Comment by krisgee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by krisgee | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state.

I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests and as much as the Governor-General is technically the commander in chief I highly doubt if she called for a revolution against the civilian government that would get any traction.

Furthermore I gotta say that given a lot of the other options I LIKE the hoky kind of odd but deeply rooted ceremony that surrounds our governmental proceedings.

Is it silly that the prime minister has to be presented to the Governor-General to get invested and leads a Privy Council (and for that matter is called a Prime Minister)? Yeah, but it's been WORKING that way for a long time and that inertia is important, especially I think nowadays with a lot of uncertainty from the largest democracy in the world.

>Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state.

If we just need somewhere for power to divest from, then hand it over to the royal Corgis. If you have to have the fiction of a figurehead to make your government function, better it be something that has no possibility of corruption.

The whole monarchy thing is BS. We/Canada can easily do without it. And remember we have to pledge allegiance to the "King/Queen and Her Hiers" when taking the citizenship pledge - which includes the wonderful Prince Andrew. Such bullshit to genuflect to such people. And the British empire doesn't exactly have a shining past with all their colonialism and what not. Why not just pledge allegiance to the Canadian flag or the Charter?

But every time we bring it up for removal there are excuses why it cannot be done. The Governor General et all are a cost center - not just federally but in each province. Or worse two factions aligned to removing the monarchy don't disagree on how it should be done and the measure fails (Australia). At least the Australians managed to remove 'Queen/Heirs' from the citizenship pledge and acknowledged that many immigrants who want citizenship came from countries in Africa and Asia that were colonized, whose people were treated like shit, and had their natural resources stolen.

Cute and hoky to some... but others are being asked to pledge to an institution that subjugated many of their ancestors. For no good reason. Even if you have not been subjugated, there is no reason to pledge allegiance to her.

> The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests

The article disagrees with you. Or at least points out where there isn't always true.

ehh article agrees. It was the government that accommodated the queen.

They could just as well polity said to her to pound sand.

Queen asked them, it was up to them to say yes or no. I imagine if some other party was in power back then results might be different

Reply on news.ycombinator.com