I'm by no means a royalist, and would support the abolition of the monarchy if it ever became a serious conversation here in the UK. However, I find myself surprised at how I feel about the death...
Exemplary
I'm by no means a royalist, and would support the abolition of the monarchy if it ever became a serious conversation here in the UK. However, I find myself surprised at how I feel about the death of the queen.
You know how when you go to some concerts, the really big ones, and before the band starts you feel this sense of anticipation, and excitement, and unity with everyone else in the room? It's sort of like that, only the mood is one of mild grief. Not quite the loss of a loved one, or even someone you knew very well at all. I might liken it to hearing about the death of a teacher you had for a year when you were very small, and had all but forgotten about them. And instead of connecting with a room or stadium full of people, I feel connected with an entire country's worth.
I appreciate that for a not insignificant amount of people, the queen's death is completely meaningless. And it is for me as well, really. But I didn't expect to feel somehow united or connected with so many, over something so... remote? I'm not quite sure I know how to say it. I just feel differently now than I did four hours ago. Mildly sad? I don't know. It's a strange sensation.
Something like 80-90% of the world’s population has never known another British monarch. Many comments I’ve seen have compared her to Britain’s grandma, which kinda makes sense, she was ever...
Something like 80-90% of the world’s population has never known another British monarch. Many comments I’ve seen have compared her to Britain’s grandma, which kinda makes sense, she was ever present in British life, she tried to appear above the fray and be a friend. Especially these days, I don’t think there’s many people, minus some Twitterati, that genuinely hate her.
The Twitterati didn’t genuinely hate her either until 5 minutes ago. The algorithm just rewards overheated rhetoric and they all just whip themselves up into being habitually angry by the topic of...
Exemplary
The Twitterati didn’t genuinely hate her either until 5 minutes ago. The algorithm just rewards overheated rhetoric and they all just whip themselves up into being habitually angry by the topic of the day by engaging with what is functionally a genetic algorithm for catchy outrage bait by persuasive factoids.
Exception being Irish and former commonwealth nations where mocking the symbol of imperialism is something of a pastime.
Eh, I think you're ignoring the people who were harmed by colonisation who have genuine reasons to hate her. She gave the impression of being "hands off", but behind the scenes she actively...
Eh, I think you're ignoring the people who were harmed by colonisation who have genuine reasons to hate her. She gave the impression of being "hands off", but behind the scenes she actively campaigned against independence for many colonised countries.
There were plenty of people who were saying this when she was alive. Lots of people turned down Honours because of the links to empire.
I'm Indian. I am doing no such thing. The story of colonization isn't so one-dimensional, I mention an example here. The narrative about "colonized people" kind of presupposes modern national...
Exemplary
Eh, I think you're ignoring the people who were harmed by colonisation who have genuine reasons to hate her.
I'm Indian. I am doing no such thing. The story of colonization isn't so one-dimensional, I mention an example here. The narrative about "colonized people" kind of presupposes modern national boundaries and identities of people in the past who wouldn't have shared them. Some benefited, some were harmed. If anything the influence of the royal family on India was probably to soften up the abuses perpetuated by the rapacious capitalists who ran the imperial enterprise before crown rule was instituted.
There were plenty of people who were saying this when she was alive. Lots of people turned down Honours because of the links to empire.
And I would have as well in those shoes, though I'd acknowledge it's like a purely symbolic gesture that impacts very little. But everyone living in the UK today benefits from the spoils of Empire and, by and large, it was their own predecessors and their own democratically elected parliaments that had their fingers on the trigger to do the most monstrous things. If they want the Queen to be the sin eater for the stuff their own grandparents were culpable for I guess that's their prerogative, but I think there's a bit of blame-shifting going on.
Jallianwala Bagh happened 60 years after the Crown took over and while that was mostly the fault of one guy, the Crown has never apologised. I don't exactly disagree with anything you've said, and...
rapacious capitalists who ran the imperial enterprise before crown rule was instituted.
...
benefits from the spoils of Empire
...
If they want the Queen to be the sin eater for the stuff their own grandparents were culpable for I guess that's their prerogative, but I think there's a bit of blame-shifting going on.
Jallianwala Bagh happened 60 years after the Crown took over and while that was mostly the fault of one guy, the Crown has never apologised. I don't exactly disagree with anything you've said, and I've also never set foot in India. So I would never presume to know how people like yourself feel. My dad lived there for awhile in the 70s and one of the things he told me was "India isn't one country". I don't really know where I was going with that. I guess I just think if cultures and societies are going to use the positive or admiral parts of history to paint a picture of who they are, they need to acknowledge and sometimes apologise for the bad shit too. People hold up the Queen as an example of being above it all and a constant presence and representation of the nation, in the sense of what she represented, not who. And that passes on to King Charles. So "sin eater" is perhaps exactly his job.
I'm sorry if that was a bit rambling and disjointed. It's something I've been thinking about for awhile. I'm a NZer living in Australia, and the two countries have their own colonial stories that bring up similar thoughts.
I just see that as baseline level colonialism. It's obviously awful, but the presence or absence of a monarch wouldn't have substantively changed it in any way. Sure an apology would be nice, but...
Jallianwala Bagh happened 60 years after the Crown took over and while that was mostly the fault of one guy, the Crown has never apologised.
I just see that as baseline level colonialism. It's obviously awful, but the presence or absence of a monarch wouldn't have substantively changed it in any way. Sure an apology would be nice, but they simply act as trustees of the government under them and if Parliament had a strong mandate to issue an apology the Queen would have. The apology didn't come because the democratically elected government was unwilling to make the concession.
When I say it's being a sin eater that, by itself, is probably fine as a role for them. But where I say 'hold on' is when I see arguments from republicans about how the monarchy represents imperialism and colonialism and that's why it must be abolished. That's simply pretending that it's the monarchy that led to the colonialism and not the explicit, democratically validated preferences of English voters that the monarchs were representing as much as it was the other way round. I don't see that changing in England as a republic, it's not like the absence of a monarch has blunted the imperialist tendencies of the United States. And even the regimes that were openly and nakedly hostile to monarchs (rather than simply indifferent like Americans) didn't manage to blunt the tendencies towards blind faith and unquestioning deification of the head of state. Just look at the PRC or the Soviet Union.
Mate. My major was in International Relations and I was studying it when GW invaded. I can't believe my head was so far up my own butt with the whole "monarchy represents imperialism and...
That's simply pretending that it's the monarchy that led to the colonialism and not the explicit, democratically validated preferences of English voters that the monarchs were representing as much as it was the other way round.
...
it's not like the absence of a monarch as blunted the imperialist tendencies of the United States.
Mate. My major was in International Relations and I was studying it when GW invaded. I can't believe my head was so far up my own butt with the whole "monarchy represents imperialism and colonialism" (I don't care about republicanism one way or the other) that I didn't even really consider the fact it would probably (potentially? possibly?) have gone the exact same way with or without the monarchy.
Thank you. I'll be thinking on this for a long time.
I mean it is one of those things that is fundamentally unknowable. The settler colonies were established by trading companies chartered at the crown's behest, but it was also merchant councilors...
I mean it is one of those things that is fundamentally unknowable. The settler colonies were established by trading companies chartered at the crown's behest, but it was also merchant councilors advising the crown and seeking to enrich themselves (and the realm in general). And there's a general feudal era conception of having a rigid social hierarchy that flows from the monarch to the lesser nobility on down so maybe that might influence how colonialism unfolds and establishes a clade of working class White people as another tier with other people at a level below them. But that's all too speculative of a counterfactual to really bank on.
One of the misconceptions about monarchs is that they directly make all of these decisions, but they're mostly acting through ministers and councilors and other various delegates and trustees. You can't actually have the kind of direct rule people imagine in a modern state, it's simply too large and complex. It's an older form of government than modern autocratic dictatorships and much more bound up in customary traditions and obligations so their motivations and methods of exercising power are different.
For an alternate perspective on this: My Tumblr dash has been hotly anticipating the death of the queen for months and months. There were a LOT of memes (plus genuine, serious, thought out...
For an alternate perspective on this: My Tumblr dash has been hotly anticipating the death of the queen for months and months. There were a LOT of memes (plus genuine, serious, thought out text-posts) circulating, especially whenever a health scare would come up?
And, while Tumblr isn't Twitter, I will say that in Tumblr's case, there's no algorithm to appease? The spread is much, much more organic. In my leftist follower circles, it definitely feels like celebration of the death of the queen is a genuine position, and not a 'flavor of the month' kind of reaction.
Well not an explicit algorithm, but any time exposure depends on sharing it naturally filters for takes that are emotionally stirring (and generally negative emotions more than positive ones)....
Well not an explicit algorithm, but any time exposure depends on sharing it naturally filters for takes that are emotionally stirring (and generally negative emotions more than positive ones). Though it will be better than what an algorithm that is intentionally selecting for that stuff will do.
But it's also worth remembering that merely being engaged enough to talk about this sort of stuff is kind of weird behavior in the general population of humans. Most people really just don't care that much. And, insofar as they do care, they don't really have the vocabulary and inclination to articulate why they feel certain ways of the things they care about.
Yes, people blame stuff on “the algorithm” but even a formally neutral system is going to promote the most dramatic takes because that’s what the most active members will repost. To keep that from...
Yes, people blame stuff on “the algorithm” but even a formally neutral system is going to promote the most dramatic takes because that’s what the most active members will repost.
To keep that from happening, there needs to be an active defense.
I kinda get that, the same way I kinda get flat-earthers. Hating the queen for being a symbol of british imperialism is surface-level legit, but I feel like it's only surface level legit. I mean,...
I kinda get that, the same way I kinda get flat-earthers. Hating the queen for being a symbol of british imperialism is surface-level legit, but I feel like it's only surface level legit. I mean, the queen/king hasn't had any appreciable power in UK politics for how long now? I honestly don't know the answer. Was Queen Victoria a political entity or just a figurehead? Don't know. I know that by the time of WW2, so even before her (Elizabeth II) reign, the PM was calling the shots.
So, ya know... admit you're hating a symbol, or shift your hate to someone who's less of a symbol and has more agency. Or maybe I'm wrong about the role of the British monarchy.
I think people mostly don't like that they live incredibly lavish lifestyles, paid for by taxes, in order to further the image of UK imperialism. In case you haven't heard (genuinely, it's not...
I think people mostly don't like that they live incredibly lavish lifestyles, paid for by taxes, in order to further the image of UK imperialism. In case you haven't heard (genuinely, it's not international news much) there's a cost of living crisis in the UK at the moment.
The obituary released by The Irish Times, the same paper you quoted from, is worth reading and considering: Queen Elizabeth obituary: A diligent ruler who helped thaw Anglo-Irish relations The...
The obituary released by The Irish Times, the same paper you quoted from, is worth reading and considering:
It's a hell of an exception. Including the Commonwealth diaspora, that's a decent fraction of the entire world's population. To provide one perspective, most of my friends are either people of...
Exception being Irish and former commonwealth nations where mocking the symbol of imperialism is something of a pastime.
It's a hell of an exception. Including the Commonwealth diaspora, that's a decent fraction of the entire world's population.
To provide one perspective, most of my friends are either people of color, many of whom dislike imperialists on principle, Jewish, or of Irish, Scottish, or Welsh descent. I haven't heard a single one say anything more than vaguely neutral about the situation, and someone invited me out drinking yesterday for the occasion.
Not to mention all the Princess Diana fans, who've hated her guts since the late 80s. That's like half of Gen X.
These aren't monolithic groups though. At least within India opinions on the Royal family, specifically, tend to range from warm to ambivalent with the actual negative perspectives mostly coming...
It's a hell of an exception. Including the Commonwealth diaspora, that's a decent fraction of the entire world's population.
These aren't monolithic groups though. At least within India opinions on the Royal family, specifically, tend to range from warm to ambivalent with the actual negative perspectives mostly coming from the far Left and the far Right corners of the political spectrum. The opinions being expressed by professional opinion havers simply aren't representative of the median.
