NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you an Australian or Canadian? What do you think of having a foreign figure for a head of state?

I'd rather we didn't have one, but the issue is unlikely to come up again until the current administration is out of office.

Are you an Australian or Canadian? What do you think of having a foreign figure for a head of state?


And isn't funny and sad at the same time that the United States of America has George Bush as head of state?!

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D

And isn't funny and sad at the same time that the United States of America has George Bush as head of state?!

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D
Damn, can't even read the Armstrong thread w/o Bush bashing, nor an honest question not concerning Bush at all.

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D

well, you could allways leave

well, you could allways leave

Worst. Argument. Ever

Damn, can't even read the Armstrong thread w/o Bush bashing, nor an honest question not concerning Bush at all.

I guess thats how you know he is working - his goal was to change America, there was bound to be some anger along the way

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D

Actually, most commonwealth countries are republics and have their own heads of state.

And isn't funny and sad at the same time that the United States of America has George Bush as head of state?!

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D
There are a number of international associations that former collonizing countries have set up with former colonies where every country has its own head of state.

And isn't funny and sad at the same time that the United States of America has George Bush as head of state?!

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D

And hey, it brings in the tourist pounds :D

Seriously, though, if you don't like it, hold a referendum! Last time I checked there were Republican movements in Canadia and Australia and they didn't win! And come on, it's not like we're oppressing you. Much. Though we might start shipping immigrants to Oz soon - as long as we can be assured they won't be tortured or killed. I mean, you've got all that wide open space and you're doing fuck all with it! Put our illegal immigrants there!

(Note: JOKING)

And hey, it brings in the tourist pounds :D

Seriously, though, if you don't like it, hold a referendum! Last time I checked there were Republican movements in Canadia and Australia and they didn't win! And come on, it's not like we're oppressing you. Much. Though we might start shipping immigrants to Oz soon - as long as we can be assured they won't be tortured or killed. I mean, you've got all that wide open space and you're doing fuck all with it! Put our illegal immigrants there!

(Note: JOKING)

My theory is that all the British immigrants here were the ones that voted against the republic :p

(In all seriousness, a chief reason our referendum failed because people who in theory supported a republic but disagreed with the specific model on offer voted against the idea.)

Isn´t it strange that Canada and Australia have as head of state the Queen of England?
No, not particularly.

And she isn't the Queen of England; she has many titles, and none mention England.

Actually, most commonwealth countries are republics and have their own heads of state.

With a General-Secretary that answers to the Queen so no! If your part of the Commonwealth, you still technically have the Queen as your head of State.

My theory is that all the British immigrants here were the ones that voted against the republic :p

(In all seriousness, a chief reason our referendum failed because people who in theory supported a republic but disagreed with the specific model on offer voted against the idea.)
But do people in Australia and Canada feel a true sense of allegiance to the Queen?

But do people in Australia and Canada feel a true sense of allegiance to the Queen?

No. Not at all.

With a General-Secretary that answers to the Queen so no! If your part of the Commonwealth, you still technically have the Queen as your head of State.

Nope- Taken from Wikipedia:

"The Commonwealth is not a political union of any sort, and does not allow the United Kingdom to exercise any power over the affairs of the organization's other members. While some nations of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth Realms, recognize the British Monarch as their head of state, the majority do not."

While the Queen is the figurehead of the commonwealth, she has no power over any of the commonwealth nations.



But do people in Australia and Canada feel a true sense of allegiance to the Queen?

Hehehe. No.

While the Queen is the figurehead of the commonwealth, she has no power over any of the commonwealth nations.



Hehehe. No.

Told ya.

Canada and Australia are but two countries in the British Commonwealth.

I think it's terrific to be a part of that Commonwealth. Through it, I have an inherent commonality with friends in Australia even before we met.

Canada and Australia are but two countries in the British Commonwealth.

I think it's terrific to be a part of that Commonwealth. Through it, I have an inherent commonality with friends in Australia even before we met.
Although some countries join it not out of such noble feelings...Mozambique joined just to get tons of economic aid.

Canada and Australia are but two countries in the British Commonwealth.

I think it's terrific to be a part of that Commonwealth. Through it, I have an inherent commonality with friends in Australia even before we met.

Well, I think if Australia and Canada were to both withdraw from the commonwealth, the two nations would still share a bond since both have a common history.

But do people in Australia and Canada feel a true sense of allegiance to the Queen?
Politically Canada's Liberal government is very much in support of Canada's identity as a member of the Commonwealth nations. I cannot speak for Australia. Individually, less so; some people believe in this identity for Canada, and others want to change it.

"While the Queen is the figurehead of the commonwealth, she has no power over any of the commonwealth nations."
That's what a Head of State is. :)

Politically Canada's Liberal government is very much in support of Canada's identity as a member of the Commonwealth nations. I cannot speak for Australia. Individually, less so; some people believe in this identity for Canada, and others want to change it.
But in canada, doesn´t the quebecois (french-speaking) part of the population bedruge the Queen´s tutelage?

But in canada, doesn´t the quebecois (french-speaking) part of the population bedruge the Queen´s tutelage?
I'm not aware of that. I live in the West.

But in canada, doesn´t the quebecois (french-speaking) part of the population bedruge the Queen´s tutelage?

Tutelage :eek: Fancy words scare me and are you sure thats the correct usage of the word?

