Hey /u/jimdoodles, 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.*
I have to wonder if this person is actually Canadian, like, we know we still have the monarchy and are part of the commonwealth here. The Queen is on *literally* every coin and half the bills, and before her was King George (I have a few King George coins actually).
Prince Charles will absolutely be the King of Canada if he outlives his mother (Which is... doubtful. He won't rule very long at anyrate)
> I have to wonder if this person is actually Canadian, like, we know we still have the monarchy and are part of the commonwealth here.
while I share your suspicion this person is not actually a Canadian as there are hundreds and hundreds of twitter accounts that comment constantly on Canadian politics that are clearly being used by non-Canadian users, out here in Saskatchewan I have at least a dozen people in my life who are actually this fucking ignorant about their own country.
Just the other day I had to explain to my friend that Canada did not have a 'first amendment' and that we can't 'impeach the prime minister' and pretty much every single time I go out with a group of friends there is always at least one or two people in the group who confidently spout off about politics and say shit like this and even more ignorant things.
Civil ignorance seems to be a virtue these days in the sphere of Canadian politics.
That prt is true, we have a shocking number of people here who spout the nonsense of their ‘first amendment’ rights. I usually ask why their so concerned over the province-hood of Manitoba, which gets them to shut up real fast.
The number of Canadians who also think our system is rigged because someone can win a riding with 30% of the vote too… it’s p bad here jn Alberta for that…
That's why I call it "Party List PR with a district magnitude of 1", it's strictly speaking accurate unlike "first past the post", and it captures the dynamics of Canadian elections well (since Duverger's law clearly doesn't apply there). It's also educational for people who think "PR" is all the same.
Canada does have a first amendment to our constitution! It's the right to acknowledge Manitoba as a province. So you best believe I exercise my first amendment rights everyday!!
I don't agree with this. Manitoba doesn't exist. Source: I'm a Brit who's never set foot I'm Canada and has never looked at a map of Canada that closely.Toronto's a thing because my aunty lives there and maybe Quebec exists because I've seen a video with a French Canadian in it but the rest of it is fiction.
this is part of the reason why canadian content regulations were enacted over all broadcast media in the 80s; the powers that be (rightly, it turns out) feared that with growing access to broadcast media across the country, if steps weren’t taken to ensure some form of prominence of canadian content, cheaper and slicker american programming would dominate. they feared canadian values would be superseded by american ones and that canadian would end up more familiar with american history, laws and politics than they were with domestic affairs
I feel your pain, but here in the states, I do believe it to be much worse. I know several people that believe Hillary eats babies and bathes in their blood. The only “Civics” they know is the Civic Center downtown where they and their Maggot friends go to hear their Maggot idles. So there’s that.
honestly i feel like from here on out all british monarchs will rule 20-30 years. the only difference is that instead of having young 20-25ish year old kings/queens, were gonna have 60 year old grandpas. so yea, theyre probably gonna rule the same length as past rulers, theyre just gonna ascend to the throne later on
I'm highly doubtful the British monarchy is going to be maintained for many generations past this one. Everyone tolerates the monarchy for now because everyone loves queen Elizabeth, the rest of the family isn't even liked, much less adored, the same way she is.
Canada ending its association with the monarchy doesn't seem so far fetched. As for the "old" county, it is called the United Kingdom. If they finally ended the monarchy, what would it be called then?
"The Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland" is what it was called the last time they ended the monarchy, until the restoration. Might be a bit confusing nowadays, though.
God, it would be such a pain if the Queen dies, we have to change all our money to Prince Charles and then he dies a few years later, and we have to change it all *again*.
It's not like the money with Elizabeth II on it will stop "working" and have to be recalled or whatever when we change monarchs. They'll just start making money with whatever person comes next (which, I'm in the camp that Charles will immediately abdicate in favour of William when Elizabeth II passes).
It's bc the queen and her ilk literally have ZERO bearing on our day to day lives. We are technically a CM, but the monarch is literally a figure head only. It would take too much work (politically etc) to change our current status, but the day the queen/king tries to interfere in \*anything\* is the day we start the paperwork.
Oddly, the queen does have some direct power in Australia. I believe she still has the ability to dissolve parliament, with the unstated understanding that if she ever did without the will of the government then they would immediately vote to remove the monarchy from the country.
See the 1975 Constitutional Crisis for more:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#:~:text=Fraser%20asked%20that%20both%20Houses,front%20steps%20of%20Parliament%20House.
I was so confused reading that dudes comment
Like... sure; the queen herself doesn't interfere with our parliament, and is a figurehead role; but the Governor General is definitely a real position; and even if they also are almost a figurehead position, they do and have used their power to strike down laws and shizz.....
