7 ms·

As an outsider I consider Canada and Australia - British Empire. Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.

by ozim 1y ago

bee_rider 1y ago
Does their king have any more hard powers in Canada or Australia than, say, Taylor Swift or some other rich celebrity?
- wk_end 1y ago
  Technically. The king here has as much power as he has in the UK. And, likewise, if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. In practice Taylor Swift might have more.
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    > if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. If he does something that is openly obviously defying the will of the democratic majority, sure. But there are a lot of ways he can put his thumb on the scale in more subtle situations where the legal course of action is unclear. For example, if the Queen had refused Boris Johnson's request to prorogue parliament in 2019 -- which was later ruled illegal anyway -- I doubt it would have led to the end of the monarchy.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  Kind of! There's nothing on paper that says the King can't just decide that democracy is over and dissolve Parliament. Another example is that the King's representation in Canada, the Governor General, unilaterally gets to decide whether or not to give any passed legislation "royal assent." However in practice, they always do and they otherwise never put their thumb on the scale. Doing so would be a constitutional crisis that would likely end our relationship with the Monarchy more formally and put pen to paper that no, you don't actually have any real kingly powers. The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).
- sjducb 1y ago
  In 1975 the British Queen instructed her representative the governor general to dismiss the Australian prime minister, dissolving the Australian parliament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution... In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.
  - ztetranz 1y ago
    I don't think the Queen instructed the Governor General to do that. He made the decision. I'm old enough to remember it and remember a statement from the palace saying something like "The Queen is watching events in Australia with interest" but I don't think she took an active part. I quick search reveals this. I don't know this site but if true then some letters seem to confirm the above. She told the GG to obey the Australian Constitution. https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show-the-queen-did-not-advise-or-encourage-kerr-to-sack-whitlam-government/ https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show...
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      This is also relevant, if only to illustrate that the incident had more going on than it appeared on the surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
  - nl 1y ago
    The claim that the Queen actually _instructed_ the Govenor General to dismiss the PM isn't widely supported. It's true that the palace was involved in discussions with the GG to a greater extent than most Australians though was acceptable though. However this was before the 1986 Australia Act which cleared up the ambiguity around that.
- toast0 1y ago
  If by 'their king', you mean 'the king of England'. No, the king of England holds no power in Canada or Australia. However, the king of Canada holds limited power in Canada, and happens to be the same person as the king of England, and it's expected that that will continue as all countries that share that monarch have agreed to the same rules of succession. Constitutionally, the king of Canada is the commander in chief of its armed forces, provides consent or assent to all laws passed by Parliament, has some immunity from prosecution, and has a pardon power. In actual practice, most of those powers are performed perfunctorily by delegates based on either action by Parliament or by recommendation of ministers determined by the Prime Minister.
  - Podrod 1y ago
    [dead]
Waterluvian 1y ago
To be satisfyingly pedantic, my King isn’t the same King. Mine is the King of Canada. It just happens to be the same person as the King of England and the King of Australia ;)
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  If it walks like King Charles, and quacks like King Charles, then it must be...
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    assert(king_of_canada === king_of_england); They are the same by identity!
    - ozim 1y ago
      Dude lives in Buckingham Palace In UK … that’s kind of a dead giveaway :)
      - Symbiote 1y ago
        He actually lives in Clarence House (when in London), Buckingham Palace is currently only used for official business, parties etc. Arguably, Buckingham Palace should be turned into a museum (like several other former royal residences, e.g. Tower of London, Kew Palace).
        ozim 1y ago
        Well I guess so but Buckingham Palace is not so far away from Clearance House. So I brush it off as a technicality. Once I was in London I saw Harry and William being ferried to the Clearance House while I was walking The Mall.
    - moomin 1y ago
      Depends if you’re comparing the people or the office holders. The office holder is a tuple.
bobsmooth 1y ago
We do not have the same king. The King of Great Brittan is not the King of Canada, they just happen to be the same person. Is the US also part of the British Empire?
- ozim 1y ago
  Obviously not as US does not have king in their legal system at all.
  - bobsmooth 1y ago
    And the UK has no influence on Canadian governance.
    - tonymet 1y ago
      the king can call you to war right?
      - robotresearcher 1y ago
        No, only parliament can declare war. And the King of Canada is a different role than the King of the UK, as explained many times in the thread.
        tonymet 1y ago
        but he's commander in chief. and he confirms / dissolves parliament. so when it matters, as in war time, he can . I don't appreciate the condescension in either case. It's not like his powers are easy to understand. They exist, though not commonly exercised.
        robotresearcher 1y ago
        > so when it matters, as in war time, he can I looked it up, and you are kinda right in the theory of it, and I was wrong in the practice of it. The practical power lies with the Cabinet. From Wikipedia: "A declaration of war by Canada [...] is an exercise of the royal prerogative on the constitutional advice of the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet and does not require the direct approval of the Parliament of Canada, though such can be sought by the government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada
SECProto 1y ago
the last time the British tried to have anything to do with the governing of Canada was a century ago, and it went poorly (and led to the statute of Westminster, removing that as an option). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair
bigfatkitten 1y ago
The Australia Acts put an end to that in any practical sense for Australia in 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986
School-Cotton 1y ago
That makes approximately as much sense as considering Hawaii part of the British empire because they have the British flag as part of their own flag.
dotancohen 1y ago
I'll give you another reason to consider Canada as part of the British empire. It's actually called Canada. The local Indians have two words for settlements - one word for their own settlements, and another word for the settlements of other peoples who have come to their lands. Canada is the latter - it actually means "foreigner's settlement on our land" or "invader's settlement". Interestingly, I just tried to Google it and the only two websites I looked at - Wikipedia and some official Canada site - both conveniently leave out the part about it being a foreign settlement. Both simply translate the word as settlement, without the nuance.
- capitainenemo 1y ago
  I feel a citation is needed for that, since it seems in direct conflict with the given history of the word which was that Cartier heard the local indian youths at the village of Stadacona call their village "kanata" (village) and believed that it was the word for the entire area. There was no "invader's village" to even refer to at the time.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    Looking into it online now, yes I agree that wherever I heard that from contradicts the established histories. It's too late for me to delete my comment, so if we could just start downvoting it so it disappears that would be great.
    - capitainenemo 1y ago
      Thinking about this, perhaps you were thrown off by rhetorical flourish in a speech, perhaps by an Iroquois, perhaps reacting to the use of "Canada" as a unifying term for everyone living in the northern americas now - "our village." "Our word for village is kanata, "canada" is a totally different word for the 'village of the invaders'" Something like that.
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        It was an explanation by a Native American Indian who I think was a non-Iroquois as this was in Florida. We were discussing Indian (he used that term) names, specifically the fact they nobody living remembers the meaning of the name Miami (for the river).
zenmac 1y ago
The pictures of Queen/King is on the money, and not to mention this little fiasco in the 70's [1] is when the rub meets the road, and we figure out who is really wearing the pants in this geopolitical relationship. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-related-firing-australian-leader-be-revealed-n1217626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-re...
- stephen_g 1y ago
  The legal landscape is very different now, that triggered a constitutional crisis that basically ensured it will never happen again. A lot of things were also formalised after that by Acts of Parliament like the Australia Act 1986 which cut off basically all legal ties (like any remaining ability of the UK Parliament to make laws in Australia)
protocolture 1y ago
Australia could fork the monarchy and make the irwins the royal family if they felt strongly enough about it.

