As an outsider looking in this seems very weird. I guess the king of England is also technically the king of Canada, but I'm failing to see why that matters even if it's incredibly strange. I know in England the monarchy is almost entirely symbolic with nearly all the actual governing done by the PM and Parliament. I would assume Canada is the same. Does the monarchy have any actual power in Canada? I believe in England they have a (incredibly rarely used) veto power over parliament but that's it. Is Canada not the same?
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
157 points (96.4% liked)
World News
46793 readers
2444 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There's no point in saying technically, he is the King of Canada. That being said the Crown is mostly symbolic like the UK, however symbols can be very powerful. By inviting the King to open Parliament, Carney is symbolically reminding Trump that Canada is much bigger than just one country. Likewise the Chiefs are reminding Canada, specifically Alberta, that the Crown holds the treaties, not Canada.
Basically this is like getting picked on in school then bringing your big brother to lunch. He doesn't have to do anything, the point is to remind your bullies you have some pretty strong support, and they should think again about continuing to bully you.
Yea I got the feeling it was about the MAGATs
Bold of you to assume the MAGATs (including the felon in chief) are smart enough to understand the implied threat/warning.
MAGATs on both sides of the border were being addressed in King Charle’s speech
We got maple MAGATs that own nothing more than a dot of private land that believe western Canada is their’s to just trade with just a simple referendum but this would interfere with long standing treaties that were signed with First Nations and the crown land of which aren’t just provincially ‘owned’.
There is a reason why Charles mentioned the 3 particular tribes all of which Alberta is entirely lying across. Not one foot of Alberta isn’t native land involved in the treaty. In fact the 3 provinces that are currently the biggest MAGATs supporters are all entirely engulfed in native land that have been involved in long standing treaties.
That’s what that particular announcement mentioning the tribes was all about and why the First Nations were there to make their presence known.
Me thinks the First Nations should want Danielle smith’s head on a platter if she keeps her bullshit up especially now that it’s spoken from the mouth of the king of Canada.
The royals do have power. They rarely swing it. And this hasn’t been done since the 70s. So whether she wants to or not she better be listening with both hands out of her ears on this one. Not often a king comes down from his main throne to address one person in particular in Canada who’s been fucking around. The royals didn’t even do this when Quebec wanted to separate. So this is something.
If trump decide to attack, uk and the king won't do anything to protect us. No amount of sanctions would hurt the USA and they will surely not bring soldiers to canada. The whole EU effort still struggle against Russia.
You naive if you think this madman trump care about a useless kid
You think the US is going to attack Canada? Like, with military force? Are you delusional?
Yes. That's what Europe thought in 1938 and how they were taken so unaware. This is playing out almost step-by-step Europe in the 1930s. Once Trump consolidates his power he'll realize his "US first" policy will not work and he'll start looking outwards to expand the US to get control of more resources. Resources Canada is rich in.
He's expressed several times that he wants Canada to be part of the US. He hopes we'll be like Austria where there are enough people supporting unification that he can just walk in without a shot being fired. But he'll make us a Poland and invade outright if he has to.
I expect everything from a mad man like Trump
Some things require more than just the perceived wishes of a single madman, or the world as we know it would have already been destroyed several times over.
Regardless this useless king won't protect us from anything not even non military threats
That's largely correct, and this demonstration is mostly symbolic as well.
The treaties with indigenous peoples of Canada are administered by an arm of the federal government, but the treaty agreements themselves are technically between the indigenous peoples and the crown, hence the address to King Charles.
That does raise an interesting question though. What would happen to those treaties if Canada decided to officially become fully independent of the crown? I don't think anything is really stopping that from happening other than there not really being a significant upside for Canada.
Also side question, is the king (and I guess the entire royal family) considered a citizen of Canada and all the other countries that apparently never really got their independence from England? That's got to be incredibly weird for someone marrying into the royal family. "Congratulations you married a royal, here's your new citizenship to a dozen different countries most of which you've probably never set foot in before".