In fact, most upper class and historically marginalized groups both tend to like them more than usual and it's largely the middle class that has strong feelings against. There was actually sort of a thing in my parents' generation where people would name their pet dogs after either British royals or American presidents. Lower caste groups also preferentially tend to give their children English names, specifically after members of the Royal family, because they have a view that the crown afforded them dignity in ways their peers at home did not.
I'm not sure what you mean by this - I'm not friends with any "professional opinion havers," and most of what I see is coming from normal people just making jokes.
The opinions being expressed by professional opinion havers simply aren't representative of the median.
I'm not sure what you mean by this - I'm not friends with any "professional opinion havers," and most of what I see is coming from normal people just making jokes.
To give you an example, here are a few thousand Irish folks singing "Lizzie's in a box" triumphantly at a football game. Hardly professional opinion havers....
The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon. The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow.
The end of an era, to be sure. I was reading an old Guardian piece in 2017 on the Queen's eventual death and was struck by this quote: Which reminded me of a le Carré quote from Tinker Tailor:...
More overwhelming than any of this, though, there will be an almighty psychological reckoning for the kingdom that she leaves behind. The Queen is Britain’s last living link with our former greatness – the nation’s id, its problematic self-regard – which is still defined by our victory in the second world war. One leading historian, who like most people I interviewed for this article declined to be named, stressed that the farewell for this country’s longest-serving monarch will be magnificent. “Oh, she will get everything,” he said. “We were all told that the funeral of Churchill was the requiem for Britain as a great power. But actually it will really be over when she goes.
Which reminded me of a le Carré quote from Tinker Tailor:
"Poor loves. Trained to Empire, trained to rule the waves ... You're the last, George, you and Bill." He saw with painful clarity an ambitious man born to the big canvas, brought up to rule, divide and conquer, whose visions and vanities all were fixed, like Percy's, upon the world's game; for whom the reality was a poor island with scarcely a voice that would carry across the water. Thus Smiley felt not only disgust, but, despite all that the moment meant to him, a surge of resentment against the institutions he was supposed to be protecting
Does it feel like the last flickers of orange in the sky above what was the British Empire to anyone else? Especially with the how things are reported to be there right now. I don’t feel particularly strongly about the monarchy, nor am I British, but I still feel a certain weight to events like these, even if they’re just bookends in some future digital textbook.
Truly, the amount of times I've seen "the queen is dead, love live the king", and things like "god save the king" is really disturbing. You'd think they are mythical creatures
Truly, the amount of times I've seen "the queen is dead, love live the king", and things like "god save the king" is really disturbing.
Those are very long-standing traditional responses to the death of a British monarch. People have been saying these things for centuries. The intention is to acknowledge the death of the former...
Truly, the amount of times I've seen "the queen is dead, love live the king", and things like "god save the king" is really disturbing.
Those are very long-standing traditional responses to the death of a British monarch. People have been saying these things for centuries. The intention is to acknowledge the death of the former monarch and welcome the new monarch.
Can you explain what is disturbing about this? I'm trying to follow why you think this is disturbing, but I think my culture is preventing me from seeing it, and I would like to understand.
the queen is dead, love live the king", and things like "god save the king" is really disturbing.
Can you explain what is disturbing about this? I'm trying to follow why you think this is disturbing, but I think my culture is preventing me from seeing it, and I would like to understand.
People don't get how absurd it all is. Here's the Queen's Beekeeper telling the Queen's Bees that the Queen has died, with black ribbons on the hives and everything....
https://twitter.com/LewFnufc/status/1567847367143051265?s=20&t=GSxIb4fHCgQJCDb7xR8rhg https://twitter.com/roun_sa_ville/status/1567853458581032960?s=20&t=GSxIb4fHCgQJCDb7xR8rhg (I actually knew...
People are happy that a symbol of one of the largest and most violent empires of the 20th century is gone. I'm inclined to let them have their fun, whether on Twitter or in the streets of Dublin.
People are happy that a symbol of one of the largest and most violent empires of the 20th century is gone. I'm inclined to let them have their fun, whether on Twitter or in the streets of Dublin.
One interesting thing I recall is that Australia was working on a constitutional amendment to break from the monarchy when the Queen dies. A quick google isn't turning up anything, but I'm not...
One interesting thing I recall is that Australia was working on a constitutional amendment to break from the monarchy when the Queen dies. A quick google isn't turning up anything, but I'm not sure what to search for exactly.
Anybody up on Aussie politics that can speak to this? That seems the most interesting ramification of her death to me.
This is a very distorted version of what's happening here. You know the game of Telephone? (Formerly known as "Chinese whispers".) That's where one person whispers "I'm going to the shop to buy...
One interesting thing I recall is that Australia was working on a constitutional amendment to break from the monarchy when the Queen dies.
This is a very distorted version of what's happening here. You know the game of Telephone? (Formerly known as "Chinese whispers".) That's where one person whispers "I'm going to the shop to buy some milk" to another person, who hears it and whispers it to another person, who hears it and whispers it to another person, and 20 people later, it comes out as "Let's chop down the whelk."
You've got the end result of a very long game of Telephone.
For Australia to become a republic, we would have to change our constitution. To change our constitution, we need to hold a referendum of the Australian people, and get a "yes" result (I'm simplifying a lot).
We did this back in 1999. We held a referendum to ask the Australian people whether we should become a republic. The result was a "no" vote. It wasn't a large majority, but large enough. However, some of the "no" votes came from people who agreed that Australia should become a republic, but didn't like the republican model being proposed at the time.
So, the idea was put in the "too hard" basket, where it still sits.
However, there's a strong feeling among pundits that Australia's attachment to the monarchy will weaken after Queen Elizabeth's death. People are fond of her, but aren't as fond of Charles, so it'll be easier to argue for a republic after Elizabeth dies.
We voted in a new government earlier this year. The Labor party, which forms the current government, has a standing policy that Australia should become a republic - but it's always been a very low-priority policy which they've never done anything about. However, the new Prime Minister has appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic, who has the responsibility to investigate how to run another referendum about the question of becoming a republic.
And that's where we're at:
We held a referendum 20 years ago, and the people voted "no" to becoming a republic.
The republicans were waiting until Elizabeth died, to try again.
The current government has an Assistant Minister for the Republic.
This is exactly why I asked. It's hard to work backwards from a distorted telephone signal. Given that, I definitely feel it's one of the more interesting things that might happen. Doing so while...
This is exactly why I asked. It's hard to work backwards from a distorted telephone signal.
Given that, I definitely feel it's one of the more interesting things that might happen.
Doing so while Labor is in charge (of what I know of Labor) seems preferable to the alternatives.
Australia won't become a republic any time soon; it probably won't happen within this term of parliament (3 years). For one thing, we need to come up with a model for the republic that we can get...
Given that, I definitely feel it's one of the more interesting things that might happen.
Australia won't become a republic any time soon; it probably won't happen within this term of parliament (3 years).
For one thing, we need to come up with a model for the republic that we can get a majority of people to agree on. The main sticking point is whether the replacement for the Governor-General (probably a "President") would be elected directly by the people or appointed/selected/elected by the parliament. That's what killed the last attempt to become a republic, and it will kill all future attempts. Until we sort that out, we'll stay a monarchy.
So, there'll be a long public consultation process before any referendum can happen, to make sure that the question at least has a chance of succeeding because the republican model being offered is one that most people want.
Then: we tend not to like to hold a separate voting process just for a referendum question (it's expensive and intrusive), which means any referendum will probably be held at the same time as a federal election, which is usually every 3 years.
I suspect we'll get a referendum question about the republic at our next federal election, in 2025, and the government elected that year will then face the task of revising the constitution.
It will take about 5 years, even if we start in earnest today.
Being as how Charles III is 73 years old, his chance of dying within the next 5 years is something like 10 to 15%. (Though from what I've heard he's pretty attentive about his diet and health so...
It will take about 5 years, even if we start in earnest today.
Being as how Charles III is 73 years old, his chance of dying within the next 5 years is something like 10 to 15%. (Though from what I've heard he's pretty attentive about his diet and health so he might be on the lower end of that). You've got decent odds of having to boot out the next King instead of this one.
I don't know about anything regarding that in Australia, but I do know that some in Jamaica had called for breaking ties with the monarchy earlier this year, when William and Kate visited. AFAIK...
I don't know about anything regarding that in Australia, but I do know that some in Jamaica had called for breaking ties with the monarchy earlier this year, when William and Kate visited. AFAIK nothing came of that either though, despite all the press it was given.
And in my lifetime there has always seemed to be various groups in every Commonwealth country occasionally making a huge fuss and calling for similar, even here in Canada. But it's usually not a large or influential enough group for anything to happen.
The monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial at this point, and there actually are some benefits to it, so I personally don't see the point in wasting time over this issue. Once QE2 dies, all that may change though, since Charles is still deeply unpopular everywhere. If he abdicates in favor of William that may help stabilize things, but I don't see him doing that, so who knows what the future holds for the royal family and the realm.
I suspect it's mostly to do with his poor treatment of Diana, who was beloved by many, and his divorce from her over his affair with Camilla (who is similarly despised). He has had quite a few...
I suspect it's mostly to do with his poor treatment of Diana, who was beloved by many, and his divorce from her over his affair with Camilla (who is similarly despised). He has had quite a few other scandals, and controversial moments over the years too, most recently one where he supposedly made racially insensitive comments about the appearance of Harry and Meghan's potential future children. And he is also generally considered to be a pompous idiot, which doesn't help either.
p.s. My mom really admired Diana, and absolutely despises Charles, so I am potentially a bit biased myself due to her opinions influencing my own. ;)
I can't speak for every Commonwealth country, but in the case of Canada the Governor General, while largely a diplomatic and ceremonial position, has also historically acted as a nonpartisan...
I can't speak for every Commonwealth country, but in the case of Canada the Governor General, while largely a diplomatic and ceremonial position, has also historically acted as a nonpartisan safeguard against the potential abuse of power by a majority government, since they must give Royal Assent to all legislative acts before they become law. They can also prorogue or even dissolve parliament in the case of votes of no-confidence against the Prime Minister or their party, which acts as another safeguard. And in recent years the role has also generally gone to women, several of whom were PoC, and it is currently being held by Mary Simon who is of Inuk descent.
And the same goes for all the Lieutenant Governors in terms of their roles, but at the Provincial level.
There are also a myriad of cultural, diplomatic, and economic benefits to the monarchy, and being part of the Commonwealth as well, but listing all those would be getting pretty deep into the weeds.
Doesn't seem like you would need a monarchy to do that, you could just directly elect the Governor General. That's essentially what the President/Uachtarán of Ireland is, and it's worked out fine...
Doesn't seem like you would need a monarchy to do that, you could just directly elect the Governor General. That's essentially what the President/Uachtarán of Ireland is, and it's worked out fine so far.
There is something to be said for such a position being entirely separated from the whims of the same electorate that resulted in any majority government elected to power, especially when it comes...
There is something to be said for such a position being entirely separated from the whims of the same electorate that resulted in any majority government elected to power, especially when it comes to dealing with votes of non-confidence against that party.
True, but when you compare the result of a direct election, to the result of multiple parties building coalitions and choosing a head of government without direct input from the electorate, you...
True, but when you compare the result of a direct election, to the result of multiple parties building coalitions and choosing a head of government without direct input from the electorate, you tend to get quite different outcomes. Especially, I suspect, when people consider the current government to be in need a bit of a kick up the arse.
For example in Ireland, the current president since 2011 is from the Labour party, despite Labour sitting consistently at 10% of parliamentary seats for most of its history and currently at an all-time low of 4.4%. Quite decoupled from the group running the government.
Then there's the question of allowing the head of state of another country to appoint the Governor General, when your two countries may have competing interests, may cause problems, even just on the perception side of things. But if that's not a concern, you could always let the US President appoint the Governor General instead, no monarchy required, and it accomplishes the same thing.
