# What does Canada, Australia, etc. gain by keeping Queen Elizabeth as head of state? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 24, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474 "2014-09-24T23:23:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/61 "2014-09-25T13:39:57Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > There may be good reasons for a Commonwealth realm to retain the monarchy, but “change is conceptually or practically not possible” is definitely not one of them. Certainly it’s possible. The argument is that in Canada’s case it is fraught with major difficulties and therefore unlikely for the foreseeable future. The game isn’t worth the candle. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/62 "2014-09-25T14:28:10Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > In Canada it’s really mostly inertia. Canada does have dedicated monarchists but they’re a small minority. Many people feel the monarchy is absurd, but because it has no impact on day to day life, it’s not an important enough issue to make it, well, an issue. I’ve heard old CBC interviews with people from the mid 1960s. It was amazing how many of those people were truly upset with the idea of replacing the Red Ensign with something that didn’t directly harken back to the UK. ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/63 "2014-09-25T14:57:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The three things I want to see in my lifetime are controlled fusion, a space elevator, and the Republic of Canada. I’ll swap you the Leafs winning the Cup again for the space elevator, but otherwise, amen, brother! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/64 "2014-09-25T15:42:41Z")
Having lived in Canada for over a decade, there was absolutely nothing in my daily life that would have been any different, whether or not there was a royal presence watching over me. There was such a thing as a “crown corporation”, like the CBC or Air Canada, which operated in competition with the private sector, and might have been preserved or supported to a greater extent because of the inertia of the crown, more so than if they were simply called “national services too important to be left to the whims of the profit motive”. The crown is considered to be more durable and inviolable, in preserving a status quo. If the government or the people wanted to abolish or alter something (like the CBC or Air Canada), having to answer to The Crown was a bit more formidable. Crown corporations typically operate under a mandate to provide service to every Canadian, regardless of whether doing so would be profitable, which I guess is not a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/65 "2014-09-25T16:04:28Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > The House of Hanover was interesting. George I was King of England, but he did not care to live there. George II was not much interested, George III was famously mad and George IV a louche playboy. It’s often forgotten that those Georges were also monarchs of Hanover. So they were German in the very real sense of being monarchs of a German region. The relationship between Britain and Hanover in the 18th century is analogous to that between England and Scotland in the 17th. The difference in succession laws with regard to women, which separated the crowns again, is one of those quirks that substantially changed history. Imagine the Queen Victoria and the British-Hanoverian Empire with substantial holdings in Europe! ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/66 "2014-09-25T16:23:23Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I think it’s already the case that there are more countries of which the present Queen _used_ to be monarch than there of of which she _is_ monarch, so there are plenty of models for the transition from Commonwealth realm to republic. One one view, transition to a republic is in fact the _normal_ evolution of a Commonwealth realm, and those which do not make the move are the exceptions. Not necessarily. I don’t think you can say there is a single path for the development of individual Commonwealth countries. Each one has unique factors in their histories, that influenced their attitude to the monarchy. One point is whether a Commonwealth country has found it difficult to establish its independence from Britain. The harder the fight for independence, the less likely the country would want to keep the Crown, which could be seen as a symbol of colonialism. Countries like Pakistan, India, Ireland, Kenya and Uganda demonstrate that point. All of them had hard fights for independence, and went for a republican model as quickly as they could. Countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand had fairly easy paths to independence, without any battles, and thus didn’t see the Crown and the British connection as a bad thing (with regional exceptions like Quebec, of course). Another big difference is whether a country was largely a settlement colony, with British folk largely supplanting the indigenous population, or a resource extraction colony, where a small number of Britishers governed a largely indigenous population. Settlement colonies are more likely to have kept the monarchy because it was not seen as “foreign” by most of the inhabitants at the crucial stage of moving from colony to independence, while resource colonies would be more likely to see the Crown as clearly foreign. Again, India, Pakistan, Ireland, Kenya and Uganda fit this trend, while Canada, Australia and New Zealand had a strong ethnic connection to Britain. (I’ve not discussed the Caribbean countries, which have several Commonwealth realms, because I’m not that familiar with their histories, but my impression is that they had a relatively easy path to independence, because the resource countries of India and Africa did most of the heavy lifting to establish the de-colonization process.) ---
