I guess my question is specific to the british royal family.

I saw a post online that said “God save the King” and had a photo of the king. The idea of a monarch or reverence for any other type of leader simply because they are the leader is outside of my experience.

I’m not here to disagree or argue, please don’t feel like you need to justify or convince me. I can accept that people value different things.

I would like to understand the appeal the monarchy or even specifically King Charles has for people who respect and support the monarchy.

  • 🇨🇦 tunetardis@piefed.caEnglish
    1·
    8 days ago

    Well technically, Canada’s head of state is King Charles III. As in the UK though, it’s a largely symbolic role. I don’t think loyalists in general advocate for replacing our parliamentary democracy with the monarchy or anything like that? I am not of UEL heritage myself though, so I can’t speak for them. Maybe some of the more die-hards do?

    There was an incident in which an unpopular minority government chose to prorogue parliament rather than face a confidence motion that could have triggered an election. Why I mention this is that the Governor General (who was the then-Queen’s representative in Canada) had to sign off on the proroguing. It’s an interesting thought as to what would have happened had she refused? That would be a rare example of actual political power wielded by the monarchy. In the end though, she did not.

    • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineOPEnglish
      1·
      8 days ago

      Maybe I should mention I live in Canada.

      I don’t really follow this example with the GC. Are you referring to Harper/Michaëlle Jean?

      The opposition parties based their strategy on the constitutional authority of the Governor General Michaëlle Jean to appoint a Liberal-NDP coalition able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons to form a government, should the Conservative government fall on a matter of confidence.

      Let’s put aside what Harper was doing to explore this: they were not even asking for a new election, they were asking to be recognized as an official coalition government, something that happened once before.

      My understanding with respect to the prorogue is that there was no legal basis to deny it. What was agreed upon was a short duration and that a budget be proposed when they returned. Failure of the budget would mean the government would have to dissolve.

      So I guess she did exert some influence, but we can’t know for sure how much of that was imposed on the Harper gov vs seen as legitimizing the action? The public was pretty split.

      • 🇨🇦 tunetardis@piefed.caEnglish
        1·
        8 days ago

        Oh right, I’m remembering that incorrectly. It wasn’t a confidence bill or something like that which would have toppled the government. It was the coalition. Anyway, it was a curious case of the GG finding herself in the middle of this and having to make a decision with political consequences.