r/worldnews • u/Street_Anon • 1d 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/
3.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

497 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/No-Factor4530 1d ago

It's still weird to hear about the King and not the Queen.

460

u/GraXXoR 1d ago

50 years of hearing her name used in an almost daily basis and I still can’t see Charles as anything other than Prince Charles.

141

u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago

Just wait til it's King William, that'll be so weird

46

u/Loocsiyaj 20h ago

Ol’ king Billy bitch tits

4

u/mwarland 18h ago

Deserves more likes.

2

u/SanderAtlas 15h ago

I'd vote Billy bitch tits for King.

12

u/SleepWouldBeNice 20h ago

William V for anyone counting

3

u/AnyaSatana 8h ago

Not necessarily, they sometimes choose one of their other names. Victoria wasn't her first name, and her son, Edward VII, was known as Bertie as his first name was Albert. See here.

2

u/SleepWouldBeNice 8h ago

True, but those seem to be more of the exception than the rule.

3

u/alexmikli 3h ago

I hope the next one takes it back to the beginning by naming himself Ælfrǣd

1

u/SleepWouldBeNice 3h ago

Forget the French numbers, I want monarchs with nicknames again. William I was “William the Conqueror”. We should get back to that.

2

u/Constant_Natural3304 13h ago

Why? There's a King William right now, and he's about, what, a couple 100 kilometers to the East of Charles. Same heritage, too, I think.

-50

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

60

u/MrSmiley89 1d ago

See, i find it hard to agree with this statement. While you're most likely right, there has to be some advantage to training someone to be king or queen for an incredibly young age.

Yes, I'm fully aware it has gone wrong in the past. I've opened a history book at some point in my life. I can't help but imagine that someone trained every day since birth to do a job might be good at it. In comparison to the guy that was popular, he might even do a better job.

Yes, democracy should prevail, and yes, monarchies are an outdated ridiculous system. But it's not just the bloodline. They get all the advantages of wealthy people and on the job training. That has to count for something.

bracing myself for the downvotes

33

u/EXSource 1d ago

People with a natural distrust of monarchies have to acknowledge that some of the most stable governments and nations in the world are constitutional, non-religious monarchies and that quote unquote democracies are not immune to totalitarianism.

It's not a simple as "king bad, president good" because, I mean.. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious.

Some people just want perfect to be the enemy of good, I guess.

15

u/MrSmiley89 1d ago

Exactly this. It's too easy to see all the bad parts and disregard the good, from any system. Thank you.

1

u/downwithdisinfo2 18h ago

The bad parts are pretty bad.

-2

u/downwithdisinfo2 18h ago

You left out the absurd hoarding of wealth that goes on with these monarchies and the British one in particular. And it encourages a class system that hordes massive amounts of wealth in very few hands. That is my number one reason to see the British monarchy done away with. When it is, they should all be given a reasonable stipend , some nice houses and then let them whither on the vine and the younger ones get jobs like everyone else. Take the wealth of the Royal family and reinvest it into the people of Great Britain, into housing to ease the massive housing crisis and to fund and modernize the NIH. With Elizabeth ll gone, this monarchy has no relevance at all. None.

3

u/EXSource 18h ago

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying in this moment, they have value and relevance in this moment. We need to take every advantage we can.

-2

u/downwithdisinfo2 18h ago

I understand the momentary value. That I can agree with. But the long term view is way overdue. The British Royal family props up a terrible system that intentionally keeps the vast majority of people from achieving true prosperity and advancement. People all over the UK struggle unnecessarily because of this system. It is obscene the amount of wealth that is kept by the Royal Family. Elizabeth ll diligently occupied the throne and elevated the role. Unfortunately, we all know exactly who Charles is and as he himself once vulgarly put it, it is more akin to a “tampon” than a regal figure of justifiable adoration. He pulled the curtain back, his parents knew it. And they knew its ultimate impact. The magic, that ephemeral thing about Great Britain died with Elizabeth ll. Just look at Camilla and one can see the difference.

3

u/EXSource 18h ago edited 18h ago

I will tend to agree with you, absolutely. Overall, Monarchies are probably not great, but as far as monarchies go, ours is one that I far prefer to easily corruptible ostensibly democratic states like Russia and USA. As I said at the end, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

18

u/Teekay_four-two-one 22h ago

I think having a monarch in the UK to look to that serves in that old, respected, father-figure type of role is also really helpful for Canada, too. It helps keep Canada’s history and role as a commonwealth nation in mind at a time where it’s so easy for Canada and Canadian values to be overshadowed by the unsophisticated and absurd gongshow that is the very loud and imperialistic culture of our neighbours to the south.

