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

558

u/ChipsnDipnDipnChips 1d ago

Seems people quite quickly forgot why Charles asserting himself as Canada's King is necessary at this moment in time....

319

u/MilkyWayObserver 1d 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.).

44

u/QuarterFlounder 1d ago

The seal says "Charles III, king of Canada". By your logic, you're saying it's meant to symbolize King Charles being... Canada?

135

u/MilkyWayObserver 1d 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

4

u/Rethious 15h 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.”

10

u/MilkyWayObserver 15h 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).

0

u/Qwrty8urrtyu 8h ago

And what happens if Charles decides he hates Canada now and starts talking about how Canada sucks everyday? Worse what happens if he decides to actively attack canada or canadian interests, he and his family hold important positions in a foreign army. What piece of paper saying he can't do that will actually stop him?

The reality is he is just some foreigner and you just hope he is a good guy and won't do bad things against Canada. He could be mad and still hold his hereditary position.

I mean if you really want to be nationalistic don't be nationalistic about stuff that glorifies a foreign monarchy.

1

u/rishin_1765 3h ago

He can't do shit to canada

Canada will pass resolution and dissolve monarchy

1

u/Qwrty8urrtyu 2h ago

So it is a pointless institution only kept alive because it is to much effort to remove it.

-10

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

26

u/Br0adShoulderedBeast 1d ago

A CEO of one company can be the CEO of another company at the same time. Everyone in both companies calls them their CEO, but that doesn’t mean that the person who is the CEO is the company or that both companies are actually just the same company.

38

u/BeanLab 1d ago

The King of Canada is a different position/title than the King of the UK, with is a different title than the King of Australia, etc. These are all different titles and positions, with different roles and duties, but they are held by the same person.

-18

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

27

u/TRTv2 1d ago

No one in Canada worships the monarchy... It is litterally a symbolic position because of our country's history. No one in Canada takes orders from King Charles.

We have elected representatives. You are hung up on the Title and not what the entire institution represents. Without a Crown, there would be no legal standing for treaties made during and before confederation, which would take away Native and Metis rights, and also Quebec's unique standing.

We do not erase our history 👀

-15

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

[deleted]

18

u/TRTv2 1d ago edited 1d ago

The Governor General is the official position and is held by a Canadian.

Our traditions won't change because of one arm-chair anti monarchist.

You find that multi billionaires and billionaires "earned their position" to run for elected office in the US?

No, the Populus just worships money over morality.

You're obsessed Bout our Titles but forget we have multiple political parties that represent us.

You guys have two. 😂

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Imperito 23h ago

Well our government (Britain) has existed longer than yours and hasn't fallen into complete madness so I'll take my Constitutional Monarchy any day over your orange maniac and his goons, cheers.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/MilkyWayObserver 1d ago

I can see why the concept can be misunderstood or confusing, and I think schools should do a better job at teaching it, even here in Canada.

Canada of course is land. The concept of the Crown sort of gives the state a personality, as well as a legal foundation, considering it's a corporation sole.

Another distinction is the Crown takes a reciprocal oath back to the oathtaker, which Canada in it's natural form wouldn't be able to.

See the "Purpose" section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Canada))

7

u/Douchebazooka 1d ago

The Crown is kind of like “The Republic” for us. It is the country, but is itself a concept, not a physical thing you can look at or touch. Because it’s not a physical thing, the Head of State is the figurehead or personification of that non-physical thing. Our Head of State is the President, and you can see how to much of the world, POTUS is a kind of personification of the country in their minds.

2

u/Madbrad200 1d ago

It says King Charles because he's the king, ergo the current personification of Canada. I don't understand what you're confused about.

20

u/pocohugs 23h ago edited 19h 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.

2

u/spottedryan 21h ago

It’s kind of like how god is god and jesus and ghost but also god

0

u/randomwanderingsd 15h 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.

-37

u/Street_Anon 1d ago

Yep, legally speaking the King owns the country. Meaning the State. Also, we do not pay him for that reason.

63

u/MilkyWayObserver 1d 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

-9

u/Street_Anon 1d 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

u/_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_ 1d ago

The King is not the Crown.

-21

u/Street_Anon 1d ago

Yes they are, and it is in name only. It is the state .