His Excellency Governor General Ted Cruz, or some other Republican crony? No thanks. IMO our GG/LG system has worked reasonably well for us so far, so I personally don't see any compelling reason...
you could always let the US President appoint the Governor General instead, no monarchy required, and it accomplishes the same thing.
His Excellency Governor General Ted Cruz, or some other Republican crony? No thanks. IMO our GG/LG system has worked reasonably well for us so far, so I personally don't see any compelling reason to fundamentally change it now.
That's my point though, the idea of allowing the US President sounds obviously absurd, but the hereditary monarch of the UK is no more credible. That royal family contains at least one Epstein...
His Excellency Governor General Ted Cruz, or some other Republican crony?
That's my point though, the idea of allowing the US President sounds obviously absurd, but the hereditary monarch of the UK is no more credible. That royal family contains at least one Epstein crony, which they appear to have tried to keep quiet.
I think it just seems more reasonable because it's "the way things are done".
A foreign President is not the head of State in Canada, but the Crown monarch still is. The Crown also isn't elected, so unlike a foreign President they're nonpartisan. And finally, the Crown also...
A foreign President is not the head of State in Canada, but the Crown monarch still is. The Crown also isn't elected, so unlike a foreign President they're nonpartisan. And finally, the Crown also has a vested interest in the welfare of Canada and its citizenry, whereas a foreign President might not care about Canada or its citizens, and may even be actively working against our interests. So of course having a foreign President appoint our GG sounds absurd, because it is. But that's not remotely the same thing as having the Crown, our head of State, do the same.
Ok I think I'm definitely coming across too bluntly here, I'm not trying to argue or ridicule here, I've basically just never come across this perspective before and am trying to game it out. No...
Ok I think I'm definitely coming across too bluntly here, I'm not trying to argue or ridicule here, I've basically just never come across this perspective before and am trying to game it out. No disrespect meant.
I know the British monarch is the head of state of Canada, but de facto Canada is an independent country from the UK and can have competing economic interests the same way the US could, or Japan or any other country. Post-Brexit negotiations on the trading relationship might be an example.
Do the royals have a material interest in the Canadian economy, or does the vested interest come from their position as head of state?
Actually, the role of Monarch of Canada is separate to the role of Monarch of the United Kingdom, and they're both separate to the role of Monarch of Australia. Even though the monarchy of all...
I know the British monarch is the head of state of Canada
Actually, the role of Monarch of Canada is separate to the role of Monarch of the United Kingdom, and they're both separate to the role of Monarch of Australia. Even though the monarchy of all these three countries is held by the same person, they're different monarchies. Charles is now King of the United Kingdom and separately the King of Canada and separately the King of Australia.
The only thing keeping the monarchy of the 15 Commonwealth realms vested in the same person is an agreement among those 15 countries to keep their monarchies the same. In theory, Australia (or Canada) could pass a law which says that the Crown of Australia (or Canada) now passes to another person, such as Harry or Beatrice or even some eighth-cousin thrice removed of King George VI. So, we could have King Charles of the United Kingdom and King Harry of Canada and Queen Beatrice of Australia.
But we choose not to. We choose to use the same person as the monarch of all these countries.
The monarch of the United Kingdom and the monarch of Canada and the monarch of Australia are all consitutional monarchs, rather than absolute monarchs. They are constrained in what they can do. They must operate through a parliament, and act under advice from their ministers. In practice, the monarch is a non-political role. They're mostly just a rubber-stamp for the laws that their parliaments pass.
Well said. And incidentally, there actually has been some talk of potentially selecting William as our King. Much like the talk of abolishing the monarchy entirely, I doubt it will happen. But...
Well said. And incidentally, there actually has been some talk of potentially selecting William as our King. Much like the talk of abolishing the monarchy entirely, I doubt it will happen. But it's still a genuine possibility, since we are under no immutable obligation to have the same Crown monarch as the UK.
p.s. "They're mostly just a rubber-stamp for the laws that their parliaments pass."
Mostly, but not always. At least here in Canada the Crown's reps, GG/LGs, have had to intervene in serious matters on quite a few occasions over the years.
E.g. One of the most recent serious events was in 2017 when the LG of British Columbia, Judith Guichon, refused incumbent Liberal Premier Clark's demand to dissolve parliament. This would have triggered another election immediately after the election where Clarke's party only got 42 seats, and the opposition also got 42. This refusal resulted in Clark resigning, and NDP opposition leader John Horgan being called to proceed with his plan to form a coalition government with the Green party, who had 3 seats. The LG's actions were largely considered sound decision making, since Clark was basically just trying to pull some bullshit to stay in power at the expense of the taxpayer.
p.p.s. I noticed when reading through Wikipedia yesterday on GG/LGs that Australia doesn't have nearly as many such interventions as we have had here in Canada... which was actually kind of surprising to me, since I had the distinct impression that your country's politics were slightly more contentious, and your politicians much more combative than ours. But I guess us Canadians aren't really as nice as we like to outwardly portray ourselves. ;)
Our Governors-General tend to be very hands-off. There's only one time when a Governor-General interfered with the government of the day (by dismissing it), and that time is EXTREMELY...
Our Governors-General tend to be very hands-off. There's only one time when a Governor-General interfered with the government of the day (by dismissing it), and that time is EXTREMELY controversial, even nearly 50 years later. Since then, any tendency towards activism or interventionism by subsequent GGs has been firmly squelched. They really are just rubber stamps now.
This culminated in something that came to light only last month.
During the pandemic, our then-Prime Minister got the Governor-General to swear him into five other ministries, above and beyond the Ministry of Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The first one was the Ministry of Health, so he could act as back-up in case the Health Minister caught COVID (this was back in March 2020, when we weren't really sure what COVID was and how bad it would be). That kind of makes sense. But, having done it once, he had set himself a precedent. Over the next 18 months, he had the Governor-General swear him into four other ministries. And neither of them told anyone about it - not even the ministers who now had a secret back-up minister. We, the public and press and the rest of the Prime Minister's colleagues, only found out about this last month (the Prime Minister in question has already been voted out back in May).
In one (and only one) case, the Prime Minister used his new ministerial powers to overturn a decision a minister had made.
The Governor-General acted constitutionally, and neither he nor the former Prime Minister did anything illegal. However, this demonstrates just how far our Governors-General will go to avoid any perception of intervention. They simply do whatever the Prime Minister of the day advises them to do, without question. And questions absolutely needed to be asked in this case.
So, that's how non-interventionist our Governors-General are. They'll let the Prime Minister do something dodgy as fuck, without advising against it or even questioning it.
Heh, yeah I read about your constitutional crisis in 1975 the other day. I still don't really understand why the GG's actions were considered quite so controversial though, TBH. Our GG's seem to...
Heh, yeah I read about your constitutional crisis in 1975 the other day. I still don't really understand why the GG's actions were considered quite so controversial though, TBH. Our GG's seem to be forced to dissolve the government every few decades due to non-confidence votes or loss of supply (budget deadlocks), so that sort of thing is nothing new to us. ;)
In any case, it was really interesting to learn that despite our similar government structures, the Crown's reps generally behave very differently in each of our countries. Don't get me wrong, we have still had our fair share of rubber-stampers too, but many others have had to make hard decisions, and weren't shy about it. And none of those decisions in recent memory have been particularly controversial either. The exception to that being the previous GG under Trudeau, an ill-qualified, former astronaut, who was eventually forced to resign for being verbally abusive, creating a toxic workplace, shirking their duties, and wasting a large amount of taxpayer money on frivolous renovations to the GG's residence.
As much as I dislike our previous PM, Stephen Harper, he actually did something pretty smart when he was in office regarding the GG. He created an independent commission of experts (legal scholars, ex-ministers, ex-military, former GG/LGs, etc) and had them consult with hundreds of other experts in order to create a shortlist of GG candidates, with the express purpose of finding a qualified, nonpartisan one to recommend to the Queen. Which, as I understand it, is actually very similar to how your government finds their GG candidates as well.
However, unfortunately the panel was never formalized into law, so Trudeau chose to simply ignore the precedent and made his recommendation entirely on his own... which is how we ended up with the GG that had to resign. Thankfully, Trudeau learned his lesson and created a recommendation commission the next time, which is how we ended up with our current, eminently qualified GG of Inuk descent, Mary Simon.
Because the context in which it occurred made it appear to be a political act to some people. The opposition felt the government had become incompetent and corrupt and scandal-plagued (which was...
Heh, yeah I read about your constitutional crisis in 1975 the other day. I still don't really understand why the GG's actions were considered quite so controversial though, TBH.
Because the context in which it occurred made it appear to be a political act to some people.
The opposition felt the government had become incompetent and corrupt and scandal-plagued (which was at least partly true). They wanted to force the Prime Minister to call an election. Due to some irregularities in filling Senate vacancies, the opposition had a majority in the Senate which didn't reflect their results at the previous federal election. The opposition used that majority to block supply bills - which in and of itself was against convention and therefore controversial.
The Prime Minister believed he could still find a way out of the deadlock. There were still avenues to explore. For example, we hold elections for half the Senate every 4 years; one of these elections was due to be held soon, and the Prime Minister could have recommended to the Governor-General to hold this half-Senate election. He still had options.
However, the opposition was holding out for a full new election for the House of Representatives, which is why they blocked supply.
The Governor-General then dismissed the Prime Minister and dissolved Parliament - which is exactly what the opposition wanted. The GG also failed to inform the Prime Minister that he was even considering dismissing the government. The Governor-General was therefore seen to be taking sides in a political stoush: he "secretly conspired" with the opposition leader to dismiss the Prime Minister.
The actual reasons for the dismissal are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the Governor-General was acting in good faith or not (he probably was acting in good faith, and was certainly not conspiring with the opposition leader). The perception is that he did exactly what the opposition leader wanted, which made him lose his impartiality, which made it controversial.
The Australian Republican Movement has recently come up with a compromise model for choosing a hypothetical President if Australia became a republic. The people would directly vote for the President, but the candidates on the ballot would be nominated by a combination of the various state parliaments and the federal parliament. The parliaments would effectively act as a selection panel. The people still get to vote (which most Aussies seem to want), but they wouldn't be able to vote for just any old populist rabble-rouser.
According to the ARM, a majority of Australians would support this compromise model.
Thanks for sharing your insight. Why it was seen as controversial makes a bit more sense now, though I still feel the reaction was overblown. And as for becoming a Republic. I’m sure the other...
Thanks for sharing your insight. Why it was seen as controversial makes a bit more sense now, though I still feel the reaction was overblown.
And as for becoming a Republic. I’m sure the other realm nations will be sad to see you go, but I wish you all good luck in accomplishing it should you decide to follow through with it. Hopefully having an elected GG/President doesn’t blow up in your faces, as I fear it most definitely and inevitably would here in Canada. :(
Australia has a very similar governmental structure to Canada. If the people directly elect the Governor-General, then this role ceases to become an impartial and purely ceremonial role, as it...
Australia has a very similar governmental structure to Canada.
If the people directly elect the Governor-General, then this role ceases to become an impartial and purely ceremonial role, as it currently is. It becomes a politically active role, similar to the President of the USA.
If the President were from a different political party than the government, then the President could decide to flex their political mandate, and oppose all legislation approved by the Parliament. The government of the day would be unable to enact any of the policies they were voted in to enact. That would be unworkable.
It's best for the Governor-General/President to be impartial and non-political, which means not elected directly by the people.
This reminds me of how I used to see the Supreme Court of the United States. I would see and read about many of their actions – usually the less-dramatic ones – and come away thinking, "Huh. Well,...
This reminds me of how I used to see the Supreme Court of the United States.
I would see and read about many of their actions – usually the less-dramatic ones – and come away thinking, "Huh. Well, it's not ideal, but I can see why they came to that conclusion given the context." Many times, I'd not be happy with the result, but I'd respect the decision and see the court as being one of the last vestiges of impartiality in the U.S. government.
Then Dobbs happened, and that illusion shattered. I couldn't justify it anymore.