As an outsider I consider Canada and Australia - British Empire. Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.

by ozim 1y ago

As an outsider I consider Canada and Australia - British Empire. Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.

bee_rider 1y ago

Does their king have any more hard powers in Canada or Australia than, say, Taylor Swift or some other rich celebrity?

wk_end 1y ago
Technically. The king here has as much power as he has in the UK. And, likewise, if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. In practice Taylor Swift might have more.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  > if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy. If he does something that is openly obviously defying the will of the democratic majority, sure. But there are a lot of ways he can put his thumb on the scale in more subtle situations where the legal course of action is unclear. For example, if the Queen had refused Boris Johnson's request to prorogue parliament in 2019 -- which was later ruled illegal anyway -- I doubt it would have led to the end of the monarchy.
Waterluvian 1y ago
Kind of! There's nothing on paper that says the King can't just decide that democracy is over and dissolve Parliament. Another example is that the King's representation in Canada, the Governor General, unilaterally gets to decide whether or not to give any passed legislation "royal assent." However in practice, they always do and they otherwise never put their thumb on the scale. Doing so would be a constitutional crisis that would likely end our relationship with the Monarchy more formally and put pen to paper that no, you don't actually have any real kingly powers. The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).
sjducb 1y ago
In 1975 the British Queen instructed her representative the governor general to dismiss the Australian prime minister, dissolving the Australian parliament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution... In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.
- ztetranz 1y ago
  I don't think the Queen instructed the Governor General to do that. He made the decision. I'm old enough to remember it and remember a statement from the palace saying something like "The Queen is watching events in Australia with interest" but I don't think she took an active part. I quick search reveals this. I don't know this site but if true then some letters seem to confirm the above. She told the GG to obey the Australian Constitution. https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show-the-queen-did-not-advise-or-encourage-kerr-to-sack-whitlam-government/ https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show...
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    This is also relevant, if only to illustrate that the incident had more going on than it appeared on the surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
- nl 1y ago
  The claim that the Queen actually _instructed_ the Govenor General to dismiss the PM isn't widely supported. It's true that the palace was involved in discussions with the GG to a greater extent than most Australians though was acceptable though. However this was before the 1986 Australia Act which cleared up the ambiguity around that.
toast0 1y ago
If by 'their king', you mean 'the king of England'. No, the king of England holds no power in Canada or Australia. However, the king of Canada holds limited power in Canada, and happens to be the same person as the king of England, and it's expected that that will continue as all countries that share that monarch have agreed to the same rules of succession. Constitutionally, the king of Canada is the commander in chief of its armed forces, provides consent or assent to all laws passed by Parliament, has some immunity from prosecution, and has a pardon power. In actual practice, most of those powers are performed perfunctorily by delegates based on either action by Parliament or by recommendation of ministers determined by the Prime Minister.
- Podrod 1y ago
  [dead]

