this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
524 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
20596 readers
2362 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do want to point out, the British monarchy has zero power in Canada. Any status they have is purely symbolic.
Everyone says this, because so far the monarchy has generally done what parliament asks in terms of, for example, appointing a prime minister, appointing senators, etc. Except there was the "King-Byng affair" in which the crown refused to exercise its constitutional power at the behest of the elected government. Now in retrospect, that may have been for the best...but that absolutely should resolve anyone's question that the monarchy "has zero power in Canada." People generally remember this as the crown "saving us from ourselves" ...I don't have any strong feelings about that, as long as we recognize that it had the power to do something and still does. I think it shouldn't have power...if someone else wants to say it should at least we can talk about that...but when we pretend that the monarchy has no power we have to talk about that first.
But ask Australians...they had no interference from the monarchy in their democracy until their "1975 constitutional crisis," in which the people voted for a prime minister (some evil socialist who did crazy dangerous tankie things like bring in universal healthcare and pull out of the war in Vietnam...practically stalin), the queen then dismissed him, dissolved parliament, and appointed the liberal party leader as her new prime minister, and told them to have a new election.
Legally, Canada is in the exact same position as Australia was at that time. The only real differences are: (a) another 50 years of the monarchy not going rogue and fucking with democracy, but also (b) precedent of the monarchy going rogue and fucking with democracy and getting away with it.
I'm a lawyer, and it blows me away that lawyers here don't know this stuff...like your whole government is built on a rug that could be pulled out from under you at any time! And look...if the monarchy tried to do something that was overwhelmingly unpopular, it would create a constitutional crisis, but I am sure we would get through it and get to the right result. Absurd to leave that risk on the table if you ask me, but fine... What worries me more is when the question is a bit more ambiguous...what happens if it's not overwhelming? what happens if the country is split 60/40 on an issue, but many of the 60% are not willing to cause a constitutional crisis, and the monarchy is willing to push the less popular option? (I mean, we know what happens, that's what happened in australia!).
The King-Byng affair was in a different time when the Governor General was someone from the UK. So British person overruling the Canadian Prime Minister was a big part of the controversy there.
Now that the Governor General is Canadian it's kind of a nothing burger. A ceremonial position appointed by the PM. The Julie Payette situation was the only time there's been any potential for anyone outside of the country might have to do something and that would've only been if Trudeau asked the Queen to fire her. But it didn't come to that so whatever.
You're a lawyer so you're going to have a tendency to think about hypotheticals about things that aren't codified into law. But right now we're all witnessing the US that has all kinds of protections against these kinds of hypotheticals just ignore those laws. Hypothetically a US President couldn't abuse power and be completely corrupt because he'd be impeached. The laws say so. But that isn't happening.
It's obvious now that the only protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the King abused his position, we would remove the King from power. Unless we lacked the will to do that. If the King knows he'd be removed from his position if he abuses that position he won't abuse his position since he doesn't want to be the guy that ends the monarchy. Right now, no one in the US is being prosecuted for Epstein stuff despite their laws. The brother of the King is being prosecuted.
We see a republic where there's basically an aristocracy that's above the law and we see a monarchy where the King's brother is being prosecuted. As a lawyer do you think evidence from the real world is stronger than hypotheticals?
Seems to me it doesn't really matter what you put into the laws, if the will of the population is weak, the law will be ignored. In the end you have no choice but to trust the people when these hypotheticals arise.