Why Justin Trudeau loves the monarchy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Debating the monarchy in Canada. This video was sponsored by Incogni. The first 100 people to use code JJMCC at the link below will get 60% off of Incogni: incogni.com/jjmcc
SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.co...
FOLLOW ME:
🇨🇦Support me on Patreon! / jjmccullough
🤖Join my Discord! / discord
🇺🇸Follow me on Instagram! / jjmccullough
🇨🇦Read my latest Washington Post columns: www.washington...
🇨🇦Visit my Canada Website thecanadaguide.com
Some music by:
Craig Henderson- / @craighendersonmusic
ComradeF- / comradef ,
HASHTAGS: #monarchy #canada #kingcharles #royalty #uk #history
It makes sense to me.
The USA hated the British Empire.
Canada wants to be different from the USA.
Therefore, Canada must love the British empire.
That's a huge part of it, yeah.
The first large numbers of english speaking Canadians were ex-Americans.
United Loyalists
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 Royalist scum, yeah.
We don't hate the British empire we just wanted to be independent from it.
I think the problem is that even though 60% of people oppose the monarchy, it isn't a dealbreaker for them for a politician to support the monarchy because ultimately it doesn't affect their day-to-day life one way or the other. I'd compare it to something like abolishing the penny, which Canada has done but we here in the U.S. have not: non-partisan, makes sense, and will save us a bunch of money (albeit small compared to the overall budget) but sentimentality gets in the way of actually doing it.
💯 this. It doesn't intrude on our daily life.
Idk getting rid of the monarchy would mean a huge change to canadas constitution and from what I’ve heard it would be a mess. Surely the penny woudn’t be on that scale?
Yeah big difference between popularity and importance.
Same are both big s...
They play same woke music.
As a non-Canadian, one thing that strikes me is how much closer Australia is to abolishing the monarchy than Canada despite the fact that Australia has a much larger and more recent British descended population than Canada by percentage. This suggests that Canada's need to find and play up anything that differentiates itself from the United States is a huge motivator for Canadian monarchism - Australia, being farther away and more culturally distant from the United States isn't worried about the United States somehow threatening its cultural identity the way Canada is, and the need to find ways not to be like the United States doesn't cast as big of a shadow over the Australian republican debate the way it would in Canada. To the extent anti-Americanism plays a role in the republic debate in Australia, I'll be it plays a much weaker role. I wonder how an Australian would interpret Canada's stronger monarchism.
Canadian elites like to think we are like Australia, despite knowing nothing about the country. I wonder if Australian elites are the same about Canada?
@@JJMcCullough You are very perceptive. Australian elites, particularly those who would apply the label "progressive" to themselves, have lots of views informed by self-serving assumptions about other countries and a limited diet of information about the world and about the very matters they are debating.
@@JJMcCullough Australian here. i think Australians think canada is a long way away and thus i'm not sure we consider you much different from any of the other anglo countries. (scotland, ireland, england, wales, canada, usa). we think we are most like new zealand. however, both australians and new zealanders would agree we are also quite distinct.
Don’t be surprised if New Zealand beats Australia to abolish the monarchy, reason for that is New Zealand’s Laws and its Bill or Rights is much easier and a much cheaper process to become a Republic then it would take for Australia, also New Zealand doesn’t have State Governments to negotiate with it is a Federal Governing Nation without state or provincial governments, therefore no negotiations between levels of governments required. Māori have a stronger Parliament Representation in NZ compared to the lack of Aboriginal Representation in Australia therefore that represents another barrier for Australia, A Bill and referendum would be all it takes for New Zealand to get there so likely they will be first
The Crown is our history. Canada is a country because of the British Monarch and Charles very much is the King of Canada. Our whole governmental System is built around the monarch.
Of course the Canadian political class doesn't want to ditch the monarchy. They don't want to lose their invites to events like coronations or the chance to have tea with the king. The monarchy makes them feel important.
Agreed
Ohh such cynicism! 'clutches pearls'
I expected to at least have a national discussion about the role of the monarchy after the Queen died. The moment those tears rolled down Justin's cheeks during his speech when the Queen died, I knew there was no discussion happening. I was embarassed by him in that moment. As symbolic as the Queen's death is, I don't remember any other world leader crying when addressing the Queen's death.
All heads of state from friendly countries are invited to such events.
@@revaholic JT loves to virtue signal so no surprise he cried about the Queen.
I participated in this ceremony as Jamaica's flag bearer. While it is true that we are making efforts to pursue constitutional reform, we are still some time away from achieving this goal. The government is currently in the consultation phase of the process. While the two main parties are in agreement with replaying the King with a ceremonial head of state; various segments of the population believe that other options should be explored before this arrangement is presented to the public in a referendum.
You were the guy in the video?
@@JJMcCulloughbig if true
0:30 is you cool
Congratulations on 900k subscribers! Thank you for providing some of the and most interesting and educational videos on the platform for all these years! So glad I am able to be part of your audience! Good luck going forward!
Thanks so much!
road to 1 milly!
@@JJMcCullough We will be here for 1M(cCullough)
Australia was founded as a prison colony, so there is a very strong opposition to British authority in the Australian mindset.
The apathy of the Canadian public towards the monarchy stems from the fact that the monarchy has been so inconsequential in the politics of modern Canada. Meanwhile in Australia, the monarchy and its role in governing the country was at the core of the Gough Whitlam controversy, one of the country's biggest political crises. This somewhat explains why anti-monarchist sentiment is strong in the Australian left. If something similar happened in Canada, I imagine public sentiment might change.
I've got to admit that I'm completely ignorant on the Gough Whitlam crisis. But I suspect Australia is more republican because it is not parked directly next to the USA. In fact it's a long way from anywhere so the irrationality of a British figurehead monarch makes even less sense in a rather glaring manner. I think Canada will ditch the rotals whenever the British do. (It might take some time.)
Not sure what you mean by "apathy". Sure, there are no demonstrations about it, but it's clearly something the public doesn't like, as it keeps telling pollsters over and over again. It's called "silent majority" for a reason.
The monarchy is like an annoying fly buzzing around you that you can't quite know how to swat. It's the traditionalist version of woke signaling in government or corporations. It won't take you to the streets, but slight annoyances that build up, just not (yet) to the point of making too much of a fuss about it, unless the right populist comes along.
The glimmer of hope is that high levels of immigration will mean a lot of first-generation citizens who'll add up to that 60% support for doing away with it.
In my opinion the Governor-general made the correct decision in firing Gough Whitlam. I think most historians will bear that out as well. Despite that though, it was not the will of the people and definitely exacerbated Republicanism in Australia, even though he was widely unpopular.
@nathanschroeder4871 what makes you say that?
@@nathanschroeder4871 He wasn't widely unpopular though. The Americans had quite a hand in it as well. Some historians may say it was the right choice (but its not really within the realm of historians to say) but plenty of others would say otherwise, there is a lot of historical revisionism about this story and saying that he was "widely unpopular" is contributing to that.
I think that if you asked the question "Is it important to you to end the monarchy?" You would get a rather low affirmative response, but if you asked monarchists the inverse they would overwhelmingly respond that it is indeed important to them to retain it.
So on one side you have 60% of the population that is vaguely republican vs 40% who are passionately monarchist.
I live in New Brunswick and I've never in my entire life met a Canadian who was 'passionately monarchist' ._. I've met people here who quite literally forgot we even technically still had a monarch. You can't be highly too pro/against something that you don't even realize exists sometimes haha.
If this is true, it would explain the politicians’ stances on a rational basis. It would mean an anti-monarchist politician stands to lose votes, while being pro-monarchy costs a politician almost nothing. (I don’t know how passionate the monarchy supporters are, but it’s certainly true that the anti-monarchist 60% mostly doesn’t really care at all about the issue, not enough to affect voting.)
That's an interesting point if you have your facts right.
