No, that isn’t how it works; the Queen has no say over who the Governor General is. The monarchy is purely symbolic at this point.
Forgotten in this thread (so far as I can tell) is that Canada did have rebellions in the 1830s, which was part of the impetus for the Durham Report and therefore for the UK to transfer more power in the Act of Union 1840; the We’ve Heard This Song Before effect, if you will.
Boring though it is, Canadian kids have to learn about the Durham Report because it really is a huge turning point in the nation’s history. The UK was astounding tone deaf in the lead up to the American Revolution; after the 1837 rebellions in Canada the govermment of the UK sent John Lambdon, the Lord Durham, over to see what the hell the problem was. Durham’s (that’s not his real last name but is generally how he is styled, so I’ll stick with it) report was basically “holy shit, what a goddamn mess” and the UK’s course of action was
Get the hell out of Canada as gracefully as possible and
Encourage people to emigrate there from the UK in the hopes that the English could outnumber the French, 'cause English people are better.
Much of Durham’s report was bigoted nonsense but the general idea of transferring reponsible government to the colony ended up being the model for independence for a number of countries.
Missed this post yesterday when I was surfing on my phone.
Yes, agreed - the major shift in British economic policy from mercantilism to free trade also played a major role in the relations between Britain and the BNA colonies. See the wiki article on the repeal of the Navigation Acts (and the related repeal of the Corn Laws). The Navigation Acts in particular had been one of the irritants that contributed to the American Revolution, along with British taxes on the colonies, which Britain never did again after the Revolution.
With a more laissez-faire approach by the British government (both in economic policy and in political policy), there was far less chance for grievances against the British government to grow to a boiling point in the Canadian colonies.
That’s one reason France didn’t really fight like crazy to keep it anyway - from the onset the colony was meant to supply amber, fur and wood. In Europe, Russia was the big supplier of those and France wanted to pull a Portugal (i.e. cut off all middle men and rake in the big bucks).
But it never worked in practice. There weren’t enough French people interested in getting stuck in the snowy woods trapping rodents and the Natives weren’t trading massive quantities of pelts either so, eh. Canada certainly didn’t change French society & economy the way commerce with/to the colonies changed life for Britons - hence Voltaire’s acres of snow quote. On aura au moins essayé.
By contrast, the southern British colonies like Virginia and the Carolinas were producing massive quantities of tobacco to feed European smoking habits. I can see why Britain tried so hard to keep them. Flavor country indeed.
Actually, tobacco production in the colonies was unprofitable by the time of the Revolutionary War because of overproduction. Many planters started growing food crops instead of some or all of their traditional tobacco plaintings.
Yes, as I mentioned earlier the 1837 rebellions were the turning point. Britain tried to be even more anal control freaks after they lost the American colonies, leading to the frustration of a second set of rebellions. When two distinct societies, English Upper Canada (Ontario) and French Lower Canada (Quebec), both rebel at the same time it’s a good idea to sit up and take note.
(Of course the revolution was a dud. The story goes the rebels in Toronto spent their time getting ready in a tavern, then marched down the street to meet the army. First battle, they did the tactics they’d practice - first line fires, then drops to reload and second line steps up to fire. All these guns go off and the people in front drop, so the second line thinks they were all shot dead and turns and runs like hell… End of revolution. Imagine how things would have turned out at Concord if the Americans had had Canadian beer.)
IIRC, Barbara Tuchman in March of Folly mentions just how unpopular the American war was. Nobody in England really cared, the government had to go hire Hessians to do the fighting, it cost a lot for minimal gain (even if they’d won). Over 50 years later even the British government decided a new go-round was not a good idea.
As I recall, the Lord Durham report was the one that said you’ll have no end of trouble with these pesky French unless you force them to become proper English speakers. Not far off the mark.
But generally, the upshot was that Britain realized their colonies wanted the same self-government as back home, relatively free from imperial entanglements. They recognized that they couldn’t fight this tide, so better to coopt it.
The British and French had different strategies. The British colonies were settlement colonies; the French colonies were resource extraction colonies. That meant that the population of the French colonies were not as large as the British ones, and not growing as quickly, so they did not become as self-sufficient as the British ones.
However, I would disagree with the suggestion that the fur trade was not profitable for the French. It was, and the French developed tremendous trade routes to the interior of North America, via the rivers and by cooperation with the First Nations.
And American beer explains why Britain went to war to expel the USA from the Empire. American Revolution? That’s just historical revisionism to cover up the shame of having been booted out of the Empire over crappy beer.
It’s not delayed by much: the current curriculum has second-language courses (English for French speakers, or the reverse) starting in 1st grade. (When I was going through elementary school in the 1970s, English courses started in 4th grade.) As for the quality of teaching, well… :o
For a while it WAS illegal to have signs in Quebec in English (even, an English book store!) That law was ruled unconstitutional. IIRC, the current law requires the French to be more prominent (twice the size?) as any other language on a business’s signs.
So that traditional “Chinatown look” with a neighbourhood of only foreign signs - forbidden by the French insecurity.
Our Minister of Defence is a serioursly decorated Sikh warrior with a tour in Bosnia and three tours in Afghanisan, and our Prime Minister will physically beat the shit outof people that get in his way, but despite this, I don’t expect that we’ll try to take over the Empire, for, as that Great Canadian from White River, Ontario, has been known to say, that would simply be too much bother. (The same can be said for why the English gave up most of their colonies, including what is now Canada.)
