29
Monarchists: can you explain the appeal?
(crazypeople.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
29 points (96.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
39891 readers
987 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well technically, Canada's head of state is King Charles III. As in the UK though, it's a largely symbolic role. I don't think loyalists in general advocate for replacing our parliamentary democracy with the monarchy or anything like that? I am not of UEL heritage myself though, so I can't speak for them. Maybe some of the more die-hards do?
There was an incident in which an unpopular minority government chose to prorogue parliament rather than face a confidence motion that could have triggered an election. Why I mention this is that the Governor General (who was the then-Queen's representative in Canada) had to sign off on the proroguing. It's an interesting thought as to what would have happened had she refused? That would be a rare example of actual political power wielded by the monarchy. In the end though, she did not.
Maybe I should mention I live in Canada.
I don't really follow this example with the GC. Are you referring to Harper/Michaëlle Jean?
Let's put aside what Harper was doing to explore this: they were not even asking for a new election, they were asking to be recognized as an official coalition government, something that happened once before.
My understanding with respect to the prorogue is that there was no legal basis to deny it. What was agreed upon was a short duration and that a budget be proposed when they returned. Failure of the budget would mean the government would have to dissolve.
So I guess she did exert some influence, but we can't know for sure how much of that was imposed on the Harper gov vs seen as legitimizing the action? The public was pretty split.
Oh right, I'm remembering that incorrectly. It wasn't a confidence bill or something like that which would have toppled the government. It was the coalition. Anyway, it was a curious case of the GG finding herself in the middle of this and having to make a decision with political consequences.