@@DylanRoberts7 You just described the majority that are probably vaguely anti-monarchist. It might be summed up like "Oh yeah - we have a King I' forgot about that. Having a King is kinda dumb". Meanwhile your minority that is pro-Monarchist makes sure that she watches the changing of the Guard when she next visits Ottawa. In effect your sort of proving the OPS point.
@@YonIon996 so? Without a lot of things Canada could survive, doesn’t mean that they should be done.
It makes total sense to me that the government officials would be more pro monarchy given the participation in a bunch of royal rituals. People naturally get a kick out of rituals and pomp and circumstance. That was a great explanation.
Because A: it’s one of the reasons why we aren’t like the us
And B: it would require rewriting the constitution, with approval from all states, and they don’t want Quebec to get their hands on that. And if they don’t let them, it could spark a new nationalist sentiment
It is a logical idea. The weird thing is in Australia our politicians tend to be much more pro-republic than the general population. Maybe Australian's are the opposite of Canadians and rituals make us less in favour of things?
Heck yeah, royals for life!!! Forget those rebels. UK should set up special trade zones to offer special bonuses, with incentives for others to join willingly, for those loyal to the crown. 👑👸🤴 Also expand zones to include space, satellites commercial other tech . Join allies when they settle the moon and beyond!
Canada was founded as a US counter-culture (and support of the monarchy). Since they are right next to the US, it makes sense that they would maintain their relationship with the monarchy in-sync with their foundation motivations.
Having a monarch as our Head of State is who Canadians are.
Since 1534, Canada had kings and queens.- first from France and after 1763, from Great Britain. Our system of government has served us well -no rebellions, no revolutions, no dictatorships, and no civil wars. Instead we have a strong parliamentary democracy - the envy of nations around the world.
So ... if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Beyond obvious national symbols like the flags and anthems, I think the British monarchy might be the only tangible cultural feature of Canada as a whole which distinguishes it from the US. The political culture that makes Canada identify as more "left" than the US doesn't cleanly divide at the national border, but rather spills across the border, with the northeast and west coast of the US seemingly being quite similar in political culture with the respective Canadian provinces across the border (and leading to some political cartoons that show "blue states" merging with Canada).
I think a big factor what makes Canada more left than the United States is the Senate. Since the Senate in Canada is unelected, they have no democratic mandate to not pass bills passed in the House of Commons. Whereas in the United States, each state with vastly unequal populations getting two elected Senators means 40 senators from the smallest, most conservative 20 states can block legislation passed in the House of Representatives (thanks to the filibuster).
When you think of a series of Venn diagrams adjacent states and provinces might be almost one and distant provinces or states less so. But say New Brunswick and Maine being really close and Texas and Maine being less so, when you compare Texas and New Brunswick it's really significant.
I am Australian and I want to stick with the monarchy don’t fix what is isn’t broken
@@thatoneguy8146as an American I am disgusted that an Australia would say what you just said.
I supported the referendum to remove the monarchy from down under.
There's even actual bloodline descendants of the monarchy in Australia, and they voted to REMOVE the monarchy.
@@Mr-pn2eh mate it’s not broken, there no need to spend money on something that isn’t broken
Only JJ would make an ad educational yet interesting. This is why we love and cherish JJ. All this to say congrats on 900k! You deserve it!
This makes me think that not only will Canada be the last of the commonwealth states to ditch the Monarchy, but that it might actually be where the British monarchy ends up going if the UK ousts them and becomes a Republic.
I think that, in the end, it has become an economic question and The Crown probably brings in more than it costs so England keeps it. This might change in the reign of King William, though.
@@rainmanjr2007 The Royal Family only brings in £500 million a year, representing a minuscule fraction of the economy. Ditch the Monarchy and we will still have all the royal attractions, that if anything would become more profitable with full public access, just look at how well the Palace of Versailles does in comparison to Buckingham Palace.
Which would be ironic as we're the most un-British of the Commonwealth countries: We drive on the right and play baseball instead of cricket.
This comment has a lot of "trust me bro" energy. I am not so certain any of those attractions would be as visited without the mystique of the monarchy. But who knows? I will say as someone who has grown up in a republic the grass is most certainly not greener on this side of the fence.
@@ALuimes The most un-British of the four big 'Anglo' countries in it, rather. Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan and Rwanda are in the Commonwealth, don't think they're more British in culture than Canada (even if Pakistan plays cricket...)
As a Brit and a monarchist but somebody who's also followed JJ for years been awaiting this.
JJ you're a great chap.
as a west indian-american (dad is jamaican mom is barbadian), thank you for mentioning our island nations 🇧🇧 🇯🇲
why they call that shit the west indies when its on the east side of america (continent)
Congratulations for 900 thousand subscribers JJ! Your videos really have improved my cultural understanding of the world, and I find myself better able to engage in nuanced conversations about so many matters I could not before!
I find this issue so fascinating as an Irish person, as of course we rid ourselves of each tie to Britain and its crown as soon as we possibly could. Although of course Britain is recognised as a valuable trading partner in the modern day, and few rational people would hold any personal resentment towards modern Britons for atrocities of the past, there is still a lot of anger at the institutions of Britain that are seen to symbolise and cherish Britain's colonial past which caused our people so much misery and hardship, for example during the great Irish famine.
Is this sense of colonial victimhood not present in Canada or are there any examples of exploitation that could be used by anti-monarchists as a platform to campaign for cutting ties to the crown?
Ireland still uses Commonwealth spelling though. I wonder why you don't use US spelling, being so rebellious to UK things like them?
@@ALuimes why would they use US spelling? Also I’m sure they see that type of spelling as the Irish way to spell so they didn’t bother to change it.
I don’t see how your comment relates to the monarchy that well. Any awful events after Cromwell can’t really be attributed to the monarchy and surely it’s silly to try and remove the monarchy because of events 370+ years ago?
@maxdavis7722 I do agree. It's far from a sense of blame rooted in historical understanding, but I think it's more a matter of symbolism. As I said before, few people actually blame individual Britons for the past. Almost all Irish people would have friends in the UK, relatives, people we may look up to, and so rightly or wrongly, among some at least, the monarchy takes the fall instead of the British people, or some nebulous manifestation of the state.
I personally have no strong feelings on the monarchy either way, I'm rather indifferent, and Elizabeth II in her death certainly had an outpouring of support from many here, but others feel like it's a representation of a colonial past. Perhaps because of the words used referring to sovereignty over many commonwealth states? I guess that makes sense, the purpose of the monarchy, like any head of state, is to represent a country internationally after all.
The difference between Ireland and Canada (and Australia, and New Zealand) is that in Ireland the local population is descended from the victims of colonialism. By contrast most of the Canadian (and Australian/New Zealand) population are descended from those who did the colonising so naturally they are not going to feel resentful about British atrocities because they were the ones (whose ancestors) committed the atrocities. Of course it's a very different story for the First Nations/Aboriginal/Maori inhabitants but with the exception of the Maori in New Zealand these are very small fractions of the population.
Interesting though in Australia (where I live) there was something of a campaign in the 80s-90s, though it's lingered on since, to discredit Britain for Republican purposes by emphasising how the British treated Australian soldiers as disposable during WWI, especially during the Gallipoli Campaign. It's not a particularly honest viewpoint (for Anti-British purposes)though as while the British High Command was very careless with Australian servicemen, they were just as careless with their own men and the Australian leadership was onboard with this attitude. Of course as an argument against war/class hierarchy it's a much more effective. But that's a different if not entirely unrelated kettle of fish.
Growing up 50 miles from the Canadian border, my two biggest impressions of Canada and Canadians is that 1) They really do go out of their way to try to differentiate themselves from Americans, and 2) one of the ways they did that was through their relationship to England. If there really is one truly cultural distinctive that the Canadians have from the US, it's that they are part of the Commonwealth of Nations. When 90% of your population lives within 100 miles of the US border, and most of your celebrities and cultural icons have made a nice name and career for themselves in the US too, ties to the Monarchy becomes perhaps the biggest cultural distinguisher.
