What is frustrating about the video is that the reference to the term ‘British Monarchs’ when in fact the queen is queen of Canada and monarchs post confederation are Canadian monarchs. God save the Queen.
A great series by the Ottawa Citizen that really gets to go behind the closed door of Centre Block. The guide for this video is very effective but has an annoying reference to "British Monarchs" when in fact they have been Canadian Monarchs (at least since the Statute of Westminster).
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon it isn't and it does. She is also the Queen of Jamaica and a host of other Commonwealth Realms. The UK PM once recommended against the Queen attending a Commonwealth meeting in the Canada. So, she asked the Canadian PM and he recommended she attend. She attended on the advice as the Queen of Canada.
@@paulstreet9162 I have never heard of a state that does not even host it´s own head of state. The Queen of Canada does not even live in Canada. This is just ridiculous. If she really wants to be the head of state of 15 independant nations, she should change her residence at least once a year into a different commonwealth realm. That means she should at least live a full year in Canada every 15 years. Otherwise she would be the british Queen first and the canadian Queen second and that truly sounds like a colony or a second class nation.
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon Canada is a completely independent country. It is in no way beholden to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In fact the Crown of Canada and the Crown of the United Kingdom are different corporate entities. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II simply happens to be the holder of both of them.
@@reminder9146 I have never heard of a state that does not even host it´s own head of state. The Queen of Canada does not even live in Canada. This is just ridiculous. If she really wants to be the head of state of 15 independant nations, she should change her residence at least once a year into a different commonwealth realm. That means she should at least live a full year in Canada every 15 years. Otherwise she would be the british Queen first and the canadian Queen second and that truly sounds like a colony or a second class nation.
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon Sounds to me like you don't understand three fundamental concepts. First, what a colony is. Second, is the concept of a head of state, especially in the Westminster system. Lastly, the concept of sovereignty. How about this. Stop being that Lincolnite you obviously are, and let Canadians, as well as the other commonwealth realms, define their own relationships to each other and their head of state. Also, you'd do well to know what a Personal Union is. I'm sorry, but your logic doesn't follow because you're attempting to apply a square peg to a round system. But why shouldn't a Lincoln-loving Yankee happily affix himself to the idea he knows better than those who would govern themselves.
Canada is such a young country and has to get all it's traditions and history from the UK. Hard to believe that no building is older than 100 years old in Canada. Even America had buildings and institutions over than 400 years.
that is hard to beleive, mainly because its not at all trueen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_buildings_in_Canada#:~:text=British%20Columbia%20%20%20%20Building%20%20,%20Oak%20Bay%20%2030%20more%20rows%20
@@daveunbelievable6313 My comment is still valid. I'm talking about buildings, traditions and history. Not where the British first set foot in North America
You really need to do some research if you think there are no buildings older than 100 years in Canada. Even some of the buildings on Parliament hill are older than that.
US Capitol, Library of Congress, The Breakers, The White House, The Elms, The Old, State, Navy Building, The many, many state capitols of individual states. The many official residences of governors of individual states. Boston public library, New York public library, The Morgan library. All these places I mentioned are also way older than Canada, so either your jealous or you just don't appreciate good history.
@@Pius-XI Oh, I can handle it. A lot of the buildings you listed I do personally prefer to ours in Canada (though I personally think that the Palazzo Ducale that used to hold the Venetian government tops them all), I'm just saying that the original poster is entitled to their opinion (especially considering it's about something as subject as architectural preferences), and shouldn't be called jealous or unappreciative just because your opinion differs. Both have equal value. Just a fact of life.
We are not still a British colony. The King is formally the King of Canada, it's just that the King of Canada and the King of the United Kingdom are the same person.
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon Well, there's not really any need to. And I suppose you could make the case that when Canada first became a country, we did choose to stay a part of the Commonwealth, and so accepted the British Monarch as our own. The King's role (well, it's more the Governor General's role most of the time) is almost entirely ceremonial, so not only would choosing a new King only for Canada be a lot of fuss, there's also a few things to keep in mind, like how the King is not really supposed to show any political leanings, so that he remains as uncontroversial as possible and can be a unifying figure for everyone in the country. If the King were to be elected, he would undoubtedly owe his support to one political party or another, which could alienate everyone else, even if they are in the minority, which would lead to a lot more general unhappiness with regards to the monarchy than if we just continue to keep the British monarch, whose family has been on the throne for long enough that the way they came to it has hardly any relation at all to current politics. Not to mention, even just trying to pick the candidates would be a nightmare. Even if we were to dust off the old way that the government of the Venetian Republic elected their monarch, the Doge/Doxe/Duke (which I'll happily explain more of if you aren't familiar), there would still almost certainly be public outcry. Like I said, if we stick with the British line, we already know who's in line for the throne ... the line of succession at the moment covers for at least 63 people, so we know who to expect, and we know that they're already not allowed to really take sides on anything, publicly at least.
What is frustrating about the video is that the reference to the term ‘British Monarchs’ when in fact the queen is queen of Canada and monarchs post confederation are Canadian monarchs. God save the Queen.
Why is Canada still a british colony?
Why doesn´t it have it´s own monarch?
@Freedom Fighter Canada has its own monarch. King Charles is a king of Canada in his own right.
A great series by the Ottawa Citizen that really gets to go behind the closed door of Centre Block. The guide for this video is very effective but has an annoying reference to "British Monarchs" when in fact they have been Canadian Monarchs (at least since the Statute of Westminster).
Exactly right.
Why is Canada still a british colony?
Why doesn´t it have it´s own monarch?
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon it isn't and it does. She is also the Queen of Jamaica and a host of other Commonwealth Realms. The UK PM once recommended against the Queen attending a Commonwealth meeting in the Canada. So, she asked the Canadian PM and he recommended she attend. She attended on the advice as the Queen of Canada.
