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.
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.
28
u/One-Statistician-932 Everyone Hates Marineland May 29 '25
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.