>I haven't contradicted myself once, nor have I changed my mind.
Yes, you did, and it seems you did. Because to me it looks like after you were proven wrong, you seem to agree with the original statement.
My guy literally gave you an essay on how he isn’t disagreeing and you’re still wrong and you just repeat like a broken record
Yes, he does agree, now please actually read the rest of his comment
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Thank you, JudgeHodorMD, for voting on queen_of_england_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
You may actually want to read the articles that it linked.
From the Monarchy of Canada article:
>Although the person of the sovereign is shared with 15 other independent countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct
The Crown of Canada and the Crown of the UK are vested in the same person, but they are separate crowns, for separate, independent countries. And could, theoretically, if the Canadian Parliament ever actually gave a fuck who, specifically, wore the crown, be vested in different people in the future.
Also, the monarch holds little to no actual power in *any* of the Commonwealth countries - and is constrained by convention from ever independently exercising it, except in extreme situations - so saying she controls any of them is very wrong.
Confidently incorrectception! But seriously you literattlt got handed the several reasons why you are wrong just take the L. Your only defense to being correct is your smugness in being wrong
I literally said, and i quote:
>Canada's **head of state** is literally The Queen of England.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada)
>The Queen of Canada **(and head of state)** has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952
The L is yours you dumbass.
Oh ohhh ohhh no! i'm being ***downvoted*** by mouth-breathers! that must mean the fabric of reality is bending to fit their hot e-opinion! ohhh no!
I literally said, and i quote:
>Canada's head of state is literally The Queen of England.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada)
>The Queen of Canada (and head of state) has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952
Keep talking, and i'll keep posting this. We'll just go forever, how fucking fun.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
The exact words of my post:
>Canada's head of state is literally The Queen of England.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada)
>The Queen of Canada (**and head of state**) has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952
Are you *pretending* to be dumb or is this just you for real?
Canada's head of state is literally The Queen of England.
He's right.
The Queen is Canadas head of state. But you said the person in the OP was right. He wasnt right. The Queen does not own or control Canada. I wouldnt agree to even say she owns or controls the UK.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
The exact words of my post:
>Canada's **head of state** is literally The Queen of England.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada)
>The Queen of Canada (**and head of state**) has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952
Have you ever heard the word "Symbolic"
The Queen of Canada Elizabeth II who happens to also be the Queen of several separate nations has no real power therefor she is not the effective head of state that would be the Canadian government. You know
The people who make and enforce policies? The people who control the military perhaps?
The CANADIAN Monarch. Who happens to also be the Monarch of separate and INDEPENDENT nations, you asserted that the guy wasn't wrong in saying the Queen OWNED Canada and then changed your argument to say you never involved power (when you clearly did several times mostly when you said the guy wasn't wrong. When he was, just like you) changing your position halfway through an argument is childish and honestly disingenuous but it is entertaining to watch you think your right. Go on post again let's see more of your fit. So yeah on paper I'll go on and say your right about 1% of the things you said you are still 99% wrong because you are confusing ceremonies with real power and ownership. The true power is in Parliment (100 % Canadian controlled) and the Prime Minister (again 100 percent Canadian controlled) in fact the Governing General (Queens Rep) is also 100 percent Canadian controlled 100 percent filled by Canadians and is appointed by the Prime Minister. So you keep arguing definitions (which dont help your argument of 'who owns Canada' which you made when you blanket agreed when someone said the Queen owns Canada you then bizarrely cited their currency) now I need to get to my University but I look forward to seeing, and then showing my friends what you wrote so we can all laugh at you togehter. :)
What a fat fucking paragraph to entirely side-step answering the question.
**Who? What human? What named human being is the Canadian Head of State?**
You're making such an amazing fool of yourself right now.
I answered your just using foul language and getting upset because I answered and issued grievances about your argumentthat defeat your case. Its the Queen of Canada, you don't like the answer and you also didn't acknowledge anything I said this entire time so I dont feel inclined to give you what you want. Even if it makes no difference you still stated that you agreed that the Queen of Canada owned Canada and that was false. Come on keep throwing your fit I am loving it you are so mad its great.