This is a dramatic example, and I'm fully aware it is very much not equivalent to the Governor-General of Australia or Canada. I'm neither Australian nor Canadian, nor do I know their politics. But as time has passed, I've come to increasingly view the concept of neutrality in politics as a myth, and I now see it as an impossibility. To me, the mere act of holding a position of power amplifies any and all bias; even the mere act of having an opinion about something suddenly has weight. When you're famous, people listen to you — even when you're not talking.
The only scenario I can even imagine practical impartiality existing in is large groups of diverse people. No one person can manage it — especially when they hold a high position in government. Hell, society itself can't even really be said to be fair, so how could someone surrounded by it pull it off?
I may not know how the Governor-General works, but I find the concept of them being unbiased to be very difficult to accept. I'm sure you know far more about this topic than I, and so I'll make no claims as to whether or not it's wise to change this system right now. But even still, I can't really ignore the fact that seeing such an argument used to refute the idea of democratically electing a high position of government – even a largely ceremonial one – makes me feel a little uneasy. With all of the above in mind, I hope you can understand why.
As private individuals, the Governors-General obviously have their own opinions and biases. However, as holders of a constitutional office, they never ever reveal or express those opinions and...
I may not know how the Governor-General works, but I find the concept of them being unbiased to be very difficult to accept.
As private individuals, the Governors-General obviously have their own opinions and biases. However, as holders of a constitutional office, they never ever reveal or express those opinions and biases.
They're appointed directly by the Queen or King of Australia. The Prime Minister, in consultation with a few other ministers, comes up with a shortlist of suitable candidates, such as senior military figures or former judges, to present to the monarch. The monarch selects the obvious choice, who is then appointed "at the monarch's pleasure" (they can be instantly dismissed by the monarch at any time).
The Governor-General has limited powers, primarily:
To approve legislation so that it passes into law.
To dissolve Parliament.
To issue writs for an election for Parliament.
To swear in Ministers (there's no mention of a Prime Minister in our constitution).
Legally, they are the monarch's representative on the ground, because it used to take 9 months to send a letter from Sydney to London and another 9 months to get a reply, so someone had to be here to make decisions. Effectively, they've become a circuit-breaker: "break glass in case of emergencies". They're just a final check on the government, and a way of ensuring that government can keep functioning, even in case of deadlocks.
If they were popularly elected, they would become another activist politician rather than an independent circuit-breaker. We would end up like the USA, where the Congress and the President can be at loggerheads, and the functions of government can grind to a halt. Our Governor-General prevents situations like that (as happened in 1975).
The Supreme Court decision in the 2000 election (choosing Bush W. versus Gore) was clearly partisan. If you take a deeper view of history there was Plessy versus Ferguson and the infamous Dredd...
The Supreme Court decision in the 2000 election (choosing Bush W. versus Gore) was clearly partisan. If you take a deeper view of history there was Plessy versus Ferguson and the infamous Dredd Scott decision.
Which is to say that although it doesn’t look like it now, I expect the Supreme Court’s reputation will eventually revive, assuming there isn’t some kind of collapse in the meantime.
Again I need to point out that the President of Ireland fulfills that exact function of signing legislation into law, is directly elected by the people via a referendum, and is currently from a...
Again I need to point out that the President of Ireland fulfills that exact function of signing legislation into law, is directly elected by the people via a referendum, and is currently from a different political party than the government. It is still considered a ceremonial role and non-partisan, although maybe that's because we're not on a partisan two-party political system because of the proportional representation system of voting. I don't know how partisan Canada or Australia are by comparison, so maybe the political culture is too contentious for it to work there. Who can say.
I can assure you: if Australia had a popularly elected President from one party and a Prime Minister and government from the other party, the President would feel they had a mandate, due to their...
I can assure you: if Australia had a popularly elected President from one party and a Prime Minister and government from the other party, the President would feel they had a mandate, due to their election by the people, to block the government's legislation. They might not exercise that mandate on most legislation, but they would absolutely withhold their approval from a controversial law that their party strongly disagreed with.
This would then bring effective government to a halt, with no impartial referee available to break the deadlock.
I believe you. Now let me tell you about some legal checks and balances that could help: The President of Ireland is not legally permitted to block legislation they disagree with. That is not part...
I believe you. Now let me tell you about some legal checks and balances that could help:
The President of Ireland is not legally permitted to block legislation they disagree with. That is not part of their duties or mandate. If the bill is constitutional, they are obliged to sign it into law. If they judge it to be unconstitutional, they can refer it to the supreme court who then make a ruling. If the court finds it to be unconstitutional, the President can then decline it, but if the court upholds it, President must sign.
The problem is that we don't want to change our constitution any more than absolutely necessary to become a republic - which means we probably wouldn't change the actual powers and...
The problem is that we don't want to change our constitution any more than absolutely necessary to become a republic - which means we probably wouldn't change the actual powers and responsibilities of the Governor-General/President. We would change the title, and we would change how the role is appointed, but we would leave everything else the same. The more we change things, the less likely that people will agree to it. So, the President would have the same power to refuse to sign legislation that the Governor-General does.
I mean practically is this really a thing? Let's say Canada or Australia gets taken over by a fascist fervor and the new government is a fascist undemocratic autocracy or oligarchy. The Royal...
has also historically acted as a nonpartisan safeguard against the potential abuse of power by a majority government, since they must give Royal Assent to all legislative acts before they become law.
I mean practically is this really a thing? Let's say Canada or Australia gets taken over by a fascist fervor and the new government is a fascist undemocratic autocracy or oligarchy. The Royal Family or the Governor General officially dismisses the government. What happens then?
I feel like at best, and this seems pretty slim, that an opposing government could get endorsed by them and that legitimacy leads to a civil war.
Most likely, the government either just straight up ignores them, or formally disconnects power, and the populace is perfectly fine with it since at this point there is zero cultural inheritance or expectations of political power from either the british monarchy or the any remnants of the colonial power systems.
I think you're confused. The positions of GG and LGs aren't really meant to be some bulwark against fascist takeover, although they can be. Their safeguard role is far less dramatic than that, far...
I think you're confused. The positions of GG and LGs aren't really meant to be some bulwark against fascist takeover, although they can be. Their safeguard role is far less dramatic than that, far more procedural, and have already come into play several times throughout our history due to impending, or successful votes of non-confidence. And when that happens the GG/LGs can either prorogue parliament (temporarily suspend it, in order for coalition re-negotiations to take place), or even dissolve parliament (forcing the PM's or Premiers' resignations, and/or triggering another general election). Simple as.
Then the Governor-General issues the writs for a new election. In 1975, the Governor-General of Australia did dismiss the government of the day. Long story short, the process of government had...
I mean practically is this really a thing? Let's say Canada or Australia gets taken over by a fascist fervor and the new government is a fascist undemocratic autocracy or oligarchy. The Royal Family or the Governor General officially dismisses the government. What happens then?
Then the Governor-General issues the writs for a new election.
In 1975, the Governor-General of Australia did dismiss the government of the day. Long story short, the process of government had ground to a halt (kind of like what happens when the U.S. government stops every couple of years). Rather than let the situation drag on, with the government unable to obtain funds from the parliament, the Governor-General stepped in to break the deadlock. He dismissed the government and the Prime Minister. He then appointed the opposition leader as the caretaker Prime Minister, with a single task: to keep the machinery of government ticking over while a new election was held.
It was, and still is, a very controversial action, but it kept the government of Australia running.
Land off which many of the Commonwealth realm nations actually benefit and profit greatly from, I might add. So I don't really see that as a particularly big concern, at least not here in Canada....
Land off which many of the Commonwealth realm nations actually benefit and profit greatly from, I might add. So I don't really see that as a particularly big concern, at least not here in Canada. BTW, it's worth noting that only 11% of land in Canada is actually privately owned, the rest being a mix of Federal and Provincial Crown land.
This is the point where I think this video becomes relevant. I don't know if you're one of them per se, but a lot of folks saw CGP Grey's video on taxpayer expenses (and land) with regard to the...
This is the point where I think this video becomes relevant. I don't know if you're one of them per se, but a lot of folks saw CGP Grey's video on taxpayer expenses (and land) with regard to the royal family and took it at face value; the video I linked does a good job of addressing that.
The crux of his argument seems to be that all the royal family's property rights can simply just be ignored, and all their land confiscated. That doesn't make for a very compelling argument, IMO,...
The crux of his argument seems to be that all the royal family's property rights can simply just be ignored, and all their land confiscated. That doesn't make for a very compelling argument, IMO, nor is it as easily done as he implies, especially here in Canada where various Land and Resource acts and treaties have enshrined those rights, and the rights of our government in overseeing them.
I don't think anyone could expect it to be easily done; the focus is more that it should be. Besides, I can't really say I care for the property rights of a bunch of extraordinarily rich...
I don't think anyone could expect it to be easily done; the focus is more that it should be. Besides, I can't really say I care for the property rights of a bunch of extraordinarily rich celebrities who stole almost everything they have from others, both in the past and present.
To be fair, it could actually be "easily" done if enough people really wanted it to happen. But there would be far reaching consequences, many of them negative, and the simple fact of the matter...
To be fair, it could actually be "easily" done if enough people really wanted it to happen. But there would be far reaching consequences, many of them negative, and the simple fact of the matter is that most here in Canada don't want that to happen.
And the real question is, would it really be worth doing, even if a majority did want it to happen? The Crown may technically own all the Crown land here in Canada, but they aren't allowed to sell that land, and neither can our government unless certain strict criteria are met, with environmental, social, and economic studies and considerations taken into account first. So most of it currently exists in a state of limbo in that regard, since the sales process is slow, arduous, and highly restricted. Resources can be extracted by private entities under certain circumstances by way of leases, but the leased land can't be permanently developed on unless those projects also meet strict criteria. And were we to simply confiscate all that Crown land, I have no doubt our government (especially if the Conservatives ever got a majority afterwards) would eventually try to sell off huge swaths of it to private interests without much regard for public good or welfare, and then gradually reduce regulatory oversight of that now private land even further. All of which would lead to far more permanent development projects across Canada, and the untold environmental destruction that often goes along with that.
So go ahead, hate on the British Empire, the British royal family, and monarchies all you want. They deserve it, and I won't defend them. But before non-Canadians go proclaiming what they think is best for Canada, they should at least take a few moments to learn how things actually work here first. Since, at least in this particular case, far more harm than good would very likely come from our government confiscating all the Crown lands here.
I should note that I was thinking primarily in the context of Britain itself, less so Canada, Australia, etc. I'm able to recognize different countries will have different things to consider when...
I should note that I was thinking primarily in the context of Britain itself, less so Canada, Australia, etc. I'm able to recognize different countries will have different things to consider when making large changes like this.
At any rate though, the argument you raise regarding land use is a very good one. Nevertheless, I see this as an issue to be solved as a prerequisite to abolishing the monarchy, rather than a reason to not abolish the monarchy altogether. This increases the complexity of the problem, naturally, but I still think it should be tried at some point. Everything has consequences, after all, and lawmakers have managed to handle them before, so I don't see why it'd be impossible here.
Fair enough, although as I said before I personally don't see the point in abolishing the monarchy. It really is almost entirely ceremonial at this point, has some benefits (as I also mentioned),...
Fair enough, although as I said before I personally don't see the point in abolishing the monarchy. It really is almost entirely ceremonial at this point, has some benefits (as I also mentioned), and even were you to take away all the Crown lands as a consideration, their cost is barely a drop in the bucket. They cost the UK £102M in 2021, which sounds like a lot, but only amounts to £1.52 per person in the UK. And apparently they cost Canada $58M in 2020, which amounts to $1.55 per Canadian. And I think most people, at least here in Canada, are fine with that. That opinion may change now with QE2 finally gone, and Charles in charge (heh), but we shall have to wait and see if that's the case. I doubt it will change much though, because AFAIK a lot of people here still like the idea of us having a monarch, and still like Diana's children, their spouses, and now their children too.
This is kind of a tangential question, but... Is "Only costs $X per person" a good way of framing things? When framed that way, the amount feels miniscule, because the amount of change a single...
