So that went well... GG insults the King.

[CdnFox]

Carson Jerema: The Governor General just undermined the King of Canada | National Post

Now it's a little more understanding for the average person not to know this stuff. But the king is the king of Canada, and the governor general is his agent.

And here she goes talking about how his visit to Canada will help bring our two nations closer. He's the king, he's not the representative of another nation.

For people who understand how it actually works this is a major faux pas. It's worse because his entire trip was supposed to be symbolic of the fact that Canada is part of the commonwealth and is directly connected to england and the UK.  And she just kind of blew that.

Looks like they took it down fairly fast but oh my god. Is a competent GG too much to ask for?

[SpankyMcFarland]

The awkward truth remains; our monarch is a foreigner, an Englishman. We may pretend that’s not the case but there it sits. 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The awkward truth remains; our monarch is a foreigner, an Englishman. We may pretend that’s not the case but there it sits. 

and in fairness to the GG, she's merely reflecting how the vast majority of Canadians view the situation,

bearing in mind that the Commonwealth is not an alliance, the Commonwealth did not replace the Empire,

the Commonwealth has no legal standing whatsoever, it's just a social club,

so in fact, there is no bilateral alliance between the United Kingdom and Canada anymore,

all alliances between Britain & Canada only run through Washington as the centre  ; UKUSA & NATO,

Britain & Canada were in fact the same country, right up until 28 March 1982,

but upon the Canada Act 1982 receiving Royal Assent, Canada has been on its own,

 you see all these indignant Canadians now saying " we fought to defend Great Britain in the World Wars !"

but they miss the part wherein Canada chose to end that relationship,  forty three years ago, by its own hand

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The awkward truth remains; our monarch is a foreigner, an Englishman. We may pretend that’s not the case but there it sits. 

I don't understand why that would be an awkward truth. That is the foundation and history of our country.

Frankly our current prime minister is no different. It may have been born here but his allegiances and his time as an adult have been spent elsewhere.

[Nefarious Banana]

GG could host a lunch for the Kingbee . . . "would you like a dab of mayo for your 'cucumber on rye'?  Smooth things over a bit . . . 

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I don't understand why that would be an awkward truth. That is the foundation and history of our country.

Frankly our current prime minister is no different. It may have been born here but his allegiances and his time as an adult have been spent elsewhere.

Why it’s awkward has just been illustrated in the tariffs saga. We all hope the current hullabaloo will die down but the direction of travel of the West is not encouraging at the moment. It’s no longer difficult to see a day when the PMs of Canada and the UK will have diametrically opposed policy positions on a vital matter. If that ever happens I hope everybody here understands whom Charles and his heirs will follow. Their full time job is in Britain. 
 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Why it’s awkward has just been illustrated in the tariffs saga. We all hope the current hullabaloo will die down but the direction of travel of the West is not encouraging at the moment. It’s no longer difficult to see a day when the PMs of Canada and the UK will have diametrically opposed policy positions on a vital matter. If that ever happens I hope everybody here understands whom Charles and his heirs will follow. Their full time job is in Britain. 
 

 

Oh I don't think anybody's under any illusions as to the functional head of state, and it's not the king. Harper said essentially that to Queen Elizabeth back in the day. The push came to shove and it was a question of one or the other Canadians would defend Canadians interest and Britain would defend Britain's interest. We all know that

The king is the head of state isn't a practical position, but it is symbolic and it does tie us to a certain history. And there are times when that is a valuable thing to remember. This would appear to be one of them

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh I don't think anybody's under any illusions as to the functional head of state, and it's not the king. Harper said essentially that to Queen Elizabeth back in the day. The push came to shove and it was a question of one or the other Canadians would defend Canadians interest and Britain would defend Britain's interest. We all know that

The king is the head of state isn't a practical position, but it is symbolic and it does tie us to a certain history. And there are times when that is a valuable thing to remember. This would appear to be one of them

Separate people should serve as heads of state and government. That’s the best arrangement and it’s the one followed in most European democracies. It forms yet another bulwark against authoritarianism. Unfortunately, we have made it virtually impossible to change our current arrangement short of war but I think there is one thing we might be able to do without a protracted legal crisis - allow parliament to take a series of votes, preferable secret, on candidates for the GG and take the result as non-binding advice to the PM. This would strengthen the independence of the office and in time make them a de facto head of state. The PM should not be directly involved in choosing the GG. 