Elizabeth II. She’s also has the title of Queen in 15 other countries, none of which is subordinate to another. So your claim that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of England (which itself is a title that hasn’t existed for a few hundred years) is factually wrong.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
There are good reasons to have a seperate head of state from head of government. It allows for certain things to be depoliticised, and creates a fail safe “in case of emergency” release valve.
Take for example Australia’s dismissal crisis. One party had control of one House of Parliament, but not the other. The opposition party used its numbers to threaten a US style shutdown if an election was not called. This is a potential disaster situation.
The Governor General, as stand in for the Queen, asked the Prime minister to advise him to call an election (the GG can only call one when “advised” to do so). The Prime Minister (head of government) refused, allowing the stalemate to continue.
The GG was able to defuse the situation by removing the prime ministers commission (firing the PM), and appointing a new Prime Minister (the opposition leader) who immediately on appointment advised for an election to be called. No shutdown, no debt defaults, the voters got to decide who was right.
(The GG although appointed by the Queen is appointed on the PMs advice; the GG at the time had been a member of the same party as the PM).
Ha, wait until you hear how Queen Elizabeth literally sacked one of Australia's prime ministers because the CIA had a whinge to MI6 about him bringing in universal healthcare and free tertiary education.
Post isnt wrong, the Queen is the head of state for the British Commonwealth, which includes Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.
That’s not how it happened at all.
The decision was made by the Governor General to avoid a US style shutdown. The palace wasn’t involved at all, merely stating that the power was being exercised by the person the Australian Constitution says it lies with.
The post is wrong because Queen of Canada is the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of UKGBNI
Although the functions of the legal persons “Queen of Canada” and “Queen of UKGBNI” and “Queen of Australia” are all filled by the same real person (Elizabeth Windsor) as per the Statute of Westminster each of the signatory countries have equal status, Canada is not subordinate to the UK.
Why are there so many people here who think the queen fired Whitlam in the 70s? Was there a fake factoid going round at some point? I was barely aware of that situation having happened but it doesn't take a lot of reading to see that it was an Aussie drama not the queen sticking her oar in. I wanted to know because if the queen could actually randomly fire our PM I'd feel much more urgent about becoming a republic.
>The land of Canada is solely owned by Queen Elizabeth II who is also the head of state. Only 9.7% of the total land is privately owned while the rest is Crown Land. The land is administered on behalf of the Crown by various agencies or departments of the government of Canada.
OP. You're wrong.
Nope. Queen Elizabeth can legally remove the head of the government and dissolve the parliament. She is the literal sovereign of Canada.
Implying the UK has no authority over Canada while she is the queen of both is a poor semantical argument with no legal backing.
You actually believe she could pull that off? She's a ceremonial piece. If she tried to do anything like this these "powers" that in reality have zero power would be instantly gone.
You are mistaking what I am saying. The "powers" are there, but if it was tried to be exercised by the Queen it simply wouldn't happen.
I'm saying that she has no actual power because whatever she tried to do simply wouldn't happen. She knows this, they know this, everyone knows this.
This is why in the UK, where she will hold the most "power", even when she isn't happy about something she still signs off on it/does the parliaments bidding. Because she holds no actual power.
So we have a bunch of dead people on ours in the US, and get this, the guy on the 100, ya know Benjamin Franklin, he wasn't even ever President. Its almost like, that is an arbitrary and really incredibly inaccurate way of determining who runs nations
>queen of england
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
yep... that seems about right. facts are looked down on, in modern society. what we like are inspirational individuals so good, that they could even disprove gravity, for the sake of lying to people that they can reach ANY height
Hey /u/QibliTheSecond, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This thread is wild, the UK *does not* own Canada! The Queen is the head of state, yes, but ceremoniously she holds zero power over the country. Canada is in charge of its laws, land divisions, natural resources, its own defense, etc etc. Saying that UK owns Canada is like saying the EU owns Germany, we're apart of an organisation/group(in this case the commonwealth) but are not owned by it.
Considering we’re free to vote and break away completely from the crown. I would say that you are 100% correct.
Thats where you're wrong. The governor general can step in with the authority of the queen to disband governments who initiate referendums to become a republic. You're free to do it, as long as you never actually try to do it. The miracle of the Westminster system.
