Why do Australia and Canada still have a king?

They are part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Many of the independent countries of the former British Empire retain this tradition. I actually think it's good and connects us to history.

You tried it. Their kings are symbolic. They don’t govern and cannot legislate any policy nor enforce any action. You tried it though cause you know this piece of shit is trying to be a tyrant and you voted for him.

They reign but do not rule.

And yes it benefits their economies.

Because they are cunts

Any chance we can join?

Only needy sexy people can apply to be Canadian, R6.

OP, this thread has a several good posts and links regarding the benefits of the monarchy to Canada. In Canada, it would be extremely difficult to get rid of the monarchy, while in the UK it's relatively easy and in Australia it would take a referendum (the last one favored the monarchy). It is a bit discordant that the same individual is monarch of several independent nations. For example, as UK monarch Charles invites Trump for a state visit while as Canadian monarch he subtly supports Canada via various symbols and reads a throne (written by his government of course) in person where he rebukes Trump while not naming him.

Not speaking on behalf of all Canadian but, even as someone who's decidedly not a royalist, I prefer an actual king to a wannabe demented orange toddler one.

Very much of a if it ain't broke situation. More specifically, no one can agree on a suitable replacement.

Because we've looked at the US arrangements lately and decided ours look fine.

[quote]Only needy sexy people can apply to be Canadian

I was suggesting that the US join the Commonwealth. We do have the necessary background.

We don't want you

It gives A and C somebody to complain about identify with and put on the money. The royals were at one time the parent of the people. They protected their children from those that would do them harm. Those that would use them for nefarious reasons such as those filthy Aristocrats and Capitalists. Now the Royals are the filthy Capitalists.

Canada would need unanimous consent if all the provinces. As any change to the constitution would open up a Pandora’s box of proposed changes to the constitution this will never happen. It would be easier for the UK to chuck Chuck. Which would in theory only take an act of parliament. Australia tried but didn’t have a plan to put in a new head of state once the monarchy was gone and voters did t want to chance an unknown.

Apparently it keeps their standard of living up.

The Australians did have a plan - that the politicians only would vote for a president. The voters said 'fuck no' to that idea. A different proposal including direct presidential elections might well have passed.

Because they're not even real countries anyway.

[quote] Any chance we can join?

We already have a king.

The vast majority of Australians neither care about nor like the British Royal Family. Of course, Liz was considered as a lovely old dear and Diana as a gleaming icon, but at best, the rest are treated as fun, albeit startlingly ugly and quite stupid, celebrities ripe for the gossip mill. The aristocracy are non-entities and the titled honours system is considered hopelessly anachronistic and wanky. One RWNJ Prime Minister tried to bring Knighthoods for two years a decade ago and the entire country collapsed with laughter. Even his Conservative colleagues were weirded out.

But by the same token, the majority of Australian secretly don’t want a yellow/black/brown “takeover” so they believe a British monarchy represents the primacy of Anglo-Saxon values. I’M NOT SAYING THEY’RE RACISTS so don’t bite my head off. But the British colonising of Australia and the resultant image of a national suburban sprawl of good-natured bronzed blonds is meaningful to them. Even a good deal of the Asian/African/Pacific/South American/continental Europeans who move to Australia love the young-and-free, beachy Aussie Olivia Newton-John (born in Cambridge, UK) stereotype.

Very few actually say this out loud, of course. Some do. But most don’t want to sound like potential bigots and instead use excuses about respecting WWI veterans whenever the issue arises.

The British monarchs will likely remain the head of state in Australia at least until William dies or when the Commonwealth collapses.

There are advantages to a parliamentary government with a prime minister as head of government and either a monarch or president as head of state. If they make a mistake with their elected government, they don't have to wait to the next election cycle to remedy it. If the government loses the confidence of the parliament, it can be forced to resign or call for a new election.

[quote] a national suburban sprawl of good-natured bronzed blonds is meaningful to them.

Loved that description r20.

In Australia the 1999 Republic Referendum failed to pass. The 'NO' vote won by 10% I think. All major cities voted for Constitutional change (The Elites we were called). Don't think there will be another vote for a while.

R20 is talking out of his stupid racist arse. Australia retains the monarchy for the same reason that Canada does - apologies for speaking on your behalf Canadian cousins and tell me if I get it wrong - because the current system is too hard to undo.

