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.
No it's a very specific difference the Monarch of the UK is not the Monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Elizabeth Windsor is the Monarch of Canada, she also happens to be the Monarch of the UK, but being Monarch of the UK is not a requirement for being the Monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
It's like being on your local football team cricket team and rugby team, you can be the Captain of them all, but that doesn't mean that because you're the captain of the local football team you're going to be the captain of the rugby or cricket teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBMD
Has anyone who was/is NOT the British monarch ever held any of those titles?
No but just because people have not walked on the surface of Mars does NOT mean that it is not possible.
Legally the Monarchy of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are entirely distinct from one another.
No it's a very specific difference the Monarch of the UK is not the Monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Elizabeth Windsor is the Monarch of Canada, she also happens to be the Monarch of the UK, but being Monarch of the UK is not a requirement for being the Monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
It's like being on your local football team cricket team and rugby team, you can be the Captain of them all, but that doesn't mean that because you're the captain of the local football team you're going to be the captain of the rugby or cricket teams.
No but just because people have not walked on the surface of Mars does NOT mean that it is not possible.
Legally the Monarchy of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are entirely distinct from one another.
I understand the legal difference, so who then is the monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.?
Or put another way, WHY is Elizabeth Windsor the monarch of Canada etc.?
I understand the legal difference, so who then is the monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.?
Or put another way, WHY is Elizabeth Windsor the monarch of Canada etc.?
What you are describing is the West of Scotland some 50 years ago. I think you will find that much has changed in the intervening years.
Evening Jazzy!
Actually, I don't find much has changed at all - other than fashion, music, and so on. General attitudes -- or at least the ones we've been discussing on this thread -- remain the same. I still have many close relatives in Scotland and don't leave long between visits.
As with the rest of Western Society, 'religion' has been on the decline for forty years (along with most other things moral and good), but that certainly doesn't mean that 'No one cares... anymore.'
The idea that Americans still associate themselves with the European cultures from which their families came from seems to bother some folks over there. Is the disdain for us that great that the idea that we still want to identify in this small way with you?? In most cases our ancestory is usually English or German, but obviously a lot of Irish, Italian, Polish and many others as well. We are all keenly aware of how much Britain has contributed to what this nation has become, and we see that contribution in a positive light. It is disheartening to many of us when we learn how we really are seen on the other side of the pond. You say our DNA is irrelevant and we are not "even a little bit British". I know what my history is, most of my ancestors were British. Some were English, some were Welsh. I know my great grandparents where still so loyal to Britain that my GG went to Canada during the pre US involvement days of WW1 so he could join the Canadian military and serve the crown. I have heard stories of how that part of the family got here, have pics of them back in England. Other Americans have similar family histories from Britain and other places in Europe. Because we are a nation built on immigration during the last 200 years we are keenly aware of where we came from. It is a part of our culture, and maybe its not something a European would understand. Having seen this sentiment from Brits on these forums before I wanted to comment on this. I guess those who don't like it over there can rest easy knowing that over time as the knowledge of how many British people feel about us over there becomes common knowledge the desire to associate with the "mother country" will diminish. We Americans are often woefully ignorant of how much people around the world despise us, even our own kin.
1. I don't care how much European DNA you have, you are not culturally British or whatever. Have you lived there before? I have, and your average Brit is FAR different from the average British-American like yourself. Doesn't even remotely compare.
2. Expanding on #1, the vast majority of countries in the world don't give two hoots what your ancestry is. If your grandparent is not from the "mother country", you are NOT a part of their society depending on the country. By the way, my grandmother was a born and bred German and anyone would find it laughable that I would identify as a German as I never lived there and speak broken German. On my father's side, I am Puerto Rican since the early 1800s. Despite only marrying other white Spanish colonists, that does not make me Spanish and that was made clear to me when I visited Spain, twice.
3. The UK is not my "mother country", so knock off this "we" stuff because my mother countries are Spain and Germany, not the British Isles. You are a rapidly diminishing segment of society, few Americans are going to have such romanticized views of the UK like you do in the coming decades.
White Americans have this weird obsession of trying to identify as equals of the "Old World" when they are nothing like the citizens of the "Old World". Rose-tinted glasses and such. You're American, end of story. Stop trying to feel special or different from the rest of us. It's very annoying when Americans engage in this nonsense.