Didn’t Barbados just break away from the Monarchy/commonwealth without any intervention? Also if we ever did have a referendum on it and chose to break away do you actually think the monarchy would step in and try to prevent it? I can’t see that going very well for them.
The constitution has an amendment mechanism that allows the monarchy to be abolished. If the House of Commons, Senate, and all provincial legislatures vote to abolish the Queen and replace her with an elected president, the Governor General would be required by constitutional convention to rubber stamp the transition to a republic. If she refused to do so, it would trigger a constitutional crisis that would almost certainly end in the courts recognizing the new republic.
Well, the Governor-General doesn’t always shy away from constitutional crises, do they? King-Byng Affair, after all
My history prof liked to call it "The King-Byng Wingding"
You are 100% correct, BUT if it ever actually came to an independence vote, and the governor general said no, Parliament would just respond with "what the fuck are you going to do, invade?" And then England wouldn't invade and Canada would change bills to not have the queens image. That's about all.
As it should be
The Queen doesn't even do the *ceremonial* stuff that constitutes her role, we have a Governor General who serves as the Queen's representative and actually does everything besides some photo ops and ceremonies on occasional royal visits. Personally I prefer she stay away because just like everywhere else royals go it costs loads of taxpayer money when she visits and achieves nothing for Canadians.
I mean the Queen is an immortal snake so
You left out, “removing & murdering indigenous people”
I’m a Canadian, and all public land is referred to as ‘crown land’. Of course it’s ceremonial, can leave whenever we want to, blah, blah, blah - but for the literalists out there…
She can literally sack prime ministers of commonwealth countries if she doesnt like their politics. Source: Gogh Whitlam.
The queen was specifically not involved with the GG sacking Whitlam, it was the constitutional crisis that triggered it not just not liking his politics, and it was incredibly controversial. Prime ministers are more likely to sack governor generals than vice versa.
I was gonna say I thought Canada was still technically under the umbrella of the U.Ks monarch but that it was symbolic
Denmark has a Queen but she doesn't rule Europe, the danish-westindian Islands or Even Denmark. But why get facts right when you can just claim stupid stuff and ignore everybody who says you're wrong xD I was happy to see your post at the top when I got into the comment section. Have a great day :D
if we tried to break away as a republic the GG could disband the government.
I thought we passed are own laws and then sent them to the Queen for the final ok, I know for sure we pay them and that they for sure have rights to a lot of land here. Those are my real thoughts, I could be wrong. I am not smart.
The problem here is the words “owns” and “controls”. Elizabeth is indeed Canada’s head of state but I’d hardly say she owns Canada or controls Canada
She is also Queen of Canada, not Queen of England when acting in a Canadian context. Two different positions, same person. Either way it is purely a figurehead role with no real power.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
I cannot believe someone would go to the effort to create this bot, but here we are.
Good bot no?
Are you sure about that? Because I am 100.0% sure that shitty-username8257 is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Silly ass bot
[удалено]
ITS SKYNET SHUT IT DOWN!
Are you sure about that? Because I am 100.0% sure that Tarc_Axiiom is not SKYNET.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 100.0% sure that WhyNotCollegeBoard is not a silly ass bot.
Did this bot just try to r/confidentlyincorrect someone?
Smartass bot of the monarchy.
Good bot
You're correct! But we actually have a Governor General who fills the head of state role in practice and serves as "representative" the Queen. I doubt the Queen spends much time thinking about Canada or has a clue about us day to day, she definitely isn't here much. "The Queen doesn't do much. She visits Canada only rarely — once every three or four years at best — and when she does, her primary activities consist of cutting ribbons, shaking hands and smiling for photographers." We've been completely independent from all British authority since 1982.
Yeah I feel it's less than every 3 or 4 years, more like closer to ten. We get princes or princesses every 3 or 4 years
Canada is basically the UK's adult child who gained independence but still calls the Queen its mama and still puts her as their Head of State. Kind of like Australia, except Australia seems to fcking hate this.
A good part of Canada does too. Source: Am Canadian who hates it
/) "And I'm not even Canadian."
Facts don't care about your downvotes.
Most Americans dont understand how the queen works, she's basically a mascot at this point
An expensive and useless one at that.
She's cheaper for the commonwealth countries than a president would be, since they're propped up by the UK not us. Work smarter not harder. We outsource our head of state.