The treaties, as they stand, are no longer acceptable arbitration mechanisms by which the world operates politically. They were initially made in extremely bad faith, taking advantage of people who had never bargained with Europeans before.
This is a contentious and complicated issue and the Crown, behind which the Canadian Federal government shields itself from having to negotiate new indigenous agreements, is happy to remain a Commonwealth country for the time being. If the time came to become independent, these agreements would likely require some considerable rework to be taken seriously.
The king of England is the head of state, and automatically inherits citizenship through that position.
If Canada became fully independent from the Crown we'd have to draw up a completely new constitution as the current one is tightly tied to the Crown. Personally, I don't trust anyone these days to create a new constitution, as an unfortunate chunk of the country seems to want to eliminate current rights as it is. For as much as some Canadians want or demand to remove the Crown from Canada, it's really not feasible, and could potentially (probably) completely destroy the country.
I imagine that every law that mentions the monarch of England would become redrafted to be relevant like we did with the EU laws when we left.
I believe in England they have a (incredibly rarely used) veto power over parliament but that's it.
The monarch has more power in the UK then you'd think, but a lot of it is not exercised because recent monarchs know it wouldn't sit right in a democracy.
I won't list all of the King's powers as others have already gone into more detail, but one I find interesting is the King's ability to call (or not call) an election. There is theoretically a precedent where the King is suppose to reject a prime minister's request for an election if there is still a functioning parliament. So in the present context, if Keir Starmer were to ask for an election today, the King is supposed to reject it on the basis that Keir Starmer has a strong majority, and still comfortably retains parliament's confidence. But if the King ever felt like he had to exercise this power, it would put him in a very uncomfortable position, and people would be willing to criticise him for whichever move he made, and then perhaps wonder why an unelected hereditary monarch is the one making this decision...
For more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles
The key piece of information is the treaties. Long story short: The treaties a were signed with "the Crown", the absolute power of Canada that still exists (it's just no longer controlled by the actual Kng but by the government) with the sovereign first nations.
This is a small distinction but it makes all the difference. The treaties supercede any other Canadian legislation because they are signed with the Crown itself, the representation of the full abstract authority of the government, so they outweigh (at least in theory) any other law that came after.
The chiefs are calling the King as a power move, they are reminding him and the Canadian bureaucrsts "your ancestors and descendants are bound by this deal, the power you represent is bound by this deal, it is not a negotiation"
Imagine pulling an email with the CEO while talking to a manager, this is what they are doing.
CC'ing the CEO when telling the manager: per my previous email
He has the power to dissolve parliament, same in Australia and NZ.
Yah, but would those countries listen if he tried it? IIRC Jamaica was on that list but was waited until the queen died to toss the whole "crown colony" thing?
I’m not sure that the UK would listen if he tried it independently. I think that it would give a huge boost to the anti monarchy movement if he tried to actually use his power for anything non-symbolic.
Not sure, we voted to become a republic in 1999 which was 45% yes/55% no, but quite a few of the 'No' party were dissatisfied with the plans for the republic itself rather than ditching the Crown.
Well, I suppose that's kind of like the ultimate veto, "you suck at this so much you're all fired". How many times has that actually happened?
Directly via the Crown in Australia, none.
Though it's largely considered The Queen was involved in dismissing Gough Whitlam in 1975.
Usually it's just the typical double-dissolution where after having a number of bills passed in the lower house (house of representatives) but rejected in the upper house (senate), the Prime Minister can petition the Governor General (representative of and to the Crown when the Monarch isn't in Australia) to dissolve both houses and call for fresh elections.
Your talking about royal assent, where a law needs the nod from the monarchy in order to be passed.
Its incredibly rare for this to be vetod it's never happened in Canada and last happened in the UK in 1999 regarding the Iraq war.
He is useless when we spend 60 millions every years for it
About time to burn down the Monarchy!