This isn’t in our top twenty problems as a state but I suspect it’s going to become a bigger issue. Trump has set out to cause crises abroad and is succeeding. We never want to see some unfortunate monarch having to say one thing in Canada and quite another in Britain. 

 

 

[blackbird]

On 5/26/2025 at 9:50 PM, CdnFox said:

Carson Jerema: The Governor General just undermined the King of Canada | National Post

Now it's a little more understanding for the average person not to know this stuff. But the king is the king of Canada, and the governor general is his agent.

And here she goes talking about how his visit to Canada will help bring our two nations closer. He's the king, he's not the representative of another nation.

For people who understand how it actually works this is a major faux pas. It's worse because his entire trip was supposed to be symbolic of the fact that Canada is part of the commonwealth and is directly connected to england and the UK.  And she just kind of blew that.

Looks like they took it down fairly fast but oh my god. Is a competent GG too much to ask for?

She's a DEI pick.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Separate people should serve as heads of state and government. That’s the best arrangement and it’s the one followed in most European democracies. It forms yet another bulwark against authoritarianism. Unfortunately, we have made it virtually impossible to change our current arrangement short of war but I think there is one thing we might be able to do without a protracted legal crisis - allow parliament to take a series of votes, preferable secret, on candidates for the GG and take the result as non-binding advice to the PM.

I agree that having a GG in a practical sense is a major circuit breaker protecting our democracy and is extremely desirable.

But I don't know that your change is going to make much difference. The problem is anything you can change easily can be changed back easily.

I mean we have a similar problem with judges. To resolve this harper went through a massively complicated consultation process and came up with a system that produced a committee that would make a recommendation of a few judges for the prime minister to pick from. It included all political parties, the police, and some other groups so that it was extremely non-partisan and judges were Chosen based on their results and service rather than political leanings or connections. It was widely acclaimed as an excellent solution that produced great results.

Trudeau killed it 5 minutes after taking power.

I would expect the same to happen here. If the conservatives did as you said and put in a selection process that was nonpartisan the liberals would simply toss it out when it suited them and put in whoever they liked.

[herbie]

On 5/27/2025 at 11:42 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

The awkward truth remains; our monarch is a foreigner, an Englishman. We may pretend that’s not the case but there it sits. 

As is the awkward truth that the Governor General is the effective head of state, that despite the title of the King's representative in Canada, the GG does not consult the Monarch on decisions.
The entire editorial was a desperate, petty attempt to frame a very minor thing as a major event using the writer's own obscure reasoning. .

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

As is the awkward truth that the Governor General is the effective head of state, that despite the title of the King's representative in Canada, the GG does not consult the Monarch on decisions.

This is true, but they do follow the commonwealth traditions and are guided by precedent set in ALL of the common wealth countries. They don't just make it up as they go. So they are still bound by the overall conventions if not the monarch directly. But still, good point. 

Quote

The entire editorial was a desperate, petty attempt to frame a very minor thing as a major event using the writer's own obscure reasoning. .

This is stupid.  I don't know why you can't just stop when you make a good point without having to carry on to demonstrate the fact you said something intelligent was a fluke 

The whole purpose of the visit was an exercise in symbolism showcasing the fact that canada is not a 'stand alone' nation but is part of a larger national community and history and that we do not stand alone.  The comments entirely undermined that simple message, and for god's sake a GG should know better.   I expect YOU to be largely clueless but if you're going to serve in the GG'S office you SHOULD KNOW who your boss is, even if it is largely symbolic. 

 

To put this in perspective this is like the president of a company showing up at a branch office and having the branch manager say "wow, this is a great opportunity for our two companies to grow closer".  

Edited Wednesday at 11:04 PM by CdnFox

[TreeBeard]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

She's a DEI pick.

What qualifications is she missing?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

What qualifications is she missing?

Lets start with the knowledge of how our political system and country works and who her boss is.  Some might say that's pretty entry level qualifications right there. 

Doesn't speak french either which apparently is an issue for quebec.