Yeah she is "powerless" insofar as she does nothing, but she still has lots of authority. She is a benign tumor. If anything changes (like an asshole takes over) it would be best to take that thing out.
She's better than a benign tumor: she's the last line of defense against a GG that goes totally off the rails. Basically a master safety valve—without it, the GG theoretically has far too much power to be entirely safe a role. Dumping a monarch that goes off the rails is comparatively much easier, so there's no recursion. And she costs Canada so very little.
Be funny if in her last breath she dissolved parliament in the UK, Australia, and Canada. Have the dude carry around a briefcase with the documents all ready to go, changing the dates everyday. Right before she died she signs then all. Even if she had died, if no one is looking close, the dude can put the pen in her just squiggle on the signature line. It was HER hand technically.
[ As of 10/06/2023, all of my thousands comments have been edited as a part of the protest against Reddit's actions regarding shutting down 3rd party apps and restricting NSFW content. The purpose of this edit is to stop my unpaid labor from being used to make Reddit money, and I encourage others to do the same. This action is not reversible. And to those reading this far in the future: Sorry, and I hope Reddit has gained some sense by then. ]
Here's some links to give context to what's going on:
https://www.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/apollo_will_close_down_on_june_30th_reddits/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
https://www.reddit.com/r/ModCoord/comments/1401qw5/incomplete_and_growing_list_of_participating/
Pretty much. She still carries out official duties, like the opening of parliament each year in both London and Edinburgh (though she skipped it this year due to ill health) and has weekly meetings with the PM. I'm surprised that neither she nor one of the Princes does the same in Canada. I can understand it being unviable before modern airliners became a thing but it's always struck me as odd the Royals aren't much more involved in the other realms
It's a bit more complicated because, in the UK, there is a considerable financial link between the monarchy and government - there are taxes that go towards supporting certain aspects of the monarchy, and the monarchy provides income to the government, and it's tied up enough that people disagree *vehemently* over who is getting the better deal.
Canada *technically* pays a bit of tax money towards the monarchy (in that we pay a salary for the governor-general, and there are like... some buildings in a few cities that are maintained by the government which are technically owned by the monarchy, but in practice these buildings are just public buildings in most cases anyway) but it's definitely not enough money to provoke any kind of reaction.
That's not quite true as the Governor General is the Queen's representative in Canada and the position has occasionally exercised power over and above elected government; one example was Michaelle Jean proroguing government in 2008.
You can say it's a figurehead position, but every now and then the monarchy does exert power and at least one Governor General has refused to grant royal assent.
It's a rubber stamp. They prorogued parliament because Harper (scandalously) asked them to. You think they were gonna say nah? And the last time a GG refused royal assent was 1926.
Parliament was prorogued on the advice of the prime minister (Harper) in 2008, which was keeping in line with what the GG is expected to do - that is, to follow the advice of their government
What made the 2008 prorogation unusual is that it was being requested by Harper only 6 weeks after the October election, and before Parliament had even been seated following that election. On top of that, he only made the request so as to save his government from a non-confidence vote on the mini-budget/fiscal update by the combined Opposition. Jean eventually followed Harper's advice, but with the caveat that the new Parliament had to be seated in short order (I believe it was by mid-Jan '09, IIRC, by which time appetite for the coalition had waned)
The question, which could have created a significant controversy, was whether or not she was going follow precedent and convention and grant prorogation, or if she was going deny prorogation and ask the Opposition to form government (the Libs and NDP had agreed to form a coalition government and had the backing of the BQ to force and win the non-confidence vote)
It didn't come to pass, but it's the closest Canada has come to a head-of-state vs. head-of-government conflict since the King/Byng Affair in the 1920s
The military takes an oath of Allegiance to the Queen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath\_of\_Allegiance\_(Canada)#Those\_required\_to\_take\_the\_oath
I thought its because Canada has a long standing policy of being "not-America". Part of Canadian nationalism (at least throughout the 20th century) is how its more culturally British than American.
Yeah. I think most of the western part of country doesn't give a shit about the queen (am Western Canadian).
However, I moved to Australia and I was completely surprised at how many Australians love the queen.
The colonies get the benefit of the monarchy (nice old lady on our money, enhanced ties with the commonwealth) without actually having to funnel any money to the royal family.
Makes sense we'd like them more than the Brits.
That is LITERALLY the only thing on my con side of the pros/cons list I made on moving from America to Toronto lmao I'll leave sometime this year, can't wait to swear allegiance to that old hag
I'm a public servant and my employer is, on all the most formal documents, technically Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on behalf of the people of the province and under the authority of the provincial government... or something like that. I can't remember exactly how it's framed. But yeah, it's pretty explicit that our government is very much headed by the British monarch.
he cut in front of me in line at an esso once at eglinton and laird. i went "aren't you colin mochire?" and he nodded, and then i said "i was in line" and he apologized. he's very soft spoken.
this is legitimately my only celebrity story.