Changing the Australian constitution requires a majority of voters in a majority of states / territories to agree via a referendum. The only time that this was attempted in Australia was in 1999 when the Prime Minister at the time, a far right-wing monarchist cunt called John Howard - a very clever politician - presented the referendum as a choice of a President elected by parliament, not by the people, knowing that that was doomed to fail. Which it did. Howard was duly rewarded with a British honour by his Queen.

It’s my dream that one day we will choose a system that will do away with having a King or Queen of Australia but for now successive governments have appointed some switched on Governors General, including the present GG Samantha Mostyn, herself a Republican, who rocks a fierce pants suit.

In the meantime I’d suggest that the model in place in the USA isn’t exactly something to which to be aspired - better get that sorted out first, girlfriends.

Do the commonwealth countries have some sort of trade treaty?

It's different in Canada though, R24. We also view having a monarchy as a reflexive reaction to our proximity of the U.S. and its strong influence over media and culture as a result.. Monarchy is something that sets us apart from the U.S., and historically Canada's existence is based on rejection of the American republic and loyalty to the crown e.g Loyalist settlers, the War of 1812.

[quote]The vast majority of Australians neither care about nor like the British Royal Family. Of course, Liz was considered as a lovely old dear and Diana as a gleaming icon, but at best, the rest are treated as fun, albeit startlingly ugly and quite stupid, celebrities ripe for the gossip mill. The aristocracy are non-entities and the titled honours system is considered hopelessly anachronistic and wanky.

Its the same here in New Zealand, R20 nailed it with this description. And as R10 said, if it aint broke dont fix it.

[quote]Because we've looked at the US arrangements lately and decided ours look fine.

R11 This.... so much

[quote] [R20] is talking out of his stupid racist arse

And you can fuck right the hell off with that, cunt. Keep sticking your head in the sand.

If you don’t think a great proportion of Australians aren’t emotionally attached to the image of Australia as a white, liberal democracy populated by Jackmans, Hemsworth and Hogans, you are delusional. Everything I wrote is accurate.

[quote]One RWNJ Prime Minister tried to bring Knighthoods for two years a decade ago and the entire country collapsed with laughter. Even his Conservative colleagues were weirded out.

Damn.

You’ve never so much as visited Australia, have you, R28? It shows.

Oh, I’m sure that what you wrote is accurate - to you, R28.

Elsewhere, not so much.

Only born and raised here but go on.

Yes of course, R32, but I’ll leave you to it.

You don’t need my help in you looking like an idiot.

I don’t need your help in anything r33. It’s not my fault you don’t recognise the racial biases at work in Australia and I doubt you’ll learn - because we will never become a republic based on public sentiment.

b/c a bunch of queens live there...

r3 understands. The UK royals are figureheads. They dot the i and cross the t - Queen Elizabeth II signed The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms making it official - but they have no real powers as such.

Cuz a bunch of queens live there...

R35 = 37 save a cuz.

I'm still trying to figure out why England still has a king.

That does raise a question though, What if the UK got rid of the monarchy, would the countries that still recognize the King continue to do so, might the royal family move to one of the countries that still recognized them.

R35 = R37 save a cuz.

[quote] would the countries that still recognize the King continue to do so

Several likely would including Canada. One nation that wasn’t even part of the British Empire currently has the King as head of state.

[quote] might the royal family move to one of the countries that still recognized them.

Yes with Canada being the most likely. During the Second World War there was even talk of moving the royal family to Canada.

They didn’t fight a war to be rid of it.

[quote] One nation that wasn’t even part of the British Empire currently has the King as head of state.

What nation is that, AI can't come up with an answer for that.

Gabon, Togo, Mozambique and Rwanda are all Commonwealth countries which joined despite never having been being part pf the British Empire.

[quote]Gabon, Togo, Mozambique and Rwanda are all Commonwealth countries which joined despite never having been being part pf the British Empire.

They do not have King Charles as their head of state. Just as India is belongs to the Commonwealth and does not have King Charles as head of state.

I know that - which, then, is the country that has Charles as Head of State but which was never in the British Empire?

Charles is King of Canada in his own right. If there were a revolution in the UK tomorrow and we overthrew the monarchy, he'd still be King of Canada.

Always the bridesmaid never the bride.

I know a few Canadians. They don’t really consider the King a thing connected to their country. It literally is in name only and not even symbolic. I would imagine it’s the same for Western Europeans outside of the United Kingdom. In England it’s symbolic but still very much built into the culture and public consciousness. They don’t have to change shit. The King of England has no power. He doesn’t even have power in England, not political power just influence.

