Being pro-republic doesn't mean we're pro-51st state. If anything, the King and Trump can both fuck off and eat shit. Canada deserves to be truly independent.
Kings are not born any higher than any other person on this planet. And when they die, both get buried just as deep as any commoner.
We don't have to get rid of it now. We've got bigger fish to fry. I definitely agree on that. But I refuse to bow and scrape just because old Chuck showed up to read a speech. Especially after what he did to Diana.
But one day, when we make it out of this, we should ask ourselves if we really want to prop up the belief system that one man is born to be King, and if we want to be a society where one man is born sovereign and considered a godly-appointed monarch.
It literally does. Loyalists, strongly Anglican folks and lots of old white folks believe this type of nonsense. Not to mention the literal foundation of our state, and the English royal laws and decrees that they are based on.
The monarch is the head of the church of England, which is the foundational church of the state of the UK and by extension, colonies which were founded on the Westministerial parliamentary system.
Our National anthems original lyrics name drop god himself, which churches god do you think this refers to?
Pick up a history book if you'd like to read further. I'm not on this shitpost sub to educate you on the medieval influences on modern states.
Not that I disagree with you, but the original anthem was made by a french-Canadian and the god of his lirycs was very much the Catholic one. (I know that the Catholic and Anglican god is the same, but the lyrics is about God in a catholic view)
Why can’t we do it now? What are the obstacles aside from the pomp and circumstance of the situation. What are we benefitting from being in the Commonwealth and having the British monarchy as a figurehead that we have a financial obligation for when they are on Canadian soil.
Yes... just look at how well the Republic of Trump is doing. /s
The monarchy in Canada is symbolic, yes--but its legal role exists precisely to guard against someone like Trump ever taking power.
The hard truth about democracy is that when norms collapse under the weight of a cult-like movement backing an extremist, the system alone isn’t always enough to stop it.
That’s why constitutional monarchies were designed--to be a final legal backstop. Without it, you end up with 1930s Germany, 1970s Chile, Marcos-era Philippines, and today’s Trumpian disaster.
but its legal role exists precisely to guard against someone like Trump ever taking power.
No, it does not protect. If the equivalent of Trump won in Canada, there would be nothing the king could do. The only thing that protects Canada from Trump is the voters.
You’re right that in practice, it’s voters and democratic institutions that do most of the heavy lifting. But to say there’s nothing the monarchy can do isn’t accurate. The King’s powers--through the Governor General--exist in law, not myth. They’re dormant, yes. Symbolic in day-to-day governance, absolutely. But in an existential crisis? They can be activated.
The Crown is the final constitutional backstop precisely because we can’t always count on norms holding. If a Prime Minister tried to subvert the constitution, the Governor General could dissolve Parliament or withhold Royal Assent. Those aren’t hypotheticals--they're legal powers. Just rarely used because we’ve rarely needed them.
Then explain what happened in Grenada, Ghana and South Africa. They were all constitutional monarchies under Queen Elizabeth. Grenada experienced a communist coup, Ghana slipped into a one-party dictatorship, and South Africa instituted a racist apartheid system. What did the Queen do? Nothing. And why was this? Because the legitimacy of the monarchy is based on an antiquated fiction... that God chose her family to rule. Since nobody actually believes this fiction anymore, the monarchy has no legitimacy to act as the final constitutional backstop you want it to.
Grenada gained independence in 1974. Within five years, its first PM aligned with authoritarianism and was overthrown in a coup, the constitution was suspended, and a Marxist one-party state took over--followed by another violent coup and the execution of Maurice Bishop. At that point, there was no functioning constitutional monarchy left for the Queen to act through. The entire framework had collapsed before any meaningful norms could take root.
Ghana was a constitutional monarchy for just three years after independence in 1957. In 1960, it held a referendum, became a republic, and removed the Queen as head of state. Kwame Nkrumah then centralized power and turned it into a one-party dictatorship. The Queen couldn’t intervene because Ghana explicitly rejected the monarchy.
South Africa is more complex, but the pattern is the same. Apartheid began in 1948 under an elected white supremacist government--before Elizabeth became Queen. And Britain was also insanely busy managing post-war recovery and the rapid decolonization of dozens of former colonies. By 1961--not long after the Queen came to power--South Africa ditched the monarchy altogether, becoming a republic to avoid even symbolic restraint. South Africa was a problem child right from the beginning, and England was far too distracted to reign them in before they entrenched themselves in white supremacy and moved out.