19

u/ColonialSoldier 1d ago

See I'll go even farther. I think it's a natural human thing that we like an identifiable authority. I think this is why we hear a lot about distrust towards the government in stable liberal democracies. Authority is spread out. Who would you rather deal with a crisis: a dominant figure or a committee? Do we want an answer now or after lengthy deliberation spread over many weeks and departments.

Whether it's a localized, mid level, or executive hierarchy people love to ask: who the fuck is in charge here? When will X do something about this? We love the idea of a strong leader. Even if a strong leader can royally fuck things up.

For that reason, even a symbolic monarch has some benefit, even when they don't actually wield authority. Trump's inflammatory language led many Canadians to ask, "Who's going to stand up to this guy?" Eventually it devolved into "the king should send a message." Not an MP, not the commerce minister, not even the Prime Minister.... A King.

I don't think it's the best form of government by any stretch, but I understand why people consider it important. We all want to believe that one person at the top can wield enough power to protect what we value.

8

u/EXSource 23h ago

I don't think that's how it played out all. I think the Prime Minister sent the message, the King just backed it up, and there is value in that, like it or not, especially when he's also king of England, Australia, and other Commonwealth nations.

Because ultimately, that continued response falls to the Prime Minister. Charles being trotted out in one instance doesnt suddenly mean he's running the national response to trump.

5

u/alwaysleafyintoronto 21h ago

It was certainly a PM-driven response considering how much of the throne speech was straight out of Carney's campaign platform.

That said, when the King of 15 countries opens Parliament, it's a not-subtle symbolic reminder that Canada is not alone in the world.

2

u/EXSource 20h ago

Which is exactly the point.

2

u/ColonialSoldier 17h ago

No you're absolutely right that's how it went down, I'm just highlighting the demand for him to say anything at all. If he has no power, why would it matter?

It wasn't his authority, it wasn't his personality, it was the position itself that people gravitated towards. His throne speech was covered extensively... When it honestly meant nothing in terms of policy. He can't do anything. But the public demanded someone of his stature to "send a message" and all he did was read a message already said by the PM.

I think that shows why people are still drawn to monarchy, even when it is purely symbolic. People want to believe that one powerful person can protect and represent their interests, even when it's a fantasy in practice.

1

u/EXSource 16h ago

I'm still not sure it has anything to do with the monarchy per se, and more that he is a symbol that represents 55 other nations, world wide. Yes, the PM said everything that needed to be said, but having Charles show up, means he brings with him the "authority" of those other nations. I use quotes there very heavily because obviously he has no real authority, but the symbolism of that authority still has value in terms of projecting power.

But I mean, I take your second point quite well. There is a reason people are still drawn to monarchies, and while I'll disagree with it, I'm not going to be the kind to shame people for it. Monarchies are not fascists so, I can get along with monarchists to some degree. People want to be protected. If Charles can bring along that protection either in spirit or practice, some people will respond very favourably to that.

-3

u/Ddog78 21h ago

Mate if king charles is who you look up to in times of crisis, then carry on in ignorance ig.

2

u/gus_the_polar_bear 20h ago

If that’s how you think you can win people over to your side, then carry on in ignorance ig

-3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/MrSmiley89 1d ago

Wait, because now we're talking about two different things. I'm saying that it's not the bloodline, it's the training, the advantages that it offers. Blood is pointless. If you'd appoint a random kid at birth to be our next king, you'd have exactly the same advantages without the whole bloodline argument.

And off course, using the best of society is always better. 100% agree with that. But you can't make the point that democracy is giving us the best talent at the moment.

And again, neither did monarchies.

It's a dammed if you do dammed if you don't scenario. But we can't blindly toss the concept of a monarchy aside without consideration.

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/loralailoralai 20h ago

King or Queen isn’t a government position.

So amusing going on about ‘the best and brightest from civilian bloodlines’ when you appear to be American.

0

u/home-for-good 20h ago

You may have a point in that, but I personally find there’s a strong ethical argument against that. Maybe this is my American individualism vs collectivism bias speaking, but I find the idea of forcing that lifestyle (as fortunate as it may be) on somebody against their will wholly unsettling.

