541
Smarten up down there (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/57392984

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 4 months ago (12 children)

Nope! We're part of a commonwealth (we have the same monarch as the UK, Australia, etc) but no other connection to the UK other than history.

Canada was not independent in 1814, though, so it would have been as a British colony.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    How can you have the same monarch and not be under their control, even if that is a loosely applied term? I've read that the British royals still have a legal method of dissolving the British parliament and taking direct control of the government. It would likely lead to a massive revolt but is still technically possible. Is there a similar mechanism for the Brits to take over Canada? If not, what does it mean to have a monarch with no authority?

    Sorry, for bombarding you with questions. It's funny timing because a friend and I were just discussing this the other day and we only ended with more questions than we started with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It's considered two different monarchies. There is a King of Canada and a King of the United Kingdom. Same person, two different institutions.

    So it wouldn't be a Brit taking over Canada, it would Canada's head of state seizing control.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I don't mean to sound rude so please don't take offense, but isn't that sort of nonsensical? King Charles is only one man and the vast majority of his life and time is spent in the UK so I think it's fair to say he considers himself more British than Canadian or Australian or a citizen of any other commonwealth nation, even if legally speaking it is defined differently. Doesn't that mean that the main thing preventing him from prioritizing the wellbeing of one nation over another is his own integrity? What happens if the next king is a dick?

    Again, I really don't mean to be rude I'm just very curious about this topic. I'm sure watching Trump shit all over the American system of government is a factor in my thought process as well. Feel free to tell me to shut up if I'm making you think about this more than you want to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Not rude, no worries. It's an area of consternation for Canada. And a really interesting balancing act to watch.

    I think its wrong to lump the royals in with all Brits, at least Elizabeth and Charles, because they aren't raised to view themselves as purely British. I would argue they dont identify with nation states in the same way us plebs do.

    When the royals are in Canada the media often worries that British realpolitik will prevail for exactly the reasons you've outlined. But I've yet to see Elizabeth or Charles throw Canada under the bus. When here, they do represent Canadian views, even when they are slightly contrary to British.

    Canadians generally have 'trust' in the monarchy because they have held up their side of the bargain. Will that always be the case? Maybe not.

    I'm probably a soft monarchist, I think there is stability in the institution that republics just don't have. I think there is value in the elected leader being reminded they are not the top dog, even if it is a largely ceremonial role. It helps that the royals are far away and the family drama stays mostly in the UK.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Basically, the current King is the King of Canada, and also the King of the UK, and also the King of 13 other places. So this one dude is king of many places, but there's otherwise no connection between the governments of Canada and the UK, or Australia, etc.

    So we're an independent nation, but in an open relationship with our monarch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think I fully understand the situation. From reading that it seems that Canadian bills require royal assent to become law. Doesn't that effectively mean that the King of England determines Canadian law? It seems there's some obfuscation going on between the governor general and the monarch but I don't think I'm getting how that changes things at a fundamental level.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    Canada has a king.

    The UK also has a king.

    They happen to be the same person.

    So the king has similar authority in both Canada and the UK (plus 12 other countries). With respect to Canada, the king is just as much Canadian as he is British (or Australian, etc). With respect to the monarchy, each realm (country) in the commonwealth is on an equal footing with each other.

    So the UK has no more bearing on Canadian law than Canada has on UK law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago*

    The Governor General rubber stamps the bill passed by the Parliament. The Governor General is nominally an agent appointed by the King of Canada (who happens to be the same person as the King of the UK), but they are recommended to the king by the Prime Minister. The king similarly rubber stamps whoever the Prime Minister recommended.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    The monarchy of the commonwealth is little more than just a diplomat with a title. They may have stated power in law but because of modern conventions they never use them or intervene in any of the politics of said countries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    In Canada, the monarchy is mostly symbolic. There is a delegate of the monarchy called the governor general who speaks on behalf of the current monarch (plus leutenant governers at the provincial level). Their primary function is to veto bills they believe are unconstitutional or otherwise not in the interest of the public, plus a number of ceremonial things.

    The monarch themself may be biased toward the attitudes and views of the UK, but there is no mechanism for British parliament to have any (legal) sway in Canadian politics (or in any of the other 12 countries in the commonwealth).

    So the monarch has authority in all 14 countries, but nobody else can do anything in any other country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent