Canada still has political ties to Britain

In a practical sense a monarch is quite useful in the modern world.
Essentially it adds another layer of stability, no commonwealth countries government can go too far out of wack otherwise the monarch or her representative might step in and remove them with their powers. It happened in Australia in1975:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
Obviously a government ignore it but generally the monarch will only step in if both international and public opinion is on their side.
At that point if the government ignores it they are more likely to loose legitimacy than the monarch.

The British crown is a net positive from the money they produce from rent on the lands they own

You pay taxes so your President can fuck off and play golf lmao

Yeah everyone knows about those being part of the Commonwealth but for some reason nobody ever talks about Canada as a Commonwealth nation.
Where does the Royal family get their income? Is it all just entrepreneurship?

>no commonwealth countries government can go too far out of wack otherwise the monarch or her representative might step in and remove them with their powers

nonsense
the queen presided over apartheid south africa
and jamaica and png are rife with political violence

>but for some reason nobody ever talks about Canada as a Commonwealth nation.
????

True but the president isn't really "The monarch" with Trump in office you basically saw the extent of the president's power, just the ability to mobilize the military and enact foreign policy. The power of the president to veto bills is limited as Congress can easily overturn a veto

ok the low down on this is that canada is essentially the colony that didnt agree with the american revilution and where people who were from the rebellious colonies went in order to stay british

so canada is basically the british loyalist part of america.
in fact canada doesnt culturally have a great deal to do wiyh the uk in the same way aus/nz but even the west indies or india. but their entire national identity is being loyalist america so theyre obliged to keep the queen

>the queen presided over apartheid south africa
Until 1961, then they left the commonwealth because of public opinion.
>jamaica and png are rife with political violence
Again it all hinges on legitimacy both domestically and internationally. I'm not saying the queen can go rumble in the jungle, I'm saying that governor general's who have powers of the monarch given to them can and do act of the situation arises that does lend itself to a level of stability. It's just the situation is very rare.

It just surprises me because the Leafs have always presented themselves as the more progressive version of America when in reality they never really gained full independence from Britain

Not him but the monarchy has power that if they tried to use inappropriately, parliament would strip it from them immediately.
It's a checks and balance sort of thing.

anyone could own those lands and it would be the same

>they never really gained full independence from Britain
They have though.

Not fully if their monarch is still the queen

So their income comes from land acquired during a time when the monarchy had more power?

>Until 1961, then they left the commonwealth because of public opinion.
wrong. they stopped being a monarchy because they autonomously decided to hold a ref where the boer voting majority told the queen to fuck off simply because the boers hated the idea of swearinh alleigance to england

they got kicked out of the commonwealth of nations because india and newly independent african counyries threatened to ditch that organisation

nothing to do with the queen
> I'm saying that governor general's who have powers of the monarch given to them can and do act of the situation arises that does lend itself to a level of stability.
this means nothing in reality since the gov general is basically the person who would end up being president if they were a republic a la rep of ireland and india
so the governor general being the queens representative doesnt make any difference to the fact that jamaica has gangs running around on behalf of political parties including those in charge

the monarchy as a check and balance argument is nonsense. png, jamaica, apartheid SA and the fact that 2 CW realms went to unironic war (pak and india) whilst both ruled under the british monarch goes to show its meaningless and conveys no practical use

>never talk about
>the queen is literally on their money

she's separately the queen of canada
our government cant control.anything about canada

She is Queen of both countries but neither title has anything to do with the other, Britain can not influence Canada in any way.

Because our rightful king is Franz, Duke of Bavaria and I am ashamed to acknowledge the usurper that currently pretends to run things

Attached: Franz_Herzog_von_Bayern.jpg (3137x2581, 3.7M)

All land was aquired through force, it would be controversial to strip their legally owned estates away.
There's no precedence to just seize land without some sort of revolution.

From what I understand the queen has a different role in each Commonwealth nation and in Canada she still has some level of intervention in Canadian politics but this has never been an issue and is never brought up. I could just be retarded. She's your queen so you'd know more than I would