God Save the Queen - of Australia, Canada, and NZ?

Originally posted by Tristanchi
The queen is head of state for the Commonwealth because they are British colonies, a status which may not be common knowledge but is still legally so.

Aaaaah....NO

Representative government for the colony was provided for by the passing of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 by the United Kingdom. The 1st New Zealand Parliament met in 1854. In 1856 the colony became effectively self-governing with the grant of responsible government over all domestic matters other than native policy. Power in this respect would be transferred to the colonial administration in the 1860s. In 1863 Premier Alfred Domett moved a resolution that the capital transfer to a locality in Cook Strait, apparently due to concern the South Island could form a separate colony. Commissioners from Australia (chosen for their neutral status) advised Wellington as suitable because of its harbour and central location, and parliament officially sat there for the first time in 1865. In 1893, the country became the first nation in the world to grant women the right to vote.In 1907, New Zealand became an independent Dominion and a fully independent nation in 1947 when the Statute of Westminster (1931) was ratified, although in practice Britain had ceased to play any real role in the government of New Zealand much earlier than this

Source (wiki)

New Zealand's premier, Sir Joseph Ward, echoed Canada’s concerns, but New Zealand had its own reasons for wanting to become a dominion. When Ward visited London in 1907 for an imperial conference, he raised with officials the idea of New Zealand becoming a dominion. Ward wrote to Lord Elgin of the Colonial Office in May 1907, confirming his views: 'having regard to the position and importance of New Zealand, it had well outgrown the "colonial stage", and was as much entitled to a separate designation as the Commonwealth of Australia or the Dominion of Canada'. He was quite sure that New Zealanders would be 'much gratified' with the title 'The Dominion of New Zealand'.

Ward also had regional imperial ambitions. He hoped the term ‘dominion’ would remind the world that New Zealand was not part of Australia. It would dignify New Zealand, a country he thought was ‘the natural centre for the government of the South Pacific'.

Politicians supported Ward's motion to ask His Majesty the King to take the necessary steps to change New Zealand's status. The Order in Council changing the title from colony to dominion was issued on 9 September, and the proclamation was made on 10 September, taking effect on 26 September 1907, when it was read aloud throughout New Zealand.

Source

Dominion status ended with a whimper. In 1945, when the country joined the United Nations, it was simply called ‘New Zealand’. In January 1946 officials were told to change their letterheads to say ‘New Zealand’ – but not to publicise the change.

In 1953 the official style was changed to the ‘Realm of New Zealand’. The term ‘dominion’ hung on in the names of institutions (the Dominion Museum was not renamed the National Museum until 1972), businesses and in the constitutions of clubs and societies. The name still survives in the title of the Dominion (now Dominion Post) newspaper, first published in Wellington on 26 September 1907.

Although the term is no longer used to describe New Zealand, the 1907 royal proclamation of dominion status has never been revoked and remains in force today. New Zealand’s formal title may therefore still include the term 'dominion'. Generally, however, the country is today known as the Realm of New Zealand.

Source


A New Zealand Dominion Symposium

New Zealand: From Colony to Nation


No longer a Colony.











[edit on 3-9-2009 by aorAki]

The only thing royalty is good for is testing our noose tying abilities.

Referendum for Republic!

reply to post by king9072


Constitution of Canada.....Thanks to Senor Trudeau.


Canada is placed under the rule of law, and the supremacy of God.



By constitution, so by laws, Elizabeth II is chief of Canada, and commonwealth, etc, etc.

And Also, Elizabeth II is Queen given God's Grace.

(look your spare change, you'll see; it is written R.D.G. = Regina Dei Gratia)

If you want to remove this, though luck.
And no one will be willing to give his own blood for such a non issue.


The problem is not to oust Her Majesty or future monarchs.

Elizabeth II is head of state in Canada, she is represented by the Governor General. In the provinces, we have a Lieutenant-Governor.

Each laws passed in the country, or in the provinces must received the royal Sanction to be effective.

They were talking about removing Lieutenant-Governeor in Québec, following abusive ''reign'' of former Lt. Gov.

But the crappy politicians, as always, didn't then know who they should take to rubber stamp the bills, neither how little friends of them it would take to replace that single person to do the job.

I guess I'm a kind of desillusioned separatist and also a surprisingly pragmatic monarchist.

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Tristanchi
The queen is head of state for the Commonwealth because they are British colonies, a status which may not be common knowledge but is still legally so.

