The World's Richest Leaders

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Frogger

Frogger, I was under the impression that she actually had very real power but just didn't use it. For example her asent to every law is required. She has only once to my knowledge failed to give it, but that law did not become law

Which law did she fail to give assent to? The last time the Queen or her representative (the Governor General) tried to do that here was in 1837.

The story that I got (which apparently was not true) is that she had to give her asent or denial to each law individually. When the law in question came up (and in truth I have no idea what law it was), she merely said "read the next one please".

[KrazyHorse]

She does have to assent to each law (although, IIRC, on routine matters she signs them in batches) but I am not aware of a case in recent memory in which her assent was not granted.

The 1837 date applies to Canada, and I'm fairly sure of it. As for the UK, I don't see why it would have been much different then (by the middle of the 19th century the British monarchy had pretty much lost most of its power). It's possible that there's been an exception to this trend, but I'm not aware of it, and it would seem fairly incredible for the Queen to actually fail to assent in this day and age.

The day she tried to exercise political power here would be the day we declared ourself a republic instead of a dominion.

[DuncanK]

My old roomate is Canadian. When he gets drunk he starts making cheers for the Queen. I just look at him curiously. What is it about that? He doesn't really give me an answer when I ask him about it. Are Canadians like our half-brothers. Why do they care about the Queen?

[KrazyHorse]

Having a Queen is a running joke up here. It also is a recognition of the different ways we came to enjoy political equality.

[KrazyHorse]

She's a figurehead, but she's our figurehead...

[Ben Kenobi]

DuncanK:
Because we're only half-brothers.

Our capital here in BC is Victoria, a city that prides itself on being more British than the Brits.

It has to do with being a part of the Commonwealth countries, as a former colony of Britain. Britain helped to build Canada as we know it, so many Canadians still take pride in their British heritage.

(As do I, look at my avatar).

As for keeping the Queen over a republican government:

Keeping a monarch stabilises the country. Whereas politicians come and go, the Queen is above petty party politics. Thus, to lose the Queen, we Canadians will lose a great part of our Canadian heritage.

[PLATO]

The day she tried to exercise political power here would be the day we declared ourself a republic instead of a dominion.

Why?

[KrazyHorse]

Because then she'd be interfering in our business. Until then we don't want to hurt her feelings.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Frogger
Because then she'd be interfering in our business. Until then we don't want to hurt her feelings.

I think that the monarchy has developed very benevolent feelings. If they were to get involved politically, I would imagine that it would be only after careful consideration and definately on the side of the people.

As an outsider looking in, it is probably a little rosier than it would be being subject to a monarch's will no matter how benevolent.

[cinch]

Obi:

Keeping a monarch stabilises the country. Whereas politicians come and go, the Queen is above petty party politics. Thus, to lose the Queen, we Canadians will lose a great part of our Canadian heritage.

Oh, pish... We have our own beautiful heritage, we don't need to leech off the Brits.

To me, the monarchy is just a reminder of a time when autocracy was dominant (well, even moreso than now), and it's just totally unnecessary. I say the Brits should cut the Windsors loose. Let 'em keep what they have now, but get them out of Buckingham Palace.

And then we'll get to abolish the Governor General and Lieutenant Governor positions! Take that, Lois Hole!

But that's just me.

[KrazyHorse]

I think that the monarchy has developed very benevolent feelings. If they were to get involved politically, I would imagine that it would be only after careful consideration and definately on the side of the people.

More on the side of the people than those the people elected?

No, thanks. She does right, keeps her nose out of political issues and acts as a symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd rather have Elizabeth II as a head of state than Mr. Chretien.

Our connection to the British Empire remains part of Canadian heritage; we're not leeching off at all. Having a Queen helps distinguish us from those Yanks of the South.

[KrazyHorse]

As long as she doesn't meddle, I agree with you.

[cinch]

Our connection to the British Empire remains part of Canadian heritage; we're not leeching off at all. Having a Queen helps distinguish us from those Yanks of the South.

Isn't that kind of a sign that alot of Canadians feel we lack a national identity? It just seems like we're clinging to scraps here...

And I think we have plenty to distinguish us from the South: health care, multiculturalism, peacekeeping, etc.

I mean, on the scale of things that bother me, the Queen is pretty low. If she stays, she stays, whatever. But having a monarch on my penny doesn't make me any prouder of being a Canadian, that's all.

Also, a question: Do the Windors get any money out of being royals anymore? Like, a very very small portion of British government money? Or do they just get free housing and their previous riches? I don't know the details.

I'd rather have Elizabeth II as a head of state than Mr. Chretien.

Ha! I'd actually rather have an elected fool than an old inbred aristocrat.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Frogger
As long as she doesn't meddle, I agree with you.

Would "meddle" imply just something bad, or doing something good as well?