NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic has come up among some of my friends in response to the BQ, NDP and Liberal's plan to oust Prime Minister Harper. The Coalition Government plans on asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. (I thought only the Queen could do this) I hold both a British and Canadian citizenship and I am a very strong believer in the monarchy. So please go into more detail, don't just vote.

Also how would you feel if the Queen does either dissolve Parliament or turns the idea down?

The governor general is the queen's representative. The Queen is far too busy to attend to us so we have a gov. gen. to do it for her.

No, Canada is a sovereign nation and the United Kingdom, let alone their mascot has no business interfering in a perfectly legitimate coup.

not really, but i think the british royals should always be welcome to visit for huggs and cuddles.

I do think the British royals should have some input, but being allowed to rule the whole nation shouldn't happen.

Surely if you are in the Commonwealth, you accept the queen, isn't it one of the conditions?

No, Canada is a sovereign nation and the United Kingdom, let alone their mascot has no business interfering in a perfectly legitimate coup.

Damn, I was trying to find the perfect way to express my opposition to the Queen and you found it. Well put.

I do think the British royals should have some input, but being allowed to rule the whole nation shouldn't happen.

Surely if you are in the Commonwealth, you accept the queen, isn't it one of the conditions?

I don't know about other nations but that is true in Canada. Immigrants to Canada seeking citizenship must take an oath which includes statements indicating their allegiance to the Crown. Additionally many government jobs require a person to take an oath to the Queen.

No, Canada is a sovereign nation and the United Kingdom, let alone their mascot has no business interfering in a perfectly legitimate coup.

Canada is a sovereign nation however, our head of state is legally ''The Queen of Canada'' and therefore it wouldn't be the UK or their ''mascot'' interfering, rather it would be our legal head of state making a judgment.

(I thought only the Queen could do this)
From the Constitution Act, 1867:

50. Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

So with that cleared up...

The Queen shouldn't have a political role in the UK, let alone Canada. Whether she, through the Governor-General, should give the coalition the opportunity to govern depends on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles) in the UK, but I don't know whether Canada has a similar convention. If it does, then it would depend on whether the Governor-General thinks that a coalition has the strength to command a majority in the House of Commons.

Damn, I was trying to find the perfect way to express my opposition to the Queen and you found it. Well put.

No problem, I'm a mascot myself. Takes one to know one.

I don't know about other nations but that is true in Canada. Immigrants to Canada seeking citizenship must take an oath which includes statements indicating their allegiance to the Crown. Additionally many government jobs require a person to take an oath to the Queen.



Canada is a sovereign nation however, our head of state is legally ''The Queen of Canada'' and therefore it wouldn't be the UK or their ''mascot'' interfering, rather it would be our legal head of state making a judgment.

Canada has its own Queen?

Canada has its own Queen?

Elizabeth II has numerous titles, Queen of Canada is one of them. Canada has it's own crown and such, separate from the British one.

In addition to the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, in each of which she is represented by a Governor-General

edit:

Also,

Elizabeth II also holds a variety of other positions, among them Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann, and Paramount Chief of Fiji.

Thanks New Wallonochia for pointing that out for SaintB.

Elizabeth II has numerous titles, Queen of Canada is one of them. Canada has it's own crown and such, separate from the British one.


Ok. I still think that she is nothing more than a Mascot for team UK. Her powers are all but non-existent since 1887.

Others have already pointed out that, were the Governor General to exercise the reserve power of the monarchy and dismiss Parliament, this would be done in the name of the Queen of Canada.

It just so happens that the Queen of Canada is, for historical reasons, separately Queen of several other nations and happens to live in another country. For the record, the Queen is not monarch of every Commonwealth country; she has a purely ceremonial and non-hereditary role as 'head of the Commonwealth', but the majority of Commonwealth nations are republics with a president as head of state. Nor is every Commonwealth country a former British colony; Mozambique was offered membership as a personal favour to Mandela, only a small corner of Commonwealth member Cameroon was British-ruled, and Rwanda is applying for membership.

