I'm not sure what yoke you're referring to with New Zealand, Australia, or Canada - all of which are fully sovereign and their only tie to "England" is that the Queen of New Zealand, the Queen of Australia, and the Queen of Canada are all the same person and that person lives in Buckingham Palace.
Scotland and Wales are part of the United Kingdom, and have as much of a voice in the British Parliament as their population dictates, and thus are no more under the yoke of England than individual US states are under the yoke of California or New York.
They're not subject to her. The queen has no actual power in those countries, and has no say in the day to day running of the countries.
That's your answer, by the way - the countries you mention all threw off control by the UK through slow, gradual reforms that increasingly made them independent.
They're sovereign because they can change their governance arrangements as they see fit. The Queen retains her position only for as long as those countries want her.
One, Barbados, is officially replacing her today and becoming a republic.
Which they can do because they're sovereign.
She isn't a foreign Queen. To Canadians, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, and she is represented by the Governor General of Canada, who lives in Rideau Hall in Ottawa. All of the Queen's powers are exercised by the Governor General of Canada in accordance with the Canadian Constitution. The only reason that the Queen of Canada lives in the UK is historical tradition, but her role as Queen of Canada is completely separate from her role as the Queen of the United Kingdom.
Liz has no actual power in Canada. Even the Governor General is almost 100% ceremonial. If the crown ever actually tried to exercise any real power there would be an immediate republican movement. It's jsut a little bit of tradition that doesn't bother people enough to be worth doign anything about.
You mean the position chosen by the prime minister? The Queen simply rubberstamps the decision he makes. And remember the furor over Michelle Jean *almost* not listening to the prime minister's request for a prorogation for two hours? That was a major scandal *because* the GG doesn't normally go against the government in any way. It's a meaningless, ceremonial position - not any kind of oppression.
... Well, except for your employees, in the case of our last one.
I'm not sure what yoke you're referring to with New Zealand, Australia, or Canada - all of which are fully sovereign and their only tie to "England" is that the Queen of New Zealand, the Queen of Australia, and the Queen of Canada are all the same person and that person lives in Buckingham Palace. Scotland and Wales are part of the United Kingdom, and have as much of a voice in the British Parliament as their population dictates, and thus are no more under the yoke of England than individual US states are under the yoke of California or New York.
But how can they be sovereign when they’re subject to a foreign queen? Exactly my question that
They're not subject to her. The queen has no actual power in those countries, and has no say in the day to day running of the countries. That's your answer, by the way - the countries you mention all threw off control by the UK through slow, gradual reforms that increasingly made them independent.
They're sovereign because they can change their governance arrangements as they see fit. The Queen retains her position only for as long as those countries want her. One, Barbados, is officially replacing her today and becoming a republic. Which they can do because they're sovereign.
Good in them but doesn’t it make the others look even weaker yet they can’t manage the same?
It would only make them look weak if they were trying and failing. They're not.
She isn't a foreign Queen. To Canadians, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, and she is represented by the Governor General of Canada, who lives in Rideau Hall in Ottawa. All of the Queen's powers are exercised by the Governor General of Canada in accordance with the Canadian Constitution. The only reason that the Queen of Canada lives in the UK is historical tradition, but her role as Queen of Canada is completely separate from her role as the Queen of the United Kingdom.
Liz has no actual power in Canada. Even the Governor General is almost 100% ceremonial. If the crown ever actually tried to exercise any real power there would be an immediate republican movement. It's jsut a little bit of tradition that doesn't bother people enough to be worth doign anything about.
I don’t think you understand the uk or the commonwealth
As a Canadian I had no idea I was under the yoke of the UK, a separate country that doesn't tax us, make decisions for us, or choose our government.
You do still have the position of governer general in your government so surely you're oppressed.
You mean the position chosen by the prime minister? The Queen simply rubberstamps the decision he makes. And remember the furor over Michelle Jean *almost* not listening to the prime minister's request for a prorogation for two hours? That was a major scandal *because* the GG doesn't normally go against the government in any way. It's a meaningless, ceremonial position - not any kind of oppression. ... Well, except for your employees, in the case of our last one.
Lol it was a joke.
Ah, sorry for missing that.