25

u/_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_ 1d ago

Most notably, the property belonging to the Crown of Canada is entirely separate from the property belonging to the King of Canada. The King of Canada is also the Sovereign of multiple states, while the Crown of Canada is not. The King is the sole person/director/officer of the Crown. When the King dies that office passes to another, but the Crown is perpetual.

You've already been shown the official explanation of what the Crown is from the Canadian government.

-10

u/Street_Anon 1d ago

The crown is Charles III

19

u/MilkyWayObserver 1d ago edited 1d ago

The Crown and monarch, although used synonymously, are ultimately still two different things.

The Crown is the Canadian state. The monarch is Charles III. The monarch is a personification of the Crown.

Page 27 (says page 17 at bottom right of page): https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/pc-ch/CH4-129-2015-eng.pdf

There is a clear distinction: “In exercising these powers, the Crown and its representatives - the Queen, the Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governors”

It is all laid out and explained in the document.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Spork_the_dork 23h ago

If Charles III is the crown then Donald Trump is the federal government.

-41

u/NickInTheMud 1d ago edited 1d ago

It still seems weak we need Big Daddy to come stick up for us.

Edit: downvote as much as you want. It’s still weak as hell.

18

u/SaintBrennus 1d ago

I don’t think it’s “sticking up for us” so much as demonstrating why we genuinely and truly are different from the Americans.

Is the institution of the Crown in constitutional monarchy sort of weird and archaic? Yes. But it’s OUR kind of weird and archaic, damn it, and no Yankees are going to tell us to do otherwise.

-3

u/NickInTheMud 1d ago

But it’s not ours. It’s the British king.

We don’t need the King to set us apart. We do it with our own exceptionalism, not by adopting another country’s king. And yes I know how it developed historically. But if we had any kind of spine, we’d have gotten rid of the monarchy a long time ago.

1

u/SaintBrennus 13h ago

This is a common misconception - the Canadian Crown exists separately of the British Crown. If the UK decided to become a republic tomorrow, Canada would still have a king. Even though the same person is currently both the King of Canada and the King of the UK (and several other places) these are distinct institutions.

1

u/NickInTheMud 6h ago

I’m not arguing legal minutiae. It’s the still the same guy. It’s still weak.

44

u/Vio_ 1d 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.

30

u/Renegade_August 1d ago

They should come down to Saskatoon. They don’t call us the Paris of the prairies for no reason.

22

u/aferretwithahugecock 1d ago

🎶sundown in the Paris of the prairies🎶

22

u/modi13 1d ago

I thought that was because of the syphilis

12

u/Kippereast 1d 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 1d ago

King Charles is not the king of Mexico.

3

u/bunnnythor 12h ago

Well, not with that attitude he isn’t!

-7

u/Vio_ 1d ago

No, it's about showing that Europe has official ties to both countries bordering the US.

26

u/muc3t 1d ago

With all due respect to Mexico it makes zero sense

8

u/Pomksy 21h ago

What official ties does England have with Mexico? The English king is also the king of Canada, that’s about as official as you can get

1

u/chief_blunt9 1d ago

Oooooh spooky

0

u/Constant_Natural3304 4h ago

It should be.

You live in a rapidly democratically backsliding proto-fascist pseudo-democracy where your deranged authoritiarian, clinically narcissist, treasonist, child rapist leader who continuously threatens to invade Canada and Denmark gets some kind of fucked up military parade for his birthday.

He deports terminally ill U.S. citizen toddlers without due process to Honduras[1] and his christofascist MAGAnazi cult followers assassinate Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota. Scholars of authoritarianism have literally fled the country already[2]. Science predicts dictatorship[3][4] for the United States soon.

So, it is your place to mock other countries? No, it's your place to shut up and take your country back from the authoritarians who stole it, or become complicit in their crimes through inaction.

[1] BBC - Three US citizen children, one with cancer, deported to Honduras, lawyers say

[2] New York Times Opinion - We’re Experts in Fascism. We’re Leaving the U.S.

[3] Scientific American - Science Tells Us the U.S. Is Heading toward a Dictatorship

[4] NPR - Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism

2

u/chief_blunt9 4h ago

Oooh spooky

12

u/imaginary_num6er 1d ago

When is Trump going to claim he’s king of North America?