Summarising others' points, this wouldn't be a case of another country's monarch interfering, but of the Canadian head of state's constitutionally-appointed representative using the head of state's reserve powers on behalf of the monarch.

It's also important to distinguish between theoretical reserve powers of the monarchy and actual powers of the monarchy. The former are broad but never used, while the latter are restricted to the right to 'advise and warn'. While the UK monarch can theoretically dismiss any government, in practice only the Prime Minister can ask for a dismissal. The last monarch to dismiss a British government without Prime Ministerial advice was William IV in the 1830s. A monarch could refuse to grant a dismissal, but this would be extremely unusual. The Lascelles Convention linked to by Newer Burmecia, which hypothetically sets out the conditions whereby a monarch could refuse a dissolution, are of questionable constitutionality, and have in any case never been referenced since no dissolution has been refused since they were set out in 1950.

In sum, if a Canadian Governor General, acting for the Queen, were to be asked for a dissolution by the Prime Minister, the Governor General would be obliged to grant it on behalf of the Queen. If a Governor General were to ask the Queen for advice, the Queen's advice would almost certainly be 'what does your Prime Minister say?'


Australians will know, however, that there has been a case where the Governor General of Australia used the reserve powers to dismiss a government against the wishes of the Prime Minister (and without asking the Queen for advice), and installed an interim Prime Minister from the opposition until the election could be held. The constitutionality of this is still a matter of intense debate in Australia, to the extent that it's almost inconceivable that a Governor General of another Commonwealth country, like Canada, could act the same way.

A link to some more details on the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)

Ok. I still think that she is nothing more than a Mascot for team UK. Her powers are all but non-existent since 1887.

Team UK, Team Canada, Team Australia, etc. If what you're getting at is that the Queen has no real power that's largely correct, her role is largely ceremonial at this point, which I think is a good thing. As to whether or not the Commonwealth countries should maintain their respective monarchies, I'm rather ambivalent about the whole thing, not being a resident of any of those countries.

Team UK, Team Canada, Team Australia, etc. If what you're getting at is that the Queen has no real power that's largely correct, her role is largely ceremonial at this point, which I think is a good thing. As to whether or not the Commonwealth countries should maintain their respective monarchies, I'm rather ambivalent about the whole thing, not being a resident of any of those countries.

I pretty much agree with you on that; what I am stating is that nobody else should be meddling in Canada's affairs. If they aren't happy with what they have they have every right to change it. The Queen of (insert nation here) has a ceremonial role, and shouldn't reasonably have any impact on what happens.

I pretty much agree with you on that; what I am stating is that nobody else should be meddling in Canada's affairs. If they aren't happy with what they have they have every right to change it. The Queen of (insert nation here) has a ceremonial role, and shouldn't reasonably have any impact on what happens.

Nobody else is meddling in Canada's affairs. Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada in the exact same way she's Queen of Britain (or whatever her title is there). Her being Queen of Canada is in no way secondary to her title in the UK.

It's all academic anyway, the Queen is highly unlikely to take action through the Governor-General that Canadians would be opposed to. If she did I'm quite certain Canadians would do something to remedy the situation, like not have a Queen anymore.

This topic has come up among some of my friends in response to the BQ, NDP and Liberal's plan to oust Prime Minister Harper. The Coalition Government plans on asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. (I thought only the Queen could do this) I hold both a British and Canadian citizenship and I am a very strong believer in the monarchy. So please go into more detail, don't just vote.

Also how would you feel if the Queen does either dissolve Parliament or turns the idea down?

Should The Queen Hold Any Power In Canada? I am from another country and yes she should. I am a very strong believer in the monarchy. Great Britain and Canada should re-unite politcally in a stronger sort of way. God Bless the Queen.

Native born Cuban now American citizen.

Why isn't there an ''I don't know''-option in the poll?

