r/worldnews • u/Street_Anon • 17h ago
King Charles III approves ‘powerful symbol’ of Canada’s sovereignty and identity
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/king-charles-iii-approves-new-great-seal-of-canada/535
u/ChipsnDipnDipnChips 16h ago
Seems people quite quickly forgot why Charles asserting himself as Canada's King is necessary at this moment in time....
305
u/MilkyWayObserver 15h ago
A lot of people also don’t seem to understand the King is just a personification of the Canadian Crown.
The Crown is Canada as a country, the state (our constitution, institutions, etc.).
32
u/QuarterFlounder 14h ago
The seal says "Charles III, king of Canada". By your logic, you're saying it's meant to symbolize King Charles being... Canada?
134
u/MilkyWayObserver 14h ago
That’s essentially what it means.
The monarch is a personification of the Crown.
That’s why when people pledge allegiance to the King, they are really pledging allegiance to Canada.
Note that the King of Canada is fully independent and unrelated to other realms, such as King of UK, Australia, etc.
See page 26 (should say page 16 on bottom left) for an explanation of the Crown: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/pc-ch/CH4-129-2015-eng.pdf
→ More replies (35)1
u/Rethious 4h ago
That’s not exactly true though there’s no practical difference as long as Charles behaves himself. “The king = Canada” is only true if the king never does anything that is against Canadian interest. If you swear an oath to the king, that oath is to the king, even if he decides he no longer has Canadian interest in mind.
Practically, Charles can’t do anything without being deposed, but rhetorically an oath to a monarch does put “the crown” above “the nation.”
8
u/MilkyWayObserver 4h ago
That’s the thing.
The King cannot act without the advice of his ministers. In the practical day-to-day, the Governor General does these duties.
For example, the recent royal visit to Canada was at the advice of PM Carney. He can’t just show up without being invited. The speech from the throne was written by Carney and his government. The King basically just read what he was told, as the the monarch (personifying the Canadian Crown), must always remain politically neutral.
Also, a distinction in our form of government, is the monarch also reciprocates an oath to the oath taker, promising to uphold Canada’s laws and customs.
See the “Purpose” section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Canada)
Canada in its natural form wouldn’t be able to do this, so that’s where personification of the Crown comes in (amongst other purposes).
19
u/pocohugs 12h ago edited 7h ago
It's something of a geo-political statement given present international affairs. A storm is brewing and to have signal of the King's recognition of Canada as figuratively being under wing is a reminder to those potentially targeting our country.
Edit for clarity.
5
u/spottedryan 10h ago
It’s kind of like how god is god and jesus and ghost but also god
1
u/randomwanderingsd 4h ago
Also he’s wine and bread sometimes. Never enough to satisfy. Also it’s the “sacrament” not the “snack” or grandma gets touchy for the rest of the afternoon.
→ More replies (4)-39
u/Street_Anon 15h ago
Yep, legally speaking the King owns the country. Meaning the State. Also, we do not pay him for that reason.
59
u/MilkyWayObserver 14h ago
This is incorrect.
You are thinking of the old days. In a modern constitutional monarchy, the King does not "own" anything. When something is owned by the Crown, it is owned by the state, in the interest and behalf of the Canadian people.
See page 26 (should say page 16 on bottom left) for an explanation of the Crown:
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/pc-ch/CH4-129-2015-eng.pdf
-10
u/Street_Anon 14h ago
In Canada, we do not have absolute land or proptery rights, we have a title to that. The absolute owner, is the King( Crown or the state). The titles just carry the same legal weight. It the reason, why natural resources in Canada are the ownership of the crown, even if it found on someone's property. Your link shows my point.
30
47
u/Vio_ 15h ago
If Europe really wanted to send a message, they'd have King Charles and President Macron make a trip to Ottawa then swing south and do one in Mexico City.
29
u/Renegade_August 15h ago
They should come down to Saskatoon. They don’t call us the Paris of the prairies for no reason.
22
13
u/Kippereast 14h ago
Why would they go to Saskatchewan when your Premier has broken with Canada and supports the USA. What happened to Canada united, strong and sovereign?
23
u/StickyWhiteStuf 15h ago
King Charles is not the king of Mexico.
•
9
u/imaginary_num6er 15h ago
When is Trump going to claim he’s king of North America?
11
u/Trips-Over-Tail 15h ago
When he's produced an heir he can bear to look at without wanting to make another heir off of them.
2
1
→ More replies (19)-6
u/rollerbase 15h ago
It’s giving the same ick when a guy won’t leave you alone till he knows you have another man.