@@paulstreet9162 I have never heard of a state that does not even host it´s own head of state. The Queen of Canada does not even live in Canada. This is just ridiculous. If she really wants to be the head of state of 15 independant nations, she should change her residence at least once a year into a different commonwealth realm. That means she should at least live a full year in Canada every 15 years. Otherwise she would be the british Queen first and the canadian Queen second and that truly sounds like a colony or a second class nation.
7:41 whoopiedoo. Showing that women don't paint as much as men puts little girls down. Why not mention it at all so that we are all equal.
How many million tax payer dollars were wasted on this building simply for pageantry when we can't find any money to help our veterans.
Really need to pump the brakes on clapping after hand gestures.
Damnit bobby
They are our monarch! Long live the Queen of Canada!!
Why is Canada still a british colony?
Why doesn´t it have it´s own monarch?
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon Canada is a completely independent country. It is in no way beholden to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In fact the Crown of Canada and the Crown of the United Kingdom are different corporate entities. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II simply happens to be the holder of both of them.
@@reminder9146 I have never heard of a state that does not even host it´s own head of state. The Queen of Canada does not even live in Canada. This is just ridiculous. If she really wants to be the head of state of 15 independant nations, she should change her residence at least once a year into a different commonwealth realm. That means she should at least live a full year in Canada every 15 years. Otherwise she would be the british Queen first and the canadian Queen second and that truly sounds like a colony or a second class nation.
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon Sounds to me like you don't understand three fundamental concepts. First, what a colony is. Second, is the concept of a head of state, especially in the Westminster system. Lastly, the concept of sovereignty.
How about this. Stop being that Lincolnite you obviously are, and let Canadians, as well as the other commonwealth realms, define their own relationships to each other and their head of state.
Also, you'd do well to know what a Personal Union is. I'm sorry, but your logic doesn't follow because you're attempting to apply a square peg to a round system.
But why shouldn't a Lincoln-loving Yankee happily affix himself to the idea he knows better than those who would govern themselves.
¡God Save the Queen of Canada!
🍁👑🇨🇦👑🇨🇦👸🇨🇦👑🇨🇦👑🍁
¡Dieu Sauve la Reine du Canada!
Why is Canada still a british colony?
Why doesn´t it have it´s own monarch?
Canada is such a young country and has to get all it's traditions and history from the UK. Hard to believe that no building is older than 100 years old in Canada. Even America had buildings and institutions over than 400 years.
that is hard to beleive, mainly because its not at all trueen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_buildings_in_Canada#:~:text=British%20Columbia%20%20%20%20Building%20%20,%20Oak%20Bay%20%2030%20more%20rows%20
British colonisation of the Americas began in Newfoundland
@@daveunbelievable6313 My comment is still valid. I'm talking about buildings, traditions and history. Not where the British first set foot in North America
My house is over 100 years old in Canada.
You really need to do some research if you think there are no buildings older than 100 years in Canada. Even some of the buildings on Parliament hill are older than that.
america has nothing as beautiful as this
US Capitol, Library of Congress, The Breakers, The White House, The Elms, The Old, State, Navy Building, The many, many state capitols of individual states. The many official residences of governors of individual states. Boston public library, New York public library, The Morgan library. All these places I mentioned are also way older than Canada, so either your jealous or you just don't appreciate good history.
@@Pius-XI Or it's their subjective opinion which you just so happen not to share...
@nathanpayne6765 Just a fact of life. Not my fault you can't handle it
@@nathanpayne6765 .
@@Pius-XI Oh, I can handle it. A lot of the buildings you listed I do personally prefer to ours in Canada (though I personally think that the Palazzo Ducale that used to hold the Venetian government tops them all), I'm just saying that the original poster is entitled to their opinion (especially considering it's about something as subject as architectural preferences), and shouldn't be called jealous or unappreciative just because your opinion differs. Both have equal value. Just a fact of life.
Why is Canada still a british colony?
Why doesn´t it have it´s own monarch?
We are not still a British colony.
The King is formally the King of Canada, it's just that the King of Canada and the King of the United Kingdom are the same person.
@@nathanpayne6765 Why don´t you elect your own King?
@@freedomfighterletsgobrandon Well, there's not really any need to. And I suppose you could make the case that when Canada first became a country, we did choose to stay a part of the Commonwealth, and so accepted the British Monarch as our own.
The King's role (well, it's more the Governor General's role most of the time) is almost entirely ceremonial, so not only would choosing a new King only for Canada be a lot of fuss, there's also a few things to keep in mind, like how the King is not really supposed to show any political leanings, so that he remains as uncontroversial as possible and can be a unifying figure for everyone in the country. If the King were to be elected, he would undoubtedly owe his support to one political party or another, which could alienate everyone else, even if they are in the minority, which would lead to a lot more general unhappiness with regards to the monarchy than if we just continue to keep the British monarch, whose family has been on the throne for long enough that the way they came to it has hardly any relation at all to current politics.
Not to mention, even just trying to pick the candidates would be a nightmare. Even if we were to dust off the old way that the government of the Venetian Republic elected their monarch, the Doge/Doxe/Duke (which I'll happily explain more of if you aren't familiar), there would still almost certainly be public outcry. Like I said, if we stick with the British line, we already know who's in line for the throne ... the line of succession at the moment covers for at least 63 people, so we know who to expect, and we know that they're already not allowed to really take sides on anything, publicly at least.
@@nathanpayne6765 What if the King openly shows partisan leanings? I mean his 2nd son Harry Windsor and his wife have clearly shown political bias.
@@nathanpayne6765 If the King is only ceremonial and largely unimportant, then what about not having a King at all?