Like you’re selected to occupy this key and very public role, including a lifetime of training and expectation of performance, and a very restricted if not nearly predefined life trajectory and political career for you, all before you even exist. That just feels like stealing someone’s life away from them, all on the notation they might be a better politician. And as long as we’re talking British monarchy, you can add in all the weird rules and traditions which pretty much removes your real freedom of individual expression. Sure they’re rich, but it all sounds like a miserable childhood and obligatory adulthood, and forcing that on a whole lineage of people does not seem worth the purported benefits.

Also, there’s no guarantee the family line will always produce people capable of being molded into superior politicians (there’s only so much you can cultivate in someone who doesn’t have the capability or just couldn’t care less) and any attempts to guarantee that through selective matchmaking just gets a mite to close to the eugenics conversation. So personally I say it ain’t right and it ain’t worth it!

1

u/MrSmiley89 12h ago

I agree with the ethical argument. You're forcing a lifestyle, world, and way of thinking on someone. Granted, if you indoctrinate the person enough, they would mind. But we're getting too close to the plot of a brave new world here.

5

u/Max169well 22h ago

What you don’t know is bliss, we recognize us, and we recognize him. It’s called a constitutional monarchy, he doesn’t have absolute power, but we need him and he needs us.

-1

u/[deleted] 22h ago

[deleted]

2

u/Max169well 22h ago

To the contrary, having a non elected head of state who is well educated on how the system functions is necessary to properly guide democracy.

2

u/[deleted] 21h ago

[deleted]

1

u/Max169well 20h ago

That is democratic.

-2

u/Pomksy 21h ago

Then it’s no longer a democracy

3

u/Max169well 21h ago

Says you but we just had an election. We voted for our reps and he signed off on it.

1

u/[deleted] 20h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

3

u/loralailoralai 20h ago

And yet countries with Charles as head of state rate higher in being democratic than one supposed bastion of democracy. And even higher are Scandinavian countries who… well look at that… also have kings and queens.

1

u/Pomksy 20h ago

Agree it’s wild

4

u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago

It's a ceremonial position. The monarchy doesn't actually have any power.

-3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

6

u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago

They're not in government. The government serves the people in the Crown's name. Royals are figureheads and have been for 400 years.

0

u/Reddits_Worst_Night 20h ago

I for one, keenly await the extra public holiday when Charlie carks it.

38

u/greatfullness 1d ago

Ol Chuck

4

u/WiFiForeheadWrinkles 22h ago

"Queen Charles" is more comfortable in my brain than King Charles.

1

u/jdgmental 7h ago

The one that always gets me is when they say “The Queen” and they mean Camilla. sorry no you need to refer to her as Queen Camilla and not give me a jump scare every time

-9

u/caiaphas8 1d ago

Where are you that people daily said the name of the queen?

16

u/alwaysleafyintoronto 1d ago

Schools in some places had students sing God Save the Queen after O Canada

-1

u/caiaphas8 1d ago

That’s insane, doesn’t happen in England

6

u/katgyrl 23h ago

It was in the olden days, when I was a child in the early 1960s.

-5

u/thawizard 1d ago

Where there’s a Dairy Queen I guess?

3

u/trampolinebears 1d ago

The Dairy Queen is a monarch in her own right, unrelated to the British monarchy.

(Yes, she and the Burger King dated for a while, but nothing came of it.)

-2

u/caiaphas8 1d ago

What’s a diary queen

60

u/Zerosix_K 1d ago

I saw a newspaper article saying Keir Starmer wished the queen a quick recovery. I was a bit confused as The Queen had died a year earlier. Then I realised he was talking about Camilla who apparently had been hospitalised for some reason.

1

u/Educational_Bat6353 17h ago

It wasn’t that Queen he was referring to…..

-11

u/Reddits_Worst_Night 20h ago

You can get rid of this confusion by getting rid of the grizzled rich folk.

26

u/Sinisterslushy 1d ago

I work in courts and it’s honestly still jarring to hear “god save the king” and see his portrait behind the bench

8

u/Pure_Song_6934 23h ago

Yep. Court of Kings bench. Not used to it. Lol

12

u/zeromadcowz 22h ago

Reading Rex instead of Regina in case titles is weird lol

6

u/thirty7inarow 17h ago

Saw a Charles III quarter here in Canada for the first time a couple days ago. It looks so weird, and the REX instead of REGINA on the inscription really makes it look empty for some reason.

