Question for British Folk and/or Smart Dudes and/or Ladies

[Sa'ar Chasm]

We had twin rebellions in 1837-8 that were put down, but we were granted responsible government (that is, self-government) to keep us happy and non-rebellious.

The Treaty of Westminster came about because we felt that, given our sacrifices in WWI, especially at Vimy Ridge, we were a nation and it was about time we were recognised as one.

We didn't get our Constitution until 1982 (the repatriation of the British North America Act - basically it meant the piece of legislation that established the Dominion in 1867 was transferred from the UK to Canada so that we could be in charge of our own Constitution).

Our path to indepence was longer and a bit more sedate than yours, but the demand for change came from this side of the pond.

This is the King-Byng affair I was talking about earlier. I was wrong on a few details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_affair

[catalina_marina]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

If they have the same head of state then they can't be separate countries. That's absurd.

Didn't we (Netherlands) at one point have the same king as some other country? I think it was Austria or something, but I'm not sure. But because there were different laws there, someone else inheritted it.

Originally Posted by ijdgaf

Yeah, sorry. The whole "we're independent, really!" deal with Canada is hard to swallow for most Americans. We've had the word "freedom" crammed down our throats so much as children that we can't imagine that sort of leash being pulled by another country, no matter lightly.

I think I know what you mean, but you don't need the same queen to be on a leash held by another country. Our politicians listen to the US government so much, that sometimes I wish I lived in France.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

[quotes]Didn't we (Netherlands) at one point have the same king as some other country? I think it was Austria or something, but I'm not sure. But because there were different laws there, someone else inheritted it.[/quotes]

Sounds like the War of the Austrian Succession. Maria Theresa of Austria was named heir to the Holy Roman Emperor (her father), but half of Europe couldn't stomach the thought of a female ruler and the other half saw a chance to grab some territory by using it as a pretext.

It's scary having this much useless information crammed into my head.

[Nate the Great]

"The distinction that nobody realises is that Canada isn't part of the UK, Canada shares a monarch with the UK. When she's over here, she's Queen of Canada. Furthermore, she's a reigning monarch but not a ruling monarch, which means she doesn't get to pass laws. Further furthermore, she's delegated her authority to the Governor General, which means all we ever see of the old girl is her face on the money and stamps."

So of what use is the Royal Family if all they do is act as part of a complicated set of checks and balances that could easily be accomplished in a better way through a system closer to the USs'?

[Sa'ar Chasm]

Because we're not the US. We don't want to be the US (well, most of us). We've been arguing about Canadian Identity since Day 1, and about the only thing we can agree on is that we're Unamerican.

Put another way, this system works for us and it's too much effort to change it. Rather than get all worked up about it and pull everything up by the roots, we did the Canadian thing and politely pushed the old girl into the corner, where we can ignore her without being actively rude.

[ijdgaf]

Ah, c'mon. You're America Lite.

Hmm.... More like America Ice, actually.

[catalina_marina]

Originally Posted by Sa'ar Chasm

Because we're not the US. We don't want to be the US (well, most of us). We've been arguing about Canadian Identity since Day 1, and about the only thing we can agree on is that we're Unamerican.

Europeans, of course, know that you indeed are Americans, but Canadians don't seem to like that thought.

Nate: The way I see it, our queen at least, is more of a symbol than anything else. She does have some power that some of us think is already too much for a non-elected person, but it's not really significant.

[Nate the Great]

America Ice.

I believe that would be Minnesota. Go Gophers!

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Sa'ar Chasm

Because we're not the US. We don't want to be the US (well, most of us). We've been arguing about Canadian Identity since Day 1, and about the only thing we can agree on is that we're Unamerican.

Which is unfortunate because a negative identity isn't really an identity at all. I for one find our national attitude insufferably smug and self-congratulatory. That doesn't mean I don't love my country. I've always been very proud to be Canadian -- I'm just not always proud of what Canada stands for at a given time. Anyone in a democracy has that problem sooner or later.

where we can ignore her without being actively rude.

You realize that not bowing to her would be actively rude, right? I'm no fan of the monarchy either (it's a long-running debate in my family; I'm on my dad's side). But she is the Queen of Canada and our head of state. If you don't like that, you don't just pretend it isn't true, you work to change it. And we should -- I respect Elizabeth enough to suppress my small-R republicanism, but I have no interest whatsoever in being a subject of Charles.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

You realize that not bowing to her would be actively rude, right?

She puts on her knickers the same way I do, one leg at a time. I just don't have a flock of maids helping me. I've got a cheeky egalitarian streak: I called the PM by his first name to his face (he wass on my TV all the time, so I felt like I knew him). That and my (heavily diluted) Irish blood and my sense of contrariness keep all my joints locked in the upright position...not that it matters, 'cause I doubt I'll ever meet the monarch again.

She was driven right past me at the '94 Commonwealth games. I got a brief flash of a little old lady in the back of a fancy car, and then she was gone.

[AKAArzosah]

What does the Queen actually do? I mean, her personally. Has SHE actually done ANYTHING?

[mudshark]

Originally Posted by Sa'ar Chasm

[quotes]Didn't we (Netherlands) at one point have the same king as some other country? I think it was Austria or something, but I'm not sure. But because there were different laws there, someone else inheritted it.[/quotes]

Sounds like the War of the Austrian Succession. Maria Theresa of Austria was named heir to the Holy Roman Emperor (her father), but half of Europe couldn't stomach the thought of a female ruler and the other half saw a chance to grab some territory by using it as a pretext.