Waterluvian 1y ago

To be satisfyingly pedantic, my King isn’t the same King. Mine is the King of Canada. It just happens to be the same person as the King of England and the King of Australia ;)

KoolKat23 1y ago
If it walks like King Charles, and quacks like King Charles, then it must be...
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  assert(king_of_canada === king_of_england); They are the same by identity!
  - ozim 1y ago
    Dude lives in Buckingham Palace In UK … that’s kind of a dead giveaway :)
    - Symbiote 1y ago
      He actually lives in Clarence House (when in London), Buckingham Palace is currently only used for official business, parties etc. Arguably, Buckingham Palace should be turned into a museum (like several other former royal residences, e.g. Tower of London, Kew Palace).
      - ozim 1y ago
        Well I guess so but Buckingham Palace is not so far away from Clearance House. So I brush it off as a technicality. Once I was in London I saw Harry and William being ferried to the Clearance House while I was walking The Mall.
  - moomin 1y ago
    Depends if you’re comparing the people or the office holders. The office holder is a tuple.

bobsmooth 1y ago

We do not have the same king. The King of Great Brittan is not the King of Canada, they just happen to be the same person. Is the US also part of the British Empire?

ozim 1y ago
Obviously not as US does not have king in their legal system at all.
- bobsmooth 1y ago
  And the UK has no influence on Canadian governance.
  - tonymet 1y ago
    the king can call you to war right?
    - robotresearcher 1y ago
      No, only parliament can declare war. And the King of Canada is a different role than the King of the UK, as explained many times in the thread.
      - tonymet 1y ago
        but he's commander in chief. and he confirms / dissolves parliament. so when it matters, as in war time, he can . I don't appreciate the condescension in either case. It's not like his powers are easy to understand. They exist, though not commonly exercised.
        robotresearcher 1y ago
        > so when it matters, as in war time, he can I looked it up, and you are kinda right in the theory of it, and I was wrong in the practice of it. The practical power lies with the Cabinet. From Wikipedia: "A declaration of war by Canada [...] is an exercise of the royal prerogative on the constitutional advice of the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet and does not require the direct approval of the Parliament of Canada, though such can be sought by the government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Canada

SECProto 1y ago

the last time the British tried to have anything to do with the governing of Canada was a century ago, and it went poorly (and led to the statute of Westminster, removing that as an option). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair

bigfatkitten 1y ago

The Australia Acts put an end to that in any practical sense for Australia in 1986. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986

School-Cotton 1y ago

That makes approximately as much sense as considering Hawaii part of the British empire because they have the British flag as part of their own flag.

dotancohen 1y ago

I'll give you another reason to consider Canada as part of the British empire. It's actually called Canada. The local Indians have two words for settlements - one word for their own settlements, and another word for the settlements of other peoples who have come to their lands. Canada is the latter - it actually means "foreigner's settlement on our land" or "invader's settlement". Interestingly, I just tried to Google it and the only two websites I looked at - Wikipedia and some official Canada site - both conveniently leave out the part about it being a foreign settlement. Both simply translate the word as settlement, without the nuance.

capitainenemo 1y ago
I feel a citation is needed for that, since it seems in direct conflict with the given history of the word which was that Cartier heard the local indian youths at the village of Stadacona call their village "kanata" (village) and believed that it was the word for the entire area. There was no "invader's village" to even refer to at the time.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  Looking into it online now, yes I agree that wherever I heard that from contradicts the established histories. It's too late for me to delete my comment, so if we could just start downvoting it so it disappears that would be great.
  - capitainenemo 1y ago
    Thinking about this, perhaps you were thrown off by rhetorical flourish in a speech, perhaps by an Iroquois, perhaps reacting to the use of "Canada" as a unifying term for everyone living in the northern americas now - "our village." "Our word for village is kanata, "canada" is a totally different word for the 'village of the invaders'" Something like that.
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      It was an explanation by a Native American Indian who I think was a non-Iroquois as this was in Florida. We were discussing Indian (he used that term) names, specifically the fact they nobody living remembers the meaning of the name Miami (for the river).

zenmac 1y ago

The pictures of Queen/King is on the money, and not to mention this little fiasco in the 70's [1] is when the rub meets the road, and we figure out who is really wearing the pants in this geopolitical relationship. [1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-related-firing-australian-leader-be-revealed-n1217626 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-re...

stephen_g 1y ago
The legal landscape is very different now, that triggered a constitutional crisis that basically ensured it will never happen again. A lot of things were also formalised after that by Acts of Parliament like the Australia Act 1986 which cut off basically all legal ties (like any remaining ability of the UK Parliament to make laws in Australia)

protocolture 1y ago

Australia could fork the monarchy and make the irwins the royal family if they felt strongly enough about it.