They cost the UK £102M in 2021, which sounds like a lot, but only amounts to £1.52 per person in the UK. And apparently they cost Canada $58M in 2020, which amounts to $1.55 per Canadian. And I think most people, at least here in Canada, are fine with that.
This is kind of a tangential question, but... Is "Only costs $X per person" a good way of framing things?
When framed that way, the amount feels miniscule, because the amount of change a single person can impart with $1.55 is... nothing, basically?
But, by comparison, when that money is concentrated into a single pool to be used for a single purpose by an actor with much more organizational power, I'd imagine that that money would have a much greater capacity to impart change.
Per person may not be the most "good" way to frame it. But the Crown is an institution here, so if you would prefer it compared another way, you could compare it to the costs of our other...
Per person may not be the most "good" way to frame it. But the Crown is an institution here, so if you would prefer it compared another way, you could compare it to the costs of our other institutions. Which the article I linked to actually does, BTW:
...the overall cost is "far less" than what other national institutions cost the average Canadian each year, including the House of Commons ($13.30), the Senate ($2.57) and the CBC ($31.86).
And moreover, the Crown is a cultural institution. It's part of Canadian culture. It's woven into the very fabric of our society, and is one of the things that still separates us from our American neighbors, which is something many of us take pride in. And IMO there is some value in upholding that, especially when the cost is so minuscule, all things considered. $58M is 0.00016% of our $354Bn Federal budget (another way to look at it).
Is it known how exactly that money is spent? There's a few options that come to mind paying the queen/king to show up every so often, money ends up on the monarch's bank account paying Canadians...
Is it known how exactly that money is spent? There's a few options that come to mind
paying the queen/king to show up every so often, money ends up on the monarch's bank account
paying Canadians to "maintain royal nonsense", such as buying Canadian services for the queen when she visits, groundskeeping at royal residences (that are open to the public?), that kinda thing
paying to keep essential government services running, e.g. would you need another office like the GG if you didn't have it? Are other government services performed by institutions technically part of the crown?
Generally, the more money is spent further down that list, the less of an issue it is.
The largest portion of our Crown expenses ($1.20 out of the $1.55) is for the maintenance of the Governor General's office. With another $0.27 going towards all the Lieutenant Governors offices....
The largest portion of our Crown expenses ($1.20 out of the $1.55) is for the maintenance of the Governor General's office. With another $0.27 going towards all the Lieutenant Governors offices. The GG/LG's serve a vital role in Parliament, and also act as diplomats both here and abroad. So even were we to abolish the monarchy we would likely still have to maintain similar offices, and all we would save ourselves in terms of yearly expense is $0.08 per Canadian, which is all that goes towards the actual royal family itself.
Looking at the per-person cost seems like a good way of deciding if cutting it would have a noticeable impact on people’s taxes. (Though, maybe the denominator should be different because not...
Looking at the per-person cost seems like a good way of deciding if cutting it would have a noticeable impact on people’s taxes. (Though, maybe the denominator should be different because not everyone pays taxes.) It seems pretty clear that it’s not going to move the needle and other considerations are more important.
There is also symbolism to think of, though. The symbolism of having government-supported rich people around isn’t all that great. Some people seem to like it, though.
I've been following this one a bit... I'm not an Anglophile, but she's been queen since before I was born, seventy years now. As someone who lives in a country where the top official serves a...
I've been following this one a bit... I'm not an Anglophile, but she's been queen since before I was born, seventy years now. As someone who lives in a country where the top official serves a ceiling of eight years, it blows me away that she's been queen longer than some of our presidents lived (and she has been queen since Obama was born.) It's going to be a very weird world for me when she passes, assuming she doesn't outlive me.
At this time in Ukrainian infosphere: Good words and mourning to Queen. How should we write: Karl Ⅲ by tradition or Čarlz Ⅲ by pronounce. King/Queenʼs or similar titulesʼ names are usually...
At this time in Ukrainian infosphere:
Good words and mourning to Queen.
How should we write: Karl Ⅲ by tradition or Čarlz Ⅲ by pronounce. King/Queenʼs or similar titulesʼ names are usually adapted. And I donʼt know from where it came.
It seems to me that contemporary reporting in German on such matters left the name in English, while historians like to use German versions of the first name. That leads to the list of British...
It seems to me that contemporary reporting in German on such matters left the name in English, while historians like to use German versions of the first name. That leads to the list of British monarchs on wikipedia reading "[..] Georg, Eduard, Georg, Eduard, Elisabeth, Charles"; similarly, Karl III. is a forward to Charles III.
Unrelated, but the Ferrari F1 cars are driven by Karl and Karl (Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz)
So, she died and it appears she died naturally. Unlike her grandfather, who was killed so the death could be announced in the morning papers, instead of the evening papers. Lots of people will be...
So, she died and it appears she died naturally. Unlike her grandfather, who was killed so the death could be announced in the morning papers, instead of the evening papers.
Lots of people will be sad that she died, and I'm sort of one of them. But a lot of people remember colonialism and the harm it did, and that she was actively resisting independence efforts. One of the things that people respect about her is her apparent neutrality and status as a figurehead without much power. The reality is a bit different.
I don't know how much longer we'll have a monarchy. Charles is deeply unpopular with many people, especially people outside the UK.
I suspect the only reason we don't have an elected presidential figurehead is because we've had people like Livingstone or Johnstone as London Mayors and they were fucking idiots.
I wondered why the lines had gone almost totally silent in the last couple of hours of yesterday's shift. Everyone must've been glued to their TV or radio to find out which way it was going to go....
I wondered why the lines had gone almost totally silent in the last couple of hours of yesterday's shift. Everyone must've been glued to their TV or radio to find out which way it was going to go. I'm surprisingly kind of sad, though the reaction was delayed for me; it really hit my parents.
4 years ago I saw this video by VanityFair about what happens when the Queen dies. So for all we know, she could be dead right now. Funnily enough the Washington Post made a similar video just a...
Lots of speculation during the afternoon in the UK as more and more of the BBC staff and reporters started wearing black jackets and ties - including the sign language interpreter.
Lots of speculation during the afternoon in the UK as more and more of the BBC staff and reporters started wearing black jackets and ties - including the sign language interpreter.
Speculation did start early as they swapped anchors early to one wearing all black and they had cleared all programming until the 6pm news. That said, sign language interpreters are almost always...
Speculation did start early as they swapped anchors early to one wearing all black and they had cleared all programming until the 6pm news.
That said, sign language interpreters are almost always wearing pattern-less dark or black clothing as it makes it easier to see (normally white) hands on a black background.
I'm by no means a royalist, and would support the abolition of the monarchy if it ever became a serious conversation here in the UK. However, I find myself surprised at how I feel about the death of the queen.
You know how when you go to some concerts, the really big ones, and before the band starts you feel this sense of anticipation, and excitement, and unity with everyone else in the room? It's sort of like that, only the mood is one of mild grief. Not quite the loss of a loved one, or even someone you knew very well at all. I might liken it to hearing about the death of a teacher you had for a year when you were very small, and had all but forgotten about them. And instead of connecting with a room or stadium full of people, I feel connected with an entire country's worth.
I appreciate that for a not insignificant amount of people, the queen's death is completely meaningless. And it is for me as well, really. But I didn't expect to feel somehow united or connected with so many, over something so... remote? I'm not quite sure I know how to say it. I just feel differently now than I did four hours ago. Mildly sad? I don't know. It's a strange sensation.
Something like 80-90% of the world’s population has never known another British monarch. Many comments I’ve seen have compared her to Britain’s grandma, which kinda makes sense, she was ever present in British life, she tried to appear above the fray and be a friend. Especially these days, I don’t think there’s many people, minus some Twitterati, that genuinely hate her.
The Twitterati didn’t genuinely hate her either until 5 minutes ago. The algorithm just rewards overheated rhetoric and they all just whip themselves up into being habitually angry by the topic of the day by engaging with what is functionally a genetic algorithm for catchy outrage bait by persuasive factoids.
Exception being Irish and former commonwealth nations where mocking the symbol of imperialism is something of a pastime.
Eh, I think you're ignoring the people who were harmed by colonisation who have genuine reasons to hate her. She gave the impression of being "hands off", but behind the scenes she actively campaigned against independence for many colonised countries.
There were plenty of people who were saying this when she was alive. Lots of people turned down Honours because of the links to empire.
I'm Indian. I am doing no such thing. The story of colonization isn't so one-dimensional, I mention an example here. The narrative about "colonized people" kind of presupposes modern national boundaries and identities of people in the past who wouldn't have shared them. Some benefited, some were harmed. If anything the influence of the royal family on India was probably to soften up the abuses perpetuated by the rapacious capitalists who ran the imperial enterprise before crown rule was instituted.
And I would have as well in those shoes, though I'd acknowledge it's like a purely symbolic gesture that impacts very little. But everyone living in the UK today benefits from the spoils of Empire and, by and large, it was their own predecessors and their own democratically elected parliaments that had their fingers on the trigger to do the most monstrous things. If they want the Queen to be the sin eater for the stuff their own grandparents were culpable for I guess that's their prerogative, but I think there's a bit of blame-shifting going on.
Jallianwala Bagh happened 60 years after the Crown took over and while that was mostly the fault of one guy, the Crown has never apologised. I don't exactly disagree with anything you've said, and I've also never set foot in India. So I would never presume to know how people like yourself feel. My dad lived there for awhile in the 70s and one of the things he told me was "India isn't one country". I don't really know where I was going with that. I guess I just think if cultures and societies are going to use the positive or admiral parts of history to paint a picture of who they are, they need to acknowledge and sometimes apologise for the bad shit too. People hold up the Queen as an example of being above it all and a constant presence and representation of the nation, in the sense of what she represented, not who. And that passes on to King Charles. So "sin eater" is perhaps exactly his job.
I'm sorry if that was a bit rambling and disjointed. It's something I've been thinking about for awhile. I'm a NZer living in Australia, and the two countries have their own colonial stories that bring up similar thoughts.
I just see that as baseline level colonialism. It's obviously awful, but the presence or absence of a monarch wouldn't have substantively changed it in any way. Sure an apology would be nice, but they simply act as trustees of the government under them and if Parliament had a strong mandate to issue an apology the Queen would have. The apology didn't come because the democratically elected government was unwilling to make the concession.
When I say it's being a sin eater that, by itself, is probably fine as a role for them. But where I say 'hold on' is when I see arguments from republicans about how the monarchy represents imperialism and colonialism and that's why it must be abolished. That's simply pretending that it's the monarchy that led to the colonialism and not the explicit, democratically validated preferences of English voters that the monarchs were representing as much as it was the other way round. I don't see that changing in England as a republic, it's not like the absence of a monarch has blunted the imperialist tendencies of the United States. And even the regimes that were openly and nakedly hostile to monarchs (rather than simply indifferent like Americans) didn't manage to blunt the tendencies towards blind faith and unquestioning deification of the head of state. Just look at the PRC or the Soviet Union.
Mate. My major was in International Relations and I was studying it when GW invaded. I can't believe my head was so far up my own butt with the whole "monarchy represents imperialism and colonialism" (I don't care about republicanism one way or the other) that I didn't even really consider the fact it would probably (potentially? possibly?) have gone the exact same way with or without the monarchy.
Thank you. I'll be thinking on this for a long time.
I mean it is one of those things that is fundamentally unknowable. The settler colonies were established by trading companies chartered at the crown's behest, but it was also merchant councilors advising the crown and seeking to enrich themselves (and the realm in general). And there's a general feudal era conception of having a rigid social hierarchy that flows from the monarch to the lesser nobility on down so maybe that might influence how colonialism unfolds and establishes a clade of working class White people as another tier with other people at a level below them. But that's all too speculative of a counterfactual to really bank on.
One of the misconceptions about monarchs is that they directly make all of these decisions, but they're mostly acting through ministers and councilors and other various delegates and trustees. You can't actually have the kind of direct rule people imagine in a modern state, it's simply too large and complex. It's an older form of government than modern autocratic dictatorships and much more bound up in customary traditions and obligations so their motivations and methods of exercising power are different.