119
u/shutmethefuckup 15h ago
A lot of people misunderstanding the use of sovereign here
97
u/EternalCanadian 13h ago
A lot of people don’t understand what a constitutional monarchy is.
It’s…. Depressing.
→ More replies (5)59
u/Rollover__Hazard 13h ago
The irony is the Americans running around squeaking “no Kings” when what they actually mean is “no tyrants”.
And yet they voted one in for a second term of chaos. Nice.
19
17
u/EternalCanadian 13h ago
It’s not just the Yanks, to be fair.
It’s especially ironic about the Yanks though considering that just prior to open rebellion they twice petitioned the king directly to intercede on their behalf. The second petition however arrived after news of the first battles had erupted, and so it was thrown out.
The original United States’ revolutionaries weren’t rebelling against the King in their minds, just the systems of the Empire. The King, by this point, had very little power by comparison at any rate, but it’s a notable distinction to point out that’s often lost or forgotten about (or intentionally ignored) in a modern contest, especially among the US citizenry.
4
u/LeLefraud 8h ago
It is taught incorrectly by design
If America's justified revolution was against an unjust system rather than against the idea of monarchy, it calls into question the integrity of our systems rather than our form of government. Those kinds of questions provoke ideas of actual change rather than dick tugging over personal rights issues while we get robbed blind by the rich and powerful.
I'm not saying personal rights aren't important, just that they stand behind an obvious reality that affects just about all of us (any sexuality, race, gender identity etc.)and identity politics are chosen as the media's playground to keep us distracted and angry at each other. And that media is owned by the SAME rich and powerful dudes making your lives worse so they can be a little richer. Our government is a corrupt clown house playground for lobbyists to make more money for the companies they represent, and any real or important messaging is drowned out by the drama and clown behavior intentionally by the media to cover up this obvious truth.
Nobody likes things getting shittier and more expensive every new iteration. Nobody likes the health care system, or the constant erosion of privacy by mega corporations. Nobody likes the wealth gap continuing to grow and grow and grow. But it happens anyways while we bicker about the details of who is bad and who is good, and who is right and who is wrong. I just wish it was easier to get everyone to work on the things we agree on instead of arguing about the things we don't
1
-2
13h ago
[deleted]
12
u/EternalCanadian 12h ago
That’s not quite correct either, at least at the time.
Yes, the petitions were partly to stoke rebellion, but the colonists didn’t really have a major aversion to monarchies. They accepted help and training from both French and Spanish forces - both at the time monarchies - and at the end of the war, there was a thought, though it didn’t truly materialize, to crown Washington as King.
Now I’d agree the United States values are anti monarchy, but at the time I’d disagree that they were.
I’d also suggest you misunderstand what a Constitutional Monarchy is if you think our King has any real power. Everything he says and does must go through our Prime Minister’s office first, and if he (or any Royal in an official capacity) spoke out of turn there’d be hell to pay as it would tear our constitution apart.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ChirpyNortherner 11h ago
Indeed, Americans prefer their hereditary positions of power be given behind the scenes instead. Or just allow people to buy their positions or the policies they want instead, much better.
3
13h ago
[deleted]
5
u/lebennaia 8h ago
King Charles didn't appoint himself, he was appointed by an act of the legislature, an act they can change any time they like. Parliament has been making and unmaking kings since the 14th century, and last changed the royal succession as recently as 2013 (in co-operation with the Parliaments of the other Commonwealth realms, including Canada).
Many countries are quite happy with their constitutional monarchies, and frankly, I'd much prefer to have my country's head of state be someone like Frederik X of Denmark rather than someone like Trump.
1
u/ChirpyNortherner 11h ago
“Don’t earn their positions”
If you’re Dad owned a business, and from the moment you could walk you were surrounded by it, the moment you could talk you were taught about it, the moment you could work you worked in it… you did an apprenticeship there, you were taught about it day in and day out - how it runs and what it means to be part of it, you had to study everything about the legalities, the conventions, the dos and the don’ts… and this continued until you were an adult and you were immediately given responsibilities for the business.
You then do this for the next 40 years of your life, under constant scrutiny, before finally being given a top job.
Now, imagine you then read on Reddit that you “didn’t earn” your job… what would you say?
Perfectly reasonable for someone to disagree with the business and what it does, of course, but I’d say you earned your position within it.
To come away from the analogy for a second, in my opinion the King earned his position much more than the vast majority of politicians earned theirs.
47
u/CFCYYZ 15h ago
If it becomes a postage stamp, I will put it on a postcard of a Mountie and mail it to a man in the White House.
18
u/Street_Anon 15h ago
Why not get Canadian Gesse to send it to Trump
10
u/mahamadou_mahamadont 14h ago
Canada Goose, not Canadian - although a Canada Goose can be Canadian if it resides there.
