Queen Elizabeth II Has Died

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Slava

She has/had absolute power though. I'm not sure that this is the place to get into this (seems a little wrong), but the monarch literally signs off on every law and advises and guides the government. To really stoke the fires, a man who cheated on his wife and divorced her is now head of the Church of England...interesting times. There are those wo want to play the "loveable granny" card for the Queen and I do definitely understand that. But you can't really absolve the royals of all blame for all of the terrible things. Part of that power is that they had it to wield and didn't, or worse they went along with it.

And as far as Alberta, things could be pretty interesting here. If Danielle Smith wins and pushes her sovereignty act through and the Lt. Gov decides not to give this royal assent, people will soon realise the power that comes in those roles. You might think that's great because the sovereignty act is stupid, and I personally would agree. But the truth is, that's where things could get really sticky as far as the power and unelected people making those kinds of decisions.

They do indeed have final and absolute power theoretically but when was the last time that Royal Assent was not granted by the monarch? It is a rubber stamp situation.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

She has/had absolute power though.

A British monarch hasn’t had absolute power for 800 years. As the article I linked noted, by the time Elizabeth took the throne the Crown had only two very specific roles to play in politics, and even those weren’t exercised after the first few years of her reign.

The Crown endures as an institution in Britain only so long as it doesn’t exercise any real political power.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

She has/had absolute power though. I'm not sure that this is the place to get into this (seems a little wrong), but the monarch literally signs off on every law and advises and guides the government. To really stoke the fires, a man who cheated on his wife and divorced her is now head of the Church of England...interesting times. There are those wo want to play the "loveable granny" card for the Queen and I do definitely understand that. But you can't really absolve the royals of all blame for all of the terrible things. Part of that power is that they had it to wield and didn't, or worse they went along with it.

And as far as Alberta, things could be pretty interesting here. If Danielle Smith wins and pushes her sovereignty act through and the Lt. Gov decides not to give this royal assent, people will soon realise the power that comes in those roles. You might think that's great because the sovereignty act is stupid, and I personally would agree. But the truth is, that's where things could get really sticky as far as the power and unelected people making those kinds of decisions.

The Lt Governor is the last protection against tyranny. I'd argue it is a great last resort protection. Reminder that Daniele Smith intends to implement this while being unelected.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The Lt Governor is the last protection against tyranny. I'd argue it is a great last resort protection. Reminder that Daniele Smith intends to implement this while being unelected.

The Lt. Governor doesn't have to swear in or recognize Smith, or anyone else, as the Premier although convention has it that the leader of the party holding the largest number of seats is the Premier. Again, all these top positions, Queen/King/GG/Lt.G, have power theoretically but they are just symbolic in practice and will rubber stamp everything.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Lt. Governor doesn't have to swear in or recognize Smith, or anyone else, as the Premier although convention has it that the leader of the party holding the largest number of seats is the Premier. Again, all these top positions, Queen/King/GG/Lt.G, have power theoretically but they are just symbolic in practice and will rubber stamp everything.

But I suppose that is kind of my point. As long as everyone plays along and agrees that they're not going to exercise that power, it's all fine. What happens when someone is in that role and finds a piece of legislation particularly objectionable though?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Lt. Governor doesn't have to swear in or recognize Smith, or anyone else, as the Premier although convention has it that the leader of the party holding the largest number of seats is the Premier. Again, all these top positions, Queen/King/GG/Lt.G, have power theoretically but they are just symbolic in practice and will rubber stamp everything.

I was just saying if you take issue with someone unelected having too much power, your issue should be more with Smith than the Lt G.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was just saying if you take issue with someone unelected having too much power, your issue should be more with Smith than the Lt G.

If she wins the nomination she is elected by the people voting in the leadership race.

Jim Prentice was also an "unelected" Premier and not only that but Prentice immediately gave two Cabinet positions to unelected individuals.

Look back through the history of Canada and you will find many instances of federal and provincial governments in power who are either led by people who were not elected to do so.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Slava

But I suppose that is kind of my point. As long as everyone plays along and agrees that they're not going to exercise that power, it's all fine. What happens when someone is in that role and finds a piece of legislation particularly objectionable though?

I'm guessing that is when the people revolt against the monarchy and/or government?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

https://twitter.com/user/status/1567952231194062849

If not supporting historical human rights abusers is important to you, you may want to reconsider posting tweets from people with hammers and sickles in their profile, like you did yesterday in this thread. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the millions of innocents who suffered under those regimes...which for some of us, still cuts very close to home.

Just an FYI, not trying to be snarky.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The British Empire did terrible things. Not sure we can pin it on this one monarch.

She may not be directly responsible for it but her lavish lifestyle and wealth are a direct result of it. If it weren’t for the murder, subjugation and genocide of millions around the world, she wouldn’t be where she is today. It’s all blood money.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If not supporting historical human rights abusers is important to you, you may want to reconsider posting tweets from people with hammers and sickles in their profile, like you did yesterday in this thread. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the millions of innocents who suffered under those regimes...which for some of us, still cuts very close to home.

