5 ms·

RIP. As a Canadian I've always liked that we technically had the Queen as our head of state. I wonder how attitudes will change now that her 70 year reign.

collegeburner 4y ago
- michael1999 4y ago
  Because they have no power and we get to hold the actual elected leaders in contempt, as is right and just. The alternative is electing one, and that kind of worship messes with people's heads. Look how bonkers some Americans get about their blessed president.
  - SonicScrub 4y ago
    I don't agree with the argument that having a Monarch somehow shields Canada from worship of it's leaders, or enables us to hold our leaders in contempt. Absolutely no one in country thinks of the Monarch as our head of state except in a technical sense. The Prime Minister is for all practical purposes. Having a monarch in no-way shields Canadian leaders from hero-worship. Nor does it make Canada uniquely able to hold politicians accountable. It's our Westminster-style parliamentary system that (somewhat) achieves that by concentrating less power in the hands of an individual, which could exist independent of the Monarch. It already essentially does since the King-Bing Affair in the 1920s cemented the Monarch's influence as purely ceremonial.
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  People hate change is the short answer The status quo has a lot of momentum and you need some sort of catalyst to make the change. Liz managed to avoid much controversy so that catalyst never appeared - perhaps her death will trigger the will to change it
- dang 4y ago
  I'm going to assume that you didn't see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769101 before you posted this. Please stop now, so we don't have to ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
SonicScrub 4y ago
I have an idea that's only half insane. Bear with me. Let's assume we want to get rid of the monarch as Canada's head-of-state. Canada will not be able to feasibly do so because it opens up too many difficult questions about re-structuring our government. Ergo, we will probably just coast on the status-quo. But we could use the desire for everything to stay the same to our advantage by declaring the Queen Elizabeth II the Eternal Monarch even in death. The Monarch of Canada is a ceremonial position. The Monarch's representative (the Governor General) is appointed by the Prime Minister and has no real power (see: the King-Bing Affair for legal precedent), and therefore could technically be done by anyone from anywhere (even beyond the grave). Politically speaking, absolutely nothing would have to change. The Monarch's effective power in our political system would go from basically zero to literally zero, thus eliminating an avenue for potential abuse of power that we risk by keeping a living Monarch as head-of-state. We could achieve this without having to re-open difficult constitutional questions. Traditionalist Canadian institutions with "Royal" in their names (Mounted Police, Army, Airforce, etc) would not have to change their names or branding. Heck, we wouldn't even have to change the designs on our money. Literally nothing would change except closing a loop-hole (albeit a very low-risk one) for potential power abuse in our political system. The only down side is that smug know-it-alls can say "actually Canada is not a democracy, it's a Constitutional Necrocracy"
- cwillu 4y ago
  Constitutional amendments that only come into force upon the death of the next monarch; I like it!
- radford-neal 4y ago
  The Governor General does, and must, have real power. The King-Bing affair was controversial, but the Governor General's action was arguably justified, and negative opinions of it do not set a precedent that the Governor General can never do anything. The Governor general arguably should have taken a more active role in some recent times - when Paul Martin and Stephen Harper were trying to dodge (successfully, it turned out) votes of non-confidence, which have to be allowed in a democracy. Certainly, if the Prime Minister blatantly violates constitutional convention, such as by refusing to resign after losing the confidence of the House, it is necessary for the Governor General to dismiss them. Since the Governor General must have real power, it follows that the Monarch must have real power regarding the appointment of the Governor General - rejecting the Prime Minister's request to dismiss or appoint a Governor General when this is clearly an attempt to fill the position with someone who will allow the Prime Minister to act non-democratically. A dead person will not be able to fulfill this role.

collegeburner 4y ago

michael1999 4y ago
Because they have no power and we get to hold the actual elected leaders in contempt, as is right and just. The alternative is electing one, and that kind of worship messes with people's heads. Look how bonkers some Americans get about their blessed president.
- SonicScrub 4y ago
  I don't agree with the argument that having a Monarch somehow shields Canada from worship of it's leaders, or enables us to hold our leaders in contempt. Absolutely no one in country thinks of the Monarch as our head of state except in a technical sense. The Prime Minister is for all practical purposes. Having a monarch in no-way shields Canadian leaders from hero-worship. Nor does it make Canada uniquely able to hold politicians accountable. It's our Westminster-style parliamentary system that (somewhat) achieves that by concentrating less power in the hands of an individual, which could exist independent of the Monarch. It already essentially does since the King-Bing Affair in the 1920s cemented the Monarch's influence as purely ceremonial.
shawabawa3 4y ago
People hate change is the short answer The status quo has a lot of momentum and you need some sort of catalyst to make the change. Liz managed to avoid much controversy so that catalyst never appeared - perhaps her death will trigger the will to change it
dang 4y ago
I'm going to assume that you didn't see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32769101 before you posted this. Please stop now, so we don't have to ban you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

SonicScrub 4y ago

I have an idea that's only half insane. Bear with me. Let's assume we want to get rid of the monarch as Canada's head-of-state. Canada will not be able to feasibly do so because it opens up too many difficult questions about re-structuring our government. Ergo, we will probably just coast on the status-quo. But we could use the desire for everything to stay the same to our advantage by declaring the Queen Elizabeth II the Eternal Monarch even in death. The Monarch of Canada is a ceremonial position. The Monarch's representative (the Governor General) is appointed by the Prime Minister and has no real power (see: the King-Bing Affair for legal precedent), and therefore could technically be done by anyone from anywhere (even beyond the grave). Politically speaking, absolutely nothing would have to change. The Monarch's effective power in our political system would go from basically zero to literally zero, thus eliminating an avenue for potential abuse of power that we risk by keeping a living Monarch as head-of-state. We could achieve this without having to re-open difficult constitutional questions. Traditionalist Canadian institutions with "Royal" in their names (Mounted Police, Army, Airforce, etc) would not have to change their names or branding. Heck, we wouldn't even have to change the designs on our money. Literally nothing would change except closing a loop-hole (albeit a very low-risk one) for potential power abuse in our political system. The only down side is that smug know-it-alls can say "actually Canada is not a democracy, it's a Constitutional Necrocracy"

cwillu 4y ago
Constitutional amendments that only come into force upon the death of the next monarch; I like it!
radford-neal 4y ago
The Governor General does, and must, have real power. The King-Bing affair was controversial, but the Governor General's action was arguably justified, and negative opinions of it do not set a precedent that the Governor General can never do anything. The Governor general arguably should have taken a more active role in some recent times - when Paul Martin and Stephen Harper were trying to dodge (successfully, it turned out) votes of non-confidence, which have to be allowed in a democracy. Certainly, if the Prime Minister blatantly violates constitutional convention, such as by refusing to resign after losing the confidence of the House, it is necessary for the Governor General to dismiss them. Since the Governor General must have real power, it follows that the Monarch must have real power regarding the appointment of the Governor General - rejecting the Prime Minister's request to dismiss or appoint a Governor General when this is clearly an attempt to fill the position with someone who will allow the Prime Minister to act non-democratically. A dead person will not be able to fulfill this role.