Well, I think if Australia and Canada were to both withdraw from the commonwealth, the two nations would still share a bond since both have a common history.
That bond would still be through the Commonwealth, because it is the part of history that bonded us. :)

And isn't funny and sad at the same time that the United States of America has George Bush as head of state?!

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D

neither funny nor sad (though sometimes funny, i guess, when he speaks)

he is:

a)in favor of lower taxes, which helps the economy and helps us fend off socialism
b)in favor of killing terrorists/insurgents

which are two stances which sit fine with me.

Tutelage :eek: Fancy words scare me and are you sure thats the correct usage of the word?
sorry, i´m not a native-speaker of the english language,and sometimes get carried away...maybe tutelage is a little to much, since the Queen is a cerimonial figure even in the UK, let alone Canada and Australia.

That's what a Head of State is. :)

Not really. By that logic, Kofi Annan is president of the world. :p

Nope- Taken from Wikipedia:

"The Commonwealth is not a political union of any sort, and does not allow the United Kingdom to exercise any power over the affairs of the organization's other members. While some nations of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth Realms, recognize the British Monarch as their head of state, the majority do not."

While the Queen is the figurehead of the commonwealth, she has no power over any of the commonwealth nations.

Then why does she have a rep in Canada? In Australia? In other commonwealth nations?

Then why does she have a rep in Canada? In Australia? In other commonwealth nations?

It's an individual national choice to have a Governor-general. When Australia was federated, I guess someone thought it would be a good idea to keep a link to the UK. However, India had a different opinion when they achieved independence. Not all commonwealth countries have one.

It's an individual national choice to have a Governor-general. When Australia was federated, I guess someone thought it would be a good idea to keep a link to the UK. However, India had a different opinion when they achieved independence. Not all commonwealth countries have one.

Thanks for the clarification :)

But do people in Australia and Canada feel a true sense of allegiance to the Queen?

I've met some Canadians who are quite proud to have Elizabeth as Queen of Canada (which is one of her titles).

Though I ought to mention that all the Canadians I have met who expressed this opinion are older than 60, and they all live in small towns in Nova Scotia, so it's hardly a representative poll of all Canadians.

Everyone I know is a monarchist, I can't think of a single person in my family or at my office or in my circle of friends who would give up our Royal Family. Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada too, not just Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. She is not "a foreigner", she just has multiple citizenships.

(and my friends and coworkers range from our 20's to our 40's)

But do people in Australia and Canada feel a true sense of allegiance to the Queen?

Most people in the UK don't have a particularly strong allegiance to the queen, but as long as it keeps them off the streets, besides she's a tourist attraction, the power of our monarchy is always overated espescially (by a certain ex colonies population) whereas they only exist with the commons permission

She is a "a foreigner" she's German ;)

As a Brit, I say you can have her if you want her. She does still have all sorts of exciting powers here, like refusing to accept a new government! But in practice she does only two very important things, she brings in the tourists, she keeps us from having a president, and for that much I thank her!

Just think, the moment the monarch goes, we'll have to vote in someone to go abroad and embarrass us : (

Well, I can tell you that even in Canada, when Elizabeth walked out her front gate without security or protection after the London bombings for the moment of silence, looking very alone and very angry, we were filled with admiration and pride for our Queen. And judging by the thunderous applause, so were the Brits standing outside the gates with her.

a)in favor of lower taxes, which helps the economy and helps us fend off socialism

fend off socialism!? lol, yeah that's one of America's greatest threats right now.

Evil socialist HQ:
Damn the Americans where about to turn communist but not now that they got that tax cut! Bush that genious, you've out smarted us yet again!

Not really. By that logic, Kofi Annan is president of the world. :p
Nah, CEO. ;)

The United Nations does not rule the world; rather, the united nations rule themselves.

The Quebec province is, in genral for the removal of the Queen. But that's mainly part of our French heritage (guillotine anyone?). Besides the best argument for removing her as our head of state is the cost of the Governor General position.

Apart from that, it is a non-issue.

I've met some Canadians who are quite proud to have Elizabeth as Queen of Canada (which is one of her titles).

Though I ought to mention that all the Canadians I have met who expressed this opinion are older than 60, and they all live in small towns in Nova Scotia, so it's hardly a representative poll of all Canadians.
You need to get out more. :D

I`m an 18 year old Canadian. My feelings on this subject is that in the end having the Queen as the head of state makes no difference. Because now the Govener General who is the rep for her has not disagreed with the prime minister for over a decade. In a sense she is just there, more like a title than a role.

Now when I piss off my friend who practically has an obsession with the queen, I tend to mention that I would like an elected head of state to increase nationalism. She really doesnt do anything (infact I tell him all she does is save a little bit of money for us by using her senior discount card (How do I go on with my bad self?)). But as I said earlier in all reality it makes no difference, because the prime minister pretty much has presidental power because the govener general never disagrees with him anymore.

Now his rebuttle is in an attempt to preserve the historical emersion of Canada, and the fact that we were able to become a self-sustaining and seperate nation without a violent seperation. Also that she is a cost effective head of state in the sense that we do not pay her, all we do is treat her to a trip here every now and then.

So in the end.... it makes no difference, thus it is just easier to leave it alone: if its not broken don't fix it.

I hope I was of some help

hmmmm I forgot how expensive the govener general is...... how much does the GG cost?