A lot of Americans, the majority, had no interest in revolution. The most diehard of these loyalists went to Canada. I'm supposedly related to them but I never met them bc I would need a passport for that.
@@paulblichmann2791 I don't know if it was the majority, but yeah I'm very well aware of the history of loyalists fleeing to Canada. And I think it's kind of funny that one of the goals of the War of 1812 was that the Americans were going to relieve the Canadians of their British rulers. It didn't happen obviously
The further west you go the less in-denial Canadians are to the fact that they're basically small USA (except Quebec which does its own thing and doesn't afraid of anything)
@@Gameprojordan most of the Canadians I've met, who are from Ontario, gave me the impression that most of what set them apart from the US was different colored money and socialized medicine, which they complain about quite a bit but don't dare suggest having private insurance. I think most realize there's not much of a significant difference, medical care aside, but still want to believe there is some big difference
No, no, no! You’ve got it all wrong! The biggest difference is that they like black pudding and we don’t.
I think it's a matter of how scary opening the constitution is. Its not just needing the approval of all 10 provinces, but also having to deal with provinces wanting to put their own changes into it, namely Quebec. In the current political system, any discussion revolving around opening the constitution will inevitably expand to involving things beyond whatever the current topic is.
I don’t think that’s true.
A similar meme arises whenever a change to the American constitution is suggested. "If we go down the process for changing the Constitution for that, other changes will also be proposed...and we can't countenance that...".
@@JJMcCullough I don't know enough about Canada to know if that's true or not, and am inclined to take your word for it, J.J. But his point reminds me of an argument often raised in the US. In the 1980s, for example, many people wanted to invoke the never-used clause of Article V of the 1787 Constitution, which can (must?) be done if 2/3 of the state legislatures request it. Many states *did* call for such a convention, for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment (back when people really worried about deficits). But the opponents of such a move said something like Nickssaa up there, namely, if you open up a convention to consider a particular amendment, that you would be inviting them to propose any and all sorts of amendments, perhaps even changing the Constitution en toto.
@@BS-vx8dg to me this makes sense
Edit: added “me”.
I’m not sure about this either. Wasn’t the charter famously signed off on without Quebec? I believe there’s something in the BNA act about how only eight provinces are required to sign for constitutional changes.
I feel that the result of that poll is largely due to the person of Charles himself, not the institution itself. A lot of people still are sour about what happened to Princess Diana in the 1990's and view Charles as culpable in her death (albeit indirectly). If Elizabeth was to become Queen today, she would probably have a significantly higher approval rating of keeping the monarchy than her son does now.
I think that for many the British monarchy has been running on residual goodwill toward Elizabeth II for a while. Now that she's out of the picture, things change.
Other polls have shown the number of people who actually want to abolish the monarchy is significantly lower than the number of people opposed to recognizing Charles personally. Still not a good sign for the institution in the near future but William will most likely face much less opposition.
King Charles does look kind of dopey so I certainly get the sentiment.
He looked even more dopey when he was younger. Maybe that's why Trudeau likes him.
@@southcoastinventors6583 He looks more worried than dopey to me. At his coronation, I imagined him thinking, "Oh dear, I'm king now? I totally did *not* see that coming."
Actually, the late Queen was crowned sovereign of just 7 countries in 1953. Whereas she died Queen of 15 countries. The simple reason being that most of those countries were still colonies in 1953 and not independent countries.
So although the area shrank, she actually 'acquired' more countries as her reign went on.
I think a lot of the reason why the rest of nations lost interest in the Commonwealth was because Britain itself lost interest in it after it joined the EU. I remember in the 70's, at London Heathrow airport, there were two customs lines, one for British and Commonwealth citizens, and another one for everyone else. Then by the late 80's, that special treatment for Commonwealth was replaced by special treatment for citizens of the EU. So the old colonies saw no need to hold Britain dear, anymore than Britain held them dear.
That’s an interesting point. There would probably be not necessarily more support for monarchy but support for the status quo if it actually gave added benefits towards those under the crown. It’s strange to me that the UK since leaving the EU hasn’t bothered trying to lean back towards the commonwealth to build back ties and retain the crown abroad
@@mr.anderson2241 Boris Johnson proposed the CANZUK treaty between the 4 richest remaining (and whitest) parts of the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, as his proposal to replace the EU. So far it's met with a lot of boredom and skepticism. No one really knows how to make a free trade deal with nations so far away from each other work.
I could not agree more. When Britain joined the Common Market, as it was then, she abandoned the loyal Dominions who had stood by her through two World Wars as well as the Anglo-Boer war. All had to find new markets for their exports. She did a similar thing when she handed back Hong Kong to China and deprived those British people of their British nationality. I also remember when people from these dominions had passports that said "British Passport, Canadian Citizen". Or Australian, New Zealand as the case may be.
The weirdest part to me is the (admittedly less so) aristocratic and undemocratic Senate in Canada, like lifelong appointments for already rich and powerful people
Senate is there (im told) so the other provinces of Canada could overrule quebec and ontario if need be. But I don't think need has ever been
@@ryanrichardson5844 In a way, though good luck on getting every single province united against Ontario and Québec, somehow. These two have 48 out of the 105 seats. They just need one tiny province plus one territory to get the 5 extra votes they need for a majority.
The unelected nature of the Senate of Canada makes it disinclined to not pass bills passed by the House of Commons. If it fails to pass a bill, the PM can appoint Senators of his/her own.
@@jecarlin same happens in Britain.
Having two elected house never works out, look at the strongest democracies, most are unichamberal or have a second advisory chamber.
I think that, in order to shift the monarchy debate it would take a major political scandal that would require or cause the crown to use reserve powers in some way. The result may be either an immediate popular backlash and abolition of the monarchy or a greater appreciation of the safeguards that it provides.
It really is a shame that Canadian political leaders go by the shallow "USA does x, therefore Canada will do y" rule. Reminds me of Macron's reasoning for attempting to secure a less hostile position for Europe in regards to the China-Taiwan situation. I find it kinda pointless to seek being different just for the sake of it, it should really come with more practical reasons.
This is what happens when you have leaders who are out of touch with what the general public wants.
Spoiler: the americans don't really love their own system either. And the electoral college is objectively bullshit.
Except that Macron is right , being an ally doesn’t mean following blindly the United States as the Irak war proved it
@@argentik7294BLINDLY following means following without thinking much about it. We can very much agree on the situation for the same logical reasons as they do.
I am an indigenous Canadian, I love the monarchy but I do not like Justin Trudeau.
He loves the monarchy so much, he allowed BLM and Antifa to tear down Queen Victoria statues with his blessing, and vandalize queen Elizabeth’s statues....
I am a Monarchist.
And, as such I acknowledge that, like all sentiments, it is immune to logic.
I mean the concept of Divine Right, in any sense is immune to logic....
@@EnterpriseC14 most monarchists don’t use the concept of divine right to justify monarchism anymore
@@mr.anderson2241 Hell that basically stopped hundreds of years ago.
@@mr.anderson2241 most monarchs barely have a leg to stand on for the argument
@@mr.anderson2241 Then whats the point?
I love your thumbnail on this. 😂I didn't know it was a lefty thing in Canada.I caught a glimpse of 900k on your sub count! Wonderful, and well-deserved! Here's to the 1 mil coming soon! Thanks, J.J.!😄
It is not by any means "a lefty thing" in Canada. There's nothing that the far left in Canada hates more than the monarchy. And the Conservative party, despite what JJ would have you believe, is not and has never been less monarchist than the Liberal party. Quite the opposite in fact.
The monarchy is basically a non issue to most Canadian voters.... they are much more interested in bread and butter issues like taxes, cost of living, economic performance etc
But useless issues are always pushed. No beads or feathers on that governor general, but she is loving her full regal military colonial imperial regalia. What a lot of bs.
Take a walk in any Québec town and ask peuple what they think about monarchy and British colonialism.
