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

[Nate the Great]

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

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.

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...

[Sa'ar Chasm]

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

There's precedent. Before George I became King of the United Kingdom, he was the Elector of Hanover. When he became King, the UK and Hanover entered into personal union, but remained separate entities, in that laws passed in one didn't affect the other. Similarly, England and Scotland were separate countries in personal union from the time James IV of Scotland became also James I of England up until the Act of Union in 1707.

Canada became a Dominion in 1867 - a collection of British colonies and territories were granted responsible government under the Crown. This meant that we had our own Parliament and were able to pass our own laws while still being part of the Empire. What at the time was a polite fiction became fact in the 30s with the Treaty of Westminster - the Dominions were indeed independant nations capable of conducting their own international affairs. The difference can be seen in WWI and WWII. In 1914, the Canadian PM considered the British declaration of war on Germany to be binding on Canada. In 1939, we made a point of arguing about it for a week before we declared war on our own.

[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. Exceptions are certainly made for freedoms limited by our own leader(s).

Yeah. I think the Samantha Bee segments in America: The Book summed it up best.

Read it, heathens.

[Sa'ar Chasm]

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.

As for "bowing down", nuh-uh. I bend my knee to nobody, even if she does remind me of my grandmother. There's even talk of removing the line in the Oath for new citizens about pleding alliegance to the Queen. She's blood kin, actually. Go back 15 generations and there's a Maguire in the Queen Mum's ancestry. Of course, most of the population of the British Isles is as closely related or closer.

[ijdgaf]

Well, yeah. I get the whole UK/Commonwealth distinction. The thing that gets me though, is that -- as I understand it -- Canada itself was not the driving force in its "independence" from the UK. It sort of gradually over time, at a pace not particularly urgent, was mostly made a quasi-free and semi-independent nation. At least on paper.

[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.

[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.