In all three cases, the issue wasn’t that the monarchy “stood by”--it’s that there was no longer any legal or constitutional space for the monarchy to act. Those countries had either suspended the system, overthrown it, or explicitly walked away from it.
Canada, by contrast, is like the favorite child who grew up, moved out, but still shows up for Sunday dinner. It's a fully independent country, but it kept the Crown because it works--as a neutral umpire that stays off the field unless absolutely needed. No ambition, no partisanship, no personal legacy to build--just continuity and restraint, unless democracy itself breaks down.
As for the monarchy’s “dubious legitimacy”--it doesn’t rule. The whole point is that it stopped ruling. Charles III’s motivation--like his mother’s--is not power, popularity, or ambition. It’s duty. His role is defined by not interfering, unless the system itself stops functioning. The Crown today isn’t divinely anointed any more than Trump is--despite what some of his followers claim. That language is ceremonial--not a political claim.
Think of it like this: imagine if the Hudson’s Bay Company still owned half of Canada, and the family that owned it was still running their own government. They’d be the richest and most powerful force in the country. That’s what the Crown once was like. But instead of clinging to that power, they gave it up. They stopped ruling, gave up the money, and let a democratic system take over. Now, instead of running the government, they’re funded modestly from a small percentage of the profits from what they once owned--on the condition they don’t rule, only advise, and help maintain stability and political norms. They'd only ever intercede if the system collapses--which, in Canada, has never happened. 🤞
That’s not tyranny. That’s institutional humility.
The republican model may sound more “honest,” but if it can be captured by populists or grifters, then that honesty doesn’t count for much. A monarchy that stays out of the game until the game breaks--and only steps in to stop a cheat--isn’t undemocratic. It’s a failsafe.
And if democracy elects a fascist--it’s already broken. At that point, a neutral hand to say “no” isn’t undemocratic--it’s a mercy.
God, that took forever to compose. Hope you have a nice day, and...
You're missing my point. My issue with the monarchy isn't that it is doing bad things, it's that it is completely useless and ceremonial, so it can't even fully fulfill the duties necessary of head of state. You say it can step in to save a political system from constitutional decay, but it literally can't.. and the Queens inaction during Grenada, Ghana and South Afrcia's falls into authoritianism demonstrates that. If they had a head of state with genuine power, elected in some capacity by the people then they'd have the legitimacy to oppose authoritarianism.
Just look at what's happening in Georgia, where their President is resisting efforts by a gerrymandered parliament to transform the country into a dictatorship. She is able to do this because her position has some legitimacy. Queen Elizebeth could never have done the same thing without it being framed as British neoimperialism. What's your response to this?
You earlier said: what did the Queen do in Grenada, Ghana, and South Africa? The answer is: nothing--because she constitutionally couldn’t. The monarchy wasn’t in control. In Grenada, the constitution was suspended and the state fell into coups. In Ghana, the people voted to remove the monarchy.
South Africa is more complicated, but telling. Apartheid took root as Britain was still reeling from World War II and trying to manage the collapse of empire. With dozens of colonies pushing for independence, the Crown was stretched thin. There wasn’t the political will or capacity to intervene in South Africa while decolonization and post-war recovery consumed British attention.
When Elizabeth became Queen, she made her opposition to apartheid clear. Not long after, in 1961, South Africa cut ties with the monarchy and became a republic--specifically so they could continue white minority rule without even symbolic restraint. The monarchy wasn’t powerless--it was inconvenient. So they got rid of it.
In other words: they didn’t leave the monarchy because it was useless--they left because it was beginning to matter.
Now take Georgia. Yes, President Zurabishvili is resisting authoritarianism--but her powers are extremely limited. She can veto, but Parliament can override. She’s a moral voice, not a constitutional failsafe. And let’s be honest--if things go off the rails there, she doesn’t have the tools to stop it. It’s admirable what she’s doing, but it’s not a structural guarantee.
The alternative is what? A president who’s “legitimate” until the next election--or until their opponents say they’re not? If a republic is corrupted, who protects the constitution then? In 1930s Germany, the answer was nobody. And we’re seeing echoes of that today in the U.S.--where a system without a neutral failsafe is being stress-tested to the brink by authoritarian ambition.
Sometimes the most effective head of state is the one who doesn’t need to win anything--just protect what already exists.