@@hdufort Quebec is the exception, I mean obviously they’re anti-monarchist when they’re just anti-Anglo as a whole
@@hdufort they dont care... it is a NON issue... and MOST in Quebec support Justin Trudeau
@@myleshagar9722 the role of he monarchy in canada is a NON issue.... no one cares. its irrelevant... people are worried about inflation, cost of living, taxes... not this bs so called issue
this is peak JJ, your input is invaluable
I feel like if we could travel/work/move/send mail to the other common wealth countries as easily as we can within Canada (which actually isn’t that easy in some ways, but more doable than moving/working/sending packages oversees) people might be more like, oh it’s kinda cool to be share a monarchy, there’s a tangible benefit. Since they have relatively little affect on our lives other than being on our coins I feel like we mostly just have an apathetic view towards them, I think it’d be quite different if the role was more active/more blatantly detrimental in recent years and people might strongly oppose them. Their lack of tangible positive or negative effect to me means they’re easily just forgotten about in day to day life in Canada which means most people aren’t really strong for or against it, it really it just true apathy.
Actually that is false. Canadians have significant rights and is prioritized when travelling to commonwealth countries.
@@pvj163 what is a difference between a Canadian visiting Australia or an American visiting Australia? Will they get a free ticket? Will they be able to contact the British Embassy if the Canadian one is bombed?
We need to return to a British Federation with common defence, freedom of movement, and free trade between the UK, Australia, NZ, and Canada. Canada would benefit greatly from this arrangement being the central country shipping goods between the UK and Australia/NZ.
Being an American part of the reason I’m patriotic is specifically because we are a republic, but more than that one that has lasted more than 200 years with by and large the same structure, which I find pretty impressive. Given you said how Canadians have a more anti-American nationalistic sentiment, I imagine the only way to really drive home republicanism in Canada would be a campaign not just opposed to monarchy, but one that is united around a republican that is decidedly non-American in design.
That honestly isn’t too difficult, given America is a fully-presidential bicameral state, and most OECD countries don’t have a system like that. What would be really interesting is if Canada became a Swiss style confederacy, where there is no singular head of state to begin with but also a kind of federalism anathema to US politics. What’s more it fits somewhat neatly with Canada holding the Iroquois Confederacy as an inspiration, even down to the Iroquois word for community, ‘Kanata’, from which Canada gets its name.
I think we should have our own Canadian king/queen that has no power and is decided entirely by lottery. The ticket money should go to paying down debt.
but the American republic is the one that is worth imitating - formal checks and balances, hard constitutional protections, strict delineations of federal and state powers, separate state power over criminal legislation, etc.
Tangentially, the other explanation for the name of America's hat is that when the Spanish arrived, they rowed ashore, rubbed their hands in the cold, looked at one another, said "aca nada" and left.
The Iroquois are incidentally the one FN that isn't indigenous to Canada. They got kicked out of New York for wanting to support the monarchy.
I don't know ANY anti- American canadians , none .... but I'm in the west 🤔
@@williaminnes6635 There are Iroquois on both sides of the Canada/New York border.
@@jecarlin and the ones on the Canadian side ain't indigenous
As an American I always saw Canada as like Bizzaro-America, like the U.S but in a different dimension lol
Accurate.
It's like a less evil less competent real life version of the Domination of Drakia.
I feel exactly the same way
Canada is just what America would look with without the war of independence, and if American just gradually became independent from the UK
I've progressively seen them as the I'm not like other girls of the US- they desire distinction from America so much they will castrate the future of their international internet influence (and likely internal) because they want to impose a nationalist threshold to their video influencers. You know why I know anything about Canada? Because I watch videos from Canadians... That notably don't have a government propoganda gun to their head which would cause me to quite literally discriminate Canadian influencers.
Canadian politics are like the internal monologue of a confused but overall friendly teenager
A “friendly teenager” who will drive the economy over the cliff.
This is hilariously accurate!
Canadian Politics are a mini-me of American politics, but they don't have the built-in gridlock, so sometimes they ACTUALLY DO things we were only larping about.
They have a minority class system that ensures no minority group outside the French will have equal (or higher than equal) representation.
@@paulblichmann2791 doing things is not always a good thing when it’s all bad things
As a canadian, i dont give a shit about the monarchy. Whether we stay or not doesn't matter. The issue simply isnt important and doesnt really affect our daily lives
I am surprised the second born doesn't get the title of "Prince of Canada".
Honestly as an American I had no idea Canada had any relation with the UK (other than colonial) before I started watching your videos. I’m surprised that’s not mentioned more in pop culture but as you say it seems to be very forced. I want to make a video about cultural differences between the US and Brazil as those are the two countries I’m from and the different attitudes towards former royalty might be an interesting thing to look at.
Like, have you never noticed the Queen on the dollars when you're in Canada!? It's not as though it's a secret ...
@@halfsourlizard9319 only went to Canada for a day or two when I was 13, didn’t really pay attention.
Arriba Casa Braganza [or not]?
Not to call you an idiot, but like how? Even before I knew anything about Canadian politics, this has always been one of the biggest differences between us.
@@JMM33RanMA Claro que sim!
I think if you use Australia as a control (similar country that also has high republican sentiments) the overwhelming driving forces are boundary maintenance against the US and the antagonism between the French and Anglos. Australia has all the oaths and wigs etc but our politicians are majority republicans.
To further reinforce the boundary maintence point: Austrlia's referendum failed due to uncertainty over the republican model and fears of Americanisation.
Why would Americanization as a result of republicanism be an issue for a country on the other side of the world?
I do feel like we have the opposite here in New Zealand. Just about every Prime Minister since David Lange in the 1980s has talked about the inevitability of us becoming a republic, and at least expressed some mild republicanism, but opinion polling has generally suggested greater support among the public for the monarchy. I'm a firm republican, and I think there's a lot of fear and ignorance about what a republic could be and would mean. Canada is one of the countries we most see as one of our peers and as the biggest of the Commonwealth Realms, I really would love it if they could take the leap and become a republic and show it can be done.
New Zealand is made up of lazy republicans. We think the monarchy is absurd but it's not worth the effort of changing the system. Also we'd probably need to finally sort out a written constitution and the Treaty of Waitangi which nobody is willing to do.
@Mattimus Smatt Nah, NZ will get there before us for sure. As much as we like to rag on NZ as our 'little sibling', they are far more progressive than we are. They had women's rights (to vote, to stand for parliament, etc) long before us. Women Prime Ministers (plural). Maori GG. Maori voting rights. Maori electorates & seats of parliament. Same-sex marriage before us. Out of the two of us (Aus & NZ), I'd expect NZ to become republic first.
@Mattimus Smatt Some backstory to that. NZ did abolish them for a time, as Labour PM Helen Clark removed them in 2000, but then National PM John Key broght them back in 2009. That was largely greeted with a shrug, and it seems the decision to do away with them was more unpopular here. John Key was roundly ridiculed when he effectively gave himself a knighthood though.
I find this connection between progressivism and and anti-monarchism very strange the more I put thought into it.
It's basically just wig history in the flesh, the idea that we are deterministicly moving towards progress (usually not anything actually better but literally just a support for whatever is newer under a dogmatic belief that it being new is better due to progress), it's a totally discredited idea among historians and political theorists but it remains powerful in public life, when people say "well it's the 'current year'" that's appealing to the idea.
A lot of political theory on the right and among libertarians has increasingly been making the case than monarchy is a superior form of government to democracy, and while the opposition remains an appeal to modernity it is pretty clear who will win, though it breaking into open political warfare is probably decades off.
Im a Québécoise in my eyes I consider our alliance "economic" and we derive enormous benefit from it. Although it is taught in school here, not that people know or care that we are part of the monarchy. I'm all for it. I love my country and as my migrant father from Spain used to say: we are fine here as we are here in Canada.
* that many
"The bad things about this rich 1st world nation should be ignored coz this is a rich 1st wirld nation that has been gracious enough to accept us".