I understand the legal difference, so who then is the monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.?
Or put another way, WHY is Elizabeth Windsor the monarch of Canada etc.?
Elizabeth Windsor is presently the monarch of 16 independent realms. They are all autonomous constitutional monarchies.
Speaking for Canada, Elizabeth is called Queen of Canada and she is our monarch because she is who Canada wanted. We chose her as our monarch.
Canada had and still has the option of choosing somebody else as monarch if Canada wishes, and Elizabeth Windsor had and still has the option of refusing to be our monarch if she wishes.
When Elizabeth dies her successor(s) might or might not choose to be monarch of Canada and Canada might or might not choose a different monarch. That remains to be seen but it is presently assumed that Elizabeth's successor will agree to be Canada's new monarch and that Canada will also agree to having her successor as our monarch.
If her successor chooses to not be the monarch of Canada then Canada will need to choose another person as monarch if Canada wishes to remain a monarchy. Canada can choose whoever it wants as monarch.
If you're genuinely interested you can read the following to gain a somewhat better understanding of Canada as a monarchy: The Monarchy in Canada | Mapleleafweb.com
Elizabeth Windsor is presently the monarch of 16 independent realms. They are all autonomous constitutional monarchies.
Speaking for Canada, Elizabeth II's title is Queen of Canada and she is our monarch because she is who Canada wanted.
Canada had and still has the option of choosing somebody else as monarch if Canada wishes, and Elizabeth Windsor had and still has the option of refusing to be our monarch if she wishes.
When Elizabeth dies her successor(s) might or might not choose to be monarch of Canada and Canada might or might not choose a different monarch. That remains to be seen but it is presently assumed that Elizabeth's successor will agree to be Canada's new monarch and that Canada will also agree to having her successor as our monarch.
If her successor chooses to not be the monarch of Canada then Canada will need to choose another person as monarch if Canada wishes to remain a monarchy. Canada can choose whoever it wants as monarch.
If you're genuinely interested you can read the following to gain a somewhat better understanding of Canada as a monarchy: The Monarchy in Canada | Mapleleafweb.com
.
Good luck on getting HRH Elizabeth II to forfeit the (roughly) $67 million she gets from Canada annually! (The precise amount increases every year.)
Good luck on getting HRH Elizabeth II to forfeit the (roughly) $67 million she gets from Canada annually! (The precise amount increases every year.)
Mahrie.
Yes, Canada pays to retain a monarch. It probably goes up a bit more each year as each year there are new immigrants coming into Canada. Here's some facts snipped from the following website which explains about several myths about Canada's monarchy:
Canadians do not give any financial support to The Queen in her roles as Head of the Commonwealth, as Queen of the United Kingdom or as Sovereign of her other Realms. Nor does she receive any salary from the federal government. In this respect, her role as chief volunteer of the Commonwealth is unexcelled.
As shown in the latest triennial study of the cost of the Canadian Crown, each Canadian contributes about $1.63 a year (a total of a little over $50 million) towards our form of governance. However, the great majority of these costs stem from: a) maintaining the historic buildings (Government Houses) occupied by vice-regal representatives; and b) from honouring Canadians who have performed outstanding acts or given a lifetime of service to the country.
Whether a republic or monarchy, Canadians would maintain these heritage buildings and recognize achievements through an honours system. A president would likely be more expensive—look at the proportional costs of the White House and Elysée Palace! There may be arguments for a republic, but cost-saving is not one of them.
Canadians pay for The Queen only when, as our head of state, she performs duties in Canada. As was demonstrated in 2010 and during her previous tours, people flock to welcome her, and clearly derive great pleasure from her homecomings. The most recent tour cost Canadians approximately 15 cents per person. Like all countries, Canadians regularly welcome and bear similar or greater expenses for visiting heads of state and government, ranging from the Pope to the Emperor of Japan to the Presidents of the United States and Mexico, none of whom have any constitutional involvement with our land, but whom we welcome as friends, allies or trading partners. How much more, then, should we welcome our own head of state, especially when her lifetime of service to Canada has been undertaken without her receiving one penny of salary?
..... <snip> .....
.
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.
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.
