It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


God Save the Queen - of Australia, Canada, and NZ?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 01:36 PM
First off, I'll admit I am an ignorant American. You all don't have to point that out to me, I already know.

Okay, so I just learned last night that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are all still considered to be in the 'Commonwealth' of the Queen of England. Yes, I'm slow, I know that.

I love you guys, I really do. To be honest though, when I read that last night, I lost a bit of respect for you guys.

Please help me understand. I'm lost here. Why haven't you guys told the Queen to go [expletive] herself yet? Is she some kind of Sugar Mama? What do you guys get out of the deal?

This is disappointing to me, because these three countries were my top picks for places I could move to, if I decide to flee from the US. My hopes are crushed now. Well, they weren't that high to begin with, I know I can't really escape the clutches of banking and big business anywhere in the world... but to be the subject of a Queen?

Why do you still let the Queen of England have a role in your government? How do people feel about it generally? Is it a good relationship? Is it advantageous for you in some way (financially, politically, militarily, etc.)? Please help me understand why you guys still have a Monarch...

(This isn't really a conspiracy, as far as I know. So, if this thread belongs somewhere else, please move it.)

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 01:54 PM
Hello, well I'm not from either of those countries but I would assume the reason why they don't tell the queen to go (expletive) herself is because it would matter if they did. Just the same for us americans regardless if we like our president or not it dosent matter because we have no control over these matters like we would like to think we are. And you are not slow, as you put it, there are lots of people who dont know this, myself included. So thanks for educating me a little more. Take care.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:08 PM
Well i am from England.

Okay fair enough for not knowing that about the Queen. Although the queen does technically speaking hold many powers, she doesn't use them or intervene in political matters. I think she is very much a figurehead.

Why are you so averse to living in a country with a queen? I know many people in the UK are divided over the royal family. Some like them, so hate them. I think it is the same in Australia, i know there are quite a few who want to be a republic.

Also i might add that the Commonwealth also includes other smaller nations like Jamaica or Barbados.

[edit on 3/9/09 by Kram09]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:11 PM
She is the head of state in Canada in name only. She actually has very little real pull.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by eMachine

I heard on BBC that the Queen, in the Commonwealth countries, can dismiss a Prime Minister and she could even choose who the Prime Minister if she wanted to. They said that there are other powers too that she doesn't exercise, but could, but I don't remember what they were. [They were discussing this because of Fiji being expelled from the Commonwealth.]

In the end, I guess one could say that the Queen has powers much like the President of the United States has in those executive orders. The President could make himself absolute ruler with just a few worlds. Likewise, the Queen (or King) could, if she wanted to, become the ruling monarch of the Commonwealth if she wanted to with just a flick of the wrist.

As for why the Queen is still the Head of State in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, among other places, I think that stems from those places never actually becoming independent, like the United States did. I remember learning in history class that those nations were eventually granted home rule by the King back then and thereby, never directly broke ties with the crown. [It's like Greenland and Denmark.]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by octotom

Yes i believe the Queen can dismiss the Prime minister and government. But i think it's just a sort of tradition. It would have to be something incredibly major for it to happen.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:29 PM
Canadian here.

We keep the connection with the commonwealth simply for historical respect. The queen has absolutely no authority or any pull whatsoever on government or anything else.

We didn't have a bloody revolution. We just outgrew the colony status. Many of our early settlers were the United Empire Loyalists who were Americans who were loyal to England and fled into Ontario and elsewhere. So back in the 1700's we were treated much fairer than the Americans.

Quebec has it's own separate culture and language and so far we've managed to hold the country together.

We are an absolute separate country though with no tangible ties to the British government.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:30 PM
Like Kram pointed out, she is just a figurehead. She doesn't have any real power. For instance, when Canada didn't join the USA and England in going to Iraq, she couldn't have forced us to. She just has a traditional roll with the commonwealth, nothing more.

Sure she may be able to appoint or dismiss a Prime Minister but do you really think the Canadian people would go along with that decision if they didn't agree with it? not likely. We would probably just tell her where to go, politely of course.