The Queen shouldn't hold any power in Canada or in the UK. She's just a figure head and that's the way she should stay. For that matter, no royalty should hold any power, however minimal, in a country. The times of kings and queens in the western world passed some time ago.

And what is that queen her power in Canada?
Can she change laws or think about new ones?

And what is that queen her power in Canada?
Can she change laws or think about new ones?

Technically, no law can pass unless she gives her consent.

Technically, no law can pass unless she gives her consent.

Ok, but did it occur that she didn't sign some law?

Canada may wish to reconsider when the jug-eared fool takes over.

Ok, but did it occur that she didn't sign some law?
Well, the Queen doesn't sign laws, the Governor-General does it on her behalf, and since the passage of the Rebellion Losses Bill in the mid nineteenth century Governors-General have signed every bill passed by Parliament.

Canada does so much better with royalty helping them out.

When Canada annexes Britain, and relocates the Queen to Ottawa, then we'll throw her a few bones in her gilded cage. We'll give her a really pretty rubber stamp.

I'm amazed by the power of Queen.

Surely since Freddy Mercury is death for some time now.

No. William Lyon Mackenzie got it right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Canada).

No. William Lyon Mackenzie got it right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Canada).

What, you're advocating annexation of Upper and Lower Canada by the United States as an antidote to monarchy?

I take it you did know that Mackenzie's Republic of Canada was a thinly-veiled annexationist movement, didn't you? A bit like the Republic of Texas and Republic of California (but much less successful).

I'm amazed by the power of Queen.

Surely since Freddy Mercury is death for some time now.

I was going to go with that joke, and was too preoccupied with the capital 'The'.

The governor general is the queen's representative. The Queen is far too busy to attend to us so we have a gov. gen. to do it for her.
Aye she also holds very little power, though. Can't really interfere or the Republicans get uppity, and you know what the faux-French are like, eh?

no the queen should have no power in canada except for the example she sets.

canada can take care of itself.

The Queen shouldn't have any power anywhere.

The core problem with governments in general is that you can't put too much power into anyone's hand, but you still want to govern a country efficiently. Regarding modern countries, constitutional monarchies are the best solution: a body of many people who get voted in, kept or dismissed every term making the decisions and a passive head of state calling new elections in case the current government can't fulfill its duties.

Of course, there will always be a backlash every time the Governor General or the Sovereign interferes, logically from the side of the "losers" of the intervention (I can see conservative dissent in the hypothetical case of Harper getting dismissed), but be glad that you have that option (which doesn't even hinder democracy, since new elections are nothing undemocratical). Republics have the handicap of one specific government for a whole term, even if that government does nothing but a series of fuckups for 4 years.

Why should the queen, who has very little power in her own nation, have power in another nation?

Why dont we start a poll asking if the Queen should have power in the US too? :rolleyes:

I'm amazed by the power of Queen.

Surely since Freddy Mercury is death for some time now.

But who wants to live forever?
OHHHHHH WHOAHHHHH WHEN LOVE MUST DA-A-IE!

Why should the queen, who has very little power in her own nation, have power in another nation?

Why dont we start a poll asking if the Queen should have power in the US too? :rolleyes:


Because Canada is her own country too. All the Commonwealth Dominions (not whole commonwealth, just dominions) have the Queen as head of state. All are equal and each crown is separate. So if the UK was to abolish the Monarch she would still be Monarch of 14 other territories.

Interesting fact, Queen Elizabeth II is the legal owner of one sixth of the planet. Owing to the fact the monarch can seize any land, a power often used by dominion governments over the years

I think we should get rid of the Queen. I know she doesn't do much harm, but what purpose does she serve? Besides, she owns way too much land. That land should belong to the people, not the Queen.

Because Canada is her own country too. All the Commonwealth Dominions (not whole commonwealth, just dominions) have the Queen as head of state. All are equal and each crown is separate. So if the UK was to abolish the Monarch she would still be Monarch of 14 other territories.