For an alternate perspective on this: My Tumblr dash has been hotly anticipating the death of the queen for months and months. There were a LOT of memes (plus genuine, serious, thought out text-posts) circulating, especially whenever a health scare would come up?
And, while Tumblr isn't Twitter, I will say that in Tumblr's case, there's no algorithm to appease? The spread is much, much more organic. In my leftist follower circles, it definitely feels like celebration of the death of the queen is a genuine position, and not a 'flavor of the month' kind of reaction.
Well not an explicit algorithm, but any time exposure depends on sharing it naturally filters for takes that are emotionally stirring (and generally negative emotions more than positive ones). Though it will be better than what an algorithm that is intentionally selecting for that stuff will do.
But it's also worth remembering that merely being engaged enough to talk about this sort of stuff is kind of weird behavior in the general population of humans. Most people really just don't care that much. And, insofar as they do care, they don't really have the vocabulary and inclination to articulate why they feel certain ways of the things they care about.
Yes, people blame stuff on “the algorithm” but even a formally neutral system is going to promote the most dramatic takes because that’s what the most active members will repost.
To keep that from happening, there needs to be an active defense.
I kinda get that, the same way I kinda get flat-earthers. Hating the queen for being a symbol of british imperialism is surface-level legit, but I feel like it's only surface level legit. I mean, the queen/king hasn't had any appreciable power in UK politics for how long now? I honestly don't know the answer. Was Queen Victoria a political entity or just a figurehead? Don't know. I know that by the time of WW2, so even before her (Elizabeth II) reign, the PM was calling the shots.
So, ya know... admit you're hating a symbol, or shift your hate to someone who's less of a symbol and has more agency. Or maybe I'm wrong about the role of the British monarchy.
I think people mostly don't like that they live incredibly lavish lifestyles, paid for by taxes, in order to further the image of UK imperialism. In case you haven't heard (genuinely, it's not international news much) there's a cost of living crisis in the UK at the moment.
The obituary released by The Irish Times, the same paper you quoted from, is worth reading and considering:
Queen Elizabeth obituary: A diligent ruler who helped thaw Anglo-Irish relations
The issue is not nearly as black & white as all the Americans in this topic (and elsewhere on social media) are trying to portray it as.
It's a hell of an exception. Including the Commonwealth diaspora, that's a decent fraction of the entire world's population.
To provide one perspective, most of my friends are either people of color, many of whom dislike imperialists on principle, Jewish, or of Irish, Scottish, or Welsh descent. I haven't heard a single one say anything more than vaguely neutral about the situation, and someone invited me out drinking yesterday for the occasion.
Not to mention all the Princess Diana fans, who've hated her guts since the late 80s. That's like half of Gen X.
These aren't monolithic groups though. At least within India opinions on the Royal family, specifically, tend to range from warm to ambivalent with the actual negative perspectives mostly coming from the far Left and the far Right corners of the political spectrum. The opinions being expressed by professional opinion havers simply aren't representative of the median.
In fact, most upper class and historically marginalized groups both tend to like them more than usual and it's largely the middle class that has strong feelings against. There was actually sort of a thing in my parents' generation where people would name their pet dogs after either British royals or American presidents. Lower caste groups also preferentially tend to give their children English names, specifically after members of the Royal family, because they have a view that the crown afforded them dignity in ways their peers at home did not.
I'm not sure what you mean by this - I'm not friends with any "professional opinion havers," and most of what I see is coming from normal people just making jokes.
To give you an example, here are a few thousand Irish folks singing "Lizzie's in a box" triumphantly at a football game. Hardly professional opinion havers. https://nypost.com/2022/09/09/irish-soccer-fans-celebrate-queens-death-chant-lizzys-in-a-box/amp/
I think you can extend that to a bunch of other countries in the commonwealth as well - I feel similarly in Canada.
The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon.
The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow.
The end of an era, to be sure. I was reading an old Guardian piece in 2017 on the Queen's eventual death and was struck by this quote:
Which reminded me of a le Carré quote from Tinker Tailor:
Does it feel like the last flickers of orange in the sky above what was the British Empire to anyone else? Especially with the how things are reported to be there right now. I don’t feel particularly strongly about the monarchy, nor am I British, but I still feel a certain weight to events like these, even if they’re just bookends in some future digital textbook.
I just wanted to pop back in and say the internet’s reaction to this has been insane
Truly, the amount of times I've seen "the queen is dead, love live the king", and things like "god save the king" is really disturbing.
You'd think they are mythical creatures
Those are very long-standing traditional responses to the death of a British monarch. People have been saying these things for centuries. The intention is to acknowledge the death of the former monarch and welcome the new monarch.
Can you explain what is disturbing about this? I'm trying to follow why you think this is disturbing, but I think my culture is preventing me from seeing it, and I would like to understand.
I find the typo annoying, but that’s probably not what they meant :)
People don't get how absurd it all is.
Here's the Queen's Beekeeper telling the Queen's Bees that the Queen has died, with black ribbons on the hives and everything. https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1568507298238136321
What have you been seeing?
https://twitter.com/LewFnufc/status/1567847367143051265?s=20&t=GSxIb4fHCgQJCDb7xR8rhg
https://twitter.com/roun_sa_ville/status/1567853458581032960?s=20&t=GSxIb4fHCgQJCDb7xR8rhg (I actually knew and talked to this person back in my left twitter days)
I’ve seen some stuff about the Queen being in hell as well. Pretty fascinating.
People are happy that a symbol of one of the largest and most violent empires of the 20th century is gone. I'm inclined to let them have their fun, whether on Twitter or in the streets of Dublin.
Are we really complaining about people being happy about the death of a monarch? Has this site really sank to that level of "civility at all costs"?
I don’t recall ever saying that
Maybe I misinterpreted, apologies if so. What is insane about the reaction then? Just the magnitude of it?
More proof that Twitter does not represent reality.
Depends on where you hang out, I guess.
One interesting thing I recall is that Australia was working on a constitutional amendment to break from the monarchy when the Queen dies. A quick google isn't turning up anything, but I'm not sure what to search for exactly.
Anybody up on Aussie politics that can speak to this? That seems the most interesting ramification of her death to me.
This is a very distorted version of what's happening here. You know the game of Telephone? (Formerly known as "Chinese whispers".) That's where one person whispers "I'm going to the shop to buy some milk" to another person, who hears it and whispers it to another person, who hears it and whispers it to another person, and 20 people later, it comes out as "Let's chop down the whelk."
You've got the end result of a very long game of Telephone.
For Australia to become a republic, we would have to change our constitution. To change our constitution, we need to hold a referendum of the Australian people, and get a "yes" result (I'm simplifying a lot).
We did this back in 1999. We held a referendum to ask the Australian people whether we should become a republic. The result was a "no" vote. It wasn't a large majority, but large enough. However, some of the "no" votes came from people who agreed that Australia should become a republic, but didn't like the republican model being proposed at the time.
So, the idea was put in the "too hard" basket, where it still sits.
However, there's a strong feeling among pundits that Australia's attachment to the monarchy will weaken after Queen Elizabeth's death. People are fond of her, but aren't as fond of Charles, so it'll be easier to argue for a republic after Elizabeth dies.
We voted in a new government earlier this year. The Labor party, which forms the current government, has a standing policy that Australia should become a republic - but it's always been a very low-priority policy which they've never done anything about. However, the new Prime Minister has appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic, who has the responsibility to investigate how to run another referendum about the question of becoming a republic.
And that's where we're at:
We held a referendum 20 years ago, and the people voted "no" to becoming a republic.
The republicans were waiting until Elizabeth died, to try again.
The current government has an Assistant Minister for the Republic.
This is exactly why I asked. It's hard to work backwards from a distorted telephone signal.
Given that, I definitely feel it's one of the more interesting things that might happen.
Doing so while Labor is in charge (of what I know of Labor) seems preferable to the alternatives.
Australia won't become a republic any time soon; it probably won't happen within this term of parliament (3 years).
For one thing, we need to come up with a model for the republic that we can get a majority of people to agree on. The main sticking point is whether the replacement for the Governor-General (probably a "President") would be elected directly by the people or appointed/selected/elected by the parliament. That's what killed the last attempt to become a republic, and it will kill all future attempts. Until we sort that out, we'll stay a monarchy.
So, there'll be a long public consultation process before any referendum can happen, to make sure that the question at least has a chance of succeeding because the republican model being offered is one that most people want.
Then: we tend not to like to hold a separate voting process just for a referendum question (it's expensive and intrusive), which means any referendum will probably be held at the same time as a federal election, which is usually every 3 years.
I suspect we'll get a referendum question about the republic at our next federal election, in 2025, and the government elected that year will then face the task of revising the constitution.
It will take about 5 years, even if we start in earnest today.
Being as how Charles III is 73 years old, his chance of dying within the next 5 years is something like 10 to 15%. (Though from what I've heard he's pretty attentive about his diet and health so he might be on the lower end of that). You've got decent odds of having to boot out the next King instead of this one.
Or of not booting either one: we could choose to become a republic upon the death of King Charles.
He's pretty attentive to his diet and health because he's already got some significant health issues. Have you seen his fingers?
I don't know about anything regarding that in Australia, but I do know that some in Jamaica had called for breaking ties with the monarchy earlier this year, when William and Kate visited. AFAIK nothing came of that either though, despite all the press it was given.
And in my lifetime there has always seemed to be various groups in every Commonwealth country occasionally making a huge fuss and calling for similar, even here in Canada. But it's usually not a large or influential enough group for anything to happen.
The monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial at this point, and there actually are some benefits to it, so I personally don't see the point in wasting time over this issue. Once QE2 dies, all that may change though, since Charles is still deeply unpopular everywhere. If he abdicates in favor of William that may help stabilize things, but I don't see him doing that, so who knows what the future holds for the royal family and the realm.
Why is that?
I suspect it's mostly to do with his poor treatment of Diana, who was beloved by many, and his divorce from her over his affair with Camilla (who is similarly despised). He has had quite a few other scandals, and controversial moments over the years too, most recently one where he supposedly made racially insensitive comments about the appearance of Harry and Meghan's potential future children. And he is also generally considered to be a pompous idiot, which doesn't help either.
p.s. My mom really admired Diana, and absolutely despises Charles, so I am potentially a bit biased myself due to her opinions influencing my own. ;)
What benefits are those?
I can't speak for every Commonwealth country, but in the case of Canada the Governor General, while largely a diplomatic and ceremonial position, has also historically acted as a nonpartisan safeguard against the potential abuse of power by a majority government, since they must give Royal Assent to all legislative acts before they become law. They can also prorogue or even dissolve parliament in the case of votes of no-confidence against the Prime Minister or their party, which acts as another safeguard. And in recent years the role has also generally gone to women, several of whom were PoC, and it is currently being held by Mary Simon who is of Inuk descent.
And the same goes for all the Lieutenant Governors in terms of their roles, but at the Provincial level.
There are also a myriad of cultural, diplomatic, and economic benefits to the monarchy, and being part of the Commonwealth as well, but listing all those would be getting pretty deep into the weeds.
Doesn't seem like you would need a monarchy to do that, you could just directly elect the Governor General. That's essentially what the President/Uachtarán of Ireland is, and it's worked out fine so far.
There is something to be said for such a position being entirely separated from the whims of the same electorate that resulted in any majority government elected to power, especially when it comes to dealing with votes of non-confidence against that party.
True, but when you compare the result of a direct election, to the result of multiple parties building coalitions and choosing a head of government without direct input from the electorate, you tend to get quite different outcomes. Especially, I suspect, when people consider the current government to be in need a bit of a kick up the arse.
For example in Ireland, the current president since 2011 is from the Labour party, despite Labour sitting consistently at 10% of parliamentary seats for most of its history and currently at an all-time low of 4.4%. Quite decoupled from the group running the government.