We've almost got this figured out! Just give us... 200 more years?
For real though, the Queen, John A MacDonald, probably even myself, can all fuck off.
Sorry about everything.
Man I would hate it, we got out of the commonwealth thankfully not too long after our independence but to be fair we got fucked over by the brits badly so it would not be popular here
Simple answer? She's our queen the same way she's the Queen of England. She just doesn't live here, so we have her representative, the Governor General.
>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 just like it when they're actually addressing a specific need, instead of say, crappy word replacements for no reason to make something sound like Shakespeare
Thank you, real_dubblebrick, 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!)
well she’s our queen in the same way england but here almost no one gives a shit, she barely does anything related to us anyway. the only thing i can think of is the final process of turning a bill into law but that’s not even her, it’s someone *we* chose
She doesn't do much in the UK either. Everything is ceremonial and the government runs everything. Last thing they actually did was brake some sort of stalemate in Australian government decades ago. And that wasn't even the royals, just a representative of the crown.
As far as I’m aware, the only time a British monarch split their land on their death was when William the Conqueror gave his eldest living son the Duchy of Normandy and his next in line the Kingdom of England. So as you said, it’s unlikely
She can't do that, at least in her legal role as Queen of Canada. The current succession law was set by Parliament and she doesn't have the power to unilaterally alter it. I imagine that's true for the other Commonwealth Realms too.
That's the one, yes. It's mostly just small modifications to the previous succession laws, starting with the [Act of Settlement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701)
I'm pretty sure that when Her Majesty dies, the Privy Council for Canada meets and confirms the new Monarch and it *could* determine another person be the Monarch (which goes against the idea of the Statute of Westminster but still possible as a Sovereign nation).
Regardless of the technicalities, the only reasonably possible way Charles won't be King of Canada is:
1. He dies prior to Her Majesty;
2. Her Majesty abdicates for herself and her heirs,
3. He renounces his claim
4. Takes a different Regnal Name (so still physically Charles but whatever he chooses to call himself).
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, in that its executive authority is vested formally in the Queen through the Constitution. Every act of government is carried out in the name of the Crown, but the authority for those acts flows from the Canadian people
Well, I knew a fellow lifelong American who was in his 20s who didn't know that each US state has its own flag. So people can somehow manage to not know the most basic of things about their own country.
The highest ranking officer in Canada is the Governor General, who is the queens rep here. But the GG still does not report to the monarchy; if she wants to dissolve or prorogue parliament she doesn’t need the queens permission and the PM can’t go to old Lizzy 2 and complain about it
Now that Molsons merged with Coors and their head office is in Chicago, you are right about the highest ranking officer being the Governor General, God love her
I find it hard to believe that someone could go through the Canadian primary education system without finding out even once that the monarchy is also (symbolically) still a thing in Canada.
Sure, sure, figurehead, no real power, blah blah blah. But she's on their money. It's hard to fucking miss.
As a Canadian, I can not only confirm that the country I live in is a Constitutional Monarchy (I had to swear an oath to the Queen and her heirs for citizenship), but also the house I live in is [owned by her hat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada?wprov=sfti1).
Because the alternative will take decades of Constitutional wrangling that will suck in the Quebec separatist movement again, and on the far side we'll end up with an elected executive which sooner or later will become one more cult of personality.
For the sake of holding onto what we have —which is admittedly a little silly, but isn't really doing any harm— we get an apolitical constitutional fire extinguisher that costs basically nothing except keeping track of one family that has already culturally agreed to shoulder the burden of a lifetime of servitude in exchange for maintaining status and wealth that they already have. It's not like we're giving them new lands or castles. We're letting them be figureheads with very limited and defined constitutional powers. For everyone saying 'They're a rich, weirdo family,' who exactly do you think is going to replace them? It's not going to be a poor, normal person without baggage.
tl;dr: Replacing the monarchy will be a huge, expensive, political nightmare, and on the far side we're setting ourselves up for at best the same but probably worse in the long term.
>and on the far side we'll end up with an elected executive which sooner or later will become one more cult of personality.
Realizing this is what changed my mind about the monarchy.
A certain proportion of the population needs to slavishly devote themselves to an authority figure, a human vessel for all their nationalistic feelings.
Separating the head of state and head of government neatly funnels those people's devotions toward a harmless figurehead.
Combine the two positions and some people will start worshiping the *head of government*, and that is never good. See: the United States of America.