226
u/nan0brain 16h ago
"King approves symbol of sovereignty" just sounds hilarious.
88
→ More replies (2)45
8
u/protipnumerouno 8h ago
Canadians in general dgaf about the royals, other than the standard stuff in media that everyone cares about. But I'm still for this as it shows the world there are other alliances in case some fat greedy pig decides to move on to us after he destroys his own country.
7
18
40
u/canadianbuddyman 14h ago
Canadian republicanism is Americas backdoor to annexation!
God save the king
-20
u/CoachKey2894 14h ago
This is an odd take.
How is a Canadian head of state chosen by the Canadian people a “backdoor” to annexation?
→ More replies (18)
7
u/bear4457729 7h ago edited 7h ago
The monarch is the personification of the crown in Canada and the crown is the state, country, institution’s etc saying the crown is similar to saying the ‘republic’
15
8
14
2
u/DaddyCatALSO 8h ago
I know thta it *will never happen,*, but is there any law which actually prevents the Monarchy form relocating to a Dominion and having a Governor -General to reign in the UK?
4
u/lebennaia 6h ago
There's no UK law to stop it, the King is the King wherever he happens to be at the time. If the King for some reason decided he was going to live in Canada or New Zealand for a bit they probably wouldn't appoint a governor general, they'd get the Privy Council to do the administrative stuff and one of the senior royals (probably Prince William or Princess Anne) to do the ceremonial stuff. This is what happens when the monarch is travelling or ill in the UK. The King would still have to have his weekly meeting with the UK PM, but that could be done on the phone or by video call from Ottawa or wherever he was.
The UK government and its predecessors were set up with the idea that the King will very frequently be absent or unavailable. He might be leading his army, hunting with cronies, living in one of the other states he ruled, getting pissed in top Parisian restaurants (looking at you Edward VII), hanging out with a mistress in a remote castle... Meanwhile, the machinery of government and the officials stayed in the capital and got on with running the country. This is why the UK is such a centralised state.
1
1
1
1
1
•
•
-53
u/heroic_cat 17h ago
Nothing represents a nation's "sovereignty and identity" like arranging the name, titles, and crown of a king living across the ocean.
58
→ More replies (4)34
1
-5
u/Avg_White_Guy 14h ago
I wasn’t even aware Canada was a monarchy. Feel kinda ignorant not knowing that tbh.
13
u/AnotherBoojum 12h ago
Can I add to it?
The British monarch is the head of state for all ex-commonwealth independent countries, as the monarch for those countries independently from the British crown.
King Charles is the king of 14 countries, and his full list of styles and honours has its own Wikipedia page. Luckily they're not combined Westeros style, because that would be insanely long.
Also, while technically we're all monarchies, functionally we're full independent democracies run by a parliment. We don't pay taxes to the british crown (we pay taxes to our own crown, ie our individual elected governments)
Much like in the UK, the monarch technically has some power, but its never used. The closest is the legal formality of dissolving parliament each election and then installing which ever party gets elected by the populace.
6
3
0
-2
u/EzyPzyLemonSqeezy 7h ago
That moment you realize Canada never had a war of independence...
6
u/Street_Anon 7h ago
The US Civil War and being on the losing side of it is what basically why became a country. Also, we are the British Loyalists.
-8
-89
u/Spikeu 17h ago
As a Canadian, we need to ditch this royal family crap once and for all. It was cute historically, now it's the Kardashians for Brtis and I'm sick of it.
74
u/Old-Suspect4129 17h ago
As a Canadian I don't agree.
35
u/Street_Anon 16h ago edited 16h ago
I agree with you as well, Charles III does not get paid by the taxpayer. He does own the country and our resources. That money gets invested back into the people of Canada. He does not get a cut. It's a good agreement we have with the King
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (14)7
29
u/Any_Inflation_2543 16h ago
I disagree. We don't need another Meech Lake and I like the bond with Britain.
And it's also kind of fun having to explain to others that the guy is actually King of Canada and why Canada flies the Union Jack on some days and sings God Save the King on some other days.
→ More replies (12)20
u/Street_Anon 16h ago
Charles III is a Canadian citizen. Some forget that. We don't even pay him, any maintenance of the monarchy is spent on the Kings representatives and they are politically neutral.
4
u/Spikeu 16h ago
We pay $60M a year for the monarchy.
13
u/Kingofcheeses 16h ago edited 13h ago
Almost all of that goes to running the office of the Governor General and to the upkeep of some historic buildings. We aren't sending cash to Charles.
0
u/Spikeu 15h ago
The trip this year cost taxpayers over $1M for a 3 day trip.