Spain and Canada are awesome because they are monarchy
You mean Quebec's alliance with Canada or Canada's alliance with the British monarchy (which is the topic of this video) ? Because if it's about monarchy, I'd really like to know what "enormous benefit" you believe we get from this. To me, it's really just a pointless expense and a sad reminder of the numerous and documented attempts by the British rule to erase the French Canadian people, language and culture from this country, which continue to this day.
Here's the issue, you can't remove the monarchy because that would require all 10 provinces to agree on a replacement. How should the president be elected? Popular vote? Never going to agree because 2 provinces would control that vote. Some sort of Electoral college system, QB and ON would never agree, appointed by the senate, west will never agree, appointed by the prime minister? Pointless at that point.
Currently the head of state is apolitical adding a president would simply make it political and that is a hard sell.
Great analysis. I would argue the The Crown in Right of [Canada/Province/Territory] is critical to our entire systems of justice at every level. If the Crown leave, our Charter, constitution, myriad treaties and separation of powers come into question. We remain a fragile confederation. If it ain't broke, don't break it.
I’m sorry to say your analysis is complete nonsense. That’s not how Canada works.
@@JJMcCullough Pray-tell?
If you gonna be a bootlicker at least don't weasel your way through dishonesty.
@jrhreid my guess would be to simply keep most laws and treaties the same and more or less leave the Constitution alone. All that would change is the Canadian government would have to claim that its right to rule and the authority of its laws comes from the consensus of the people and not from the Crown acting as the "Fount of Justice". Remove references to the Crown, and most of the laws still say and do the same thing
That sponsor was genuinely very cool, that's a great idea, making an easy way to force these companies to delete their data banks.
I'm actually really pro-monarchy. I think I know way more about the history of the English / British Monarchy since the Norman invasion compared to an average person, and my conclusion is that the British Monarchy is deeply steeped in tradition and constitutional rule, and they are totally fine as head of states.
My issue with the monarchy in Canada is that for better or for worse, the "Canadian Monarchy" is actually kind of useless - since the executive power of the Canadian government is exercised through the Governor General, who is appointed by the Prime Minister. This is good because having (say) Charles directly influencing Canadian politics would be very weird. It's also bad because if he has no power then he is 100% useless. I would probably prefer a system where a branch of the royal family residing and exclusively for Canada - a separate Canadian Monarchy outside of the British one. I don't think my proposal is any more practical than getting rid of the monarchy altogether, but that is my ideal solution in my mind.
Based
Not a Canadian, American, but sounds like a good idea, have a branch of the royal family living in the remaining commonwealth countries will add a better connection and understanding of the country’s culture, traditions and attitudes. Maybe have a member actually marry someone of the land. They should actually take part of the landscape. Before Americans decided independence we wanted a voice in the government since we were British citizens, back then that would have been hard but if the British monarchy actually sent some one part of the British monarchy to see and understand the values of this great land maybe we wouldn’t have screamed for our independence.
It’s a separate monarchy now. Even though it’s the same person the King of Canada is a separate office than King of the UK.
The PM recommends the Governor General, but the King appoints them. The King doesn't have to appoint who the PM recommends. And as mentioned the King of Canada is separate from the UK King.
@@tigernotwoods914 That makes zero sense.
I'm an American and I get if Canadians like having their own identity. A lot of people like being patriotic. It just seems bizarre to me that you would have pride for your country tied into another country.
A part of that seems to be specifically how much of the Canadian identity is based around being in opposition to America.
J.J., everything you’ve said here is so spot on. Absolutely brilliant analysis; just immensely and qualitatively better than anything you’ll see on CBC or CTV or in the newspapers.
I hope I live to see the Republic of Canada. We owe it to ourselves to see that through.
Anyone who has strong feelings of opposition to the monarchy is either a minor in their contrarian phase or a dumbass iconoclast who never grew out of that phase. Or French.
HELL YEAH JJ UPLOADED!!!!!
While I agree that Trudeau is definitely more enamoured with the monarchy, I’m convinced that if any one else was PM (another Liberal, Polivere, even whoever it is that leads the BQ which is definitely the least monarchy loving party) they would not change it either because of the constitution. Your video on the constitution was a great explainer as to why the monarchy can’t be ditched easily, so if you want (and I’m sure you will maybe in this video that I’ll have time to watch later) you can blame Pierre Trudeau, but I also see the hassle of making the constitution easy to open to change things like the monarchy, or French status, or provincial power, with such a divided country as ours.
did you mean any other PM would NOT be more likely to ditch Canada´s constitutional monarchy?
A government could, though, merely play up the monarchy to a lesser degree...put loons instead of monarchs on the currency, don't produce portraits to hang in government offices...all well short of any constitutional change.
To some degree, monarchy support seems to be about having a close foreign relationship with a country other than the USA. After all, Canada and America are generally each other's largest trading partners, and outside of that relationship, Canada is just a geographically large, small population country...not even really into middling population...hard to attract more than fleeting attention, much less close relationships. If Canada were only meaningful to America, then it could (horrors) been seen as vassal to it (at least in the worst fervent fears of nationalists).
But, it still doesn't seem to explain, given how flimsy the concerns really are. So, it's odd.
@@larrybxl5406 yes I did, I’ll fix that in my comment in case they see mine and not yours
@@bearcubdaycare I agree that there is no need to put the King on the Canadian paper notes, just on one side of the coins. This is how its done in EU states in the Euro zone that have constitutional monarchs as Head of State (such as Netherlands, Belgium, Spain)
Hi J.J., proud Canadian republican here, I honestly think Canada should just amend the Constitution Act to remove any reference to the Monarchy of Canada and transform the Governor-General’s position to President of Canada
The last time changing the constitution came up it destroyed the party who tried it as it would in the future since many interest groups want the constitution changed
Same here
Genuine question: Why don't we skip the whole president thing, get rid of the governor general and just have our parliament and prime minister? If it's checks and balances we're after we still have a Senate that could be reformed.
@@DylanRoberts7 Because we'd still need somebody to be head-of-state, and if the prime minister is also going to have that additional role, we might as well just have a governmental set up like South Africa
@@DylanRoberts7simply phrased but you have proposed removing the crown/gg and reform of the senate. Thats no small undertaking
I'm surprised JJ didn't mention it since it is probably the biggest Canadian political statement against monarchy in the last decades, but a few months ago, Quebec provincial deputy and leader of Parti Quebecois Paul Saint-Pierre Plamondon refused to take the oath of allegiance to king Charles III. This decision prevented him from taking office as deputy and from sitting in the Quebec National Assembly during the first short session. However, the government decided to adopt a bill making the oath to the monarch optional and made him the first member of Quebec who could sit in the chamber without having taken the oath.
He should not be able to sit an an MLA. People who refuse to take the Oath to the Crown do not realize that the Crown gives them the authority to govern. By denying the Oath, they deny the authority of the government.
He wasn't allowed to, but like I said they changed the rule and made the oath optional for everybody. @@raab66
In which way does the crown give authority? It's a backwards concept that no one believes in anymore especially in Quebec, the vote to make the oath optional was literally unanimous, everyone in parliament voted for it
If the UK made swearing an oath to the monarch optional, would that mean Sinn Fein could actually serve in the Parliament?
This is what is happening in Canada. We have radical Catholics running the country and serving the Anti-Christ Pope in Rome, not our King.
It's been happening for 60 years as they try to destroy the Protestant churches and all links to our British Heritage. Which they've succeeded in doing to a large degree.
@@greywolf7577
Be the American the Canadian politicians fear you are 😂
It seems to me that people kinda stuck with the Monarch during Elizabeth II because she kind of became a cultural icon of the UK and the age of the second half of the 20th and the early 21st century and all that happened during this time,but now that she is gone and Charles became king,the weight of the symbol no longer exists and people started to see the Monarchy as an institution rather than just "The Queen" and people may not want to maintain it further.
True. Charles is too obviously flawed (even if I don't see how he's 'responsible' for Diana's death as people have been saying).