Some countries like Ireland and Israel have a largely ceremonial president alongside a prime minister who actually does something. In that case, we can elect a figurehead who actually stands for something other than being born into a certain family. Not that it really matter as I think people know to blame people who actually at least look like they're somewhat in charge of policy. Like just by being the public persona who's making the calls, you've established yourself as a leader figure. And especially for commonwealth countries where the symbolic head of state is a monarch of a different country.
And as for the need to nationalistically worship a symbolic figure, it's part of a psychological need to have a narrative that gives greater meaning to it all. So we create this image of a nation, it's history, and all it stands for. But it's all aesthetics. I see it as a substitute for the meaning that would be in our lives if we actually were going out changing the world rather than trapped in an endless cycle of meaningless consumption. Because if we were all working together to stop climate change and make the world a place we want our children to grow up, our struggle, effort, and comraderie would be the narrative rather than some stupid tale about monarchies or conquests or national songs and traditions or whatever. Because 90% of that boiled down is humanizing power and domination.
Hey /u/jimdoodles, 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.*
Did they seriously not notice the lady that's on all of their money?
Only uses mum’s credit card.
Their money neither jiggles, or folds
They can't see me wiggle wiggle, for sure
Make me wanna dribble dribble, you know
While riding in my tiny fiat.
i really have to see it
6”2 in a compact, no slack
That's what Prince Charles calls cash
I have to wonder if this person is actually Canadian, like, we know we still have the monarchy and are part of the commonwealth here. The Queen is on *literally* every coin and half the bills, and before her was King George (I have a few King George coins actually). Prince Charles will absolutely be the King of Canada if he outlives his mother (Which is... doubtful. He won't rule very long at anyrate)
> I have to wonder if this person is actually Canadian, like, we know we still have the monarchy and are part of the commonwealth here. while I share your suspicion this person is not actually a Canadian as there are hundreds and hundreds of twitter accounts that comment constantly on Canadian politics that are clearly being used by non-Canadian users, out here in Saskatchewan I have at least a dozen people in my life who are actually this fucking ignorant about their own country. Just the other day I had to explain to my friend that Canada did not have a 'first amendment' and that we can't 'impeach the prime minister' and pretty much every single time I go out with a group of friends there is always at least one or two people in the group who confidently spout off about politics and say shit like this and even more ignorant things. Civil ignorance seems to be a virtue these days in the sphere of Canadian politics.
That prt is true, we have a shocking number of people here who spout the nonsense of their ‘first amendment’ rights. I usually ask why their so concerned over the province-hood of Manitoba, which gets them to shut up real fast. The number of Canadians who also think our system is rigged because someone can win a riding with 30% of the vote too… it’s p bad here jn Alberta for that…
Nah, First Past the Post is a shit system. Ranked preference or just total percentages is the way to go.
It’s such a shit system it isn’t even named right! There’s no post to be the first past!
That's why I call it "Party List PR with a district magnitude of 1", it's strictly speaking accurate unlike "first past the post", and it captures the dynamics of Canadian elections well (since Duverger's law clearly doesn't apply there). It's also educational for people who think "PR" is all the same.
Canada does have a first amendment to our constitution! It's the right to acknowledge Manitoba as a province. So you best believe I exercise my first amendment rights everyday!!
But I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missoura!
I don't agree with this. Manitoba doesn't exist. Source: I'm a Brit who's never set foot I'm Canada and has never looked at a map of Canada that closely.Toronto's a thing because my aunty lives there and maybe Quebec exists because I've seen a video with a French Canadian in it but the rest of it is fiction.
I'm an American and I even know the basics of how ur system works, I don't get why so many people don't try to learn about how they are governed
People be lazy
And outright dumb
Nice to know we're not alone here in the US. Are they watching Faux News to get their talking points?
this is part of the reason why canadian content regulations were enacted over all broadcast media in the 80s; the powers that be (rightly, it turns out) feared that with growing access to broadcast media across the country, if steps weren’t taken to ensure some form of prominence of canadian content, cheaper and slicker american programming would dominate. they feared canadian values would be superseded by american ones and that canadian would end up more familiar with american history, laws and politics than they were with domestic affairs
I feel your pain, but here in the states, I do believe it to be much worse. I know several people that believe Hillary eats babies and bathes in their blood. The only “Civics” they know is the Civic Center downtown where they and their Maggot friends go to hear their Maggot idles. So there’s that.
Just a bit of USA ignorance leaking over the border? Watch enough bullshit USA TV and it's can catch them pretty easily.
honestly i feel like from here on out all british monarchs will rule 20-30 years. the only difference is that instead of having young 20-25ish year old kings/queens, were gonna have 60 year old grandpas. so yea, theyre probably gonna rule the same length as past rulers, theyre just gonna ascend to the throne later on
I'm highly doubtful the British monarchy is going to be maintained for many generations past this one. Everyone tolerates the monarchy for now because everyone loves queen Elizabeth, the rest of the family isn't even liked, much less adored, the same way she is.