Interesting fact, Queen Elizabeth II is the legal owner of one sixth of the planet. Owing to the fact the monarch can seize any land, a power often used by dominion governments over the years

Monarch is not the same thing as power, and no she does not 'own' one sixth of the planet.

No, Canada is a sovereign nation and the United Kingdom, let alone their mascot has no business interfering in a perfectly legitimate coup.

The Queen is not "the UK's queen", she's the queen of several countries. In this topic, she's the Queen of Canada. If the UK became a republic, she'd still be the Queen of Canada.

Because Canada is her own country too. All the Commonwealth Dominions (not whole commonwealth, just dominions) have the Queen as head of state. All are equal and each crown is separate. So if the UK was to abolish the Monarch she would still be Monarch of 14 other territories.

Interesting fact, Queen Elizabeth II is the legal owner of one sixth of the planet. Owing to the fact the monarch can seize any land, a power often used by dominion governments over the years

So...your arguement is that the US also has a queen.

HAH!

So...your arguement is that the US also has a queen.

HAH!

Ermm... I didn’t say that

Monarch is not the same thing as power, and no she does not 'own' one sixth of the planet. I was referring to his thing about "the queen has no power in her own country, why should she have it in Canada". And I was surprised too, but it was in a very boring and long winded law book I read to pass the time while on work experience a few years back. All land is the Queens land when it comes down to it. But for all intensive purposes and practicality it doesn’t really matter.

I was referring to his thing about "the queen has no power in her own country, why should she have it in Canada". And I was surprised too, but it was in a very boring and long winded law book I read to pass the time while on work experience a few years back. All land is the Queens land when it comes down to it. But for all intensive purposes and practicality it doesn’t really matter.
Well, I guess if you put the Crown Estate and the equivalent in other commonwealth realms with the power of eminent domain the Crown has over privately held land, you could argue all land is 'the Queen's land', but both eminent domain and the Crown Estate are managed by Parliament.

I find it amusing that most of the people voting 'no she shouldn't' don't seem to realize she's not interfering in another country, Canada IS her country.

Further more, I say we do need the Queen, as little power as she has, she has enough to counterbalance megalomaniacs such as Harper. Our system works fine, thank you very much, far more effective at what it does then a republic is.

Hmm if your going to have an head of state with little to no real power, you might as well have an monarch, it saves on time and money electing an powerless figurehead. So I don't really see what the problem is if she's the queen of canada or shanglai for that matter.


Fun fact, Queen Elizabeth is evently the biggest landowner in the State of Illinois, lord only knows what she owns in the rest of the United States... Hmm maybe thats the real plan, buy out most of the country over time then declare the revolution null and void. ;)

I find it amusing that most of the people voting 'no she shouldn't' don't seem to realize she's not interfering in another country, Canada IS her country.

Hence:

"I am going home to Canada tomorrow." Queen Elizabeth II, 1983, on leaving California for British Columbia

The Queen is not "the UK's queen", she's the queen of several countries. In this topic, she's the Queen of Canada. If the UK became a republic, she'd still be the Queen of Canada.

Dude, been there, done that, read the whole thread please.

Well...Im from the US so im not really sure about this...

But, i thought the Governor-General was the representative of the Queen and exercised her 'power' in her absensce?

But, if you dislike the Prime Minister that much, and thats a legitimate way of ousting him...why not?...

Ive always thought we needed a non-political member of Government in the US to counter the extremely over powered Executive branch anyway...The amount of power the Presidency has nowadays would make George III blush, lol...

read the whole thread please.

But that goes against the very core of my principles...

Canada has it's own crown and such, separate from the British one.

Do "Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis" each have their own crowns too? Does Liz ever spend a fun day changing hats, trying them all on one after the other?

Elizabeth II has numerous titles, Queen of Canada is one of them. Canada has it's own crown and such, separate from the British one.

So if I have this right, the Queen of the U.K. cannot interfere but the Queen of Canada can. It just so happens in this case that both titles are held by the same person?

So if I have this right, the Queen of the U.K. cannot interfere but the Queen of Canada can. It just so happens in this case that both titles are held by the same person?