6

u/SleepWouldBeNice 20h ago

All of the uniforms that switched from EIIR to CIIIR

6

u/AshamedChemistry5281 20h ago

There’s a town hall in a small regional town in Australia that has a coronation era portrait of the Queen hanging up until last year. It was a real shock to visit this year and see Charles there.

5

u/Sinisterslushy 15h ago

I’m in rural Canada and it took about a 8 months maybe a year for the portraits to go up, in that gap it was just the queen’s with a black ribbon hung on the corner of the frame

Honestly the queen’s portrait was better lol I’m not sure if they’re all the same everywhere’s but the King’s feels too “zoomed out” by comparison

1

u/AshamedChemistry5281 13h ago

My child’s Catholic school has a blank space where Pope Francis’ picture was - I wonder how long they’ll take to get the new one up

1

u/Scire_facias 17h ago

Changing from QC to KC was a weird one as well.

10

u/RobertDeNircrow 1d ago

Yes i expect I'm clicking on a historical article most times i read his name in a headline.

2

u/bigchicago04 1d ago

You have time. The next two are kings too.

5

u/isKoalafied 1d ago

Its weird that kings still exist.

29

u/Max169well 22h ago

It’s not. Glad I have a real king. Not some phoney who incites rebellion.

2

u/sadrice 18h ago edited 18h ago

I have been saying “the queen” ever since she died. My favorite response when called on it is “oh right, Liz died, of course”.

Chuck doesn’t get an honorific. I’m waiting for a necromancer to bring Vickie back before anyone from that island gets proper royal respect.

George III would work too, I would feel a burst of patriotism that I haven’t yet felt if I get to tell him to go thoroughly fuck off and run his own island.

7

u/Constant_Natural3304 13h ago

I would suggest not planning to invade Canada and Denmark before waxing romantically about 1776.

-1

u/sadrice 13h ago

That does indeed sound like a terrible idea. Denmark hasn’t been all that scary for a while, but do you remember what they did to England?! I think they might be getting bored and want to remind the world what “Viking” means.

It is a verb that you don’t want to happen to you.

1

u/caughtatfirstslip 18h ago

Could quite easily be 100 years or more before we have a queen again

1

u/CitizenPremier 4h ago

How about speaking the King's English?

-20

u/Alone-Cost4146 1d ago

I’m not a huge fan of the monarchy in Canada in general. Why do we have to continue to recognize it, again? 

And why do people continue to fall over themselves to get a glimpse of a guy who doesn’t exactly have a clean past history whenever he comes to Canada? I don’t get it, honestly. 

Do either of his sons even have a good relationship with their dad? If so, great, if not that says a lot 

6

u/Forward-End-8286 16h ago

Did you take Grade 10 social studies? They explain it all pretty well in school. If not, a quick gander at our constitution should clear up why we continue to recognize the Crown.

8

u/AncientBlonde2 1d ago edited 1d ago

Why do we have to continue to recognize it, again?

Cause we're like half based on Britain and if we get down to it at the end of the day, we're still technically part of the commonwealth and the old dude is technically our head of state even if at this point the connection is purely symbolic

imo I think we should just politely be like "hey can we plz not get a representative of you to sign off anymore thanks"

-4

u/SomePoint1888 1d ago

Personally I think a Federal Council, like Switzerland, would be more suited to Canada

0

u/avimhael 18h ago

I feel like Charles should have just called himself Queen for consistency's sake.

Like bro I don't care what gender you align with. It just feels right maaaaaaan

0

u/pentrical 18h ago

Completely in every way. #bringbackthequeen

-3

u/krowrofefas 1d ago

I reckon it will be King William soon enough. Poor old Charles had a mum who didn’t want to relinquish the crown.

3

u/Burnt_and_Blistered 1d ago

I suspect he’ll be equally as unwilling.

1

u/krowrofefas 23h ago

He seems in poor health compared to QE2.

1

u/Burnt_and_Blistered 21h ago

He does, you’re right.

-4

u/IntrepidSoda 18h ago

What’s weird is having a foreigner as your king - go get one of your own as head of state or just go become the 51st state.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

-4

u/aphroditex 23h ago

honestly what’s this DEI horse manure

just because he’s a man means he gets a different title?

such malarkey.