Then there's the question of allowing the head of state of another country to appoint the Governor General, when your two countries may have competing interests, may cause problems, even just on the perception side of things. But if that's not a concern, you could always let the US President appoint the Governor General instead, no monarchy required, and it accomplishes the same thing.
His Excellency Governor General Ted Cruz, or some other Republican crony? No thanks. IMO our GG/LG system has worked reasonably well for us so far, so I personally don't see any compelling reason to fundamentally change it now.
That's my point though, the idea of allowing the US President sounds obviously absurd, but the hereditary monarch of the UK is no more credible. That royal family contains at least one Epstein crony, which they appear to have tried to keep quiet.
I think it just seems more reasonable because it's "the way things are done".
A foreign President is not the head of State in Canada, but the Crown monarch still is. The Crown also isn't elected, so unlike a foreign President they're nonpartisan. And finally, the Crown also has a vested interest in the welfare of Canada and its citizenry, whereas a foreign President might not care about Canada or its citizens, and may even be actively working against our interests. So of course having a foreign President appoint our GG sounds absurd, because it is. But that's not remotely the same thing as having the Crown, our head of State, do the same.
Ok I think I'm definitely coming across too bluntly here, I'm not trying to argue or ridicule here, I've basically just never come across this perspective before and am trying to game it out. No disrespect meant.
I know the British monarch is the head of state of Canada, but de facto Canada is an independent country from the UK and can have competing economic interests the same way the US could, or Japan or any other country. Post-Brexit negotiations on the trading relationship might be an example.
Do the royals have a material interest in the Canadian economy, or does the vested interest come from their position as head of state?
Actually, the role of Monarch of Canada is separate to the role of Monarch of the United Kingdom, and they're both separate to the role of Monarch of Australia. Even though the monarchy of all these three countries is held by the same person, they're different monarchies. Charles is now King of the United Kingdom and separately the King of Canada and separately the King of Australia.
The only thing keeping the monarchy of the 15 Commonwealth realms vested in the same person is an agreement among those 15 countries to keep their monarchies the same. In theory, Australia (or Canada) could pass a law which says that the Crown of Australia (or Canada) now passes to another person, such as Harry or Beatrice or even some eighth-cousin thrice removed of King George VI. So, we could have King Charles of the United Kingdom and King Harry of Canada and Queen Beatrice of Australia.
But we choose not to. We choose to use the same person as the monarch of all these countries.
The monarch of the United Kingdom and the monarch of Canada and the monarch of Australia are all consitutional monarchs, rather than absolute monarchs. They are constrained in what they can do. They must operate through a parliament, and act under advice from their ministers. In practice, the monarch is a non-political role. They're mostly just a rubber-stamp for the laws that their parliaments pass.
Well said. And incidentally, there actually has been some talk of potentially selecting William as our King. Much like the talk of abolishing the monarchy entirely, I doubt it will happen. But it's still a genuine possibility, since we are under no immutable obligation to have the same Crown monarch as the UK.
p.s. "They're mostly just a rubber-stamp for the laws that their parliaments pass."
Mostly, but not always. At least here in Canada the Crown's reps, GG/LGs, have had to intervene in serious matters on quite a few occasions over the years.
E.g. One of the most recent serious events was in 2017 when the LG of British Columbia, Judith Guichon, refused incumbent Liberal Premier Clark's demand to dissolve parliament. This would have triggered another election immediately after the election where Clarke's party only got 42 seats, and the opposition also got 42. This refusal resulted in Clark resigning, and NDP opposition leader John Horgan being called to proceed with his plan to form a coalition government with the Green party, who had 3 seats. The LG's actions were largely considered sound decision making, since Clark was basically just trying to pull some bullshit to stay in power at the expense of the taxpayer.
p.p.s. I noticed when reading through Wikipedia yesterday on GG/LGs that Australia doesn't have nearly as many such interventions as we have had here in Canada... which was actually kind of surprising to me, since I had the distinct impression that your country's politics were slightly more contentious, and your politicians much more combative than ours. But I guess us Canadians aren't really as nice as we like to outwardly portray ourselves. ;)
Our Governors-General tend to be very hands-off. There's only one time when a Governor-General interfered with the government of the day (by dismissing it), and that time is EXTREMELY controversial, even nearly 50 years later. Since then, any tendency towards activism or interventionism by subsequent GGs has been firmly squelched. They really are just rubber stamps now.
This culminated in something that came to light only last month.
During the pandemic, our then-Prime Minister got the Governor-General to swear him into five other ministries, above and beyond the Ministry of Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The first one was the Ministry of Health, so he could act as back-up in case the Health Minister caught COVID (this was back in March 2020, when we weren't really sure what COVID was and how bad it would be). That kind of makes sense. But, having done it once, he had set himself a precedent. Over the next 18 months, he had the Governor-General swear him into four other ministries. And neither of them told anyone about it - not even the ministers who now had a secret back-up minister. We, the public and press and the rest of the Prime Minister's colleagues, only found out about this last month (the Prime Minister in question has already been voted out back in May).
In one (and only one) case, the Prime Minister used his new ministerial powers to overturn a decision a minister had made.
The Governor-General acted constitutionally, and neither he nor the former Prime Minister did anything illegal. However, this demonstrates just how far our Governors-General will go to avoid any perception of intervention. They simply do whatever the Prime Minister of the day advises them to do, without question. And questions absolutely needed to be asked in this case.
So, that's how non-interventionist our Governors-General are. They'll let the Prime Minister do something dodgy as fuck, without advising against it or even questioning it.
Heh, yeah I read about your constitutional crisis in 1975 the other day. I still don't really understand why the GG's actions were considered quite so controversial though, TBH. Our GG's seem to be forced to dissolve the government every few decades due to non-confidence votes or loss of supply (budget deadlocks), so that sort of thing is nothing new to us. ;)
In any case, it was really interesting to learn that despite our similar government structures, the Crown's reps generally behave very differently in each of our countries. Don't get me wrong, we have still had our fair share of rubber-stampers too, but many others have had to make hard decisions, and weren't shy about it. And none of those decisions in recent memory have been particularly controversial either. The exception to that being the previous GG under Trudeau, an ill-qualified, former astronaut, who was eventually forced to resign for being verbally abusive, creating a toxic workplace, shirking their duties, and wasting a large amount of taxpayer money on frivolous renovations to the GG's residence.
As much as I dislike our previous PM, Stephen Harper, he actually did something pretty smart when he was in office regarding the GG. He created an independent commission of experts (legal scholars, ex-ministers, ex-military, former GG/LGs, etc) and had them consult with hundreds of other experts in order to create a shortlist of GG candidates, with the express purpose of finding a qualified, nonpartisan one to recommend to the Queen. Which, as I understand it, is actually very similar to how your government finds their GG candidates as well.
However, unfortunately the panel was never formalized into law, so Trudeau chose to simply ignore the precedent and made his recommendation entirely on his own... which is how we ended up with the GG that had to resign. Thankfully, Trudeau learned his lesson and created a recommendation commission the next time, which is how we ended up with our current, eminently qualified GG of Inuk descent, Mary Simon.
Because the context in which it occurred made it appear to be a political act to some people.
The opposition felt the government had become incompetent and corrupt and scandal-plagued (which was at least partly true). They wanted to force the Prime Minister to call an election. Due to some irregularities in filling Senate vacancies, the opposition had a majority in the Senate which didn't reflect their results at the previous federal election. The opposition used that majority to block supply bills - which in and of itself was against convention and therefore controversial.
The Prime Minister believed he could still find a way out of the deadlock. There were still avenues to explore. For example, we hold elections for half the Senate every 4 years; one of these elections was due to be held soon, and the Prime Minister could have recommended to the Governor-General to hold this half-Senate election. He still had options.
However, the opposition was holding out for a full new election for the House of Representatives, which is why they blocked supply.
The Governor-General then dismissed the Prime Minister and dissolved Parliament - which is exactly what the opposition wanted. The GG also failed to inform the Prime Minister that he was even considering dismissing the government. The Governor-General was therefore seen to be taking sides in a political stoush: he "secretly conspired" with the opposition leader to dismiss the Prime Minister.
The actual reasons for the dismissal are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether the Governor-General was acting in good faith or not (he probably was acting in good faith, and was certainly not conspiring with the opposition leader). The perception is that he did exactly what the opposition leader wanted, which made him lose his impartiality, which made it controversial.
The Australian Republican Movement has recently come up with a compromise model for choosing a hypothetical President if Australia became a republic. The people would directly vote for the President, but the candidates on the ballot would be nominated by a combination of the various state parliaments and the federal parliament. The parliaments would effectively act as a selection panel. The people still get to vote (which most Aussies seem to want), but they wouldn't be able to vote for just any old populist rabble-rouser.
According to the ARM, a majority of Australians would support this compromise model.
Thanks for sharing your insight. Why it was seen as controversial makes a bit more sense now, though I still feel the reaction was overblown.
And as for becoming a Republic. I’m sure the other realm nations will be sad to see you go, but I wish you all good luck in accomplishing it should you decide to follow through with it. Hopefully having an elected GG/President doesn’t blow up in your faces, as I fear it most definitely and inevitably would here in Canada. :(
Haha, there’s a twisted humor in that. Seems like the perfect subject for a satirical film or video game.
More like a horror movie or game. ;)
Australia has a very similar governmental structure to Canada.
If the people directly elect the Governor-General, then this role ceases to become an impartial and purely ceremonial role, as it currently is. It becomes a politically active role, similar to the President of the USA.
If the President were from a different political party than the government, then the President could decide to flex their political mandate, and oppose all legislation approved by the Parliament. The government of the day would be unable to enact any of the policies they were voted in to enact. That would be unworkable.
It's best for the Governor-General/President to be impartial and non-political, which means not elected directly by the people.
This reminds me of how I used to see the Supreme Court of the United States.
I would see and read about many of their actions – usually the less-dramatic ones – and come away thinking, "Huh. Well, it's not ideal, but I can see why they came to that conclusion given the context." Many times, I'd not be happy with the result, but I'd respect the decision and see the court as being one of the last vestiges of impartiality in the U.S. government.
Then Dobbs happened, and that illusion shattered. I couldn't justify it anymore.
This is a dramatic example, and I'm fully aware it is very much not equivalent to the Governor-General of Australia or Canada. I'm neither Australian nor Canadian, nor do I know their politics. But as time has passed, I've come to increasingly view the concept of neutrality in politics as a myth, and I now see it as an impossibility. To me, the mere act of holding a position of power amplifies any and all bias; even the mere act of having an opinion about something suddenly has weight. When you're famous, people listen to you — even when you're not talking.
The only scenario I can even imagine practical impartiality existing in is large groups of diverse people. No one person can manage it — especially when they hold a high position in government. Hell, society itself can't even really be said to be fair, so how could someone surrounded by it pull it off?
I may not know how the Governor-General works, but I find the concept of them being unbiased to be very difficult to accept. I'm sure you know far more about this topic than I, and so I'll make no claims as to whether or not it's wise to change this system right now. But even still, I can't really ignore the fact that seeing such an argument used to refute the idea of democratically electing a high position of government – even a largely ceremonial one – makes me feel a little uneasy. With all of the above in mind, I hope you can understand why.
As private individuals, the Governors-General obviously have their own opinions and biases. However, as holders of a constitutional office, they never ever reveal or express those opinions and biases.
They're appointed directly by the Queen or King of Australia. The Prime Minister, in consultation with a few other ministers, comes up with a shortlist of suitable candidates, such as senior military figures or former judges, to present to the monarch. The monarch selects the obvious choice, who is then appointed "at the monarch's pleasure" (they can be instantly dismissed by the monarch at any time).
The Governor-General has limited powers, primarily:
To approve legislation so that it passes into law.
To dissolve Parliament.
To issue writs for an election for Parliament.
To swear in Ministers (there's no mention of a Prime Minister in our constitution).
Legally, they are the monarch's representative on the ground, because it used to take 9 months to send a letter from Sydney to London and another 9 months to get a reply, so someone had to be here to make decisions. Effectively, they've become a circuit-breaker: "break glass in case of emergencies". They're just a final check on the government, and a way of ensuring that government can keep functioning, even in case of deadlocks.