Also, I don't like Quebec, so what they think is unimportant to me. Problems with Quebec have been ripping this counrty apart, because of them we had to drop a perfectly good accord, and they think their culture is more important than everyone elses. I don't see the Inuit constantly complaining about how we need to destroy other's culture to save their own.

Anyway.... thats what I think :)

Everyone I know is a monarchist, I can't think of a single person in my family or at my office or in my circle of friends who would give up our Royal Family. Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada too, not just Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. She is not "a foreigner", she just has multiple citizenships.

(and my friends and coworkers range from our 20's to our 40's)

I know both monarchists and republicans. The monarchists are happy to have a link to the royal family. Generally the republicans don't hate the monarchy, but want Canada to 'grow up'.

And, incidentally, chances are very good that a G-G doesn't cost any more than a President would. Possibly even less.

Generally the republicans don't hate the monarchy, but want Canada to 'grow up'.
One doesn't have to deny one's parents to be grown up, rather I would argue the opposite it true. Canada is a completely sovereign nation, I don't think it needs to sever its ties with the monarchy to prove anything to anyone.

Imagine, President Blair... It doesn't bear thinking about. If there was a poll on whether people trusted Blair or the Queen more, I think I'd know who'd win.

Think of it as this: Discredited lying power hungry public school boy vs nice old lady. Who are you going to vote for?

And isn't funny and sad at the same time that the United States of America has George Bush as head of state?!

lmao, good point xp

I'm not quite sure what to think about the issue, partly because I don't live in either of those countries, and partly because this is the first I've heard of that being the case with Canada. Although if it is true I don't see much wrong there... besides, both countries seem like pretty good places.

And isn't funny and sad at the same time that the United States of America has George Bush as head of state?!

I don't really agree with the Queen of England being the Canadian and Aussie head of state but then thats what you get for being in the Common Wealth :D

Thats another thing, why dont we bring back the good old British Empire

Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the waves!!!! All the commenwealth countries are perfectly resonable nice democratic nations we let america alip the net and look what happens. world policing, corporate, polluting world destroyer uh-oh! If the brits were in charge we'd all be playing cricket, drinking tea and eating strawberries and cream, huzzah!

Not really. By that logic, Kofi Annan is president of the world. :p

hail president kofi :)

hail president kofi :)

*runs to another planet*

Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the waves!!!! All the commenwealth countries are perfectly resonable nice democratic nations we let america alip the net and look what happens. world policing, corporate, polluting world destroyer uh-oh! If the brits were in charge we'd all be playing cricket, drinking tea and eating strawberries and cream, huzzah!

If only there was a United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Northern Ireland... We'd be the good cop to America's bad cop :D

As an Aussie, it doesn't worry me much at all. The days of the British Empire are by-and-large gone, and the Queen doesn't have that much to do with us.

Having said that, and this is now only my (VERY) humble opinion, the push for Australia to become a republic seems to be just a case of us wanting to be more like the USA... while that's not intended to be a derogatory remark, I can't help but notice that the USA threw the Poms out, and then spent the next however long trying to set up their own defacto monarchy in the likes of the Kennedys etc. The difference between defining the Kennedys as being hustlers with loose zippers, and the similar carryings-on amongst the European aristocracy is about 1000 years of practice is concealment... and class.

The Commonwealth lends us a bit of Britain's extensive heritage. Given that Australia was only colonised in the late 18th century, our history is relatively recent: I for one am the 5th generation of my family born in Australia, and we still remember and celebrate our Scottish roots, but I don't believe that takes anything from my sense of "Australianism" or my pride in our country.

Our membership of the Commonwealth adds to our sense of world community in many ways, and is an anchor in the midst of too many calls for change, for the sake of change.

Anyway Oz is basically an adolescent nation: it knows what's out there, but is still too young to fully appreciate what it has, and what it wants, and what is good for it in the long run.

well, you could allways leave
I agree with ChuChulainn: this argument is like a 'vacuum cleaner': it sucks, blows, and allaround asphyxiates us with it's stupidity (well, it's so bad, it does that even though 'vacuum cleaners' don't). And I have yet to meet someone who uses it who isn't mostly a jerk. Many of them also say "I think we should give them plane tickets to wherever else they want to go..." ect. We have all heard the argument. And I would, quite frankly, be happy to see one of them someday be willing to fork out the money to back up their position.
1. They make it so flipping difficult to leave that no, you can't just leave. They have laws against people leaving. And organizations that seek out and capture you (and shoot at you unprovoked) if you try.
2. 'Just Leaving' takes a large investment of time, and, if your trying to move somewhere else, monetary funding, especially when on an island like australia: getting yourselves and possibly some of your stuff to another place is difficult. Most people would also be set back in not having a job in the new place, and possibly starting again from rock bottom. This doesn't make the new place bad: it could still be better. But it could be impossible to get a restart. Also, people tend to have made many ties, emotional and financial, in the place they are currently in. So again, it can be VERY hard to up and get away. Heck, think of how hard it is just to get a vacation.
3. If you speak english and know no other languages, where are you going to go? The US? Hah. We have Bush as our head of state. Need I say more? Going to the US would be like jumping from the itchy straw heap into the dung pile. I live in the US and plan to get out, INTO canada or australia or ireland (I only know english currently, so am limited in choices. My own fault, really, but I love all three of those locations anyway ^.^).
4. I would be quite happy having a figurehead like the queen. Supposedly she is friendly, and while she may have tons of governmental sway, does not, as far as I have heard, abuse it like bush is. She certainly hasn't given people in australia or canada enough reason to try to get rid of her. You don't need a powerhungry but charismatic 'leader' who can convince the populous of everything and get hundreds of people to lie for them all the time. There can be uses for them, but sometimes a family based monarchy into which people like the current prince, who talks to his plants and is a rather friendly guy, can be born and given a chance to have a place in the sun to do the good they have in them, when otherwise they would be squelched because they might not be outspoken enough, or not have the right charachters (including in many cases enough LACK of morals) to get elected. How many of us are not monarchs or rulers even though we could do such a better job (or so we think)? Guilty as charged, I am. Granted, I am biased: the grass often only seems greener on the other side.