Aaaaah....NO

Representative government for the colony was provided for by the passing of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 by the United Kingdom. The 1st New Zealand Parliament met in 1854. In 1856 the colony became effectively self-governing with the grant of responsible government over all domestic matters other than native policy. Power in this respect would be transferred to the colonial administration in the 1860s. In 1863 Premier Alfred Domett moved a resolution that the capital transfer to a locality in Cook Strait, apparently due to concern the South Island could form a separate colony. Commissioners from Australia (chosen for their neutral status) advised Wellington as suitable because of its harbour and central location, and parliament officially sat there for the first time in 1865. In 1893, the country became the first nation in the world to grant women the right to vote.In 1907, New Zealand became an independent Dominion and a fully independent nation in 1947 when the Statute of Westminster (1931) was ratified, although in practice Britain had ceased to play any real role in the government of New Zealand much earlier than this

Source (wiki)

New Zealand's premier, Sir Joseph Ward, echoed Canada’s concerns, but New Zealand had its own reasons for wanting to become a dominion. When Ward visited London in 1907 for an imperial conference, he raised with officials the idea of New Zealand becoming a dominion. Ward wrote to Lord Elgin of the Colonial Office in May 1907, confirming his views: 'having regard to the position and importance of New Zealand, it had well outgrown the "colonial stage", and was as much entitled to a separate designation as the Commonwealth of Australia or the Dominion of Canada'. He was quite sure that New Zealanders would be 'much gratified' with the title 'The Dominion of New Zealand'.

Ward also had regional imperial ambitions. He hoped the term ‘dominion’ would remind the world that New Zealand was not part of Australia. It would dignify New Zealand, a country he thought was ‘the natural centre for the government of the South Pacific'.

Politicians supported Ward's motion to ask His Majesty the King to take the necessary steps to change New Zealand's status. The Order in Council changing the title from colony to dominion was issued on 9 September, and the proclamation was made on 10 September, taking effect on 26 September 1907, when it was read aloud throughout New Zealand.

Source

Dominion status ended with a whimper. In 1945, when the country joined the United Nations, it was simply called ‘New Zealand’. In January 1946 officials were told to change their letterheads to say ‘New Zealand’ – but not to publicise the change.

In 1953 the official style was changed to the ‘Realm of New Zealand’. The term ‘dominion’ hung on in the names of institutions (the Dominion Museum was not renamed the National Museum until 1972), businesses and in the constitutions of clubs and societies. The name still survives in the title of the Dominion (now Dominion Post) newspaper, first published in Wellington on 26 September 1907.

Although the term is no longer used to describe New Zealand, the 1907 royal proclamation of dominion status has never been revoked and remains in force today. New Zealand’s formal title may therefore still include the term 'dominion'. Generally, however, the country is today known as the Realm of New Zealand.

Source


A New Zealand Dominion Symposium

New Zealand: From Colony to Nation


No longer a Colony.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by aorAki]

Great research thanks for sharing!

Originally posted by exile1981
She is the head of state in Canada in name only. She actually has very little real pull.

Technically she is the head of state, however she has NO pull in Canada unless she is actually in Canada. When she is not in Canada (pretty much always) the person who assumes the position and exercises the position of head of state is the Governor General, currently Michaelle Jean (wonderful GG by the way, probably the only thing Paul Martin ever did right was appoint her). Either way, it is a non-political position and neither of them have any political pull in Canada, other than being mostly ceremonial.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by eMachine

 

I heard on BBC that the Queen, in the Commonwealth countries, can dismiss a Prime Minister and she could even choose who the Prime Minister if she wanted to. They said that there are other powers too that she doesn't exercise, but could, but I don't remember what they were. [They were discussing this because of Fiji being expelled from the Commonwealth.]

In the end, I guess one could say that the Queen has powers much like the President of the United States has in those executive orders. The President could make himself absolute ruler with just a few worlds. Likewise, the Queen (or King) could, if she wanted to, become the ruling monarch of the Commonwealth if she wanted to with just a flick of the wrist.

As for why the Queen is still the Head of State in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, among other places, I think that stems from those places never actually becoming independent, like the United States did. I remember learning in history class that those nations were eventually granted home rule by the King back then and thereby, never directly broke ties with the crown. [It's like Greenland and Denmark.]