As an Australian our southern more populous states victoria, nsw and Cambera have a very low support for the crown but the less populous states have a much higher support due to being more conservative . I live in Queensland and I say GOD SAVE THE KING
As a new south welshman and a monarchist, there are more of us than you might think. Most of us did vote for the monarchy in 1999 after all.
Respectfully, what’s so great about the Monarchy?
Don't like monarchy and dislike the Brit one in particular. I'm Irish btw. Nonetheless I genuinely hope all kings (and everyone else) save their souls. It's called being a Catholic and means nothing more or less
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI nothing really. It's just the alternatives seem to end up with a highly politicised head of state most of the time. A few countries manage to avoid that though. The other advantage of monarchy is the silliness of it all makes it harder to take politics too seriously, which is in moderation I think a good thing, as not taking yourself too seriously with your political disagreements is important to actually work with people who disagree with you
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVIWhat's the good thing about Republic
I personally don't see why the monarchy is still necessary for Canada, but at the same time, I feel like it's a giant waste of time and resources to have a huge debate about this issue right now when we have so many other problems. So I'm happy with the status quo I guess.
"While Canada might not pay money directly to the monarchy, the country's ties to the House of Windsor could cost taxpayers more than $58.7 million per year." - CTV News
Yeah, it's worth the one-off expense of time and resources to ditch it.
@@nonmagicmike723 that’s the equivalent of a dollar fifty-five from every Canadian. Overhauling the entire constitution and risking possible separatism from Quebec over a 1.55 from each person is unnecessary. Canada has a monarch, leave it at that
@@nonmagicmike723 Uh… not to be that person, but CTV cite a source for that number?
@@mr.anderson2241 The OP mentioned money and I responded.
And I will not leave it at that. Here's the bottom line: time is not on your side. All those masses of humanity from former British colonies like India and China that have been pouring in and are set to keep pouring in in the foreseeable decades will have citizenship after 3 years, and vote. Your side will find itself a dwindling minority with each passing year, with each visa stamp. An elite-backed minority opinion can only withstand the disagreeing masses for so long.
@@mr.anderson2241 And Quebeckers will love Canada even more if it ditches the monarchy. It's the province least fond of it. The separatist element is down to a mere third of Quebec anyway.
A referendum on the monarchy might be in order. If the majority vote in favour of abolition, it might make it easier to bring in a constitutional ammendment to that effect.
The problem with this is that wanting to get rid of it isn't the same as being asked if we should have it. No one's going to go out of there way to fight this battle.
The problem with this is that wanting to get rid of it isn't the same as being asked if we should have it. No one's going to go out of there way to fight this battle.
I think it's unsurprising that the public are at the very least apathetic about the monarchy in Canada. The fact, which you mentioned, that it was sidelined and de-emphasised by successive governments in the later twentieth century made it pretty much inevitable that the public weren't going to be that interested in it, or be able to identify it as even a nominally Canadian institution. As a younger person, I think school curricula (or perhaps just the way its taught) is playing a big role in the kind of apathetic republicanism that characterises Canadian discussions about the monarchy. In 12 years of schooling it was mentioned maybe a handful of times, and then only in passing; everything I know about the monarchy in Canada I learned by my own initiative. Compare this with the quasi-masturbatory way in which other countries (and I'm not just talking about the US here) learn about their own institutions and the lack of public interest or knowledge becomes completely understandable. This lack of knowledge is illustrated quite well by watching people argue about it online, because very few of them on either side have an accurate picture of what the monarchy actually is. Rather than having honest, informed discussions, people instead repeat cheap catchphrases and common misconceptions, and rarely are left with any genuine insights. I would argue that it is this state of affairs is what is driving public opinion, not academics or politicians. Call that condescending if you will, but I believe that altering the constitution based off of the whims of an uninterested, underinformed public is a bad-faith move and a bad precedent.
I'm from Australia, and this debate seems to have taken a strange dynamic in Canada. Here in Australia, The Centre left part the Labour Party has taken a firm stance against the continuing the monarchy, the greens ( a extreme left party ) have taken a dogmaticly anti monarchy stance and the Centre right Libeal Party ( must be unusual for Canadians to hear that ) which I am a part of is divided on the issue. Im a monarchist myself, However Im not impressed by people in Canada trying to shut down a perfectly reasonable debate.
Great video JJ, I would just like to add a few points of my own to it. I want to say firstly that I am a Canadian just like yourself, but contrary to you I am a monarchist. Personally, I do not see the Trudeau government as the most connected to the Crown. If you consider the changing of Canada's National Crown (St. Edward/Tudor to "Snowflake Crown"), you probably won't think much of it; but many monarchists including myself, and many on the right see it as an insult. Since 1763 Canada has used either the Tudor or St. Edwards Crown, yet only now has this changed. The new design of the Crown removes all religious symbols from the Crown while blatantly ignoring the fact that they symbolize royalty first and religion later; (Ok, maybe not the Mond but the rest of the Crown for sure!) the symbols removed include the Crown Jewels, crosses, and Fleur-de-Lis. All of the removed symbols were replaced with symbols chosen (From my knowledge) by the Canadian heraldic authority and by the Prime Minister. The physical Crown in the Tower of London serves as a representation of the Monarch which itself is unchanging (Ignoring Tudor to St. Edwards and back). Replacing this symbol with plenty of heraldic symbolism behind it (Yep, heraldry is fun) with an artificial Paper-Crown is pretty much an insult. The official reasoning behind replacing the "religious symbols" from the Crown was because it "insulted" Non-Christians, I as a Non-Christian and Non-Caucasian am not insulted by this, nor is anyone else I asked about this. The Crosses can be seen as religious symbols, but the Fleur-de-Lis and especially the Crown jewels can not be. If looking at right-leaning media, the decision to change the Crown is mocked. Although Trudeau supports the monarchy, he definitely wants to change it somewhat. I'd say your points are beyond valid, but Trudeau definitely isn't as devoted to the Crown as you may think.
TLDR: JJ your videos are great, this was another definitely award-winning video, but Trudeau has not been the best to the Crown. The new Crown (That no one asked for) is an insult to the institution of the Crown itself. Sorry about the rant, just saying he made a wrong decision, which was mocked by many monarchists including myself, and many on the right. Just a niche "little" rant about something that you wouldn't have ever cared to think about.
(Looking back at what I just spewed out, it isn't well written just what was going through my head.)
That's a pretty minor critique, all things considered. "He is not celebrating the monarchy in precisely the right way!"
@@JJMcCullough That pretty much sums it up, but why get rid of the symbolic representation of our Monarch?
Turdo is an hubris tyrant void of morals, virtues, conscience, humanity (in his words, "people kind" )
I think the tide of public opinion would shift immensely if the Royal Family tried to influence politics more directly
Which is very unlikely.
I really love these videos JJ, making sense of Canadian politics as an American
The funny thing is that just 20 years ago, the Globe had an editorial arguing for getting rid of the monarchy.
Ive wondered how much of loyalty to the crown previously was to Elizabeth personally rather than to the tradition of the crown and if that would result in nations leaving the Commonwealth once Charles became King. Thank you for explaining the relationship of Canada to the crown, especially that pro and anti positions exist in a context best explained by someone with such a grasp of Canadian politics as yourself. I also watch two Canadian Anglican ministers and notice the King or Queen is honoured by that church.
I think its kinda funny Barbados couldn't even wait for Elizabeth to die to cut ties with the monarchy.
@@jecarlin Barbados from what I saw had a very weird, very specifically Barbadian moment, mostly among the politicians, mostly out of a sense of temporary solidarity with America, that was aggravated with the public at large by the fact that they put Kate and Wills on the other side of a chain link fence from that crowd, which looked exactly the way it looked on camera.
I think the only thing to shift that sentiment is for another major war to occur. WWI was a pivotal moment for Canadians to view themselves as something other that British colonists. I think this time, however, if there was a war that Britain had a disfavorable stance with Canadians on, that we were obligated to stand with them on, that would do it. Either that, or a war we both agreed on, but Canada played some epic pivotal role in, independent of British influence (Vimy Ridge).