More American fraus care about the King of England than your typical Canadian.

It feels like those of us Canadians who had a fondness for the Queen don't really give a damn about her son.

If they ditched the monarch, who would be on Canadian and Australian money?

The people on the reverse sides?

R51 It’s feminism. And I’m not saying it as an insult but it’s positive commercial feminism. Years of male supremacy and even during the decades of female reigns, the queens exiting within world of patriarchy. 20th century Liz was branded as this boss chica, solid leader in the first century in which women are actually getting equal rights. She didn’t do anything to earn that stature besides being born and then also being charming, and seemingly well read and non offensive. You know basic expectations. Charles, her son a man is her heir. He naturally remind us of the patriarchy this shit is actually predicated on simply because he is male. He also cheated on his wife which makes him irredeemable scum in the Judeo Christian western world. He being much older than Diana, made that narrative much stronger when he was being most cemented in public conscious, outside of England.

In 1975 the Governor General of Australia - the British monarch's representative in Australia acting on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, sacked the Australian Prime Minister and his government, who had been legally elected by the majority of Australians. He did this to avoid a constitutional crisis.

It's still unclear if he did this without consulting the Queen - all relevant papers have been suppressed, so for now we don't know of her role in the crisis, but certainly the Constitution of Australia permitted the series of events. So the Australian monarch - as she was and as Charles is now, had the power. It had just never been exercised before or since.

R55 I was 14 years old when that happened, but I remember it. That was barely a year after Nixon resigned. Many, many Americans wish there was someone with that authority in our country. Australia and Canada would be smart to keep the system they have.

OP, the "no kings" slogan is ridiculous, infantile and wholly ignorant of kings and history.

Because it's a stable system and trying to come up with something else is like disturbing a hornets' nest that will inevitably result in something much worse and which will disappoint more people than what have they have now.

It does make me laugh when the only argument that can be made for retaining a foreign monarch from the other side of the planet as Head of State is "but whose head will go on the bank notes, coins and stamps?" invariably accompanied by a clutch of the pearls.

Australia is largely a cashless society these days but we have some very colourful plastic notes for when those are needed. Even the old Queen - Elizabeth not Charles - is still in circulation on the Fiver.

R49, there are quite a few western European countries with their own king.

That's true, R60, but the difference is that their monarchs are citizens of, and residents of, those countries. Not a foreigner who lives (in Charles's case and Australia) 17,000 km away and visits once every 5 years, if that.

That's not the point r49 was trying to make though, r61.

People probably don’t realise the extent to which these historical relationships facilitate trade, visa arrangements, global cooperation, defence pacts etc. Belonging to the Commonwealth is not just symbolic. Im Australian and I don’t care about the King but I wouldn’t support becoming a republic. Particularly with the United States cracking up.

I'm also Australian and 100% agree with everything R63 posted.

In these countries the government (Prime Minister, cabinet ministers) is NOT elected, it is CHOSEN by the King's representative. The people only elect a representative to Parliament. If you lived in downtown Toronto, you never got to vote for Poilievre, Carney or Singh. You only get to vote for your MP

The challenge for the Crown is that the government they appoint MUST 'enjoy the confidence of Parliament' (be able to rely on enough votes from the elected MPs to pass key legislation), so the easiest thing is for the crown to appoint the leader of the party that won the most seats. So tehnically, the monarch has the power to choose (and dissmiss) a prime minister and all cabinet members. They convene or dismiss parliament and they call the elections and they have to power to refuse to call an election and appoint a new government.

R65 clearly doesn't live in a parliamentary democracy.

[quote]In these countries the government (Prime Minister, cabinet ministers) is NOT elected, it is CHOSEN by the King's representative.

R65 = idiot.

The thing about the US is that we change governments. Yes Trump is awful but he'll be out of office.

R65 A technicality for sure, but in the US you also don’t vote directly for president. You vote for a slate of electors that are dedicated to the candidate you choose. But then even they are generally not legally bound to cast their vote accordingly. That was part of how Trump tried to steal the 2020 election.

It's 'cause they're fucking dumb and think the British nuclear protection extends to them also.

The irony of R70 using "'cause" while describing Canada and Australia as "fucking dumb".

Your country voted for Trump - speaking of "fucking dumb".