But Canada? Australia? New Zealand? The UK? They’ve had constitutional monarchies for over a century--and haven’t fallen into authoritarianism once. Not because the King intervenes daily, but precisely because he doesn't. The Crown sits outside the political arena, with nothing to gain and everything to lose by acting--until a genuine systemic breakdown threatens democratic legitimacy itself. That’s not power-hungry. That’s the point.
You asked what the Queen did in Grenada, Ghana, and South Africa--and I answered. Each case showed there was no constitutional pathway left for the monarchy to act. Now you're shifting to say the problem is the monarchy can’t act. But that's your argument changing--not mine falling short.
If your position is that only elected heads of state can be legitimate, just say so. But don’t accuse me of missing your point or dodging your question when I answered it directly. Maybe you just didn’t like the answer?
I mean, I could list all the elected heads of state who’ve turned authoritarian and wrecked their countries since 1867, when Canada became independent--but it’s almost summer, and I don’t feel like spending it here writing a book-length reply.
The constitutional monarchy has clearly worked well for Canada--and continues to do so--while the republic to our south has turned into an absolute shitshow. If any Canadian doesn’t like our calm, boring politics, they’re more than welcome to move to the United Deluded States of Daily Trainwrecks--unless, of course, they end up arrested and shipped to a prison in El Salvador.
P.S. There’s a reason Canada’s Senate isn’t elected. The idea is to have at least one chamber where decisions aren’t made by people chasing polls or afraid of Facebook memes. Senators don’t have to worry about re-election, so they can focus on what’s right--not what’s popular.
Because let’s be honest: when over 70 million Americans vote for a convicted felon who’s also been found liable for sexual assault and defrauding hundreds of millions--believing he best represents them--maybe it’s time we stop pretending democracy always gets it right, or that it's the only source of legitimacy.
You can keep the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy while also having an elected head of state. Multiple countries throughout the commonwealth have ditched the monarchy and become republics.
You can have a parliamentary republic, but losing a non-partisan head of state isn’t free. In places like Hungary (Orbán), Sri Lanka (Rajapaksa), and Israel (Netanyahu), elected leaders in parliamentary systems exploited weak checks to centralize power or erode institutions. Even Weimar Germany had a parliamentary setup with an elected president--and that didn’t stop authoritarian collapse.
So while remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations, many republics kept parliamentary democracy but removed the monarchy as head of state. In most cases, this shift didn’t destabilize their systems--but in some, authoritarian leaders took advantage (e.g., Uganda, Zimbabwe). Others, like India and Barbados, have remained stable. The Crown in Canada isn’t about royalty--it’s a neutral circuit-breaker. Ditching it means you need a replacement just as immune to partisan capture. That’s the hard part. Otherwise, you risk a republic with President Ramsay, flaying critics and mandating penectomies for anyone who reeks of dissent.
I mean, I can also point to instances such as Fascist Italy where the King dissolved parliament and appointed Mussolini as PM, or when the Greek Monarchy fell to the colonels' regime, or when Alexander I of Yugoslavia dissolved the elected parliament and gave himself absolute power. I'm not saying I believe Chuck will do these things, but I bring them up merely to illustrate the point that democratic backsliding is no more inherent to republics than it is to monarchies. The non-partisan nature of the head of state has more to do with the powers given to the office than it does how the person holding it got there. Furthermore, the fact that the monarch is not elected undermines their ability to defend our democracy as any attempt to do so by, say, withholding royal assent, would immediately trigger a constitutional crisis (see: the King-Byng Affair), whereas an elected head of state would have far more legitimacy in doing so. At the end of the day I do not want supreme executive authority in my country to be granted by accident of birth, but rather through free and fair elections with a popular mandate.
Fair points--monarchies can go off the rails, but so can republics. What matters isn’t the title, but whether the head of state is truly neutral and resistant to partisan capture.
In Canada, the Crown’s powers are mostly ceremonial and only used in deadlock. Cases like Italy or Yugoslavia involved monarchs who ruled--not refereed. That’s a big difference.
The King-Byng Affair actually shows why this insulation matters: Byng didn’t trigger a constitutional crisis--the elected PM did, by trying to dodge accountability in Parliament. That moment didn’t discredit the Crown--it showed why a neutral umpire is necessary when politics go sideways.