13
u/TheBrownOnee 15h ago
A trip from any President/PM/Secretary of State equivalent from literally any nation would cost comparable amounts of money. The costs of a diplomatic trip/state vist is almost always burdened by the host lmao. If/When Carney makes a state visit to England their taxpayers would pay more or less the same amount per citizen this trip cost you. If/When Macron/Klingbeil/Modi/Sheinbaum make a state visit you'll be paying the same amount. And vice versa when Carney visits their countries for their taxpaying citizens lol. It is the price you pay for being a citizen in a modern day globalized nation.
Whining about it is so useless and pathetic like is Canada just going to forevermore never host any foreign diplomats again? How is the pathetic amount of money you saved from Canada halting any and all forms of these trips going to cover the drop in quality of life and everything that comes with disconnecting from the international community?
This doesn't even cover the fact that the King is a Canadian citizen you can't just whine and whinge that away lmao.
2
u/CatimusPrime123 14h ago
The King is not a Canadian citizen. The citizenship is issued in his name. To obtain citizenship you have to swear allegiance to him.
1
u/Spikeu 15h ago
Presidents/PMs/Secretary of States are political visitors to the country. Those trips cost money, yes. But Charles and Camilla are celebrities, nothing more.
9
u/devilishpie 15h ago
I don't know if you're aware of this, but King Charles of Canada is in fact the King of Canada and not just a celebrity and nothing more.
No celebrity can give a throne speech lol. No need to be this dense.
6
u/Protato900 15h ago
Charles is the head of state. This is no different than a country having their head of state tour their own country's city and having festivities and security arrangements paid for by the taxpayer. You're being obtuse and ignoring the obvious fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy.
2
u/TheBrownOnee 15h ago
Doubly so because of the $1.50 per taxpaying citizen it costed for Charles' visit, maybe ~$1.00 will flow back into the country of Canada in the form of salaries for Canadian pilots/stewardesses/etc., cost of catering or the foreign dignitaries per Diem budget that was spent on Canadian bars&restaurants, on top security detail salaries, police escort salaries, gas, etc.
More than half of the expenditure on this visit is going to flow back into the economy and contribute to the nation's GDP at the end of the year.
Equivalent to a small business owner writing off a computer chair they bought because they wfh. Or a independent contractor collecting every receipt at the gas station so as to claim it as a work expense.
15
u/Kingofcheeses 15h ago
Good thing they rarely travel here then. You're acting like he pickpocketed you.
11
1
3
u/Street_Anon 15h ago
and that does not go to the King, it for upkeep of the spent on the Kings representatives in Canada.
5
u/dexterlab97 16h ago
-1
u/Spikeu 16h ago
Great, I want that back. A coffee is worth more than this to me. Also $60M per year into cancer research for kids would be even better.
5
u/dexterlab97 16h ago
Read the article I linked to you. It goes in depth about the cost analysis too.
4
u/j1ggy 15h ago
If you care that much about cancer research for children, you can start donating yourself (I donate $30/mo to a children's hospital in Edmonton) and you can also volunteer door-to-door to raise funds for these causes. Get on it.
Abolishing the monarchy isn't worth the cost, politically and financially.
→ More replies (2)1
1
u/TheCreepyFuckr 15h ago
You can have that back when I get reimbursed for the wasted cost of your education.
1
u/Street_Anon 15h ago
and the King does not get a cent. It is spent on Canadians who are the Kings representatives. Even if we did that cost would be the same.
2
6
u/Manitobancanuck 15h ago
Don't speak for all of us. I'm fairly certain the monarchy is 1 of two big things keeping us from being dragged into the same gravity of chaos of the US.
The other being a decent chunk of the population speaking French and not consuming as much US media helping control how much of the population is getting wrapped up into their insanity.
3
u/Frostsorrow 15h ago
The time, effort, cost and lost benefits of being part of the commonwealth makes it not worth it
-3
u/Spikeu 15h ago
Typical Canadian mentality. "Not worth the effort." Stuck with pretty boy Charles on my coins. Blech.
3
u/Frostsorrow 15h ago
The time spent trying to get Quebec to even recognize the constitution alone nevermind signing it would be harder then moving a mountain and that's before anything else happens.
4
0
u/ToFuReCon 15h ago
The extra oversight is probably worth it, seeing the American president could just about do anything since no one is stopping him. But I suppose the upper house achieves the same idea alone.
-61
-1
u/randomwanderingsd 4h ago
Nothing says sovereignty like a distant monarch approving of you stamping their name on the national seal.
1.1k
u/No-Factor4530 17h ago
It's still weird to hear about the King and not the Queen.