There’s a reason why the term “presidential democracy” is often followed by words like “coup”, “corruption”, “nepotism”. It’s an unstable form of government and presidential democracies on average have a shorter lifespan than the more stable (and recent) parliamentary democracies.

As pointed out above, R65 has no fucking idea about how a parliamentary democracy operates. R65 if you're from a Commonwealth country then I'm almost embarrassed for you at not knowing this. If you're American then thanks for trying to educate us and getting it so completely wrong.

In parliamentary democracies like Australia the voters in each electorate vote for their representative in Parliament. The party that wins a majority of seats gets to form a government. The leader of that party is presented to the Governor General as the new Prime Minister who the GG rubber stamps on behalf of the British Monarch.

And as for the idiot upthread who stated that Canada and Australia cling on to the monarchy for protection (from whom?) by British nuclear submarines - I know that Geography isn't one of many Americans' strong suits but Sydney - a large city on the Eastern seaboard of Australia, R70 - is over 17,000km from South-east England. I'm no expert in submarine nuclear missile defence systems but that's further as far as it's possible to be for an ICBM to travel from the other side of the planet.

I can only speak for Australia - we only retain the current system because constitutionally it was set up to be too difficult to undo. Requiring a majority of voters in the majority of states and territories to agree on the new constitutional model. We tried in 1999 but it was too hard - there will be a lot of noise in November this year on the 50th anniversary of the sacking of the PM by the GG, but I doubt it will go anywhere.

tl;dr, R65 and R70? Perhaps it's best not to comment on that about which you know so little.

As I fellow Australian R73 is correct.

I'll vouch for the Canadian similarities

R69 WE decide the election.

I love the oh so above-it-all Australian on here when his country is total white trash descended from convicts.

Actually, R77, the vast majority of Australians aren't descended from convicts, while for those of us like me who are, it's become a badge of honour, rather than something to be ashamed of. I discovered ten years ago that one of my antecedents was a transported convict who was the last woman to be executed in my state after poisoning two lovers and a husband - bit of a shame for the three deceased but it has become a great addition to family lore.

So your attempted burn was a bit of a damp squib.

I do understand, though, that an American such as yourself takes exception to being schooled by an "oh so above-it-all Austalian" on something of which you know nothing - as I've said on here before - Americans are always right, even when they're not.

[quote] The party that wins a majority of seats gets to form a government.

Yes, that's the practice but that's not the law. In Canada the constitution makes no reference to political parties. In fact, technically, the GG can even ask someone else. After the last election, the GG could have asked Freeland to form the government, there is no written obligation to name the leader of the party that won the most seats. What if the number of seats is evenly split? The GG decides whether to call another election or ask each leader in turn to try and form a Government that enjoys the support of Parliament.

r78's smug know-it-allness is so off-putting. He was cunting in an airline thread awhile back about how exceptional he is. Such a bore.

Still stalking me, R80? You should get out more or take up a hobby like knitting or crochet.

My "oh so above-it-allness" and "smug-know-it-allness" indicate some serious issues with your self-esteem - have you considered therapy?

If I see someone on the DL make a completely inaccurate statement about a topic about which they know nothing and about which I know a little, I'll correct them, as people have corrected me when I've done the same thing here.

Think of it as a learning opportunity, R80. Otherwise if you're so precious with justifiably being corrected then maybe this isn't the place for you. Or stick around - you're fun to toy with.

Thanks R79 for what happens in Canada - my mistake in assuming that the two systems were near identical!

In Australia if there's a tie or hung parliament after an election (the latter when a smaller party or independents hold the balance of power) the leaders of the two main parties start negotiating with who they can work with. I'm pretty sure that the negotiations have ever failed and it was up to the GG to resolve on behalf of the monarch here. The last Gillard government operated as a minority government with the Greens after not reaching a majority and it worked without all the forecasting of chaos from the Liberals.

As more independents and new smaller parties are elected in Australia this will get more focus although not for a couple of terms considering the Labor party's recent landslide victory.

^^^ "negotiations have *never* failed

r81 has such a gross energy.

"Totally gross", R84! Five very basic words are the best that you could come up with?

I'd suggest that you lift your game butI think that that's it, right?

All that's left is that you do as you stalked me last time - take screen shots of my posting history and publish them on here. It got you a 48 hour timeout from Muriel for attempted doxxing but hey, when all else fails, eh mate?