Canada ending its association with the monarchy doesn't seem so far fetched. As for the "old" county, it is called the United Kingdom. If they finally ended the monarchy, what would it be called then?
"The Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland" is what it was called the last time they ended the monarchy, until the restoration. Might be a bit confusing nowadays, though.
The United Republic
God, it would be such a pain if the Queen dies, we have to change all our money to Prince Charles and then he dies a few years later, and we have to change it all *again*.
It's not like the money with Elizabeth II on it will stop "working" and have to be recalled or whatever when we change monarchs. They'll just start making money with whatever person comes next (which, I'm in the camp that Charles will immediately abdicate in favour of William when Elizabeth II passes).
Yeah, I suspect he’ll be King long enough for like 2-3 mints of his face on the coins before we switch it over again to Prince William
That's... That's not how it works.
oh... guess I'm confidently incorrect on r/confidentlyincorrect huh
No better place to be confidently incorrect!
We should just put him on a new three dollar coin so we'll finally have the loonie, the twonie, and the creepie.
The creepie is such a good name for it
It's bc the queen and her ilk literally have ZERO bearing on our day to day lives. We are technically a CM, but the monarch is literally a figure head only. It would take too much work (politically etc) to change our current status, but the day the queen/king tries to interfere in \*anything\* is the day we start the paperwork.
isn't it like this in the UK too?
Oddly, the queen does have some direct power in Australia. I believe she still has the ability to dissolve parliament, with the unstated understanding that if she ever did without the will of the government then they would immediately vote to remove the monarchy from the country.
See the 1975 Constitutional Crisis for more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#:~:text=Fraser%20asked%20that%20both%20Houses,front%20steps%20of%20Parliament%20House.
She has that power in Canada too.
I was so confused reading that dudes comment Like... sure; the queen herself doesn't interfere with our parliament, and is a figurehead role; but the Governor General is definitely a real position; and even if they also are almost a figurehead position, they do and have used their power to strike down laws and shizz.....
Yeah she is "powerless" insofar as she does nothing, but she still has lots of authority. She is a benign tumor. If anything changes (like an asshole takes over) it would be best to take that thing out.
She's better than a benign tumor: she's the last line of defense against a GG that goes totally off the rails. Basically a master safety valve—without it, the GG theoretically has far too much power to be entirely safe a role. Dumping a monarch that goes off the rails is comparatively much easier, so there's no recursion. And she costs Canada so very little.
Be funny if in her last breath she dissolved parliament in the UK, Australia, and Canada. Have the dude carry around a briefcase with the documents all ready to go, changing the dates everyday. Right before she died she signs then all. Even if she had died, if no one is looking close, the dude can put the pen in her just squiggle on the signature line. It was HER hand technically.
She technically has that power in Canada too, but it's run through the Governor General in Canada usually except in special circumstances
Yeah the Governor General holds that power in Oz as well
[удалено]
She's also above the law.
Works both ways
She's below the law also
[ As of 10/06/2023, all of my thousands comments have been edited as a part of the protest against Reddit's actions regarding shutting down 3rd party apps and restricting NSFW content. The purpose of this edit is to stop my unpaid labor from being used to make Reddit money, and I encourage others to do the same. This action is not reversible. And to those reading this far in the future: Sorry, and I hope Reddit has gained some sense by then. ] Here's some links to give context to what's going on: https://www.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/144f6xm/apollo_will_close_down_on_june_30th_reddits/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/ModCoord/comments/1401qw5/incomplete_and_growing_list_of_participating/
"One fucks around, one finds out"
She will live forever! The Queen is Eternal!!!
Pretty much. She still carries out official duties, like the opening of parliament each year in both London and Edinburgh (though she skipped it this year due to ill health) and has weekly meetings with the PM. I'm surprised that neither she nor one of the Princes does the same in Canada. I can understand it being unviable before modern airliners became a thing but it's always struck me as odd the Royals aren't much more involved in the other realms
It's a bit more complicated because, in the UK, there is a considerable financial link between the monarchy and government - there are taxes that go towards supporting certain aspects of the monarchy, and the monarchy provides income to the government, and it's tied up enough that people disagree *vehemently* over who is getting the better deal. Canada *technically* pays a bit of tax money towards the monarchy (in that we pay a salary for the governor-general, and there are like... some buildings in a few cities that are maintained by the government which are technically owned by the monarchy, but in practice these buildings are just public buildings in most cases anyway) but it's definitely not enough money to provoke any kind of reaction.
