Having spent a fair amount of time in the last few years in Canada and some other places that still put the Queen on their money, I’ve come to delight in the circle that goes like this: Why is the Queen on your money? Because she’s the Queen. Well why do you let her run your country? We don’t. Well why is she on your money? Because she’s the Queen. Does she have any power at all? No. Then why not take her off the money? Because she’s the Queen. Is the money hers? No. Well… you get the picture. The only good excuse I’ve ever heard for leaving her on is that “our young people can go study and work in the UK without any special visa requirements.”
Now this week comes the news that Charles is going to wed again. His announcement was reported on the first seven full pages of the one major newspaper that I saw that day. What would they have done for news if the announcement had come one day earlier or later? And what does all this have to do with Canada? Well this…
It seems there was some question about Canadian approval of the wedding or titles to be given as a result. According to the Toronto Star, the Constitution Act of 1867 makes the monarch Canada’s head of state, head of the executive branch of government and commander-in-chief of the military. Wow. No wonder she’s still on the money.
and i heard that the leader of one of our top secret elite forces is a blogger…
and the reason we’re actually the boss of us now is that in 1982 we re-patriated our constitution back to canadian turf. basically, this means that the power to amend the constitution lies in our hands rather than in the hands of british privy council.
so maybe we keep her on our money just to be polite.
gonna take more than polite to get charles ‘ mug on the money!
less american? oh my. i know you told me all about that crown land stuff, chris… but i didn’t realize that it was *current* [grin]… so the queen is the commander in chief of the military, but can’t actually tell them what to do? what kind of command is that then? definitely unamerican! our commander in chief is, well… different!
The conversation gets more interesting if you look at the role of the Church of England in the affair. Loosely speaking, George W. Bush is simultaneously king (head of state) and prime minister (head of government). Prince Charles had a formal position with the Church of England at the same time he was messing around with Camilla behind Diane’s back.
How would America make sense of George Bush’s religious pronouncements if the President was simultaneously the Head of the Southern Baptist Church, a post previously held by Clinton?
Have a nice day.
The Queen can’t tell anyone what to do…that’s why Charles in marrying Camilla.
I think actually the US President tells our military what to do more than the Queen. But she’d have a veto if he suggested we invade Britain.
Anyway with this confusion in the command chain, it’s probably a good thing that our military consists of a couple of top secret elite forces, a water purifier a stunt flying team and a couple of grey navy boats.
Um…you mean you didn’t know that the Queen was our head of state? We are a consitutional monarchy, which means that the Queen is the head of the pile, but the constitution divides up all the powers and responsibilities to the federal and provincial governments.
Public land in Canada is called “Crown land.” The state’s prosecuters are called “Crown counsel.” The Governor-General (the Queens rep in Canada) swears in the Cabinet and prime minister and can still make decisions about whether a party can form a government or not. It happened once that the GG denied an application for a minority coalition to be formed and caused an election to be called.
One day Charles’s head will be on our coin, and big ears will be in charge.
It makes us…less American.
we don’t hardly know what to do with his pronouncements now, paul!
Wow, first the toonie and now this! 🙂