**Author:** ![J-P\_L](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/j-p_l/32/3156_2.png) [@J-P\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/J-P_L)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/67 "2014-09-25T21:28:46Z")
As others have said, the royalty has very little impact on the day-to-day life of Canadians, unless you live and/or work in Ottawa and the royals happens to be visiting, then traffic is a bitch. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/68 "2014-09-26T00:26:21Z")
I’ve always thought that the monarch is (at least theoretically) the last bastion of reason if Parliament runs off its rails. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/69 "2014-09-26T00:38:59Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The relationship between Britain and Hanover in the 18th century is analogous to that between England and Scotland in the 17th. The difference in succession laws with regard to women, which separated the crowns again, is one of those quirks that substantially changed history. Imagine the Queen Victoria and the British-Hanoverian Empire with substantial holdings in Europe! Princhester’s law: as an online discussion that has anything even tangentially to do with the English Queen grows longer, the probability of it gradually turning into a discussion between the-history-of-the-European-monarchy minutiae-nerds approaches 1. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/70 "2014-09-26T01:04:16Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > You have to look at in the context of each country. > > In Canada, you need unanimous consent of the federal government and all ten provinces. As a political matter, that is a very steep hurdle indeed . . . Oh, sure. The first question is always going to be whether the country _wants_ to be a republic rather than a monarchy. If there’s an appetite for becoming a republic, then there are plenty of precedents as to how it might be done. I accept that in the case of a federal country like Canada there would be further complications, but if the Canadians want a republic, I don’t think those complications would stand in the way of their getting it. (FWIW, although as an Australian I favour an Australian republic and as an Irishman I come from a long line of republican soldiers, I can see why the Canadians would value the monarchy and wish to retain it. Personally, I wouldn’t expect a Canadian republic any time soon. But if Canadian sentiment on this issue were to change, I don’t the the constititution would be an insurmountable barrier.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/71 "2014-09-26T03:34:55Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > … Personally, I wouldn’t expect a Canadian republic any time soon. But if Canadian sentiment on this issue were to change, I don’t the the constitution would be an insurmountable barrier.) As of 2013, Canada has a population of + 35,000,000 people. Fewer than 75,000 Canadians could block a constitutional amendment to abolish the monarchy. Prince Edward Island’s consent would be needed under the unanimity requirement. PEI has a population of ~ 145,000 people. If over half of PEI’s population voted against abolition of the Crown, the constitutional amendment would be defeated, even if there were large majorities in favour of abolition in all of the other nine provinces. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/72 "2014-09-26T03:38:45Z")
And are the residents of PEI notably royalist in sentiment? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/73 "2014-09-26T03:48:00Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > It’s not _that_ difficult to change the system. I think it’s already the case that there are more countries of which the present Queen _used_ to be monarch than there of of which she _is_ monarch, so there are plenty of models for the transition from Commonwealth realm to republic. One one view, transition to a republic is in fact the _normal_ evolution of a Commonwealth realm, and those which do not make the move are the exceptions. Similarly there are plenty of constitutional parliamentary republics - including, but not limited to, former Commonwealth realms - which have found effective democratic solutions to the “root of power” problem. > > There may be good reasons for a Commonwealth realm to retain the monarchy, but “change is conceptually or practically not possible” is definitely not one of them. None of whom were white majority and only one was white ruled. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/74 "2014-09-26T03:50:40Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > I’ve heard old CBC interviews with people from the mid 1960s. It was amazing how many of those people were truly upset with the idea of replacing the Red Ensign with something that didn’t directly harken back to the UK. Was’nt the opposition to the change more from veterans groups and the like? Peoples who had emotional link to the old flag, having fought under it? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/75 "2014-09-26T03:54:21Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > It’s often forgotten that those Georges were also monarchs of Hanover. So they were German in the very real sense of being monarchs of a German region. Was Britain ruled by Hanoverian kings? Or was Hanover ruled by British kings? I think on the whole, it was mostly the latter. It’s surprising how rarely you see the same point being made about the Plantagenets. They were certainly at least as French as the Hanoverians were German. And most of the Plantagenets regarded themselves as being primarily French. