<\/p>\n
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.” <\/p>\n
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…<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 … <\/p>\n