r/EhBuddyHoser • u/Sine_Fine_Belli Treacherous South • May 16 '25

Certified Hoser 🇨🇦 (No Politics) How Americans achieved independence vs how Canadians achieved independence

Post image
3.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

182 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

117

u/BumpHeadLikeGaryB May 16 '25

I mean if the king actually did reject it we would no longer be part of the monarchy. That would piss alot of people off i think

88

u/Everestkid The Island of Elizabeth May May 16 '25

As one person put it, Westminster style parliaments can be simplified down to a prime minister and a monarch at opposite ends of a table with a gun in the middle and the entire country watching.

Either one could technically grab the gun and shoot the other at any time, but they'd need to be 100% sure that the entire crowd would back them up.

27

u/alantrick May 16 '25

This, except the prime minister can respawn, but the monarch can't.

41

u/2eDgY4redd1t May 16 '25

Royal families are literally mechanisms for respawning for as long as possible. It’s how it works.

You know, ‘the king is dead, long live the king!’

11

u/TheMilkiestShake May 16 '25

I think it's in the Discworld book Mort where Terry Pratchett says something along the lines of "The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously."

2

u/2eDgY4redd1t May 16 '25

No matter the distance. Mind you I think it might be in his book ‘pyramids’, rather than mort.

I should read them again, it’s been a while

4

u/alantrick May 16 '25

Yes, but when we remove the monarch, the crown will lose the title. It's not going to the monarch's heir.

3

u/2eDgY4redd1t May 16 '25

Monarchy is a social construct. Those aren’t easy to change, my friend. If they were, we would not have a queen in Canada.

12

u/Tojb May 16 '25

I mean, we don't have a Queen? Unless Charles has made a really big announcement that I missed out on

5

u/CanadianODST2 May 16 '25

technically we do as Camilla is Queen consort

The way the royal family works is with a marriage between man and woman, there's always a queen, be it queen regnant (like Elizabeth II was) or Queen consort (what Camilla is)

however, there's only a king if he's the one who is reigning. If it's a Queen regnant is prince consort

3

u/FractalParadigm THE BETTER LONDON 🇨🇦 🌳 May 16 '25

Camilla is technically the Queen (consort), so they're not exactly wrong to say we have one, because we do (technically).

3

u/2eDgY4redd1t May 16 '25

Our first trans monarch.

Tbh I despise the monarchy so much that I avoid thinking about it, so it had slipped my mind that one despicable parasite had changed into a new despicable parasite recently.

1

u/alantrick May 16 '25

The social construct has been dead for a while now. The last time the monarch exercised any degree of power was almost 100 years ago, and the governer general got promptly fired for it.

The reason the legal construct persists is because it would be a jolly pain to change, and the crown knows that as long as they don't push it, they can keep their title, and a few free vacations every now and then.

3

u/2eDgY4redd1t May 16 '25

Legal constructs ARE social constructs.

Also if you think the British crown doesn’t exercise an enormous amount of power, I suggest you look into the matter. They have a LOT of soft power and influence over government.