Just an FYI, not trying to be snarky.

Ah yes, random twitter user definitely has the power to suppress millions of people, just like the English Monarchy.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Britain has certainly done a lot of really horrendous things. No doubt about that.

I don't really pay a lot of attention to details of British government. Has the monarchy still been much of a relevant influence in the actions of government during the decades of her rule? I kind of thought that she was basically a figurehead for the UK as well. Did she have any real power during any period of her reign?

Really, I just don't know what the queen actually did all the time and what influence she actually had over government. She has always presented as a person who was just decent and not driving any particular political or national agenda, but my point of view is pretty ignorant on what her actual role was.

It's interesting that people still haven't figured out that just about all countries and people have histories of doing terrible things.

It's almost like it's... human... nature?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

She may not be directly responsible for it but her lavish lifestyle and wealth are a direct result of it. If it weren’t for the murder, subjugation and genocide of millions around the world, she wouldn’t be where she is today. It’s all blood money.

You and your life have benefitted from this all to an insanely large degree too. Should we celebrate your death?

Don't like it? Gonna move to subsaharan Africa to be with your people? Then watch how they go genocide groups and pillage neighbouring towns and villages? Is it mass wealth you don't like? What is it exactly, the "genocides"? Please let me know which country has not engaged in "genocide", can you point to one?

Everybody does it, it is human nature. Canadian self-shaming exercises know no limits and it is a silly and ridiculous notion. And if you or others really did find everything grotesque about our ancestry and traditional histories, what are you doing about it, or what are you going to do about it?

I assume you will have a snarky response but to me, it just sounds like people complaining and trying to sound smart about knowing history. It's kind of weird actually.

[Fuzz]

Queen Elizabeth was born with the last name Windsor. But that wouldn’t have been the case before 1917, the year her grandfather, King George V, decided to not only switch his house name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in order to head off anti-German sentiments during WWI, but also designated Windsor as the royal family’s official surname going forward.

Before 1917, British royals went only by their first name and the name of the house or dynasty they belonged to, such as Tudor or Hanover—i.e., Queen Victoria of the House of Hanover.

Following her marriage to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten—later Prince Philip—in 1947 and her ascension to the throne in 1952, Queen Elizabeth II made a slight adjustment to her grandfather’s naming decree by adding a hyphenated “Mountbatten” to the last name of her descendants to reflect the surname of her husband.

https://time.com/5219397/royal-famil...eth-last-name/

Interesting article on the last name of the Royal Family.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You and your life have benefitted from this all to an insanely large degree too. Should we celebrate your death?

Don't like it? Gonna move to subsaharan Africa to be with your people? Then watch how they go genocide groups and pillage neighbouring towns and villages? Is it mass wealth you don't like? What is it exactly, the "genocides"? Please let me know which country has not engaged in "genocide", can you point to one?

Everybody does it, it is human nature. Canadian self-shaming exercises know no limits and it is a silly and ridiculous notion. And if you or others really did find everything grotesque about our ancestry and traditional histories, what are you doing about it, or what are you going to do about it?

I assume you will have a snarky response but to me, it just sounds like people complaining and trying to sound smart about knowing history. It's kind of weird actually.

Lol wut?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Ah yes, random twitter user definitely has the power to suppress millions of people, just like the English Monarchy.

Would you say the same thing if that guy had a swastika or a white hood in his profile pic? I mean hey, just a random twitter user, right?

I'm always amazed how people can be so selective with the history they chose to remember, and downplay the death and suffering of tens of millions.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Would you say the same thing if that guy had a swastika or a white hood in his profile pic? I mean hey, just a random twitter user, right?

I'm always amazed how people can be so selective with the history they chose to remember, and downplay the death and suffering of tens of millions.

"If things were different, they would be different!"

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Lol wut?

He's right tho.

The conquest, genocide and subjugation of this continent allows you to live better than 99% of the world population.

The queen, of course, also benefitted a great deal from her nation's government subjugating large swaths of the world.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

"If things were different, they would be different!"

Ah yes, your classic cowardly snark, instead of an actual response.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The Lt Governor is the last protection against tyranny. I'd argue it is a great last resort protection. Reminder that Daniele Smith intends to implement this while being unelected.

Smith is probably hoping that happens. If the Lt Gov turns down a piece of legislation, we would absolutely end up with an election, where the primary talking point would be the Lt Gov and the overreach. That would 100% play well in a huge part of Alberta, and would take the focus of the campaign away from "here is a list of ways the UPC screwed up".

If Smith can get the Lt Gov to do so on a complicated constitutional reasoning she'd win easily. It would have to be something heinous for her to lose under those circumstances.

Better for Lt Gov to allow royal assent and let the courts strike it down, imo.