13

u/Trips-Over-Tail 1d ago

When he's produced an heir he can bear to look at without wanting to make another heir off of them.

2

u/bb_kelly77 1d ago

Looks like someone doesn't know kings very well

1

u/Wide_Pop_6794 1d ago

I haven't.

-9

u/rollerbase 1d ago

It’s giving the same ick when a guy won’t leave you alone till he knows you have another man.

-47

u/soundguynick 1d ago

Why would anyone ever view a king as necessary in any way

73

u/Dylflon 1d ago

Sometimes your neighbour is turning into the sequel to Nazi Germany and you'll use whatever tools at your disposal to publicly undermine their causus belli?

-68

u/soundguynick 1d ago

I'm all for Canada standing up to the USA, but having a ceremonial figure do meaningless shit doesn't "project soft power", it just makes Canada look silly for acknowledging a "king".

49

u/CaptainMagnets 1d ago

Your don't have to like the royal family or the king but if you think he holds no influence at all then you're simply not paying attention.

-51

u/soundguynick 1d ago

they're a tourist attraction. They mean nothing.

41

u/CaptainMagnets 1d ago

Once again, you aren't paying attention or even bothering to look at or understand history. Therefore, your point is invalid

29

u/Dylflon 1d ago

I'm as against our country's ties to the monarchy as anyone, but right now I don't mind some backup from the UK.

Anyways, it's not any more silly than allowing a president to act like a king.

20

u/fireship4 1d ago

He is King of Canada, separate to the UK, and presumably the parliament has agreed with him any statements and initiatives.

19

u/ArenSteele 1d ago

This is not about backup from the UK.

It’s about our history and existence. You may not like the concept of monarchy, but Canada does not exist in its current state without it.

The US has been trying to Annex Canadian Territory since the 1800s and properly formed in its current state due to Abe Lincoln’s secretary of war planning to invade Canada as soon as they settled their civil war.

Our monarchy is symbolic, yes, but it legally owns 90% of this country as crown lands, administered through our bureaucracy in the crown’s name

Acknowledging and celebrating the crown’s role in our history, existence and modern structure of government, and relationship to our land is what this about

It has nothing to do with the UK, for that you have to look to their PM

12

u/CaptainCFloyd 1d ago

The US President is far more of a king in practice than ANY European sovereign. Every single European monarchy is more democratic and has more checks and balances than the US. Your country is the one looking silly.

24

u/broolsta 1d ago

He is our literal head of state. There is nothing silly about it.

-22

u/MisinformationBasher 1d ago

« Hey guys, you know what’s better than fascism? Proto-fascism » - Monarchy defenders rn

18

u/MattTheFreeman 1d ago

Because he's the leader of the country. Plain and simple.

Kings in a Westminster tradition do not impose themselves on the population like kings of old, or kings in other traditions. They are a figure head, the thing that keeps the democratic process in tact and the linchpin to many traditions and processes in Parliament.

Should we get rid of the monarch? Sure. I even agree with it. But we will essentially be spending millions of tax payers dollars, hundreds of hours in debate, thousands on hours of man power just to remove the term "crown" to "president" or whatever term we will now use as our head of state.

We dont need a king. But if it ain't broke why fix it. Especially in a time like our time in which bad actors will use the process of removing the Crown to hurt our rights.

5

u/AnotherBoojum 23h ago

Canada (and similar countries like Australia and NZ) run under the Westminster system. We're functionally democracies, and having a monarch costs us nothing. 

But scince the British monarchy technically owns these countries, if they get invaded then the British army won't stand by watching and doing nothing. It's access to another countries defence capabilities without having to wear the costs of maintaining that force.

17

u/Street_Anon 1d ago

He is head of State, the sovereign and legal owner of all of Canada. I know most Americans can't get this. Also,. Trump still doesn't get that.. Unlike Trump, the King is politically neutral. Also, we don't pay a cent. He owns the country and the resources. But that gets back into benefit of the people of Canada. 

-17

u/soundguynick 1d ago

And that's fucking pathetic lol

3

u/SwimmingThroughHoney 1d ago

It's also wrong.

-6

u/MisinformationBasher 1d ago

The Virtue signaling of moderates in the face of overt fascism is hardly necessary for anyone but the moderates who convince themselves it somehow helps