We need something that can define Canada that isn't American or British in nature so that politicians can hold it up and say that it's more defining than being part of the Commonwealth.
oh Canadian national identity peaked in 1948-1967 and has been petering out ever since. Personally I think the Prime Minister was telling the truth when he called it a "postnational state," in the same way in which Somalia is a post-state nation. The writing has been on the wall ever since a combination of things, Energy East's failure was depressing, and the thing with the hijabs in Quebec really angered me at the time, then I sort of got over it and came to understand that secularism and individual rights are intrinsically incompatible as systems of civic values, at least as constituted in the respective anglophone and francophone intellectual traditions. I expect what it came down to was secularization in the 1960s which was the slow stab wound which killed Canada as a nation, as previously it had been based on confessional lines - Catholics were second class citizens from the 1840s to the 1960s, but second class citizens with a guaranteed floor of privileges. The Trudeaus aren't the causes of moments when the Canadian national project slides away like a muddy cliffside eroding under a downpour, but they are the signposts of it.
I think that we will be in the future.....I just wanted Canada to be Canada without getting stupid about it
@William Innes Canada isn't a post national state. It's basically small America clinging desperately to its pro British roots but slowly and consistently failing at it
Hung around a bunch of politicians and attended quite a few public events of that sort. It's a known fact(that no one will say outloud) that majority of the political class are hardcore monarchists. They would aristocracy in a heartbeat if the public let them.
I don't get what Canada gains from having a king live 3,000 miles away and only visits maybe once a year for a few days to shake a few hands and drink tea 🙈
Get America to embrace the monarchy and the debate will die overnight.
That's not gonna happen
as someone born and raised in Wichita, I nearly fell out of my chair at 17:14
As an American, I find it to be an interesting and rather quaint little quirk that Canada has.
US & CAN have very intertwined history. Defining period of both US & CAN although neither existed yet is Seven Years War better known in NA as French & Indian War. During the twenty years that followed because of huge costs of war (all wars) led to increased and new taxes. Combined with ambitions of colonial leaders and wealthy objections to Treaty of 1763 that included baring westward expansion of eastern colonies. Treaty of 1763 included Indians /aboriginal lands in Ohio River Basin to remain Indian lands. History is curious network of stuff that are extremely over simplified into slogans, sound bytes, images, dates, celebrities.
Consider facts that US Constitution & Bill of Rights, common law are derived directly from England. So too is Canada's with French influences in Quebec. Lots of people, ideas, players, greed, etc plus good and bad are part of past and how we got to now. And still we are challenged.
Quaint. Like your slavery belt?
Other than Quebec what provinces do you think are most supportive and most hostile to the monarchy?
Ontario is undoubtedly the most supportive and out of the English speaking provinces I’d say Alberta would be the most Republican.
I think the monarchy is necessary and in Canada it is about respecting our roots and origins as well as an avenue for maintaining the global relationships of the commonwealth realms. The monarchy is a part of our culture and heritage and honestly a breath of fresh air that this is one area where the Liberal party doesn't want to destroy our culture and cultural identity. (even thought Trudeau famously claimed we dont have a cultural identity)
I like the monarchy and I think Queen Elizabeth II was one of the most impressive public figures of all time. Not one scandal in decades of being Queen she was a true role model.
When you said the America abandoned the Crown for democracy and equality i laughed
Your last question is a really good one.
Part of the issue for republicans (and I am one) is that the monarchy is a pretty distant institution in Canada. It has no real power and its members only visit the country once in a while as part of a symbolic connection, essentially.
It's pretty hard to rile people up against something that is fundamentally not that involved in people's lives. I think what it might take is an episode, like the King-Byng affair, where the crown or its representative try to involve themselves in politics in some way. I think even a small instance of this could spell death to the monarchy in Canada. The good fortune (or the problem, if you want to get rid of it) is that they are generally smart enough to know not to do that.
As a Brit- I’m not a huge monarchist. I believe that they’re good heads of state in some ways but they don’t deserve a sovereign fund (which is £1pp of state funding), they have a private income and we should encourage them to get real jobs like the Swedish and Dutch monarchies have whether that’s in the military, emergency services or arts. As for nations like the Commonwealth realms (which is different to members of the commonwealth which can be anyone because it’s is just a forum group to discuss topics of the day)- I think we should encourage nations like Jamaica, Canada, Australia etc to have these discussions on the monarchy and what do they want out of the commonwealth. It’s a two way relationship and imperialism are shouldn’t exist anymore - we should be a beacon of that by being open with these countries and re-negotiate what a member of the commonwealth is. Maybe they don’t need to recognise the King/Queen as head of state but are welcome to be part of state ceremonies because of their new roles in a reformed commonwealth. Maybe I’m trying to be fanciful or something but I do think the ‘Commonwealth’ in principle - as a forum body of nations- can be useful to help give voice to smaller nations who are more effected by climate change, fragile economics, civil wars and threatened by larger neighbours (like China) etc. It could become a smaller UN with less chaos and more time spent on co-operation. But hey- I’m a Brit so I guess you guys will see me as bias even though I think that the monarchy isn’t always a good thing for our own country (e.g. ignites right-wing nationalistic propaganda movements like Brexit). As Brits we should encourage nations to talk about this topic, not be afraid to mention it- a relationship constantly evolves not stagnates.
Also well done J.J for 900k followers! Been a fan from the start and you always help me be more educated on other people’s opinions/theories and views (even if some of them we agree to disagree on). Keep going and hope to see you hit the 1million mark soon!
I found your views on the monarchy in Canada very insightful. It's so important to hear all sides of the issue. I probably fall into the pro-monarchy camp for a few reasons. There is so little in our lives, on every level, that is consistent. We change jobs more often, we throw out furniture and move to other cities, countries, we divorce and remarry, we lose our religion and take up Buddhism, or Zen or yoga.
A great deal of mental instability and anguish comes from these constant and increasingly rapid changes in every aspect of our lives. And the are more and greater to come! I tend to see the monarchy as one thing that has remained steadfast in the swirl of change in our society. It is even more amazing that it has been an institution in western society for centuries! It's an unbelievable feat in the 21st Century, when everything seems to have a "best before" date on it!
I believe that, in these chaotic times, being a member of a larger group is better than not being a member. Being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations is better than not being one. Being a member of NATO is better than not being one. In Canada, being a member of the USMCA (United States, Mexico, Canada) trade agreement is better than not being one. In Europe, being a member of the EU is better than not being one (I'm looking at you, Great Britain!). I could go on, but you get the idea. There are benefits that do not even have a dollar value. I know that goes right over the heads of many who see everything through a $$$$ lens, which is part of the reason we're in such a mess today.
Also, I think it's important to understand that the monarchy of the 21st Century is not the monarchy of times past. Elizabeth worked hard at bringing the institution up to speed with modern times, while keeping the trappings of what make it unique. For sure, much more needs to be done in this area. We can only hope that Charles understands this. If he fails, we won't have to worry about ditching the crown. He'll do the job for us.
Membership of the Common Market was good but the EU has evolved into an entity that Britain didn't sign up to.
The tricky thing also is that once you get rid of the monarchy, you can’t get it back. It’s a tradition that would be lost forever if we abandon it.
Canada's identity is so tied up in the USA that at this point I think it makes more sense to move closer to it than trying to differentiate itself. Claims of Canadian uniqueness especially when they're framed in contrast to the US are always going to ring hollow and I feel like that obesssion with identity really stifles some of Canada's best traits.
Culturally Canada is similar to the United States, but the political elites pretends that’s no true. Nova Scotia almost joined the United States in its revolution against the British, but didn’t agree with somethings the Americans agreed on and it didn’t go through. The main reason why the Canadian elite is pro monarchy is due to the fact during the American Revolution the loyalists to Britain fled to Canada. Before the American Revolution Canada was sparsely populated and not that many people lived there. After the American Revolution Canada had in increase of people moving there they had never seen. The United States tried to get some parts of Canada to join them, but all of them ultimately failed. Canada went its own path by staying loyal to the British crown to make themselves look different from the United States. I honestly don’t see Canada getting rid of the monarchy unless something out of the ordinary happens.