It might also be the War of Spanish Succession, the North American aspect of which was known by the English colonists there as Queen Anne's War.

(Both are now thought of by Americans (when they bother to think of them at all) as just part of the French and Indian Wars. Is all how you look at it.)

Originally Posted by Sa'ar Chasm

It's scary having this much useless information crammed into my head.

Ain't it, though?

[catalina_marina]

The Austrians gained most of the Spanish territories in Italy and the Netherlands.

Hm, perhaps.

[PointyHairedJedi]

Originally Posted by AKAArzosah

What does the Queen actually do? I mean, her personally. Has SHE actually done ANYTHING?

She's always been someone who presents a very neutral face and works very much behind the scenes, which is why she's generally considered to have been a rather sucessful monarch. Charles, on the other hand, has some worried because he's been very much the opposite thus far. This is the guy that publically snubbed the Chinese by not turning up at a state function, which is one heck of a way to run a country. It's just not done, you know?

[Burt]

I'm not really a fan of the whole royal family idea (In the way that most people are not 'fans' of smallpox). They cost money, they get privilege they really do not deserve and there's probley a bit of jealousy thrown in too.
But the only thing I think they've got going is the whole adding 'Royal' to front of things.
We haven't got just a navy. We've got 'The Royal Navy'.
It's not the mail service. It's 'The Royal Mail'.
*Question in a question..... Its the Royal Navy and the Royal Airforce....why not the Royal Army?*
On the first question, I just though it was all down to the order of things. If there's a Queen and she marries, he can't be King cos he would outrank her, so he's a Prince. If there is a King, he can have a Queen.... she won't affect him. If the King gets run over by a bus or whatever, the oldest son or daughter becomes the reigning monarch, not the tart the king married. So there was no point in her driving that bus over him, she won't be the ruler.
We had:
Edward and George
Eddie was the oldest, but he sodded off to marry a American woman (She couldn't be queen cos she had been divorced - Simpson something)
So George was King. He had a wife Queen 'Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon' and two Daughters 'Elizabeth' and 'Margaret'. When he died, his wife ('Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon') became the 'Queen mother' as she couldn't be the ruler (Not special enough, you see). As the oldest, Elizabeth became our Queen. Or Queeny as she likes to be known.
Bit sucky though, eh? Just because you're born later, you never get to be King?

[Chancellor Valium]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

So of what use is the Royal Family if all they do is act as part of a complicated set of checks and balances that could easily be accomplished in a better way through a system closer to the USs'?

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

Do we really need watchdogs to stop dictators in democratic countries?

Originally Posted by Someone On Another Forum

"Hello, Pot? This is kettle. You're black."

Originally Posted by InfImp

So all of these former British colonies and territories theoretically split off from the United Kingdom a hundred years ago, but they still bow down to the Royal Family? So they're independent nations...how? They sound like they're trying to have it both ways. Downright shady if you ask me.

If they have the same head of state then they can't be separate countries. That's absurd.

Tell that to:

Aragon,
Castile,
Navarre,
The Basque Territories,
Granada,
The 17 Provinces,
Milan,
Most of Southern America
in the Sixteenth Century. It's called monarquia, bub.

Originally Posted by InfImp

Okay, in bygone days InfImp would've been better than the alternative, but Zeke altered the code and everything. It's Nate or NTG now. I suppose it's meant as a term of affection, and it's not THAT bad...

I will refer to you by this anachronism for as long as you keep asking me not to.

And I refuse to refer to you as 'great'

[mudshark]

*snerf*

Originally Posted by Burt

We had:
Edward and George
Eddie was the oldest, but he sodded off to marry a American woman (She couldn't be queen cos she had been divorced - Simpson something)

Wallis Warfield Simpson. Something of an opportunist, by reputation.

[Nate the Great]

In the sixteenth century I don't think any of those called themselves separate countries, at least not in earshot of England.

So I wandered over to the Wikipedia line of succession page, and found it most interesting.

1. There are way more kings and queens still "active" in Europe than we think.
2. All of them are somehow in the lines of succession for each other.
3. The rules about who can be king are very strict.
4. Somebody has way too much time on their hands calculating this stuff, because there are thousands of entries that will NEVER be King. They'll be dead before the list works its way down to them.

[Chancellor Valium]

Thank Victoria Hanover/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha for that whole mess as to who-is-related-to-whom.

The exception AFAIK is Juan Carlos.

And in the sixteenth century, no-one gave two hoots about England, except the Pope and the King of Castile, the King of Aragon, the King of Navarre, the King of Seville (basically, the King of Spain), because Drake kept burning his ports/annoying his ships.

And yes, they did call themselves separate countries. The 17 Provinces, for example, did not count themselves as part of Spain. Nor did Castile consider itself part of Aragon or Navarre part of the Basque.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

The King of Spain still holds 21 Kingly titles, some of which are actually in Spain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Spanish_Crown

These Spaniards seem to be packrats as far as titles are concerned. Most of those titles used to be Hapsburg possessions and haven't been Spanish for centuries. I think they bought the other half at aristocratic rummage sales - not the territories, just the titles.