The Monarchy serves no useful purpose beyond mere window dressing from our past, there are few Canadians beyond War Veterans and others of that generation that believe that she is useful as a symbol of our colonial past,in a few generations when our Veterans pass from the scene it will have even less relevance,JMHO

As an Aussie, I have nothing against the Queen. However, I feel quite strongly that we should have our own head of state. I think we should remain part of the Commonwealth & maintain our links with other Commonwealth nations. As an independent nation though, I truly believe that we should have (however nominal the power is) an Australian as our figurehead.

You need to get out more. :D

Hey, it was by getting out that I met those people. You think I could meet elderly Nova Scotians by staying in my house in North Carolina? :p

The only reason we have the Queen as head of state in Australia is because of our history (British Settlement). if we changed to a republic and had a president like the U.S. we would get no benefit out of it - the Queen doesnt do too much. It'd just be a waste of time changing systems.

Then why does she have a rep in Canada? In Australia? In other commonwealth nations?The rep in Canada is appointed by the Canadian Prime Minister and holds a politically irelevant title for the most part. More of a cerimony than anything else.

I think the Old British Empire was the largest Empire ever wasnt it?

Ah well, them days are long gone and even though Queen is still Head of state and Ruler of places, Its not like the Queen or the UK actualy run the other places so it shouldnt bother them to much.

And if something weird happened and the Royal family tried to use what possible little power they had left to change things, they could cut ties with the royal family or the UK instantly without anything much happening.

I'm not from Canada or Australia, however I support having the Queen as Head of State.
An earlier poster asked if people felt much allegiance to the Queen. So far as I can tell they mostly do not (at least in my country). That is a large part of why the Queen as Head of State is a good thing. My nation's leader is not the Head of State. In fact my nation's leader is a servant of the Head of State. Having a leader who is Head of State seems to encourage that leader forgetting that they are a servant (of their people). By having a leader who's very designation means servant (Prime Minister, first amongst the Queen's Ministers), there is less chance the leader will forget their place. Having a Governor General (Representive of the Queen) is for the most part ceremonial, and gives us a non-partisan person who is above the MPs and Prime Minister (in the national heirachy). However within living memory the Governor General of Australia directly intervened in the political process (I forget if they dismissed the government or dissolved Parliment, but there was quite some controversy about it at the time).

... However within living memory the Governor General of Australia directly intervened in the political process (I forget if they dismissed the government or dissolved Parliment, but there was quite some controversy about it at the time).
IIRC, it was in 1975. As a mattter of fact, the Governor General of Australia was not in the least acting at the Queen's bidding then; he sided with the Opposition in the Australian Parliament.

IIRC, it was in 1975. As a mattter of fact, the Governor General of Australia was not in the least acting at the Queen's bidding then; he sided with the Opposition in the Australian Parliament.
Thanks for the date. It hadnt occured to me that the Queen had anything to do with it though, (I had figured it was a domestic issue).
2 things...
what does IIRC mean? :confused:
Do you happen to know what action was actually taken by the GG (ie did he dismiss the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament, or what exactly, and also what the eventual outcome was). No worries if you dont have all the details, at least you knew the when. ;)

Thanks for the date. It hadnt occured to me that the Queen had anything to do with it though, (I had figured it was a domestic issue).
2 things...
what does IIRC mean? :confused:
'If I remember correctly.' :)

Do you happen to know what action was actually taken by the GG (ie did he dismiss the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament, or what exactly, and also what the eventual outcome was). No worries if you dont have all the details, at least you knew the when. ;)
I'll better give a Wikipedia link or two to you--the story was quite complicated. Basically, the Governor-General fired the Prime Minister and hired another, who immediately advised the GG to dissolve the Parliament. The new PM won the ensuing election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr#The_1975_crisis

Thanks for that Olantia. :)

Are you an Australian or Canadian? What do you think of having a foreign figure for a head of state?
Well, as an Australian, I can honestly say I don't really care one way or the other...

It's not 'strange', given the historic circumstances that lead to it. Whether the Queen should be their Head of State is another thing entirely, one best left to the Canadians/Australians to sort out. Judging from the last republican attempts, it seems as though the majority prefer to keep her on their coins for the time being. I think it's a good thing, as she has no power whatsoever over them but it keeps us close. But like I said, it's up to them. However, it would be a surprisingly expensive process to change to a republic, one which wouldn't really yield any practical benefits.

As for the Commonwealth, I personally think it's a brilliant organisation that not only offers many great social benefits to its members, but also stands as a testament to the fact that nations who should probably be at odds with each other can still be friends. I see no reason for anybody to leave the Commonwealth, really -- as mentioned, it doesn't require you to accept the Queen as your Head of State/uber-super-mega Goddess of Pure Unbridled Evil and Granny-Hair.

