cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/57392984
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
348 points (99.4% liked)
Political Memes
11971 readers
2114 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean Canada is a British colony, no? Aren't they still under UK rule by some technicality?
Nope! We're part of a commonwealth (we have the same monarch as the UK, Australia, etc) but no other connection to the UK other than history.
Canada was not independent in 1814, though, so it would have been as a British colony.
How can you have the same monarch and not be under their control, even if that is a loosely applied term? I've read that the British royals still have a legal method of dissolving the British parliament and taking direct control of the government. It would likely lead to a massive revolt but is still technically possible. Is there a similar mechanism for the Brits to take over Canada? If not, what does it mean to have a monarch with no authority?
Sorry, for bombarding you with questions. It's funny timing because a friend and I were just discussing this the other day and we only ended with more questions than we started with.
The monarchy of the commonwealth is little more than just a diplomat with a title. They may have stated power in law but because of modern conventions they never use them or intervene in any of the politics of said countries.
It's considered two different monarchies. There is a King of Canada and a King of the United Kingdom. Same person, two different institutions.
So it wouldn't be a Brit taking over Canada, it would Canada's head of state seizing control.
I don't mean to sound rude so please don't take offense, but isn't that sort of nonsensical? King Charles is only one man and the vast majority of his life and time is spent in the UK so I think it's fair to say he considers himself more British than Canadian or Australian or a citizen of any other commonwealth nation, even if legally speaking it is defined differently. Doesn't that mean that the main thing preventing him from prioritizing the wellbeing of one nation over another is his own integrity? What happens if the next king is a dick?
Again, I really don't mean to be rude I'm just very curious about this topic. I'm sure watching Trump shit all over the American system of government is a factor in my thought process as well. Feel free to tell me to shut up if I'm making you think about this more than you want to.
Basically, the current King is the King of Canada, and also the King of the UK, and also the King of 13 other places. So this one dude is king of many places, but there's otherwise no connection between the governments of Canada and the UK, or Australia, etc.
So we're an independent nation, but in an open relationship with our monarch.
I don't think I fully understand the situation. From reading that it seems that Canadian bills require royal assent to become law. Doesn't that effectively mean that the King of England determines Canadian law? It seems there's some obfuscation going on between the governor general and the monarch but I don't think I'm getting how that changes things at a fundamental level.
Canada has a king.
The UK also has a king.
They happen to be the same person.
So the king has similar authority in both Canada and the UK (plus 12 other countries). With respect to Canada, the king is just as much Canadian as he is British (or Australian, etc). With respect to the monarchy, each realm (country) in the commonwealth is on an equal footing with each other.
So the UK has no more bearing on Canadian law than Canada has on UK law.
The Governor General rubber stamps the bill passed by the Parliament. The Governor General is nominally an agent appointed by the King of Canada (who happens to be the same person as the King of the UK), but they are recommended to the king by the Prime Minister. The king similarly rubber stamps whoever the Prime Minister recommended.
In Canada, the monarchy is mostly symbolic. There is a delegate of the monarchy called the governor general who speaks on behalf of the current monarch (plus leutenant governers at the provincial level). Their primary function is to veto bills they believe are unconstitutional or otherwise not in the interest of the public, plus a number of ceremonial things.
The monarch themself may be biased toward the attitudes and views of the UK, but there is no mechanism for British parliament to have any (legal) sway in Canadian politics (or in any of the other 12 countries in the commonwealth).
So the monarch has authority in all 14 countries, but nobody else can do anything in any other country.
The more you know 🌟
Canada patriated its constitution in the 1980s, the only 'thing still under UK rule' is that our monarch is automatically the monarch of the UK, but technically the monarchy of Canada is a separate title he holds.