AM SHOCKED !!!!!....I READ A QUESTION THAT STATED THAT BRITAINS ROYAL FAMILY IS STILL THE HEAD OF AUSTRALIA NAD CANADA..TECHNICALLY......!!!
IS IT TRUE....??..WHEN OUR COUNTRY INDIA AND OTHERS LIKE EVEN PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH ARE REPUBLICS THEN WHATS UP WITH THESE DEVELOPED AND STRONG COUNTRIES LIKE AUSTRALIA AND CANADA...????
WATS WRONG...??..DONT U HAVE ANY GREAT PPL IN UR COUNTRY TO BE PLACED ON THE CURRENCY COINS AND NOTES???
...TECHNICALLY U ARE STILL UNDER OCCUPATION????
2006-11-04 06:12:24 · 14 answers · asked by METICULOUS 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
The Queen is the head of state in those countries, yes.
but it's not "occupation," it's a vague, voluntary (except Quebec) continuation of an embraced institution.
2006-11-04 06:14:55 · answer #1 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dead prime ministers are shown on some Canadian paper money.
However, Canada and some other countries still have as their Queen one whose family have been in the same "business" for over a thousand years.
Mych better than a "president", whether of USA or India or whatever.
Not "occupation". Technically, the Queen of England could be "at war" with Germany and yet the Queen of Canada might not be "at war" with Germany. Not "occupation" in that, no longer, does the UK Parliament have any rule over Canada ... not even the JCPC. Just that each of us have a Sovereign, a Monarch. We choose to have the same person as Sovereign.
2006-11-04 08:04:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Queen is still the head of state in Australia and Canada, as well as 14 other countries of the Commonwealth. That means she still has some of the government's power reserved to her, and she is the representative of the values of that nation. But she is not the head of government. In Australia and Canada, the Prime Minister is the head of government. He or she handles the day-to-day administrative functions of the nation.
In practical terms, the Queen has almost no power over the governments of which she is head of state. If she were to start willfully exercising the power she does have, it would probably drive several countries out of her reach, if not out of the Commonwealth; they would vote to become republics like India and Pakistan. Australia in particular has a very visible and vocal republican movement.
2006-11-04 06:27:16 · answer #3 · answered by sandislandtim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Queen Elizabeth the second is queen of Canada and Australia and many other countries as well .
the queen is very important this is something that was seen in Spain not all that long ago . see it really does not take much to end up with some people who hi jack the government and leave your ability to vote behind.
our great queen is the one who all of our military and police are sworn to obey she is sort of like a fire extinguisher.
you look at it in your home and since you never use it you might think hey that thing is stupid looking lets chuck it . but if you do and your house has a fire in it you no longer have the equipment that may have let you save your home.
so you see she is very important .
in Spain the king very easily and quickly managed to put his country back on track after an attempt to take it over by people with in the government and turn it in to what i suppose was going to be a dictatorship. the military did not know what to do who to turn to there government people were either gone bad or were held prisoner or dead .
the king went on TV and spoke directly to the military and the people and guess what they did what they had sworn to do and that was to obey the king .
Spain is now once again a peaceful nice place thanks to there king .
as far as pur money goes we have the queen on a lot of it sure but we also have prime ministers on them to . the rule is that no other living person may be on our money other then members of the royal family .
we have relaxed that law and allowed it to be possible for anyone who is a a canadain to have his or her face on legal mail stamps. they have to pay to have them made and i dont think anyone really uses them but they are real and if a person wanted they could send off a letter with there own pic on the stamp
2006-11-06 14:56:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Queen (or King, one day) has no real power in any of the Commonwealth Nations. She is a figurehead, and nothing more. In technicality, the Queen is the head of state, but this is a ceremonial position. All that means is, there must be a signature by the Queen (or King) for laws and amendments to pass in parliament. The monarch herself doesn't actually do this, as (at least here in Canada) we have the Governor General, who's job is to represent the Queen and place the final signature on bills to be passed into law.
The key is to remember that the Queen has no real power (at least in Canada). Her job is ceremonial, and her position is that of a figurehead. Canada is a completely independant nation, as is Australia.
2006-11-04 15:47:25 · answer #5 · answered by Canadian Scientist 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ah..yeah..Her Majesty is still the Head of State in these 2 countries..but the Prime Ministers in these 2 countries effectively holds control of the Parliament and the day to day affairs of the country.
2006-11-08 02:57:59 · answer #6 · answered by czr88 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and so is New Zealand, and many other countries and "states". Great Britain's monarch has the largest mass of land under her control than any other monarch in the world. There's at least 16 countries and providences that she is head of.
2006-11-04 10:54:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are not under occupation they just believe that it is better to have the monarch rather than some pompous corrupt political president, as the queen does not involve her self in politics it makes perfect sense. these countries are strong and well developed, they have many great people in them and from them. this does not mean they have something wrong with them for not putting them on them on their currency
2006-11-04 21:03:18 · answer #8 · answered by andrew b 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
that is why we are developed countries because we have a strong constitutional monarchy system ,unlike india,bangladesh, pakistan being third world countries and probably will stay that way for a very long time,,god save the queen,
2006-11-04 11:55:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yeah god save the queen! you forget that a large percentage of the Australian population are mass results of British immigration/occupation.... lets go back a couple of hundred years and see just how many of em weren't British originally
:-) I hope they are proud to share our great heritage... monarchy etc
2006-11-04 13:22:09 · answer #10 · answered by Shellie 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