If they were popularly elected, they would become another activist politician rather than an independent circuit-breaker. We would end up like the USA, where the Congress and the President can be at loggerheads, and the functions of government can grind to a halt. Our Governor-General prevents situations like that (as happened in 1975).
The Supreme Court decision in the 2000 election (choosing Bush W. versus Gore) was clearly partisan. If you take a deeper view of history there was Plessy versus Ferguson and the infamous Dredd Scott decision.
Which is to say that although it doesn’t look like it now, I expect the Supreme Court’s reputation will eventually revive, assuming there isn’t some kind of collapse in the meantime.
Again I need to point out that the President of Ireland fulfills that exact function of signing legislation into law, is directly elected by the people via a referendum, and is currently from a different political party than the government. It is still considered a ceremonial role and non-partisan, although maybe that's because we're not on a partisan two-party political system because of the proportional representation system of voting. I don't know how partisan Canada or Australia are by comparison, so maybe the political culture is too contentious for it to work there. Who can say.
I can assure you: if Australia had a popularly elected President from one party and a Prime Minister and government from the other party, the President would feel they had a mandate, due to their election by the people, to block the government's legislation. They might not exercise that mandate on most legislation, but they would absolutely withhold their approval from a controversial law that their party strongly disagreed with.
This would then bring effective government to a halt, with no impartial referee available to break the deadlock.
I believe you. Now let me tell you about some legal checks and balances that could help:
The President of Ireland is not legally permitted to block legislation they disagree with. That is not part of their duties or mandate. If the bill is constitutional, they are obliged to sign it into law. If they judge it to be unconstitutional, they can refer it to the supreme court who then make a ruling. If the court finds it to be unconstitutional, the President can then decline it, but if the court upholds it, President must sign.
The problem is that we don't want to change our constitution any more than absolutely necessary to become a republic - which means we probably wouldn't change the actual powers and responsibilities of the Governor-General/President. We would change the title, and we would change how the role is appointed, but we would leave everything else the same. The more we change things, the less likely that people will agree to it. So, the President would have the same power to refuse to sign legislation that the Governor-General does.
I mean practically is this really a thing? Let's say Canada or Australia gets taken over by a fascist fervor and the new government is a fascist undemocratic autocracy or oligarchy. The Royal Family or the Governor General officially dismisses the government. What happens then?
I feel like at best, and this seems pretty slim, that an opposing government could get endorsed by them and that legitimacy leads to a civil war.
Most likely, the government either just straight up ignores them, or formally disconnects power, and the populace is perfectly fine with it since at this point there is zero cultural inheritance or expectations of political power from either the british monarchy or the any remnants of the colonial power systems.
I think you're confused. The positions of GG and LGs aren't really meant to be some bulwark against fascist takeover, although they can be. Their safeguard role is far less dramatic than that, far more procedural, and have already come into play several times throughout our history due to impending, or successful votes of non-confidence. And when that happens the GG/LGs can either prorogue parliament (temporarily suspend it, in order for coalition re-negotiations to take place), or even dissolve parliament (forcing the PM's or Premiers' resignations, and/or triggering another general election). Simple as.
Then the Governor-General issues the writs for a new election.
In 1975, the Governor-General of Australia did dismiss the government of the day. Long story short, the process of government had ground to a halt (kind of like what happens when the U.S. government stops every couple of years). Rather than let the situation drag on, with the government unable to obtain funds from the parliament, the Governor-General stepped in to break the deadlock. He dismissed the government and the Prime Minister. He then appointed the opposition leader as the caretaker Prime Minister, with a single task: to keep the machinery of government ticking over while a new election was held.
It was, and still is, a very controversial action, but it kept the government of Australia running.
I believe the majority of the issues these days relating to the monarchy stem from their large holdings of land and the financials surrounding that.
Land off which many of the Commonwealth realm nations actually benefit and profit greatly from, I might add. So I don't really see that as a particularly big concern, at least not here in Canada. BTW, it's worth noting that only 11% of land in Canada is actually privately owned, the rest being a mix of Federal and Provincial Crown land.
This is the point where I think this video becomes relevant. I don't know if you're one of them per se, but a lot of folks saw CGP Grey's video on taxpayer expenses (and land) with regard to the royal family and took it at face value; the video I linked does a good job of addressing that.
The crux of his argument seems to be that all the royal family's property rights can simply just be ignored, and all their land confiscated. That doesn't make for a very compelling argument, IMO, nor is it as easily done as he implies, especially here in Canada where various Land and Resource acts and treaties have enshrined those rights, and the rights of our government in overseeing them.
I don't think anyone could expect it to be easily done; the focus is more that it should be. Besides, I can't really say I care for the property rights of a bunch of extraordinarily rich celebrities who stole almost everything they have from others, both in the past and present.
To be fair, it could actually be "easily" done if enough people really wanted it to happen. But there would be far reaching consequences, many of them negative, and the simple fact of the matter is that most here in Canada don't want that to happen.
And the real question is, would it really be worth doing, even if a majority did want it to happen? The Crown may technically own all the Crown land here in Canada, but they aren't allowed to sell that land, and neither can our government unless certain strict criteria are met, with environmental, social, and economic studies and considerations taken into account first. So most of it currently exists in a state of limbo in that regard, since the sales process is slow, arduous, and highly restricted. Resources can be extracted by private entities under certain circumstances by way of leases, but the leased land can't be permanently developed on unless those projects also meet strict criteria. And were we to simply confiscate all that Crown land, I have no doubt our government (especially if the Conservatives ever got a majority afterwards) would eventually try to sell off huge swaths of it to private interests without much regard for public good or welfare, and then gradually reduce regulatory oversight of that now private land even further. All of which would lead to far more permanent development projects across Canada, and the untold environmental destruction that often goes along with that.
So go ahead, hate on the British Empire, the British royal family, and monarchies all you want. They deserve it, and I won't defend them. But before non-Canadians go proclaiming what they think is best for Canada, they should at least take a few moments to learn how things actually work here first. Since, at least in this particular case, far more harm than good would very likely come from our government confiscating all the Crown lands here.
I should note that I was thinking primarily in the context of Britain itself, less so Canada, Australia, etc. I'm able to recognize different countries will have different things to consider when making large changes like this.
At any rate though, the argument you raise regarding land use is a very good one. Nevertheless, I see this as an issue to be solved as a prerequisite to abolishing the monarchy, rather than a reason to not abolish the monarchy altogether. This increases the complexity of the problem, naturally, but I still think it should be tried at some point. Everything has consequences, after all, and lawmakers have managed to handle them before, so I don't see why it'd be impossible here.
Fair enough, although as I said before I personally don't see the point in abolishing the monarchy. It really is almost entirely ceremonial at this point, has some benefits (as I also mentioned), and even were you to take away all the Crown lands as a consideration, their cost is barely a drop in the bucket. They cost the UK £102M in 2021, which sounds like a lot, but only amounts to £1.52 per person in the UK. And apparently they cost Canada $58M in 2020, which amounts to $1.55 per Canadian. And I think most people, at least here in Canada, are fine with that. That opinion may change now with QE2 finally gone, and Charles in charge (heh), but we shall have to wait and see if that's the case. I doubt it will change much though, because AFAIK a lot of people here still like the idea of us having a monarch, and still like Diana's children, their spouses, and now their children too.
This is kind of a tangential question, but... Is "Only costs $X per person" a good way of framing things?
When framed that way, the amount feels miniscule, because the amount of change a single person can impart with $1.55 is... nothing, basically?
But, by comparison, when that money is concentrated into a single pool to be used for a single purpose by an actor with much more organizational power, I'd imagine that that money would have a much greater capacity to impart change.
Per person may not be the most "good" way to frame it. But the Crown is an institution here, so if you would prefer it compared another way, you could compare it to the costs of our other institutions. Which the article I linked to actually does, BTW:
And moreover, the Crown is a cultural institution. It's part of Canadian culture. It's woven into the very fabric of our society, and is one of the things that still separates us from our American neighbors, which is something many of us take pride in. And IMO there is some value in upholding that, especially when the cost is so minuscule, all things considered. $58M is 0.00016% of our $354Bn Federal budget (another way to look at it).
Is it known how exactly that money is spent? There's a few options that come to mind
Generally, the more money is spent further down that list, the less of an issue it is.
The largest portion of our Crown expenses ($1.20 out of the $1.55) is for the maintenance of the Governor General's office. With another $0.27 going towards all the Lieutenant Governors offices. The GG/LG's serve a vital role in Parliament, and also act as diplomats both here and abroad. So even were we to abolish the monarchy we would likely still have to maintain similar offices, and all we would save ourselves in terms of yearly expense is $0.08 per Canadian, which is all that goes towards the actual royal family itself.
Source: PDF in the article I linked to
(which includes an even more detailed breakdown of all the expenditures)
Looking at the per-person cost seems like a good way of deciding if cutting it would have a noticeable impact on people’s taxes. (Though, maybe the denominator should be different because not everyone pays taxes.) It seems pretty clear that it’s not going to move the needle and other considerations are more important.
There is also symbolism to think of, though. The symbolism of having government-supported rich people around isn’t all that great. Some people seem to like it, though.
I was waiting for the opportunity to post Shaun's video, myself :P
For any that are interested, this is a good (if long) read about the plan for when the Queen does indeed die.
I've been following this one a bit... I'm not an Anglophile, but she's been queen since before I was born, seventy years now. As someone who lives in a country where the top official serves a ceiling of eight years, it blows me away that she's been queen longer than some of our presidents lived (and she has been queen since Obama was born.) It's going to be a very weird world for me when she passes, assuming she doesn't outlive me.
Obama was born in 1961, but she became Queen in nine years prior in 1952.
I meant to say since before... but she also has been since he was born, too.
Yep. It's weird.
At this time in Ukrainian infosphere:
It seems to me that contemporary reporting in German on such matters left the name in English, while historians like to use German versions of the first name. That leads to the list of British monarchs on wikipedia reading "[..] Georg, Eduard, Georg, Eduard, Elisabeth, Charles"; similarly, Karl III. is a forward to Charles III.
Unrelated, but the Ferrari F1 cars are driven by Karl and Karl (Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz)
So, she died and it appears she died naturally. Unlike her grandfather, who was killed so the death could be announced in the morning papers, instead of the evening papers.
Lots of people will be sad that she died, and I'm sort of one of them. But a lot of people remember colonialism and the harm it did, and that she was actively resisting independence efforts. One of the things that people respect about her is her apparent neutrality and status as a figurehead without much power. The reality is a bit different.
I don't know how much longer we'll have a monarchy. Charles is deeply unpopular with many people, especially people outside the UK.
I suspect the only reason we don't have an elected presidential figurehead is because we've had people like Livingstone or Johnstone as London Mayors and they were fucking idiots.
I wondered why the lines had gone almost totally silent in the last couple of hours of yesterday's shift. Everyone must've been glued to their TV or radio to find out which way it was going to go. I'm surprisingly kind of sad, though the reaction was delayed for me; it really hit my parents.
4 years ago I saw this video by VanityFair about what happens when the Queen dies. So for all we know, she could be dead right now.
Funnily enough the Washington Post made a similar video just a couple of hours ago.
I don't understand ... did she really die now, or is this some kind of joke?
Here’s the BBC video. The logo is black and the anchor is wearing black as has been planned.
Lots of speculation during the afternoon in the UK as more and more of the BBC staff and reporters started wearing black jackets and ties - including the sign language interpreter.
Speculation did start early as they swapped anchors early to one wearing all black and they had cleared all programming until the 6pm news.
That said, sign language interpreters are almost always wearing pattern-less dark or black clothing as it makes it easier to see (normally white) hands on a black background.
She has passed. The original link was that she was having health issues, but has since been edited since the news broke that she had passed away.
She's really dead. It's reported across multiple media outlets Buckingham Palace and King Charles have put out statements.