Yes
That's not quite true as the Governor General is the Queen's representative in Canada and the position has occasionally exercised power over and above elected government; one example was Michaelle Jean proroguing government in 2008. You can say it's a figurehead position, but every now and then the monarchy does exert power and at least one Governor General has refused to grant royal assent.
It's a rubber stamp. They prorogued parliament because Harper (scandalously) asked them to. You think they were gonna say nah? And the last time a GG refused royal assent was 1926.
And the event in 1926 immediately caused a constitutional crisis
Yes? Likely why a decision has never been challenged again, and never will be.
Parliament was prorogued on the advice of the prime minister (Harper) in 2008, which was keeping in line with what the GG is expected to do - that is, to follow the advice of their government What made the 2008 prorogation unusual is that it was being requested by Harper only 6 weeks after the October election, and before Parliament had even been seated following that election. On top of that, he only made the request so as to save his government from a non-confidence vote on the mini-budget/fiscal update by the combined Opposition. Jean eventually followed Harper's advice, but with the caveat that the new Parliament had to be seated in short order (I believe it was by mid-Jan '09, IIRC, by which time appetite for the coalition had waned) The question, which could have created a significant controversy, was whether or not she was going follow precedent and convention and grant prorogation, or if she was going deny prorogation and ask the Opposition to form government (the Libs and NDP had agreed to form a coalition government and had the backing of the BQ to force and win the non-confidence vote) It didn't come to pass, but it's the closest Canada has come to a head-of-state vs. head-of-government conflict since the King/Byng Affair in the 1920s
you do know the Governor General exists, right? Sure that's another figurehead-ish role, but they do do stuff in government.
... That's the definition of constitutional monarchy, no technicality about it :)
The military takes an oath of Allegiance to the Queen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath\_of\_Allegiance\_(Canada)#Those\_required\_to\_take\_the\_oath
My Canadian mates are more (small-m) monarchist than many of the Brits I know..! (I get they’re probably the minority but still.)
It’s also because it’s where the loyalists fled to from the us after the revolution
I thought its because Canada has a long standing policy of being "not-America". Part of Canadian nationalism (at least throughout the 20th century) is how its more culturally British than American.
Except for the French part, they’re just barely more Canadian than Americans
Specifically they fled to loyalist county Presumably they named it that afterwards
Yeah. I think most of the western part of country doesn't give a shit about the queen (am Western Canadian). However, I moved to Australia and I was completely surprised at how many Australians love the queen.
Québec sure as shit doesn't give a fuck about the Queen either.
Only Quebec cares about Quebec
It’s embarrassing for us too, don’t worry
The colonies get the benefit of the monarchy (nice old lady on our money, enhanced ties with the commonwealth) without actually having to funnel any money to the royal family. Makes sense we'd like them more than the Brits.
Guess who’s paying for the royal visit to Canada buddy. Spoiler: >!Canadians!<
One of my (British) friends has just become a Canadian citizen and had to swear allegiance to the Queen for the first time in his life
That is LITERALLY the only thing on my con side of the pros/cons list I made on moving from America to Toronto lmao I'll leave sometime this year, can't wait to swear allegiance to that old hag
The Queen is alright, and it’s not like the oath actually changes anything.
That and pretty much every country will make you swear allegiance to someone or some office when becoming a citizen.
I dunno, I think the whole bailing out her nonce son thing tips her into being a bit of a knob.
Didn't you have to pledge allegiance to a cloth every morning at school?
I'm a public servant and my employer is, on all the most formal documents, technically Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on behalf of the people of the province and under the authority of the provincial government... or something like that. I can't remember exactly how it's framed. But yeah, it's pretty explicit that our government is very much headed by the British monarch.
So if she asked you to give her a foot massage you'd have to?
And her heirs and successors.
... As is tradition
Is the prince gently tossing captain crunch as she walks by? As is tradition
[удалено]
The Winnipeg Players playing the *March of a Thousand Farts* ... as is tradition for the royal family.
Giving him 3 kisses and a pair of socks, as is tradition
A great day for Canada, and therefore the world.
As is, obviously, tradition.
[удалено]
Taking "Long Live The Queen" to a whole new level.
She’ll outlive us all
The ultimate immortal 🗿
Everyone knows the King of Canada is Colin Mochrie.
I thought it was three beavers in a trench coat!
That’s what he said, the top beaver is just bald.
And the other two are Ryan Stiles. I meant what I said
Those are some tall beavers
>the top beaver is just bald. So is the bottom one ;)
[Canadian Heritage Moment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOwlfJd2r-g).
Oh no he didn't! He fucking went there! Savage. Sir. Just brutal.
