U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Stasis
15,837 posts, read 10,029,606 times
Reputation: 8547

Advertisements

It was just a paper signing, nothing changed, no celebrations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,937 posts, read 27,326,583 times
Reputation: 8601
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
The Queen in her position as H.O.S of Canada is simply referred to as the Queen of Canada. It has nothing to do with the UK.. When she is in Australia she is the Queen of Australia. When she is in NZ she is the Queen of NZ.. In each of those capacities - one has nothing to do with the other. Its largely a ceremonial role and has about as practical an impact on our daily life as god does (I'm agnostic)....
Yeah, monarchists and some legal experts will say it is incorrect that Canada is headed up by a foreign monarch as the Queen is not the Queen of England but rather the Queen of Canada. They will also tell you that the Queen is not a foreigner as she is a Canadian citizen.

Of course many Canadians still consider the Queen to be a foreign monarch regardless of how many legal and semantic gymnastics are done around the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,128,404 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Yeah, monarchists and some legal experts will say it is incorrect that Canada is headed up by a foreign monarch as the Queen is not the Queen of England but rather the Queen of Canada. They will also tell you that the Queen is not a foreigner as she is a Canadian citizen.
Well I guess technically they could be right because essentially she would be an 'entity' only linked to Canada in her capacity as Queen of Canada.. In that capacity it has nothing to do with the UK other than sharing the same entity who changes form depending on where she is.. I think she even has different crowns or broaches signifying which Queen she is at any particular moment. Its all a bit weird but its largely a ceremonial thing... The Governer General has far more practical usage and even that position largely has no teeth though Jean did prove it wasn't just a prop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:45 PM
 
7 posts, read 5,253 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Yeah, monarchists and some legal experts will say it is incorrect that Canada is headed up by a foreign monarch as the Queen is not the Queen of England but rather the Queen of Canada. They will also tell you that the Queen is not a foreigner as she is a Canadian citizen.

Of course many Canadians still consider the Queen to be a foreign monarch regardless of how many legal and semantic gymnastics are done around the question.
Ok thanks for the answer earlier. Myself I don't consider her Canadian because she is obviously British in speech and culture. If you speak to her in Quebec French I highly doubt she will understand. I think a Canadian monarch would speak the language, you know what I mean? On the other side of the coin I will say that calling her a foreign monarch is a stretch since she is officially on paper queen of Canada, but I still wont call her an actual Canadian. That is just my own take on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:47 PM
 
7 posts, read 5,253 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Well I guess technically they could be right because essentially she would be an 'entity' only linked to Canada in her capacity as Queen of Canada.. In that capacity it has nothing to do with the UK other than sharing the same entity who changes form depending on where she is.. I think she even has different crowns or broaches signifying which Queen she is at any particular moment.
I like your thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,128,404 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodluckJJ View Post
I like your thinking.
Thanks but its not my thinking - its how it is
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,937 posts, read 27,326,583 times
Reputation: 8601
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodluckJJ View Post
Ok thanks for the answer earlier. Myself I don't consider her Canadian because she is obviously British in speech and culture. If you speak to her in Quebec French I highly doubt she will understand. I think a Canadian monarch would speak the language, you know what I mean? On the other side of the coin I will say that calling her a foreign monarch is a stretch since she is officially on paper queen of Canada, but I still wont call her an actual Canadian. That is just my own take on it.
The Queen most definitely speaks French and can communicate with people in Quebec in French. (She doesn't come to Quebec very often though.) We've had Canadian-born Governors-General (the Queen's rep residing in Canada) who spoke less French than the Queen does.

Another thing that takes away from the legitimacy for some people is that obviously she has never lived in Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,128,404 times
Reputation: 3738
This whole talk of the Queen changing her crown/dress depending on which country she is the Queen if reminds me of an episode of RuPual's drag race..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,161 posts, read 1,748,542 times
Reputation: 2617
As others have stated, Canada did not suddenly gain independence. Canadian independence evolved. I had a look at some correspondence I had with a Canadian constitutional law expert back in 2006 on the question of the significance of the Statute of Westminster, and while his answer is Statute-oriented, it does help to explain how Canadian independence evolved. I'm sure he won't mind if I repeat his words (redactions by me to preserve the anonymity of each of us):

Quote:
Canada existed from July 1, 1867, as a self-governing Dominion within the Empire. At various stages along the way, it acquired more and more self-governing powers, until today it is a completely independent, sovereign state. However, that did not mean that a completely new country was created each time Canada acquired new powers. To use the birthday analogy, one doesn't re-start counting one's age from the time one gets a driver's licence, or from the time one is eleigible to vote, or from the time one reaches full legal capacity at age 18 (or 21, depending on the jurisidiction). Those are steps along the way to becoming a full adult, but one's age still dates from the time of birth, which in the case of Canada, is July 1, 1867.