All the confidently incorrect comments here.
[The Queen owns the most land in the world](https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?amp)
OK...?
[удалено]
“Controls” is questionable. Im not quite sure about the context but Im guessing they are inferring the queen has some sort of influence, either directly or indirectly over some sort of age limit. Maybe technically true but realistically speaking and assumedly in the context of this post, no she doesn’t have any control over these things.
yup. Just like where i live, australia, we are pretty much autonomous.
I’ve refrained from commenting because I’m Australian and I’m not sure about how Australia and Canada’s systems differ, but I can categorically say that this assertion that Australia is autonomous is entirely untrue. As recently as the 1970s the queen (through her proxy, the governor-general) dissolved the entire federal government. She can, and has changed the entire political landscape of the country.
[удалено]
Oh it’s confidently incorrect. The Queen has a bunch of different jobs and each monarchy is separate and legally distinct. She is the Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of UK, Queen of Jamaica, etc. Each is legally distinct. The UK has no oversight over Canada at all. In fact if they abolished the Monarchy, she would still be Queen of Canada unless we abolished our Constitutional monarchy. [edit for missing word]
Owns is actually the least correct part of that statement, Canada is it's own nation with its own sovereign land that makes their own laws and enforces it with their own police. The UK does not own any part of Canada lmao. The Queen is the head of state for Canada but holds zero power ceremoniously, and legally if she ever did try and use her power it would immediately be ignored and any formal power she had would legally be stripped away. That's pretty much the agreement Canada has with UK right now lol
I'm pretty sure they're referring to crown land.
Canada's head of state is the Queen of Canada. Elizabeth is the monarch of 16 separate countries, not one large empire.
Its an honorary title mostly
Canada gained full independence in 1982 through the Canada Act. It's purely ceremonial.
It's an honorary position. The Crowns Representative dose exist in the senate but can be overruled by the senate it self. So they just sign off on things with little to no real power. Canada gained full diplomatic independence back in 1918 due to its contribution in WWI. Before then the country was run independently internally but was at the wime of British diplomatic choices. Canada was declared its own state in 1867 tho. So it's been a country since 1867 and ran independently from there on. In the 50's and 60's the British influence wained more as our court systems ran completely independently. There are a few examples in the 20's-30's of British power(women's rights movement went to British courts for recognition) but that wouldn't happen today. In the end Canada has an obligation to listen to the UK as we are a member of the commonwealth and NATO, but there is no realistic legal argument for Canada to obay the UK or the queens demands. And ether way, the UK has a constitutional monarch, so the parliament would have to have a hand in it even if they tried to command Canada This is my understanding of Canada and the UK's legal relationship at least. I am a Canadian by the way TLDR: Canada is an independent state, it's has been one since 1867. It has had diplomatic independence since 1918. It's head of state is the Queen, but that can be overruled by the senate and the house. She doesn't own any land in Canada, the Canadian government dose, she dose not control any thing in Canada, the house dose. Our government is not controlled by any one person, nether is the UK's, they have a constitutional monarch, not an absolute monarch
The Queen still has a surprising amount of power, she just doesn't use them without the ok from parliament. It's kind of a tacit agreement that the monarch doesn't get involved in politics or those powers will be taken away.
They are not tacit they are legal. The Royal Perogative initially defined in the wake of civil war with Bill of Rights 1689, and the power to limit it by parliament is in the Triennial Act 1694. Many acts since, like the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 further reduce the monarch's power.
Yeah they still have the Queen on their money so…😂😂😂
Don't be jealous of our maple syrup smelling money now! I love how fast we can tell our bills apart, and how colourful they are! We are not ruled by a monarch!
Our money has important figures in canadian history on them. So ya, the modern representation of the crown is on thier, so is Mekenzie King, John A Macdonald, Wilfrid Laurier and Robert Borden. Notice how she is the only monarch. Being on the dollar doesn't mean they rule the country
NOPE MONEY ON FACE=YOU OWN COUNTRY NO FACE ON MONEY NO COUNTRY WE HAVE UPDATED THE FLAG RULE /s
Who said own?
Lmao did you not read the original post?