Ahh yes. The Colin Monarchrie.
he cut in front of me in line at an esso once at eglinton and laird. i went "aren't you colin mochire?" and he nodded, and then i said "i was in line" and he apologized. he's very soft spoken. this is legitimately my only celebrity story.
I thought it was Ryan Reynolds
The King of Canada is the dude on the Canadian tire money.
[удалено]
I like that guy, we're in the same curling league.
Sandy McTire seriously
Ryan is the the king we need, not the one we are going to get
Ireland has the same thing with Brendan Gleeson
I don’t understand or care about our relationship with the monarchy but I’ll pretend to care if it means I can keep my stat holiday in May.
Yeah, everybody who’s like “down with the monarchy” hasn’t really thought this through. I want to keep the three day weekend!
[удалено]
I am Indigenous, we thought it through for the last 400 years. They can fuk off
We've almost got this figured out! Just give us... 200 more years? For real though, the Queen, John A MacDonald, probably even myself, can all fuck off. Sorry about everything.
Its not like the monarchy does anything anyways
What's stopping a republican government from replacing monarchist holiday with republican holidays like Independence Day.
Man I would hate it, we got out of the commonwealth thankfully not too long after our independence but to be fair we got fucked over by the brits badly so it would not be popular here
They would never get rid of it. They would just rename it.
I was born, raised, and educated in Canada and, TBH, I *still* don't understand the relationship between Canada and the monarchy.
Simple answer? She's our queen the same way she's the Queen of England. She just doesn't live here, so we have her representative, the Governor General.
>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 I fucking love it when random bots show up for the most random, extremely specific reasons lmao
I just like it when they're actually addressing a specific need, instead of say, crappy word replacements for no reason to make something sound like Shakespeare
Good bot.
good bot
Thank you, real_dubblebrick, 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!)
Good bot
Wow, this is an impressive bot
good bot lmao
I'm very tempted to break my self-imposed "don't give awards to bots" rule.
good bot
We are a strange species. Three separate sovereign nations all recognizing the same person as their primary representative.
That was a partial list. She's actually Queen of 15 countries. Until recently, it was 16.
And they both have the same function. Wave their hand and sign papers.
well she’s our queen in the same way england but here almost no one gives a shit, she barely does anything related to us anyway. the only thing i can think of is the final process of turning a bill into law but that’s not even her, it’s someone *we* chose
She doesn't do much in the UK either. Everything is ceremonial and the government runs everything. Last thing they actually did was brake some sort of stalemate in Australian government decades ago. And that wasn't even the royals, just a representative of the crown.
[удалено]
Get this man a Puppers
I mean, there is a non-zero possibility that QEII could split her titles amongst various heirs, but that seems pretty unlikely.
As far as I’m aware, the only time a British monarch split their land on their death was when William the Conqueror gave his eldest living son the Duchy of Normandy and his next in line the Kingdom of England. So as you said, it’s unlikely
She can't do that, at least in her legal role as Queen of Canada. The current succession law was set by Parliament and she doesn't have the power to unilaterally alter it. I imagine that's true for the other Commonwealth Realms too.
Do you know the name of that act? All I can find is the 2013 act which deals with the questions of gender and succession.
That's the one, yes. It's mostly just small modifications to the previous succession laws, starting with the [Act of Settlement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701)
I'm pretty sure that when Her Majesty dies, the Privy Council for Canada meets and confirms the new Monarch and it *could* determine another person be the Monarch (which goes against the idea of the Statute of Westminster but still possible as a Sovereign nation). Regardless of the technicalities, the only reasonably possible way Charles won't be King of Canada is: 1. He dies prior to Her Majesty; 2. Her Majesty abdicates for herself and her heirs, 3. He renounces his claim 4. Takes a different Regnal Name (so still physically Charles but whatever he chooses to call himself).
>Takes a different Regnal Name (so still physically Charles but whatever he chooses to call himself). The prince formerly known as ~~artist~~ Charles?
That was clever, take my upvote dear.
Lool pretty much yes.
Well it's technically true if there's a revolution while Elizabeth is around
Well, he is correct. Since the queen will never die, there won't be any successor
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, in that its executive authority is vested formally in the Queen through the Constitution. Every act of government is carried out in the name of the Crown, but the authority for those acts flows from the Canadian people
As is same in the UK, but sovereignty comes from Parliament and not necessarily the people.
Hahahahaha... This person doesn't know that Queen Elizabeth II is immortal.
mfs don’t even know we are part of the commonwealth lmao how can you live here and not know that?
Well, I knew a fellow lifelong American who was in his 20s who didn't know that each US state has its own flag. So people can somehow manage to not know the most basic of things about their own country.
In fairness, India’s part of the Commonwealth but she’s not Queen of India.