Not really. Canada is a member of the commonwealth, but does not belong to the United Kingdom. After more than a century of diplomacy and dialogue pertaining to Canadian independence, The British North America act was born, which granted Canada home rule, meaning of course independance. The problem though is that Canada is a constitutional monarchy and as such needs a non-political head of state. The Queen remained that head of state even though Canada itself is not a subject of the British empire. Canada needed a head of state that was actually in Canada though, so it adopted one and titled it Governor General, a ceremonial position held by a Canadian who is a representative of the Queen.

As for the Queen being able to dismiss the Prime Minister, that is incorrect. The representative of the Queen in Canada can dissolve parliament under special situations. In a minority government if the opposition party's have enough seats they can lose confidence in the government. Once this occurs, the ruling government no longer has the ability to continue to govern. In that situation the Prime Minister will go to the Governor General and request that he/she dissolve Parliament, resulting in a general federal election. Dissolution of Parliament is only done at the request of the Prime Minister, not the other way around.


[edit on 3-9-2009 by bronco73]

Originally posted by exile1981
She is the head of state in Canada in name only. She actually has very little real pull.

You are actually quite wrong. The Queen holds absolute power in Canada. She appoints a Governor General to run the country. The GG can dissolve the whole govt of Canada at any moment.

New Zealand here.

Who's the queen?

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm

Originally posted by exile1981
She is the head of state in Canada in name only. She actually has very little real pull.

You are actually quite wrong. The Queen holds absolute power in Canada. She appoints a Governor General to run the country. The GG can dissolve the whole govt of Canada at any moment.

The Queen doesn't appoint ANYBODY in Canada. The Governor General is appointed by the sitting Prime Minister to represent the Queen. Furthermore, when the Queen is in Canada she is the official head of state, but neither she nor the Governor General have any political pull whether in Canada or abroad. The Governor General cannot dissolve Parliament at any time unless requested by the sitting Prime Minister. When the PM requests dissolution of Parliament, the Governor General acting as head of state will either grant the request, or ask the opposition parties if they can form a coalition of some sort to take over governing the nation (typically this option is not even considered unless under very special circumstances)

Dissolution of Parliament
www.gg.ca...

Prime Minister appoints Governor General
canadaonline.about.com...





[edit on 4-9-2009 by bronco73]

Originally posted by bronco73

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm

Originally posted by exile1981
She is the head of state in Canada in name only. She actually has very little real pull.

You are actually quite wrong. The Queen holds absolute power in Canada. She appoints a Governor General to run the country. The GG can dissolve the whole govt of Canada at any moment.

The Queen doesn't appoint ANYBODY in Canada. The Governor General is appointed by the sitting Prime Minister to represent the Queen. Furthermore, when the Queen is in Canada she is the official head of state, but neither she nor the Governor General have any political pull whether in Canada or abroad. The Governor General cannot dissolve Parliament at any time unless requested by the sitting Prime Minister. When the PM requests dissolution of Parliament, the Governor General acting as head of state will either grant the request, or ask the opposition parties if they can form a coalition of some sort to take over governing the nation (typically this option is not even considered unless under very special circumstances)

Dissolution of Parliament
www.gg.ca...

Prime Minister appoints Governor General
canadaonline.about.com...


[edit on 4-9-2009 by bronco73]

lol the QUEEN APPOINTS the GG!

On the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister only,[1] the Queen appoints the Governor General to carry out most of the monarch's constitutional and ceremonial duties for an unfixed period of time – known as serving At Her Majesty's Pleasure – though five years is the normal convention, as is a rotation between anglophone and francophone incumbents.

Though the monarch retains all executive, legislative, and judicial power in and over Canada,[40][41] the Governor General is permitted to exercise most of this, including the Royal Prerogative, in the sovereign's name; some as outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867, and some through various letters patent issued over the decades, particularly those from 1947 that constitute the Office of Governor General of Canada;[42] they state: "And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada."[43] Amongst other duties, however, the monarch retains the sole right to appoint the Governor General.

Source en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 4-9-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]

Hi, Briton here. I wish some of the more powerful members of the Commonwealth would get rid of the horse-faced old battle-axe. Its about the only way to get the ball rolling so we can move towards sacking the lot of them ourselves.
As has been mentioned, the queen is very wealthy. Anyone with that kind of money cant be trusted with any political power whatsoever, no matter how little used or theoretical it is. They have a monster of a vested interest in the status quo. However, just look @the state of the world. We need change. A new way. We're not going to get it whilst rich monarchs are still around.
Btw, IDK88, have you got any evidence that the queen brought about these recent wars? I'd be interested to hear your theory anyway, regardless.