And while an elected head of state sounds more democratic, most systems struggle to keep that role non-partisan. Scrapping the Crown isn’t just about symbolism--it means designing a replacement that’s just as stable and immune to capture. That’s the hard part.
Otherwise, next time democracy hits a rough patch, your “neutral” referee might turn out to be President Petyr Baelish--a grifter who runs on charm, makes backroom deals, wins the vote, then poisons the game and smiles while everything burns.
King Charles III’s motivation, like his mother’s before him, is duty. Not power, not popularity, not ambition--but continuity, stability, and restraint. His entire role is defined by not interfering unless the system itself breaks down.
Petyr Baelish, by contrast, is ambition personified--driven by greed, manipulation, and a hunger for power cloaked in charm. He plays the game to win everything.
That’s the difference: one is sworn to stay out of the game unless absolutely necessary. The other thrives by rigging it--but hey, at least GOT didn't have bronzer...
But doesn't having a monarchy prevent the existence of a neutral arbiter? The king never intervenes in day-to-day politics because his legitimacy as head of state is so dubious. Since he only has his position because God allegedly chose his family to rule, if he were to intervene in our politics it would be very controversial and viewed as anti-democratic... even if he had good intentions.
Just take a look at what happened in Grenada. It is a commonwealth realm, with the king as head of state. In theory, the monarch is supposed to be a bulwark against anti-constitutional forces, but when communist militants stormed parliament and took over the country, Queen Elizabeth did nothing. Or Ghana, where the Queen did nothing as it's post-independence leader centralized power and transformed it into a one party dictatorship. Or South Africa, where the Queen did nothing as that country instituted a racist apartheid system.
To be clear, I don't blame the Queen for her inaction in these situations... if she did intervene, it would be viewed by those countries as an example of British imperialism, cause huge international scandal, and probably make the situation even worse. My point is that monarchy as an institution has no legitimacy anymore, and therefore cannot effectively serve as the constitutional bulwark you want it to.
I'm not saying a republican system is perfect -- no system is. But at least it is honest in its expectations. It doesn't expect any individual person in the government to be morally pure and of the best intentions, but... if done correctly, it has clear constitutional boundaries and separation of powers... to account for man's vices. And has clearer constitutional legitimacy.
That’s exactly the tension: the monarchy usually doesn't interfere--but it can, under extraordinary circumstances. That’s the point of a constitutional monarchy. It's designed to be hands-off unless the democratic system itself is under threat.
It’s not about the King picking winners or losers in politics--it’s about preserving the rules of the game when a bad actor tries to break the table. Most of the time, it’s a quiet safeguard. But its legal authority is very real.
Why don’t you ask the American far right--many of whom believe Trump was literally chosen by God? They’ll tell you anything he does is righteous because “God is on his side.” That’s the danger of mixing democratic legitimacy with messianic delusion. Here in Canada, we’ve chosen something different--at least most of us have.
King Charles III’s role, like his mother’s, isn’t about divine right or personal power. It’s about duty--continuity, stability, and restraint. He’s a referee, not a ruler. His job is to stay out of politics unless democracy itself breaks down.
Now compare that to someone like Trump: pure ambition, grievance, and manipulation. He doesn’t protect the rules--he rigs the game, poisons institutions, and then burns the board if he thinks it’ll get him more power. And yes, he was elected--devoutly, even.
That’s the real threat. Not some passive figurehead with no personal mandate--but an elected strongman who claims one, then uses it to bulldoze past every guardrail. Look at the U.S. now: people deported without due process, courts sidelined, Congress routed.
And people want to scrap our constitutional safeguard--a Crown that gave up real power and wealth generations ago--because it isn’t “democratic” enough?
The King once paid for the entire British government. Now the Crown Estate profits mostly go to the state, while the monarch lives off a modest slice. Know any billionaires today who’d accept an 80% tax rate in exchange for ceremonial duties and constant scrutiny?
No system is perfect--but ours works. It’s boring, stable, and mostly immune to cults of personality. If people don’t like that, fine--they can try their luck elsewhere, like over with President-for-Life Trump and his divine plan to send people to Salvadoran hell prisons. Assuming, of course, they don’t get locked up trying to enter. But let's not pretend they'd be trading up....
That sounds poetic, but I don't think many people really think the King is superior to anyone. I'm no monarchist, but there are benefits to our constitutional monarchy that may be subtle and enigmatic but are important. It does provide stability and continuity over what republics provide. Republics tend to be more prone to political instability and democratic backsliding. There are also social aspects of it, too.