Of course if she wanted to oust the current government here now, I would have NO problem with that. In fact most of Canada would probably support that decision.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:34 PM
If she ever tried to pull something like appointing a PM, she'd just be laughed out of the room.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by QBSneak000


If the Queen did start to use her powers in an unacceptable way then i am sure there would many calls to abolish the monarchy outright.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by Kram09

Then we would have to change our currency. I still like the uniqueness and colors but perhaps we could replace the queen with Geddy Lee, Donald Sutherland, or Wayne Gretzky

[edit on 3-9-2009 by QBSneak000]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:11 PM
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen regnant of sixteen independent states known informally as the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. She holds each crown separately and equally in a shared monarchy, and carries out duties for each state of which she is sovereign, as well as acting as Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann, and Paramount Chief of Fiji. In theory her powers are vast; however, in practice, and in accordance with convention, she rarely intervenes in political matters.

The Above is from Wikipedia

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:18 PM
Her madge has as much political pull in Britain (remember she's the queen of Britain, not just England) as she does overseas - precisely none.

People tolerate it because she seems a fair enough old sort. However, when Charles becomes King Henry IX (not Charles III) in a few years i'm sure certain commonwealth countries will act to oust him from any connection with their country.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by exile1981
She is the head of state in Canada in name only. She actually has very little real pull.

The highest position in Canada is the Governor General. If exercised, it has more power than the sitting Prime Minister, including the power to sack that prime minister and replace it with whoever they desire. But the power is never exercised.

I personally don't see any benefit to having her as our head. Other than I guess we could fall under british protection. It's all outdated now though, she doesn't actually have any real power here she just takes some taxes im sure.

Interestingly enough, I remember seeing recently they did a poll asking us if we should keep the queen and continue to have her as a symbol. The answer was a resounding yes, which surprised me cause I could care less about her.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by eMachine

NO offense but what have you got against the queen? She has no real power in england or any other commonwealth country because if she did im sure she would have disolved this treacherous and theiving cowardly goverment we have here... I wish she bloody did!!!

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:32 PM
The Queen rules the world.

She is the head Mason, the eye at the top of the pyramid.

She rides the beast, which is the financial system (banking)

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Kram09
Why are you so averse to living in a country with a queen?

I just can't fathom the idea of being a royal subject. I don't think I could ever believe that one family is inherently superior to all the rest.

Don't get me wrong, the US is certainly no better. We have a sort of unofficial aristocracy of the rich and famous. Many people think others who were fortunate enough to be born in the right families are superior to everyone else. I don't support that line of thinking either.

I can understand how England might benefit from keeping the monarchy around as a "figurehead" or a sort of tourist attraction. I can understand the monarchy being part of your culture there... I was just shocked to find out the Queen still has power in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, whether it's "exercised" or not.

And yeah, I know there are many other countries still part of the commonwealth as well, I just didn't expect to find these ones on the list.

I'm certainly not saying people need to revolt against the monarchy. I was just astonished that I didn't know about this, and I've never heard anything about Canadians, Australians, or New Zealanders(?) making an issue of it, like (correct me if I'm wrong) some in Ireland have.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:46 PM
well if you went up the the queen and starting screaming at her you would

get shot by a sniper, in the head. "hey queenie, you fat bi.." *WHACK!, splat. ..dead

get tackled by a civillian looking ex-sas body guard, then beaten up.

it not like we have control over the queen, america didnt like bush, what can you do?

[edit on 3-9-2009 by MR BOB]

[edit on 3-9-2009 by MR BOB]

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:50 PM
When i was younger i was told by one of my history teachers that you could be executed in the UK if you assassinated the queen or reigning monarch.

But i am pretty sure that isn't true, although i'll be honest i don't know for certain.

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by eMachine

I certainly don't and many other people i am sure in the UK and Commonwealth do not see the Queen or the royal family as superior to themselves.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in