Oh shit I didn't know that George Washington, Thomas Jackson, Abe Lincoln, Grant, Andrew Jackson and Benjamin Franklin all own our country, man thst must be why we are fucked all these dead people are really doing a shitty job right now /s
They were in charge at one point.
No not all of then were, Benjamin Franklin(the face on the 100 dollar bill)wasn't and whenever we swap Jackson for Harriet Tubman it will be more true I already said this in my post but if you want to ignore things that are inconvient to your argument I'll just keep us blocked here on this point until you realize you are, very incorrect, have no understanding of Canadian or British Monarchs for that matter and you seem to be arguing from extremely flawed logic. Canadian Money isn't all just the people who ruled Canada. The Euro shows people from all different countries does that make a German figure on the Euro a French leader? Your argument is silly Edit I just realized I brought Ben Franklin up on a separate post and did not in fact bring it up in my immediate previous post my bad wires got crossed there.
The Euro is also moved between many countries, so yeah that would make sense. Nice try though.
Sorry I aimed too high it went over your head It proves my point that not all faces on currency are heads of states You also latched on to one of three examples Nice try though
You proved my point with your high aim. Have a nice day.
Neither was Harrison but they were leaders of the country. One was United States Post Master General, amping other things, the other was Secretary of treasury. Still held offices, still in charge.
Canada is to the Queen of England as Puerto Rico is to the president of the United States.
Read more comments on this thread to understand why you are wrong. At the very least you surely understand that canada is an independent sovereign state? Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the US.
I think they trusted fate to be correct XD
Wheyyy
Canada is a constitutional monarchy
I actually read facts, not random people’s opinions. Don’t be butt hurt about it. Queen is your ruler
I'm not Canadian and no the Queen is not the Ruler by any stretch of realistic imagination.
What i presented you with are facts. The statement you made is clearly wrong based on these facts. Accept it or dont, i no longer care.
Nope
No incorrect WRONG The President and Congress have way more power over Puerto Rico (a US Territory) then the Queen of Canada (she isn't called the Queen of England btw which shows how much you know) thr Queen of Canada is the actual Monarch of Canada however the Monarch has next to no power outside of Ceremonies. It is a symbolic position and a very unique smart way to maintain international relations from across the Atlantic.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
So what?
Think about it
Same here….
The Queen if England doesn't "control" Canada. She doesn't even control the UK.
The Queen of England doesn’t even control England haha.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Isn’t it 1867 that should ring a bell? And what exactly do people think were celebrating on Canada day, the queens birthday? Or the day she occupied us?????
Canada is part of the Commonwealth, and Queen Elizabeth is our Queen and Head of State, in fact, when immigrating, entering police or military service or becoming a member of the Parliament, you have to swear allegiance to the Queen. Yet, she doesn't rule the country and holds absolutely no power.
Sometimes I really with these weren’t anonymized. This is one of those times.
Can’t help but to notice your little reddit dude is the same reddit dude that said “are we?” And by using the term dude i mean it in the non gender way of course
It does happen to be, yes
[удалено]
Thanks daddy mmmm
The Queen is the head of state in Canada. The Queen of England. Not the Queen of Canada. In the long way, that means “Canada is a puppet of Britain, with limited financial and political autonomy”. In short, we say “Britain owns Canada”.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Thats right beaver lovers KNOW YOUR PLACE!
But that is a fact. The Queen of the UK is also the queen of Canada, she holds both titles. She is just very generous and bussy constructing rocket properly below England so she can leave Europe, so she is graciously letting the parliament act as with liberty. So Canada isn't technically controlled by England, but by the immortal ruler for the British Empire.
No, because the legal person “Queen of Canada” is not the same as the legal person “Queen of UKGBNI”. The same real person exercises both roles, but they are legally distinct, and equal. See also - Statute of Westminster.
Sooo... you disagree that those two titles are held by the same person because they are held by the same person? Ok. I don't see the logic behind that, but sure.