Nah, CEO. ;)

The United Nations does not rule the world; rather, the united nations rule themselves.

Which is also how the commonwealth works. :)

I find the Queen embarrasing.


Aren't we big enough to have our own head of state?

Aren't we big enough to have our own head of state?
Yes, we are, and we do. We call her the Queen.

Isn't it strange that Scotland was blackmailed into not only having the Queen of England, but the government too! We are still suffering, 700 years after the murder of William Wallace and almost 300 (298 to be precise) after the act of union, from being ruled by a parliament whose entire outlook is to improve life quality for the south-east of england.

hmmmm I forgot how expensive the govener general is...... how much does the GG cost?

In theory, not much. But Canada's last G-G spent enough taxpayers money on herself to almost completely ruin our health care system.

Damn you Adrienne Clarkson! :sniper:


EDIT: According to Wikipedia "Under her tenure, the office's spending has increased almost 200%. The budget for 2003 was estimated to be at $41 million"

Isn't it strange that Scotland was blackmailed into not only having the Queen of England, but the government too! We are still suffering, 700 years after the murder of William Wallace and almost 300 (298 to be precise) after the act of union, from being ruled by a parliament whose entire outlook is to improve life quality for the south-east of england.
No the Scottish were paid a huge sum to join the British Parlimant (which has not been repaid now they have again thier own).
Living in the North I agre to the South East of england bias however.
And as to Murder of Wallace, I think he had a trial and was executed, unlike the Scottish enemmies of Robert Bruce! Such as the poor chap knifed in the church etc etc.
And considering the considerable subsidies Scotland recieves (far more than the north of England) I don't think they do so bad.

In theory, not much. But Canada's last G-G spent enough taxpayers money on herself to almost completely ruin our health care system.

:confused: What does the Governor General's budget have to do with provincial health care budgets?

:confused: What does the Governor General's budget have to do with provincial health care budgets?
In order to have a balanced budget (one of the Liberal's pet project for the last 15 years) you have to cut expenses in some places if some other part of the budget run higher than expected.

The G-G's budget ran higher than expected.

In order to have a balanced budget (one of the Liberal's pet project for the last 15 years) you have to cut expenses in some places if some other part of the budget run higher than expected.

The G-G's budget ran higher than expected.
The province's health care budget comes out of the provincial budget, paid for by provincial taxes. They are two separate budgets.

I'm Canadian and I don't find it strange that the British monarch is our head of state. In fact, that's why we have a governor general, to represent the queen in Canada. Canada and Australia have long been the two most influential commonwealth realms, and have maintained strong ties with the mother country because of it. Australians want to change their system and become a self-governing republic, which is understandable, because they are so isolated from the empire, way down there in the south pacific. Canada, on the other hand, is still just across the atlantic from Britain, and our next-door nieghbor is the U.S. We don't want to be like the U.S., so we make sure to maintain our British roots. In fact, when Canada was first made a country, it was given the title "Dominion", which was put in place because Americans didn't want a monarchy in north america, but they didn't know that Dominion is actually just another word for Kingdom. We fooled the Americans, and became, or atleast maintained a monarchy without them knowing. :D
This is why so many other colonies became Dominions later on as well, such as the Irish free state, South Africa, and Australia. The whole reason Canada has maintained it, is probably to differentiate us from our obnoxious nieghbors to the south, that being the U.S.

The province's health care budget comes out of the provincial budget, paid for by provincial taxes. They are two separate budgets.
Except for the bilateral agreements between Ottawa and the provinces, and the subisdies Ottawa gives to the provinces, etc...

I'm not saying there's a direct link, but one can find a link if he wants to.

My theory is that all the British immigrants here were the ones that voted against the republic :p

(In all seriousness, a chief reason our referendum failed because people who in theory supported a republic but disagreed with the specific model on offer voted against the idea.)
thats right, for example, change the flag, ill vote against it. Simple

but does anyone think that people in Australia and Canada support the Queen as a head of state simply for tradition sake? Or do they have other kind of reasons to allow this state of affairs to go on?

but does anyone think that people in Australia and Canada support the Queen as a head of state simply for tradition sake?Once upon a time in the 60's Conservatives like Diefenbaker defended our closeness to England and fought tooth and nail trying to keep the old flag... (Red Ensign) Today I'm quite positive that those who feel british loyalty is important are a miniscule minority.

Or do they have other kind of reasons to allow this state of affairs to go on?What state of affairs?

Once upon a time in the 60's Conservatives like Diefenbaker defended our closeness to England and fought tooth and nail trying to keep the old flag... (Red Ensign) Today I'm quite positive that those who feel british loyalty is important are a miniscule minority.

What state of affairs?
The fact that the Queen continues to be head of state

thats right, for example, change the flag, ill vote against it. Simple What's so good about our flag at the moment?

In theory, not much. But Canada's last G-G spent enough taxpayers money on herself to almost completely ruin our health care system.


Considering how horrid the Canadian Health Care System is, it wouldn't take much at all.

