Queen Elizabeth of England dead at 96.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alby said:
I am not referring to the UK. The debate I mean is the one that plays out in countries, like Canada and Australia, where we contract out the head of state role to the sovereign of another country. I voted no in a referendum about changing the arrangements in one such country because I couldn't (and can't work) myself up into a frenzy about anachronism, especially when nobody can be sure that the replacement model will work better than, or even as well as, the one it replaces. Also relevant is the fact that some of these countries were built on post war migrants fleeing Europe looking for a system of government, however anachronistic, that provided stability and curbed tyrannical tendencies.
Click to expand...
Hello Alby: Without outing your origins,
 
So does Camila become Queen….or Princess…?
Or some other title. As you can probably tell, I’m not up on royalty stuff.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
So does Camila become Queen….or Princess…?
Or some other title. As you can probably tell, I’m not up on royalty stuff.
Click to expand...
Queen Consort - but not Queen. It’s an unusual time to be leaving the U.K. for Buenos Aires, Heathrow is full of commemorations to the Queen
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 5
joftoronto said:
Hello Alby: Without outing your origins,
Click to expand...
I started to draft a response to your thoughtful comment, but it was getting too long winded and had many points that are really not germane to the majority of expats who do not hail from a commonwealth country, like yourself or I. I understand the unintended consequences argument. I think there are ways to preserve a parlimantary democracy without having a hereditary monarch, and, as you say "outsourced" head of state, although I suppose it may save us some money.
 
I will just add that Canada is likely to remain a monarchy long after it is abolished in either Australia, or the UK if it ever decides to abolish the monarchy. You mention voting in a referendum that was designed to canvas options on possible government models that do not rely on a monarch as head of state. That is not possible in Canada. With the repatriation of the British North America Act in 1982, an amending formula was adopted that generally allows amendments to Canada's constitution where at least 7 provincial parliaments, the Federal parliament (which consists of an elected House of Commons and appointed Senate) approve a proposed amendment and those 7 provincial Legislative Assemblies must represent more than 50% of the Canadian population. It's a relatively high bar for consitutional changes, reflected by the fact that it has only been used once, in 1983. However, when it comes to the monarchy (and several other matters like the function of the Senate, the Supreme Court, etc), there is a separate amending formula called the "unanimity formula" that requires unanimous consent of all 10 provincial legislative assemblies and both Federal Houses of Parliament, before any changes, including potential abolition and replacement, can be approved. De jure, that makes any potential changes to Canada's monarchy almost impossible, as that formula will in practice, be difficult to fulfil, if you know anything about Canada's constitutional history. So I fully expect that several generations from now, Canadians will still be singing God Save the King/Queen, barring any revolutionary changes, (and Canadians pride themselves, to some extent, define themselves, in opposition to revolutionary change). So insurrections are frowned upon by the vast majority of Canadians.
 
Does this thread really fulfill the requirement of the "Expat Life" forum, to be relevant to Argentina?
Now that it's run to three pages, I feel moved to ask.
 
It was born irrelevant, and has become more so. Mind you, the comparison with institutional arrangements in Argentina is interesting and could keep going.
 
Alby said:
It was born irrelevant, and has become more so.
Click to expand...
The Malvinas question was a feeble gesture in that direction, but it was an obviously facetious question. The UK has spent millions upgrading its bases and ports in the Malvinas over the last five or six years, as I mentioned in another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top