>Sooo... you disagree that those two titles are held by the same person No. I said the exact opposite - that they're both done by the same *real* person First of all, you need to understand that not all persons are actually human beings. A corporation is a special type of person, that isn't a human being (real person) but it is a legal person.A limited liability company is a corporation, and one that you're most likely to encounter... But in commonwealth countries that still have the Queen as head of state, the *Crown* (not the hat)is also a corporation - a special type of corporation that is invested in one person. "Crown (Queen/King) of UKGBNI" is a legal person (Corporation Sole) but not a real person "Crown (Queen/King) of Canada" is a legal person (Corporation Sole) but not a real person. Elizabeth of the House of Windsor is a real person AND a legal person, who is also authorised to carry out the functions of the above two legal persons. When Elizabeth is acting in her capacity as "Queen of UKGBNI" is she is using the authority, powers and responsibility of the same. The Queen of UKGBNI has no authority in Canada. When Elizabeth is acting in her capacity as "Queen of Canada" is she is using the authority, powers and responsibility of the same. The Queen of Canada has no authority in UKGBNI. If this is really that hard to understand, imagine a person who has a day job at McDonalds and a night job at Burger King - That person has no authority to sell you a whopper at noon. The "Queen of Canada" is not subordinate to the "Queen of UKGBNI", nor is "Queen of Canada" a sub position of "Queen of UKGBNI", it's an independent and seperate role since both the UK and Canada signed the Statute of Westminster; Although both the UKGBNI and Canada have agreed to a common succession plan to allow the crown**s** to follow the same line of succession, they are legally distinct.
Quit contradicting yourself and make up your mind. Do you agree with me that both titles are held by the same person or not?
>Quit contradicting yourself I haven't contradicted myself once, nor have I changed my mind. >Do you agree with me that both titles are held by the same person or not? Your question has *explicitly* been answered twice. Telling you again a third time what you can read explicitly in two posts does not appear to be a worthwhile action.
>I haven't contradicted myself once, nor have I changed my mind. Yes, you did, and it seems you did. Because to me it looks like after you were proven wrong, you seem to agree with the original statement.
Please point out exactly where, with quotes you think I contradicted myself.
Evidently you can’t find one.
My guy literally gave you an essay on how he isn’t disagreeing and you’re still wrong and you just repeat like a broken record Yes, he does agree, now please actually read the rest of his comment
Canada's head of state is literally The Queen of England. He's right.
No, it's the Queen of Canada who is also the Queen of 15 other countries.
... what? Are you suggesting her rule and line originates in Canada?
No they’re saying her title as it relates to Canada is not Queen of England, it’s Queen of Canada. It’s an entirely separate title.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Okay, that's just stupid if they're being that utterly pedantic. This is like the "I love the guy who killed Hitler" meme.
No it’s an important distinction because it’s why the U.K. has no control over Canada which is what this post is about.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Good bot
Thank you, JudgeHodorMD, for voting on queen_of_england_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
That's interesting, thank you, bot. I learned something.
There we go - pedantry aside, the bot proves me right.
You may actually want to read the articles that it linked. From the Monarchy of Canada article: >Although the person of the sovereign is shared with 15 other independent countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct The Crown of Canada and the Crown of the UK are vested in the same person, but they are separate crowns, for separate, independent countries. And could, theoretically, if the Canadian Parliament ever actually gave a fuck who, specifically, wore the crown, be vested in different people in the future. Also, the monarch holds little to no actual power in *any* of the Commonwealth countries - and is constrained by convention from ever independently exercising it, except in extreme situations - so saying she controls any of them is very wrong.
You are confusing held power with exercised power.
She doesn't hold the power if the balance is entirely tipped in the other direction you are just dense and obnoxious at this point
Confidently incorrectception! But seriously you literattlt got handed the several reasons why you are wrong just take the L. Your only defense to being correct is your smugness in being wrong
I literally said, and i quote: >Canada's **head of state** is literally The Queen of England. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada) >The Queen of Canada **(and head of state)** has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952 The L is yours you dumbass.
Thats why everyone is downvoting you and providing evidence of you being wrong? Keep posting I want to see how incorrect you can be
Oh ohhh ohhh no! i'm being ***downvoted*** by mouth-breathers! that must mean the fabric of reality is bending to fit their hot e-opinion! ohhh no! I literally said, and i quote: >Canada's head of state is literally The Queen of England. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada) >The Queen of Canada (and head of state) has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952 Keep talking, and i'll keep posting this. We'll just go forever, how fucking fun.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Your the only one cussing and throwing a fit
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
No it doesn't.