The ... problem with saying that Canada's birthday is December 11 (i.e the date for royal assent to the Statute of Westminster, 1931...), is that that Statute was simply a step along the way, rather than the date of Canada's independence. There are three reasons why it does not amount to Canada's birthday.

First and most important, Canada's existence and basic structure as a federal state was set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. Canada had already existed for well over half a century, and the basic principles of the federation had already been established. The Statute of Westminster did not change that basic structure. The only formal addition to Canada's constitutional powers in the Statute was the authority for the federal Parliament to legislate extra-territorially (s. 3). Many of the other provisions (such as the references to the Colonial Laws Validity Act in s. 2) simply recognized the pre-existing legal status, which the courts had already applied in consequence of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The second reason is that the Statute itself recognised that the Dominions already were completely autonomous countries, on a footing of equality with the United Kingdom. That constitutional status had been recognized at the Imperial conferences held in 1926 and 1930. The purpose of the Statute was to provide legal recognition of that pre-existing constitutional status for the Dominions.

That then leads to the next question: when did that change from self-governing Dominion to equality with the United Kingdom occur? Hard to say - it was a process of evolution for each of the Dominions, but World War I was a large component. Put bluntly, if you are willing to fight with the big boys, you are a country. Vimy Ridge is often cited as the moment Canada became a nation, just as Gallipoli is for the Aussies and Kiwis. As a result of their participation, each of the Dominions co-signed the Treaty of Versailles, as part of the British Empire. By the Imperial Conference of 1926, the Dominions had the status of independent realms; the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster simply recognised that fact and updated the formal law and constitutional conventions to recognize it. So, I would submit that the Statute of Westminster, though a milestone in Canada's constitutional history, does not constitute a "re-birth" of the country.

The third reason that the Statute is not the founding document of Canada is that it did not finish the job, formally. The British Parliament still retained the power to legislate for Canada, albeit with the qualification that it would only do so at the request of Canada (see s. 4). The British Parliament did not finally give up that authority until the passage of the Canada Act, 1982, s. 2 which came into force on April 17, 1982.

So, if you're going by the formal creation of the country, it's July 1, 1867, and Canada is 139 years old [remember, he and I were corresponding in 2006]. If you're going from the date of formal legislative sovereignty, it's April 17, 1982, and Canada is only 24 years old. December 11, 1931 was just one date along the road.

Personally, I'll stick with July 1.
So will I.

As an aside, I'll say that it was kind of fun looking back over that correspondence. It was a good refresher in constitutional law. I'm still in touch with that expert, by the way; maybe I should send him over here to put paid to all the silly questions we get about Canada's constitution and its provisions. Well, those I cannot answer, anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2015, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,161 posts, read 1,748,542 times
Reputation: 2617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Yeah, monarchists and some legal experts will say it is incorrect that Canada is headed up by a foreign monarch as the Queen is not the Queen of England but rather the Queen of Canada. They will also tell you that the Queen is not a foreigner as she is a Canadian citizen.
On the first part, your "monarchists and some legal experts" are correct; on the second part, they are incorrect. I'm not necessarily a monarchist, but I can speak as a legal expert, a constitutional law scholar, and I am sure that all Canadian legal experts would agree with me (some begrudgingly, but they would agree).

For the purposes of Canadian constitutional law, Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada. That's it; she is nothing more (i.e. she is not styled "Defender of the Faith," "Queen of England," or anything else). When she acts in her capacity as Queen of Canada, she "takes advice" from the Canadian government (i.e. she does what it wants her to). She does not refer to any other government when she does this; she listens only to the Canadian government. In terms of Canadian constitutional law, she is "foreign" only in the sense that her residence is not physically in Canada.

Her citizenship--well, the only way I can think to say it is that she has no citizenship. In none of my research in Canadian constitutional law have I run across a statute, a regulation, or a constitutional document that bestows Canadian citizenship upon the Queen. Most commentators and authors state that she is "above citizenship," which I take to mean that she is Queen of so many realms that she doesn't need one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top