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm

Originally posted by bronco73

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm

Originally posted by exile1981
She is the head of state in Canada in name only. She actually has very little real pull.

You are actually quite wrong. The Queen holds absolute power in Canada. She appoints a Governor General to run the country. The GG can dissolve the whole govt of Canada at any moment.

The Queen doesn't appoint ANYBODY in Canada. The Governor General is appointed by the sitting Prime Minister to represent the Queen. Furthermore, when the Queen is in Canada she is the official head of state, but neither she nor the Governor General have any political pull whether in Canada or abroad. The Governor General cannot dissolve Parliament at any time unless requested by the sitting Prime Minister. When the PM requests dissolution of Parliament, the Governor General acting as head of state will either grant the request, or ask the opposition parties if they can form a coalition of some sort to take over governing the nation (typically this option is not even considered unless under very special circumstances)

Dissolution of Parliament
www.gg.ca...

Prime Minister appoints Governor General
canadaonline.about.com...


[edit on 4-9-2009 by bronco73]

lol the QUEEN APPOINTS the GG!

On the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister only,[1] the Queen appoints the Governor General to carry out most of the monarch's constitutional and ceremonial duties for an unfixed period of time – known as serving At Her Majesty's Pleasure – though five years is the normal convention, as is a rotation between anglophone and francophone incumbents.

Source en.wikipedia.org...

It seems we have slight differences of opinion. The Governor General is selected by the Prime Minister. The appointment by the Queen is nothing more than ceremonious. It has been this way ever since the 1960's. Before that, the Queen did receive a list of Candidates and did appoint her own choice to the position, but that practice is long since abandoned. Now, the Prime Minister and only the Prime Minister selects the Governor General. Yes the Queen does the appointing, but it is purely ceremonial and is done so as the only choice given to her by the PM.

reply to post by bronco73


Sorry Bronco, you are too fast bro. I added some more but it is really irrelevant.

The independence of Canada is merely an illusion anyway regardless of what all this says.

Originally posted by Whine Flu
New Zealand here.

Who's the queen?

She's that woman with the crown on her head as depicted on your coins.

Funny cause one of your national anthems is God save the Queen, and you don't know who she is?

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
reply to post by bronco73

 

Sorry Bronco, you are too fast bro. I added some more but it is really irrelevant.

The independence of Canada is merely an illusion anyway regardless of what all this says.

Heh, who is really independent anyways lol! Looks like we are on the same page, but just stating the same facts differently. Great minds do in fact think alike

Cheers, this statement is what sums it all up:

"the monarch retains all executive, legislative, and judicial power in and over Canada"

That is pretty much all power

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
Cheers, this statement is what sums it all up:

"the monarch retains all executive, legislative, and judicial power in and over Canada"

That is pretty much all power

There would be plenty of arguments to this, including both the British North America act and the Canada Act of 1982. While the powers technically do remain with the Queen, in practice this has long been abolished. Her role in and for Canada is now nothing more than ceremonial and cultural.

Originally posted by king9072

The Royals are the Royals because they have maintained power for hundreds of years and the blood line has been the same for that entire time.

Are you sure about that?
It seems that historian Michael Jones discovered strong proof that the 15th-century English monarch Edward IV was illegitimate, thus throwing into question the legitimacy of all the kings and queens who followed.

Apparently the royal line should have extended not through Edward, but through his brother George, Duke of Clarence, and his heirs.

So who the hell is / should be the rightful monarch? Well surprise-surprise it's none other than King Mike I aka Mike Hastings an Australian!

www.theage.com.au...

Originally posted by Whine Flu
New Zealand here.

Who's the queen?

Georgina Beyer used to be, when (s)he was getting press attention. Now we;'re sadly lacking in high-profile Prescillas!

reply to post by aorAki


Oh shi-

Originally posted by yizzel

Originally posted by Whine Flu
New Zealand here.

Who's the queen?

She's that woman with the crown on her head as depicted on your coins.

Funny cause one of your national anthems is God save the Queen, and you don't know who she is?

It was a joke. I know who she is, but what I meant by that was that she has no control over anyone of us here.