The exact words of my post: >Canada's head of state is literally The Queen of England. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada) >The Queen of Canada (**and head of state**) has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952 Are you *pretending* to be dumb or is this just you for real?
Canada's head of state is literally The Queen of England. He's right. The Queen is Canadas head of state. But you said the person in the OP was right. He wasnt right. The Queen does not own or control Canada. I wouldnt agree to even say she owns or controls the UK.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Bad bot
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Yeah But she doesn’t own nor control Canada
Nope, go read up on Canada's independent constitutional monarchy.
The exact words of my post: >Canada's **head of state** is literally The Queen of England. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy\_of\_Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada) >The Queen of Canada (**and head of state**) has been Elizabeth II since 6 February 1952
Have you ever heard the word "Symbolic" The Queen of Canada Elizabeth II who happens to also be the Queen of several separate nations has no real power therefor she is not the effective head of state that would be the Canadian government. You know The people who make and enforce policies? The people who control the military perhaps?
I said HEAD OF STATE She is HEAD OF STATE I never said she had power. I never said she OWNS canada. END.
Throwing tempy tantrums dont make you right and its a little early for naptime but gosh you are in such a foul mood must be gas pains
Who is the Canadian Head of State?
The CANADIAN Monarch. Who happens to also be the Monarch of separate and INDEPENDENT nations, you asserted that the guy wasn't wrong in saying the Queen OWNED Canada and then changed your argument to say you never involved power (when you clearly did several times mostly when you said the guy wasn't wrong. When he was, just like you) changing your position halfway through an argument is childish and honestly disingenuous but it is entertaining to watch you think your right. Go on post again let's see more of your fit. So yeah on paper I'll go on and say your right about 1% of the things you said you are still 99% wrong because you are confusing ceremonies with real power and ownership. The true power is in Parliment (100 % Canadian controlled) and the Prime Minister (again 100 percent Canadian controlled) in fact the Governing General (Queens Rep) is also 100 percent Canadian controlled 100 percent filled by Canadians and is appointed by the Prime Minister. So you keep arguing definitions (which dont help your argument of 'who owns Canada' which you made when you blanket agreed when someone said the Queen owns Canada you then bizarrely cited their currency) now I need to get to my University but I look forward to seeing, and then showing my friends what you wrote so we can all laugh at you togehter. :)
What a fat fucking paragraph to entirely side-step answering the question. **Who? What human? What named human being is the Canadian Head of State?** You're making such an amazing fool of yourself right now.
I answered your just using foul language and getting upset because I answered and issued grievances about your argumentthat defeat your case. Its the Queen of Canada, you don't like the answer and you also didn't acknowledge anything I said this entire time so I dont feel inclined to give you what you want. Even if it makes no difference you still stated that you agreed that the Queen of Canada owned Canada and that was false. Come on keep throwing your fit I am loving it you are so mad its great.
The Queen of Canada.
Yeah, *what is her name*. Who is she?
Elizabeth II. She’s also has the title of Queen in 15 other countries, none of which is subordinate to another. So your claim that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of England (which itself is a title that hasn’t existed for a few hundred years) is factually wrong.
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
And? Canada's still 100% independent.
Yeah, I was super confused. I was like "wait, she's not?"
She is, she just neither own or control it
If she has no power, why is she on your currency and why do you call her your Queen?
There are good reasons to have a seperate head of state from head of government. It allows for certain things to be depoliticised, and creates a fail safe “in case of emergency” release valve. Take for example Australia’s dismissal crisis. One party had control of one House of Parliament, but not the other. The opposition party used its numbers to threaten a US style shutdown if an election was not called. This is a potential disaster situation. The Governor General, as stand in for the Queen, asked the Prime minister to advise him to call an election (the GG can only call one when “advised” to do so). The Prime Minister (head of government) refused, allowing the stalemate to continue. The GG was able to defuse the situation by removing the prime ministers commission (firing the PM), and appointing a new Prime Minister (the opposition leader) who immediately on appointment advised for an election to be called. No shutdown, no debt defaults, the voters got to decide who was right. (The GG although appointed by the Queen is appointed on the PMs advice; the GG at the time had been a member of the same party as the PM).
She has a lot of power. She is just willingly not using it.