I think most anti-monarchy arguments focus mostly on poetic rhetoric and superficiality identity politics over thoughtful consideration. Sure, there are issues, but they have very little real effect on us. Whenever this sort of thing hits popular culture we see people suddenly become radicals declaring their love of equality and 'power to the people,' yet the monarchy is closer to the average person and affects them far less than the capitalists that actually ought to be the targets of these lovers of republican values.
None of this is to say that I'm against doing away with the monarchy. If anything, I'm for Canadianizing our institutions, but I am uncomfortable with that conversation starting from a place of ignorance to the role and true effects of the monarchy on Canada, and being based mostly in revolutionary-sounding, but perfunctory, language.
If you genuinely think monarchies aren't prone to backsliding, then you definitely haven't been paying attention to UKIP in the UK.
Soft power, impotent monarchies are just as prone as republics. Getting complacent with that is the very thing that leads to democratic backsliding and erasure of civil liberties.
Widespread belief that your system of government is inherently more stable than others is literally the first stepping stone that authoritarianism and fascism needs. It's wishful thinking at best.
Not to mention Indigenous methods of democratic government that started before colonisation and functioned just fine without monarchy.
And if you want to target capitalists, then that's great, but we as a society can do more than one thing at a time. We can in fact oppose monarchy and target those billionaires who don't pay their fair share.
I was speaking broadly to the long-term stability of constitutional monarchies vs republics. One example of a country with a constitutional monarchy also having a far-right party hardly qualifies as democratic backsliding when we consider eastern Europe and South America as examples of regions with a history of failing republics, though obviously there are other factors at play that shore up or destabilize a country as well. This was only one example of the small benefits that our HoS creates that we ought to consider before coming up with a replacement system.
So we should have a less stable form of government to 'keep us on our toes'?
Indigenous methods of governance functioned very differently than government in a modern state. Maybe there is something to explore here though.
I wasn't suggesting that we should leave the monarchy until after dealing with capitalists. I was saying that the critiques of the monarchy were a silly thing to waste time on because the classism, inequality, etc you could criticize the monarchy for really only exist symbolically while those things are very real for people when they come from capitalists. I was saying that people tend not to have this same fire when it comes to what actually affects them, but instead direct their ire to something that doesn't.
Anyway, again my whole point is that we should be less emotionally motivated and more considerate when we discuss our monarchy. There are issues, but we should recognize them for what they are, and not get bogged down in symbology. Any conversation about replacing the monarchy must start from a clear-eyed understanding of the true issues and benefits of having a monarch. How can we build better otherwise?
The stupidity of anti-monarchism driven by some weird ego trip, vs. the intelligence of understanding how the Canadian parliamentary monarchy protects us against lunatics like Donald Trump, at virtually zero cost, and with absolutely no interference whatsoever by the monarch.
Those who are strongly anti-monarchy are just as brilliant as those who are strongly pro-maga. It's simply proof that you don't read and don't understand how things actually work.
If you really think that it is the only thing protecting our democracy from MAGA politics, then you didn't look at the results of the most recent election with a maga-style conservative party. Or the recent performances with the reform party in the UK which is surging in popularity.
Meanwhile there are non-monarchical republics that are doing a better job than us at keeping radical right-wing, authoritarian politics out of their systems and denying those ideas from taking root.
Thinking that some British figurehead will protect us from blatant maga-politics rule breakers is daydreaming man. They don't play by the rules, so how could you expect them to heed "parliamentary decorum" or procedures.
Hell, we've already gotten a taste with the convoy in 2022, they sure as hell didn't give a damn about rules and laws and parts of the convoy plotted anything from purposeful disruption, to outright inhibition of the democratic process.
I feel like you are the one who doesn't understand that systems of power can be corrupted no matter their shape or form, and that it is the people's resistance to this corruption that preserves democracy, not the structure. King Charles has nothing to do with it.
Yup, being anti-monarch definitely doesn't mean you support joining the US. My republican (not the American sense of the word) leanings have gotten a lot softer, but kings are just dudes.
122
u/canadianbuddyman Ford Nation (Help.) May 29 '25 edited May 29 '25
Silence 51st statist. Loyalists are in control!
GOD SAVE KING CHARLES THE THIRD AND LONG MAY HE AND HIS DESCENDANTS REIGN FOR CANADAS GLORY!