I think so, but, I believe they share the same line of Succession, so itd be a moot point...

Do "Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis" each have their own crowns too? Does Liz ever spend a fun day changing hats, trying them all on one after the other?
I don't know.

However the term 'crown' probably doesn't refer to a physical crown.

So if I have this right, the Queen of the U.K. cannot interfere but the Queen of Canada can. It just so happens in this case that both titles are held by the same person?
Aye.

I'm not sure if anybody else has pointed this out (because, frankly, I after two pages I couldn't be bothered reading bullshit repeated), but the Queen of Canada is not the same as the Queen of the UK. The positions are held by the same person, but they are not the same position.

If you've made this point already I apologise; blame everybody else for making this thread to boring to read as far as your post.

Monarch is not the same thing as power, and no she does not 'own' one sixth of the planet.

OK, I picked up on this post.

The Crown (the monarchy, the embodiment of which is the Queen, at present) technically owns all land in the countries it is sovereign over. As far as I know, anyway (i.e. that's how it is in England, technically, and I can't imagine that's not how it applies to other Commonwealth Realms).

So, yes (unless I'm incorrect about the relationship between the Crown and land in particular countries), I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth Windsor owned 1/6 of the land on the planet in her varying capacities as the Crown.

I'm from another commonwealth country, New Zealand, and of course the Queen should have power! She's great. :fluffle:

So if I have this right, the Queen of the U.K. cannot interfere but the Queen of Canada can. It just so happens in this case that both titles are held by the same person?

That's pretty much exactly correct.

So if I have this right, the Queen of the U.K. cannot interfere but the Queen of Canada can. It just so happens in this case that both titles are held by the same person?

As others have said, yes. It's a fun state of affairs by which a few of the UK (and rest of the commonwealth) monarchs have technically been at war with themselves on occasion.

I think the queen should take it out of the Governor generals hands, nip down to the canadian embassy and dissolve the government, just for giggles.

This topic has come up among some of my friends in response to the BQ, NDP and Liberal's plan to oust Prime Minister Harper. The Coalition Government plans on asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. (I thought only the Queen could do this) I hold both a British and Canadian citizenship and I am a very strong believer in the monarchy. So please go into more detail, don't just vote.

Also how would you feel if the Queen does either dissolve Parliament or turns the idea down?

we had a Governor General dissolve a Australian Parliament years ago

we had a Governor General dissolve a Australian Parliament years ago

Anytime you've had a general election your Governor General has dissolved Parliament.

I thought we were talking about a gay guy when I voted yes...

I don't know.

However the term 'crown' probably doesn't refer to a physical crown.

Imaginary crowns are even more spectacular :p
Does Liz ever spend a fun day trying on all her imaginary crowns?

The Governor-General performs all duties of the monarchy, unless the Queen is physically present. The Queen doesn't require any additional powers.

Furthermore, since parliament is proguered and no no-confidence motion was presented in time, the Conservatives get to test their confidence in January with the budget.

It is a violation of convention for two oppositions parties, with only a letter promising support from the third, to attempt a parliamentary coup against the government. The Conservatives outnumber the Liberals alone around 2-1, and outnumber the entire proposed Dipper-Grit coalition

So...your arguement is that the US also has a queen.

HAH!

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

I don't know.

However the term 'crown' probably doesn't refer to a physical crown.

Correct, I wasn't referring to a physical crown, I was referring to the Crown (I should have capitalized it before) in the political sense.

I think so, but, I believe they share the same line of Succession, so itd be a moot point...

They do, but theoretically Canada could have a Glorious Revolution type thing occur and have a different monarch than the UK.

Anytime you've had a general election your Governor General has dissolved Parliament.

He's not referring to an ordinary dissolution, but rather this:

The Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)

which I linked to all the way back on the first page of the thread. My full post can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14269238&postcount=14).

Is it just me, or is this thread suffering from a particularly bad case of people not bothering to read earlier posts?