I dont care if the queen is on my money, i dont care if the political science books have the crown as our "head of state". But the representation is a major problem. Yes we in Canada have a Govenor General and the last one blew a shit load of tax payer money for her own foreign trips (all of which were merely ceremonial). Then we (the taxpayer) had to pay again when our Prime Minister returned to the same country to deal with actual political affairs. but the GG isnt the only rep. Each province of Canada pays a provincial rep known as the Lieutenant Govenor a salery and they also have the same "expenses" and "trip" deals that the GG has. in essence we have 11 representatives on the queen spending mass amounts of tax payer money without a real contribution to the Canadian society.

And in tune with the healthcare system.... the system is absolutely amazing only it lacks sufficient funds that can be cleared by removing illegitimate spending and clearing redundant members of gov't.

The fact that the Queen continues to be head of stateThe Queen is not the defacto head of state, and throughout history she has never used what little powers she holds over Canada.

She seems quite happy to sit back and leave Australia (and Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth inc GB) do whatever they want.

The only time I know of that the Queen used hey soverign power was a while ago in Aussie when the government was screwing the country and she disolved parliament - which really seemed to be in the best interests of Australia

The monarchy has not used any formal power for a long time even in the UK. The Queen in theory has power to veto any laws but in practice this has never been done - even when the law directly affects her and her family - fox hunting for exampls.

The monarchy very rarely get involved in politics, government or the legal system. Prince Charles is often heavily critized for the occasional comment on GM foods.

Really its about as a benign leadership as you can possibly have.

Sure beats the leaders many choose for democracys around the world as well.

She seems quite happy to sit back and leave Australia (and Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth inc GB) do whatever they want.

The only time I know of that the Queen used hey soverign power was a while ago in Aussie when the government was screwing the country and she disolved parliament - which really seemed to be in the best interests of Australia

The monarchy has not used any formal power for a long time even in the UK. The Queen in theory has power to veto any laws but in practice this has never been done - even when the law directly affects her and her family - fox hunting for exampls.

The monarchy very rarely get involved in politics, government or the legal system. Prince Charles is often heavily critized for the occasional comment on GM foods.

Really its about as a benign leadership as you can possibly have.

Sure beats the leaders many choose for democracys around the world as well.
But still isnt it akward to be ruled (nominally, grant it) by a foreign power?

but if Australia leaves the commonwealth don't they lose all the support of the over nations since we have agreed to help each other?

doesn’t the Queen bring revenue to Australia?

remember that program where they found the true heirs to the throne in Australia and they didn’t want the crown and even voted for Australia to be a republic

But still isnt it akward to be ruled (nominally, grant it) by a foreign power?

No.
Akwardness has nothing to do with it. The way the country is run is more important than who controls it. The queen doesn't get involved in government, and giving all the power to someone who won't go on some vendetta is comforting. We know it's her duty to do what's expected of her, and since she doesn't abuse her power, like, say, declaring war on some country because of the oil, the monarch will never make political waves. Elections can be rigged, words can be skewn, people can get into power wrongfully, but not the king/queen. This system hasn't let us down yet, so it's not important that it be changed because of a few patriots.

But still isnt it akward to be ruled (nominally, grant it) by a foreign power?

If Canada were ruled by the Queen of England, that might be awkward. However, Canada is not ruled by the Queen of England, even nominally. It is nominally headed by the Queen of Canada. The Queen of Canada is not foreign to Canada. She is the Queen of it, for heaven's sake. That position sort of comes with built-in citizenship, wouldn't you say?

She is also the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. That has nothing to do with us.

but if Australia leaves the commonwealth don't they lose all the support of the over nations since we have agreed to help each other?

doesn’t the Queen bring revenue to Australia?

remember that program where they found the true heirs to the throne in Australia and they didn’t want the crown and even voted for Australia to be a republic

We don't have to leave the Commonwealth if we remove the Queen as our head of state. India is an example of this.

The Queen brings no revenue into Australia, she doesn't live here, no tourists come to Aus to see the Queen. The Royal Family costs us money when they come here (like any other visiting head of state).

I've never heard of the true heirs being Australian. That'd be a turn up for the books if it were true! :)

If Canada were ruled by the Queen of England, that might be awkward. However, Canada is not ruled by the Queen of England, even nominally. Not even England is ruled by the Queen of England. :D

I've never heard of the true heirs being Australian. That'd be a turn up for the books if it were true! :)

Oh it probably is. Every so often there will be a programme on Channel 4 (n the UK this is) presented by a republican who will go around with poorly animated family trees and show how an average American Joe actually has a closer claim to the throne than the Queen.

To be frank, if we followed the Royal Line correctly, then no, Elizabeth II does not deserve to be Queen. For example, Henry VII would never have got the throne if legitmate succession was used. Nor would William III. Monarchy doesn't always run smoothly. There are probably a million 'true' heirs all over the place.

Oh it probably is. Every so often there will be a programme on Channel 4 (n the UK this is) presented by a republican who will go around with poorly animated family trees and show how an average American Joe actually has a closer claim to the throne than the Queen.

To be frank, if we followed the Royal Line correctly, then no, Elizabeth II does not deserve to be Queen. For example, Henry VII would never have got the throne if legitmate succession was used. Nor would William III. Monarchy doesn't always run smoothly. There are probably a million 'true' heirs all over the place.

The Queen does not reign by divine or hereditary right per se, so it is senseless to search for some 'true heirs'. BTW, arguments in favour of those pretenders are often fallacious.

If you ask the immense majority of the Queen’s subjects by what right she rules, they would never tell you that she rules by Parliamentary right, by virtue of 6 Anne, c.7.

