Queen of England is saying she is the Queen of Canada?!?!

This is just really odd....
The queen of England is saying she is the queen of Canada.....
Was there some kind of secret deal or something?
Im confused....

[edit on 6-7-2010 by SupremeKnowledge]

Yes she is the queen of the commonwealth realms. which include 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 is also the supreme governor of the church of England. and has more money than she knows what to do with.

Weird, isn't it?

www.crht.ca...

Canada is a shared monarchy with the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries...

The Queen's Style and Titles for Canada became "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". An act providing the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the Queen's issuing a proclamation to that effect was enacted on 11th February 1953, and the new Royal Style and Titles was proclaimed by Her Majesty on 28th May 1953.

She is...

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch.[1] The sixteen current realms have a combined land area of 18.8 million km² (7.3 million mi², excluding Antarctic claims), and a population of 134 million;[2] all but about two million live in the six most populous states, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is one of her many roles. Yes, she is the Queen of Canada.

She is one woman with many offices.

reply to post by SupremeKnowledge


It used to be the British Empire.

Now it is a few countries who have nothing to do with the queen.

NZ is one of those countries, and I think most of us want to break that tie - but it has been the older people who have insisted on keeping it.

She has nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with the monarchy - ridiculous, isn't it?

Also, the monarchy equals exactly nothing now.

She is there queen Canada is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, normally referred to as the Commonwealth and previously as the British Commonwealth, is an intergovernmental organization of fifty-four independent member states. All but two of these countries were formerly part of the British Empire. Heres something funny the queen has more power in Canada then she does in the UK.

Most of the old member countries that were part of the British Empire, who wanted to be independant, ended up joining the commonwealth. As to that end, the Queen is considered head of the commonwealth, should they desire and accept her as head of state, though a figurehead.

You are very mistaken. However, what you think is also exceedingly common. The monarchy still has quite a bit of power, it merely isn't being used. The monarchy is fulfilling a function in the Commonwealth.

Queen Elizabeth II has divested more power and order to democracies all over this world in a controlled orderly fashion than any other leader ever. Period. I would dare you to find any leader in history that has so eloquently and unnoticed helped move forward progressive governance without struggle.

This single lifetime achievement, gone utterly unnoticed, deserves my greatest respect. If I am the only person who notices what she has done, let me say I am honoured and awed.

she's the queen of this world...lady gaga kissing her hand...she's the heir of ceasars.......get this....london is the bank, washington dc is the army, rome is the church.
read the 14th amendment...

[edit on 6-7-2010 by GBP/JPY]

reply to post by tracer7


I do believe you omitted the Falklamd Islands.......

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by SupremeKnowledge

 

It used to be the British Empire.

Now it is a few countries who have nothing to do with the queen.

NZ is one of those countries, and I think most of us want to break that tie - but it has been the older people who have insisted on keeping it.

She has nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with the monarchy - ridiculous, isn't it?

Also, the monarchy equals exactly nothing now.

It never ceases to amaze me how people say this in common wealth countries. The Queen comes to town and your government and people fawn all of her, and applaud her wildly as she proclaims she is your queen and then goes off to the United Nations to speak on your behalf along with 16 other nations she is the Head of State for.

Further, she can as she stated direct commonwealth nations to contribute to her chosen charities.

She is also head of all the Armed Forces of the Common Wealth Countries.

She can have any Prime Minister from anyone of them removed from office, and derives a stipend through taxation of all the subjects of the common wealth.

Gee I sure am glad that monarchy means nothing?

Face it, you are still subjects of the monarchy, and it has incredible power over the commonwealth nations, since your common wealth is HER wealth!

She also has incredible prestige, and can literally unleash nuclear Armageddon if she chooses as Head of the Armed Forces.

There really aren’t too many people on the planet that have more juice than that friend.

"All nations will possess the same institutions, relying on England to take the initiative in the federation."

St. Simon was a French early socialist theorist whose thought influenced the foundation of various 19th century philosophies---most notably Marxism and the discipline of sociology.

These plans have been in place for a long time.

Long live the Queen!





[edit on 6-7-2010 by Alethea]

I just had a scary thought. What if Nancy Pelosi were Queen? or Judge Judy?

I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight.

Originally posted by Aeons
You are very mistaken. However, what you think is also exceedingly common. The monarchy still has quite a bit of power, it merely isn't being used. The monarchy is fulfilling a function in the Commonwealth.

Queen Elizabeth II has divested more power and order to democracies all over this world in a controlled orderly fashion than any other leader ever. Period. I would dare you to find any leader in history that has so eloquently and unnoticed helped move forward progressive governance without struggle.

This single lifetime achievement, gone utterly unnoticed, deserves my greatest respect. If I am the only person who notices what she has done, let me say I am honoured and awed.

OK - let me offer an alternative view.

The British monarchy attacked and conquered a great portion of the world - when many of its subject nations, not the least of which being India, rebelled and demanded independence - they sought a way to continue to maintain power, and allow the illusion of self rule.

The commonwealth was the method chosen - however,k vast tracts of land within those ex colonies belong to 'the Crown' - and the Queen, or her direct appointee remain head of state with the power to dissolve parliaments, sack prime ministers and to place an 'interim' governor of her choice.

Through force, through the expansion of the BoE model, she has managed to quietly maintain an iron grip over the commonwealth nations - and that banking system has rendered them virtual slaves.

You may admire her - I do not, and see her as an integral part of the slave system that is perpetrated on almost all nations of the world.

The UK got rich on war, slave and opium trading, and I see no changes.

I didn't make her queen... what is this, "Alice in Wonderland"?

Sad we let the ideals of a Monarchy live on... America had it right the first time...

Independence.

Period.

Nobody give the OP any Canadian coins.

'Oh a Maple Leaf, that's nice.'
[flips coin]
'No...No...It can't be...'
'KHAANNNNNNNNNNNNNN'

reply to post by tracer7




She's my Queen too.

From what I have read of modern history, its the countries with monarchies that seem the most stable, since WW 2, those countries without a 'figurehead' don't seem to do so well as those with, and yes there are exceptions. I am thinking of Italy at the moment, after WW 2 when the king was thrown out, the Italians seemed to have a change of government every six months!
The Stupid Romanov's (Russia) deserved to get thrown out, but not murdered by the Bolsheviks, and the Russian people did not deserve a Bolshevik government. On balance, I would take a constitutional monarchy any day.

Not a bad gig for a little lady descendant from the Royal German 'House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha'.