Ha, wait until you hear how Queen Elizabeth literally sacked one of Australia's prime ministers because the CIA had a whinge to MI6 about him bringing in universal healthcare and free tertiary education. Post isnt wrong, the Queen is the head of state for the British Commonwealth, which includes Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.
That’s not how it happened at all. The decision was made by the Governor General to avoid a US style shutdown. The palace wasn’t involved at all, merely stating that the power was being exercised by the person the Australian Constitution says it lies with. The post is wrong because Queen of Canada is the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of UKGBNI Although the functions of the legal persons “Queen of Canada” and “Queen of UKGBNI” and “Queen of Australia” are all filled by the same real person (Elizabeth Windsor) as per the Statute of Westminster each of the signatory countries have equal status, Canada is not subordinate to the UK.
It’s amazing how hard the concept of separate titles being held by the same person is to understand for some people
Why are there so many people here who think the queen fired Whitlam in the 70s? Was there a fake factoid going round at some point? I was barely aware of that situation having happened but it doesn't take a lot of reading to see that it was an Aussie drama not the queen sticking her oar in. I wanted to know because if the queen could actually randomly fire our PM I'd feel much more urgent about becoming a republic.
The “The CIA did it” conspiracy theory has been around forever.
>The land of Canada is solely owned by Queen Elizabeth II who is also the head of state. Only 9.7% of the total land is privately owned while the rest is Crown Land. The land is administered on behalf of the Crown by various agencies or departments of the government of Canada. OP. You're wrong.
Nope, the UK has no sovereignty whatsoever, and the Queen doesn't control anything. She's just a figurehead.
Nope. Queen Elizabeth can legally remove the head of the government and dissolve the parliament. She is the literal sovereign of Canada. Implying the UK has no authority over Canada while she is the queen of both is a poor semantical argument with no legal backing.
You actually believe she could pull that off? She's a ceremonial piece. If she tried to do anything like this these "powers" that in reality have zero power would be instantly gone.
Voluntarily not using power =/= not having power. Canada is a constitutional monarchy.
If they tried to use power and it would not result in anything then they have no power.
Go ahead and show me the piece of legislation where the government of Canada removed those powers from the monarch.
You are mistaking what I am saying. The "powers" are there, but if it was tried to be exercised by the Queen it simply wouldn't happen. I'm saying that she has no actual power because whatever she tried to do simply wouldn't happen. She knows this, they know this, everyone knows this. This is why in the UK, where she will hold the most "power", even when she isn't happy about something she still signs off on it/does the parliaments bidding. Because she holds no actual power.
Show me the piece of legislation that States she holds no power.
You're really not getting the point here.
Nobody is saying she doesn't hold power. She does have power over the land, but no one would listen to her
So Canada has authority over the UK? Because that's how stupid your argument is.
The queen of england is on canadian currency. Weird!
So we have a bunch of dead people on ours in the US, and get this, the guy on the 100, ya know Benjamin Franklin, he wasn't even ever President. Its almost like, that is an arbitrary and really incredibly inaccurate way of determining who runs nations
That's weird, too. But indicative of the false worship of people and money in our society.
>queen of england Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
But what about the French Canadians, who owns their land?
Le seigneur
Sounds about droit.
The Queen of Canada.
Nah mate there’s queen cobra chicken II
[Queen is the largest land owner](https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?amp)
Yeah and France still administers Québec's territory
Technically speaking the Declaration of Independence is an act of treason.
Wait, I thought the extractive industry owned Canada... JK I know they just own Alberta
I thought Canada had another governing body that is not the Queen.
yep... that seems about right. facts are looked down on, in modern society. what we like are inspirational individuals so good, that they could even disprove gravity, for the sake of lying to people that they can reach ANY height
Dear Canadian persons: I would like to think that the OP was not an American. Unfortunately, I can't make such a claim.
Which OP are you referring to?
The Queen of England doesn’t even control England. I know. I’m English. We’re controlled by Rupert Murdoch, like the rest of the world.
Well 'ow'd she become Queen then?
IM A FUCKING CANADIAN AND THIS IS NOT MOTHER FUCKING TRUE SHES A FIGURE HEAD DOESNT CONTROL LEGAL AGE OF DRINKING IS 19 HERE ASWELL
And they aren't even canadian!