I think New Zealand is more loyal - they were slower than Canada to end receiving British honours and titles, and British governors general. Canada's 30 million people includes about 7 million Quebecers with very little affection for the crown
Even the last governor general, whose job is to represent the crown, acted like she was the Queen's equal and not her representative (refusing to curtsey when they met in France) and insisting on bestowing the Order of Canada on her successor, when past practice had been for the new GG to receive it from the Queen. While Australia has gone further by actually voting on abolishing the monarchy, the above demonstrates efforts to marginalise the crown in Canadian society, and Canada's last long-serving PM Jean Chretien mused about doing so in 1999 or 2000. Australia perhaps has a stronger sense of identity separate from its British roots, while Canada worries about becoming too close to America.
India became a republic not long after independence and shouldn't be on your list instead of the other small Commonwealth monarchies like Belize and Jamaica.
2007-04-09 03:24:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dunrobin 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Well there are a number of candiates not mentioned. Fiji has the queen as head chief and many rever both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh as gods. I'd call that loyalty.
The UK, Canada (including Quebecois) and New Zealand have approximately the same percentage of monarchists at around 60%-70% with between 10%-20% don't know/care.
Australia certainly is not as 50% want a republic. India is already a republic but the locals are very approving of the monarchy, like the french are to the british monarchy - they are great as long as they are not ours!
Having grown up in the British West Indies, I know that they are all very loyal, so place like St. Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis and Anguilla should be included.
In my opinion New Zealanders have more respect for the crown than most, but voted a republican as prime minister many times. So I shall say Canada.
2007-04-09 12:17:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Australia and New Zealand have both made major contributions during England's wars. Canada has also. India is least loyal, having never had troops called out to help the British. In fact, since gaining freedom the Indians have never actually been involved in a war they didn't start, [the only wars being their involvement in East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh and the whole Kashmir mess]
2007-04-09 15:19:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Canada's 30 million people, including the Quebecois, are here today because they fought and died in two world wars to protect their heritage, their freedom and their rights. A huge number of them died on foreign soil because of their loyalty to the Crown.
Nobody conscripted them, they volunteered and went willingly. Today is the 90th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge. Had the Canadians not won that battle,and many more, there might not be a Crown or a Commonwealth today.
I speak from family history - no one was conscripted in this area, but you have only to look in the graveyards, to realize that every small village gave the majority of its young men to the war, no matter what the politicians said and did.
2007-04-09 07:57:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
It does no disservice to the contribution of Canadian soldiers to say Gr8danelady has two howlers in her answer. Canada did not voluntarily join WW1 - until the Statute of Westminster (1931) the dominions had no control over foreign policy and defence. In both the Boer War and WW1 Canada had no say over its entry.
As for WW2, she misses an important fact that Canada *did* introduce conscription. It was the subject of one of Canada's only referendums, as the government sought approval to introduce it. Every province but Quebec approved, and the popular mayor of Montreal spent four years in detention for urging defiance of the law. He said: "If war comes, and if Italy is on one side and England on the other, the sympathy of the French-Canadians in Quebec will be on the side of Italy. Remember that the great majority of French-Canadians are Roman Catholics, and that the Pope is in Rome. The French-Canadians are Fascists by blood, but not by name. The Latins have always been in favour of dictators."
He doesn't sound very loyal to the crown!
2007-04-09 10:17:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by SB 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The real point of the question is missed by the questioner and by those who have answered it so far.
As the Crown is the constitutional head of state of each of these countries, any loyalty is therefore being shown to their own country.
The position of a Constitutional Monarcy taking up the role of Head of State protects the citizens of those independent nations from the worst of the egomanics who hold presidential positions across the world.
2007-04-09 06:21:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by jimgdad 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
C.) New Zealand.
I will never forget the huge contribution that the New Zealand army made in support of the British army during World War Two.
2007-04-09 02:51:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by oldtimer 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is some island in Polynesia where they worship Prince Philip as a God - which shows an extraordinary degree of loyalty.
It's Tanna, Vanuatu btw.
2007-04-09 02:53:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by The Jade Merchant 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Excuse Me!! LOyal to the Crown? Why? Weren't they the invaders in the guise of traders when they came to India? We got our independence after many sacrifices and they divided our nation into two and put a permanent wedge between two communities. Still you want us to show loyalty to the Crown as if we are subservient to them even now.
2007-04-09 04:25:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by P'quaint! 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
Isn't Great Britain a Commonwealth country too? I say the U.K its self.
2007-04-09 10:37:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by rann_georgia 7
·
1⤊
0⤋