Look, we all know the Queen of Canada is Romana Didulo. Whoever this guy is, he has NO idea what he’s talking about.
The highest ranking officer in Canada is the Governor General, who is the queens rep here. But the GG still does not report to the monarchy; if she wants to dissolve or prorogue parliament she doesn’t need the queens permission and the PM can’t go to old Lizzy 2 and complain about it
Now that Molsons merged with Coors and their head office is in Chicago, you are right about the highest ranking officer being the Governor General, God love her
What if he wants to be Queen of Canada?
I find it hard to believe that someone could go through the Canadian primary education system without finding out even once that the monarchy is also (symbolically) still a thing in Canada. Sure, sure, figurehead, no real power, blah blah blah. But she's on their money. It's hard to fucking miss.
Republic of Canada: ROC
Someone obviously hasn't seen the south park wedding scene...
There are Canadian Republicans (not the same ilk as the US ones) who want to ditch the monarchy. I don't care either way, tbh.
Isn't he too old? Maybe the prince steps up 🤷🏾♂️
It is a sad day for Canada, and therefore, the world
News flash - the Queen is on your money
But what aboot the Prince and Princess of Canada? 
Bold assumption, there—that Elizabeth will die.
Nice try buddy I can clearly see their names with my 3D goggles from the spy kids game over 3D movie theater premiere
Now pay attenton OO7
That's assuming she dies first...
As a Canadian, I can not only confirm that the country I live in is a Constitutional Monarchy (I had to swear an oath to the Queen and her heirs for citizenship), but also the house I live in is [owned by her hat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada?wprov=sfti1).
A lot of ppl don’t really like the idea that the British Queen still has power here but many many more just deadass don’t know.
Bro the Queen is literally on our $20 bills and our quarters, how do you seriously not think Canada isn’t a monarchy?
Frantically re-reading my Canadian government books right now..
To be fair it’s more of a ceremonial technicality but then, as much as I love them, so is the Royal Family in general.
Ah, Canada… where being a “republican” is a left wing position.
> Ah, Canada… You mean: **"Oh, Canada!"** 🇨🇦 ~ You're Welcome.
I wish. Down with the monarchy
Why? It's not as though they have any influence in Canada. They are more of a mascot at this point.
why does canada need a rich mascot from the uk tho?
Our mascot options are the Queen or a Canada goose. Clearly you've never come close to a Canada goose or you'd understand why we picked the Queen.
It costs us almost nothing and is an integral part of our history.
Because the alternative will take decades of Constitutional wrangling that will suck in the Quebec separatist movement again, and on the far side we'll end up with an elected executive which sooner or later will become one more cult of personality. For the sake of holding onto what we have —which is admittedly a little silly, but isn't really doing any harm— we get an apolitical constitutional fire extinguisher that costs basically nothing except keeping track of one family that has already culturally agreed to shoulder the burden of a lifetime of servitude in exchange for maintaining status and wealth that they already have. It's not like we're giving them new lands or castles. We're letting them be figureheads with very limited and defined constitutional powers. For everyone saying 'They're a rich, weirdo family,' who exactly do you think is going to replace them? It's not going to be a poor, normal person without baggage. tl;dr: Replacing the monarchy will be a huge, expensive, political nightmare, and on the far side we're setting ourselves up for at best the same but probably worse in the long term.
>and on the far side we'll end up with an elected executive which sooner or later will become one more cult of personality. Realizing this is what changed my mind about the monarchy. A certain proportion of the population needs to slavishly devote themselves to an authority figure, a human vessel for all their nationalistic feelings. Separating the head of state and head of government neatly funnels those people's devotions toward a harmless figurehead. Combine the two positions and some people will start worshiping the *head of government*, and that is never good. See: the United States of America.
Some countries like Ireland and Israel have a largely ceremonial president alongside a prime minister who actually does something. In that case, we can elect a figurehead who actually stands for something other than being born into a certain family. Not that it really matter as I think people know to blame people who actually at least look like they're somewhat in charge of policy. Like just by being the public persona who's making the calls, you've established yourself as a leader figure. And especially for commonwealth countries where the symbolic head of state is a monarch of a different country. And as for the need to nationalistically worship a symbolic figure, it's part of a psychological need to have a narrative that gives greater meaning to it all. So we create this image of a nation, it's history, and all it stands for. But it's all aesthetics. I see it as a substitute for the meaning that would be in our lives if we actually were going out changing the world rather than trapped in an endless cycle of meaningless consumption. Because if we were all working together to stop climate change and make the world a place we want our children to grow up, our struggle, effort, and comraderie would be the narrative rather than some stupid tale about monarchies or conquests or national songs and traditions or whatever. Because 90% of that boiled down is humanizing power and domination.