The Australian in question is Lord Loudoun, I suppose. The claim that he is the rightful King is based upon the presumption that Edward IV was illegitimate. However, it is unclear how it can affect even the validity of Henry VII's accession in 1485, whose claims were based upon his descent from John of Gaunt and the good ol' right of conquest.

But still isnt it akward to be ruled (nominally, grant it) by a foreign power?
As she is both Austarlian and Canadian how can she be foreign.
When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport. The cover of a British passport features the Royal Arms, and the first page contains another representation of the Arms, together with the following wording:

'Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.'

As a British passport is issued in the name of Her Majesty, it is unnecessary for The Queen to possess one. All other members of the Royal Family, including The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales, have passports.

If I was Canadian or Australian, I'd have a "fuck the Queen" attitude.

If I was Canadian or Australian, I'd have a "fuck the Queen" attitude.
Well if that is the type of lady you are into who are we to question.

I'm australian, and I don't have any problem with the queen being head of state. Does it really matter anyway? Australians are the ones who run the country.

I'm happy as long as we don't become a republic. :)

The Queen is nothing more than a figurehead, much like God is in the US.

The Governor-General theoretically is the voice of the Monarch in Canada. But it's not like he or she has any power. If the Governor-General was instructed by the Monarch to deny the passage of a law, then that would be a different story.

But it would never happen because there would be so much backlash against the royal family that it wouldn't even be funny. My $0.02. I don't want to figure out how much that is in USD. Not worth my time.

The Queen is nothing more than a figurehead, much like God is in the US.

LOL! Quote of the day! Mind if that goes in my sig? :)

But still isnt it akward to be ruled (nominally, grant it) by a foreign power?
Personally looking at the Monarchy versus some of the people Australians have choosen for government I regard it as a relief!

Canadian here, having the queen as head of state is sort of annoying, if it were up to me we would get rid of her, it wastes money having to have the governor general and all that crap, and I think we could find something better to put on our coins.

I'm from New Zealand and we have the same situation. I'd rather that we were a republic and changed our flag, but these aren't really important issues. They'll probably happen eventually but there's no real rush.

Canadian here, having the queen as head of state is sort of annoying, if it were up to me we would get rid of her, it wastes money having to have the governor general and all that crap, and I think we could find something better to put on our coins.

Hmm, I doubt it really costs anything, having a GG. Us colonies would probably replace them with a President or something similar, as the GG has a function in making sure the government is actually capable of running the country.

For British Domions to become republic would change nothing. The Dominions have been independent since the statute of westminister. Only the union of south Africa has changed to a republic (now the Republic of South Africa).

Republicanism would offer nothing but the erosion of Tradition for the erosion of traditions sake. Somthing that could never be rebuilt. Republicans are as bad as builders who build roads through Cathedrals.

If I was Canadian or Australian, I'd have a "fuck the Queen" attitude.
LOL And thats why Americans had a sepratist war in 1788 !

Its not really 'strange' having the Queen as head of state, because she has no power, only tradition. The only thing that would change is that we would have presidential elections, heads of the states (not a head of state), and they would probably cost us more because we would have to change a lot of the constitution, new buildings etc. Australians are just too lazy for that shit
but then again, the 8th State from across the Tasman could become part of the 'Confederated States of Australia' :D (as long as they weren't too much of a drain on the economy anyways)
mmm I like Bundy Rum
Recipie (alcoholic) From my friend Gordon: THE CHOCOLATE BEAR
2-3 shots Bundaberg Rum in a glass (250-500ml, whatever - to taste) and fill the rest of the glass with Chocolate Milk mmmmm yummy
My recipei: BEAR BITE
2-3 shots Bundaberg Rum in a glass (250-500ml, whatever - to taste) and fill the rest of the glass with Orange Juice this is an acquired taste from an ex-bundabergian but some of my friends like it

LOL And thats why Americans had a sepratist war in 1788 !

1775-1783 where the years of the American Revolution.

LOL And thats why Americans had a sepratist war in 1788 !

Its not really 'strange' having the Queen as head of state, because she has no power, only tradition. The only thing that would change is that we would have presidential elections, heads of the states (not a head of state), and they would probably cost us more because we would have to change a lot of the constitution, new buildings etc. Australians are just too lazy for that shit
but then again, the 8th State from across the Tasman could become part of the 'Confederated States of Australia' :D (as long as they weren't too much of a drain on the economy anyways)
mmm I like Bundy Rum
Recipie (alcoholic) From my friend Gordon: THE CHOCOLATE BEAR
2-3 shots Bundaberg Rum in a glass (250-500ml, whatever - to taste) and fill the rest of the glass with Chocolate Milk mmmmm yummy
My recipei: BEAR BITE
2-3 shots Bundaberg Rum in a glass (250-500ml, whatever - to taste) and fill the rest of the glass with Orange Juice this is an acquired taste from an ex-bundabergian but some of my friends like it

No thanks, we're quite happy to remain seperate from the West Island :p

Just a point, techically the Queen is the queen of Austrialia and of Canada anyway and seeing as since 1931 dominions are in an equal position with the UK then your not being ruled by a foreign power its just that the Queen happens to live in the UK. Howard (I'm fairly sure) is the Queen's Prime Minister for Austrialia and Blair is the Queen's Prime Minister for Britain. The UK does not even lead Canada and Austrialia in techical sense. The question is do these countries want to be a republic or a Constituional Monarchy. I will happly argue that a constistional Monarchy is superior in many ways to a republic, but thats a matter for another thread.