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/76 "2014-09-26T03:58:42Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > None of whom were white majority and only one was white ruled. Apart from Ireland, of course. OK, Ireland severed its links with the British monarchy in 1948, a few years before the present Queen acceded, so it’s not technically in a list of countries that she used to be Queen of, but no longer is. But it _would_ be in any list of Commonwealth realms that are now republics. It is of course true to say that, by and large, what in less politically correct days were known as the “white dominions” have not become republics, whereas the bulk of the “dominions other than white dominions” have. But so what? The question I have been addressing is not whether Canada (or any other realm) _should_ become a republic; it’s whether a realm _can_ become a republic. My point is that there are abundant precedents showing that it can be, and often has been, done. I don’t see that the precedents become invalid or irrelevant because then mostly relate to countries which are not white-majority countries. Do white-majority countries have limited capacity for political evolution? ---
**Author:** ![qubed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f07891/32.png) [@qubed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qubed)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/77 "2014-09-26T04:08:34Z")
This [article](http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral) claims that New Zealand is better off precisely because “Monarchs are more effective than presidents precisely because they lack any semblance of legitimacy”. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/78 "2014-09-26T04:24:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Was Britain ruled by Hanoverian kings? Or was Hanover ruled by British kings? I think on the whole, it was mostly the latter. George I and II were definitely German, culturally speaking. Both were born and raised in Germany. Both married German wives. For George II, English was not even his second language, but his third. He chose to make his military career in the Hanoverian forces, not the British, and did not make his residence in England until the age of 31. He had only been an English resident for about ten years when he became king, and throughout his life he made regular extended visits to Hanover. George III is probably best thought of as bi-national. He was the first Hanoverian king to have been born in England, but both his parents were German. He was raised in England, but surrounded by German courtiers and household staff. He regarded both German and English as native languages. He always insisted on his Britishness - perhaps a little too volubly, indicating that his predecessors were widely regarded (and perhaps resented) as German, and he wanted to make the point that he was not like them. George IV, William IV and Victoria, were culturally English much more than German. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/79 "2014-09-26T04:31:00Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > And are the residents of PEI notably royalist in sentiment? They are one of the more socially conservative provinces, and do not have a large immigrant population. In fact [Wikipedia summarises as follo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Prince_Edward_Island)ws: > [@](#): > > … Prince Edward Island is by a strong margin the most Celtic and specifically the most Scottish province in Canada (often thought to be Nova Scotia) and perhaps the most Scottish place (ethnically) in the world, outside of Scotland. 38% of islanders claim Scottish ancestry, but this is an underestimate and it is thought that almost 50% of islanders have Scottish roots. When combined with Irish and Welsh, almost 80% of islanders are of some Celtic stock, albeit most families have resided in PEI for at least two centuries. **Few places outside Europe can claim such a homogenous Celtic ethnic background. Certainly, in a North American context, the only other jurisdiction with such a high percentage of British Isles heritage would be Newfoundland.** In any event, the point I was making is that under our Constitution, relatively small numbers of people can block constitutional amendments. Millions of Canadians could vote in favour of a constitutional amendment, but less than 100,000 could defeat it. That is the political reality that our politicians face when considering a constitutional amendment. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474/80 "2014-09-26T05:05:25Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > They are one of the more socially conservative provinces, and do not have a large immigrant population. In fact [Wikipedia summarises as follo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Prince_Edward_Island)ws: Celts, eh? Should have no problem, so! 😉 > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > In any event, the point I was making is that under our Constitution, relatively small numbers of people can block constitutional amendments. Millions of Canadians could vote in favour of a constitutional amendment, but less than 100,000 could defeat it. That is the political reality that our politicians face when considering a constitutional amendment. Fair enough. Point taken. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-canada-australia-etc-gain-by-keeping-queen-elizabeth-as-head-of-state/699474.md?page=5)