So in conclusion to the question of the thread:

Isn´t it strange that Canada and Australia have as head of state the Queen of England

The answer is that its not because she doesn't.

THere Hasnt been a Queen of England since 1707 when Queen Anne's title was changed to Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. from Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.
due to the Act of Union

1775-1783 where the years of the American Revolution.
sorry, i was drunk and mixed up the dates,
1788 is when Australia was colonised

THere Hasnt been a Queen of England since 1707 when Queen Anne's title was changed to Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. from Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.
due to the Act of Union

Her title today (from my point of view is) Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. (N.B. Commonwealth in this doesn't mean Commonwealth of Australia, of course). That title was introduced in 1973.

Her previous Australian style and titles (1953-73) were: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

For you Canadians, her titles are: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. or Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi.

The Australian Monarchy is totally separate from the British Monarchy as provided by the Australia Act 1986 (which finally removed the powers of the British Government over legislation in the States' Parliaments)

Canadian here, having the queen as head of state is sort of annoying, if it were up to me we would get rid of her, it wastes money having to have the governor general and all that crap, and I think we could find something better to put on our coins.

Another head of state would still cost money. Maybe more (because he might be called upon more often to represent Canada overseas)

hurray for the queen

If it wasn't the queen, it would be some other sort of person. There's no difference, and seeing the place the German President lives (http://www.berlin-tourist-information.de/cgi-bin/sehenswertes.pl?id=13671&sprache=english) at it doesn't seem to affect tax dollars either.

His functions are pretty much exactly the same as the functions of the Queen in England, or the GG here in Oz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany#Duties_and_functions_2

Are you an Australian or Canadian? What do you think of having a foreign figure for a head of state?

I'm no subject to a head of state.. I was just curious why it is the Queen of England instead of the King. I heard there was a king. Is there a reason for that?

There's no difference, and seeing the place the German President lives at it doesn't seem to affect tax dollars either.

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That makes Government House look like a tool shed!

http://www.gg.gov.au/images/adhouse_pic1.gif

I heard there was a king.

Nope, there have been a few tabloid journalists putting crack-pots on TV who claim to be the true King. The Queen's Husband (Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh) isn't King, he is the consort, though he has never been formally designated King Consort, or Prince Consort.

Queen Victoria wanted to make her husband, Albert the King Consort, but the House of Commons refused to introduce a bill allowing it. In 1857, Victoria gave him the title Prince Consort.

Kings have usually had an easier time getting their wives titled Queen Consort.

When the Prince of Wales ascends to the Throne, the Duchess of Cornwall will be the Princess Consort.

I think Australia should bring in its own succession law, and remove Charles, he's starting to think he has the right to waffle on camera on political issues. Skip him, and shove William up a place. If the Poms, and Kiwis etc don't want to, he can move into Government House, and we stop having Governors-General

Are you an Australian or Canadian? What do you think of having a foreign figure for a head of state?
Don't worry about the other 19 or so countries in the Common Wealth, ahem NZ ahem and anyways as a New Zealander I can say she doesn't really play a part except for the patriotic bit and the "Offical Regitniton" or how ever the feck you spell it.

It's a strange thing this.Politically, I find the notion of Royalty pretty repulsive. The idea that because of who you were born you have a right to head the state is logically undefendable.

Hopwever, my question would be what is the alternative? Presidents? Hmmm. For every truly great one, there appears to be a pointless nonentity or lunatic. And regardless of how great or otherwise they appear to be, they are ALWAYS politically driven. The Queen, on the other hand, serves as a truly neutral focus (at least as far as party politics is concerned). Also, precisely because she is effectively powerless but also unelectable, she is an incredibly stable figurehead.

So unfortunately and reluctantly, I support the monarchy in the UK-and as far as any of the other Commenwealth states who still have her as head of state, I'd simply say be careful what you wish for.

Are you an Australian or Canadian? What do you think of having a foreign figure for a head of state?

I prefer the Queen of England to GW Bush, so I'm not complaining.

No, it's not weird to me for a few reasons. One, it's what I've lived with all my life in Australia, and two: she weilds no actual power (although in theory she could).

What more bothers me is the way executive power is weilded by essentially the head of the legislature. And that this person is aconstitutional. I'd much rather we modified the Governor General's executive powers (he does have a lot), let him actually weild them, and then elect him (it's bound to be a he). And of course, make the GG the head of state.

The point is that with the exception of the dismissal of Whitlam, no situation has ever arisen that would justify the use of reserve powers.

Frankly, we need a part of our Parliament (The Commonwealth Parliament consists of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Representatives) that is not elected because he only protects the Constitution. If he was elected, his priority would be to get votes.

Isn´t it strange that Canada and Australia have as head of state the Queen of England

Are you an Australian or Canadian? What do you think of having a foreign figure for a head of state?
It's marvelous, and not strange at all.

It's marvelous, and not strange at all.

How many times, she is not the Queen of England. She is the Queen of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. She just happens to live In England for half the year. The whole Whitlam was political it had nothing to do with England trying to meddle in Autraila'a affairs.

How many times, she is not the Queen of England. She is the Queen of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. She just happens to live In England for half the year. The whole Whitlam was political it had nothing to do with England trying to meddle in Autraila'a affairs.
It's a colloquialism.