I recall also hearing if Canada left the Monarchy many of the Native Treaties would be up for renegotiation, as many of them were on paper between the First Nations and the Crown. And the Canadian Government does not want to renegotiate them, as they may end up having to give more than they'd like to the First Nations. I'm not certain how true this is however, I just heard it from one guy.
It’s myth. That’s not how native treaties work.
@@JJMcCullough Thank you for clearing that up. This only makes keeping the Monarchy even weirder from a Canadian Nationalist perspective. The Canadian Government seems to have nothing to loose bar funny little outfits.
@@JJMcCullough Hi JJ Big fan!
Yes, actually what @S-O-Tarik Nomad says is true. In terms of Indigenous Treaties and Aboriginal Rights, the basis of it stems back to The Royal Proclamation Act of 1763, when George III (The Crown) recognized the "Indians" (First Nations in North America) as a sovereign of their territories. Should the settlers need to expand into their territories, a treaty would need to be made.
So when Canada was formed in 1867 with the British North America Act; and before expanding westwards, the Government of Canada needed the Governor General (A Representative of The Crown) to make arrangements with Indigenous Peoples to sign many treaties. Treaties that, in exchange for settlers living in Indigenous Lands, requires compensations and rights to be honoured.
The Treaty Rights included but not limited to: Hunting, Fishing, Reserved Lands, Farming Tools, Monetary Compensation, funds for Education etc. The Government needed The Crown (legal entity) to enshrine many treaties as a nation-to-nation agreement. This is how the Numbered Treaties (1-11; from Lake of the Woods, Manitoba; to the Rocky Mountains; to the Beaufort Sea) and many Aboriginal Rights came to be.
In essence, the treaties were signed by Tribal Elders and Chiefs, and the representative of "The Crown" (Governor General), not with politicians (Government of Canada; or the Government of the Provinces), as such, The Crown is the fiduciary signatory of those treaties.
If and when Canada opens up the subject of a constitutional amendment (removing the monarchy requires a constitutional amendment), it would have to renegotiate centuries old treaties with Indigenous Peoples, as the removal of The Crown as a legal entity would void the Royal Proclamation and various other treaties. This is a reason why many Indigenous elders and chieftains are pro-monarchists; they never signed their Treaties with The Government of Canada, they signed it with The Crown.
@@michaelestrella4408 That's not how international treaties works: the republic of Canada will obviously just be the continuing state of the present Canada monarchy. This kind of regime change happens all the time and it will have no impact to any treaty signed by Canada or the Canadian Crown.
And indigenous treaties are not even international treaties but are arguably just part of internal Canadian laws: their future validity will just depends on what the new Canadian constitution will say.
Canada is NOT under the British Crown. It is under the Canadian Crown.
@jonnyneace8928 Study constitutional law, my dude. The Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Canada Act 1982 say you are wrong. King Charles "wears" not one crown that is over 15 countries, but in fact "wears" 15 separate crowns. The Crown of Canada is legally and constitutionally distinct from and independent of the Crown of the UK (and of the crowns of the other Commonwealth realms, too). Furthermore, it is hypothetically possible for one realm to alter the laws of succession in that realm alone (with the hypothetical result of the crown being inherited by a separate individual). And it is hypothetically possible for the British to abolish their crown and become a republic, while the Canada keeps its Crown. In fact, it would actually be easier for the British to become a republic than for Canada. Britain would require only one act of Parliament to abolish the crown (as in the case of Barbados a couple of years ago when it became a republic). Canada would require the unanimous consent of the federal Parliament as well as each of the 10 provincial parliaments (and when was the last time Quebec agreed with all the other provinces?).
The only way I could see the Monarchy question be truly answered across the country is putting it up to a public referendum. The MP’s in all the provinces and territories aren’t going to all unilaterally accept the motion to end the monarchy in Canada, at least not in our lifetimes I would think. If it were to be put up to a public vote to gain general public sentiment it would cut off so many problems. It just sucks that’ll never happen because our government and politicians are the way they are.
I'm fine with the monarchy. I really don't see the American or French Republican/Presidential system as some sort of superior alternative. I might feel differently if I saw evidence that such a system lead to better government but I really don't. All systems have flaws and despite being in favour of democracy, I'll admit I have at least a small admiration for some anti-democratic artifacts that may exist in our society as a counterbalance against full-on populist rule. These include having a second house of sober second thought (senate), appointed rather than elected judges (prevents pandering to public sentiment in criminal cases), and yes even a monarch.
As someone living in a republic with a chaotic past (Germany) and a President of questionable quality, I can only recommend that you appreciate the stability and non-political element a parliamentary monarchy brings. In Europe, the small democratic monarchies are by far the best countries in terms of democracy and Quality of Life.
I take a "don't mess with success" attitude to it. Having a Monarchy around for emergency use (Harper's prorogue, Gough Whitlam in Aussie) is far better than the slow motion slide into autocracy that we see developing in so many ex-empire countries (not just in Africa).
Same here, if no one likes it, everyone bitches about it then it is a perfect system because it favours no one.
Our government it is not the perfect, but it is definitely not the worst. We have a stable government, our government power is split up but not too disperse, we rarely have cabinet issues, the house represented somehow the interest of all Canadian base on multiple factors (not just population) to avoid a tyranny of the majority.
@@he11ange1 if no one is at least OK with the compromise, it means that it has failed.
"Don't mess with success" is a very common opinion in the "keep the monarchy" camp.
I'm in the camp of "respected the Queen, don't give a shit about the rest of her family, mildly concerned about tickle-down hassle of scrubbing royalist titles and symbols, and low-key dreading the inevitable yet ambiguous rename of BC in that scenario."
Would it be inevitable? New England is still a common moniker in the US for the north eastern states, and several states still have names derived from British royals.
I'd say rename New York to New Amsterdam and stop with the erasing of Dutch history that was done by the English
@@Croz89 The notion of renaming "colonial" names to something more "native" seems to be picking up steam in BC (my home province) in recent years. If ties to the crown are fully severed, I don't doubt that a full rename of the province is on the table.
@@kimarous What about Alberta, Nova Scotia (literally New Scotland in Latin) and (indirectly) New Brunswick? They all have names either tied to British royals or to the British isles.
@@Croz89 I don't know, for I don't live there and don't know their politics. I speak from a BC perspective.
Thanks for making this, I think I understand a bit better why some Canadians lately seem to be flying American civil war flags and similar happenings. Sincerely, an American
God Save the King! I love our commonwealth brothers 🇨🇦 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🇬🇧
I just don't understand why Canadians and other Commonwealth citizens are so opposed to the monarchy. It really changes so little either way, so why get rid of it when it is so tied into our cultural heritage?
As a brit, genuine question - what's the main benefit for actually leaving behind the monarchy? Considering it has no real political control, but does provide diplomatic links and holds deep roots to the country's history, legacy and culture. Is there a sufficient enough cost that outweighs the benefits/traditions that makes it worthwhile to move away from it?
Yes. The stability that a Constitutional Monarchy gives is hard to come by any other means (to quote Princess Anne).
I think a lot of Canadians absorb American sentiments on kings and royalty through osmosis. Our culture is very much influenced by our southern neighbour.
I actually would not be surprised if Canada does become a Republic sometime In presumably King Willam’s time. Due to the generation gap and when millennial politicians start coming into power in large numbers like the Baby Boomers did. As millennial Canadians seem to be both more apathetic or opposed to the monarchy and more come from ethnic backgrounds that are not friendly to the monarchy as British stock Canadians.
Although in a very extreme example, Great Britain which going polling is one of Europe’s most progressive nations could ditch the monarchy and Canada depending on the government could invite whoever is the monarch and have them be “King of Canada”.
GB is seen as progressive compared to the rest of Europe? That's news to me, the way the left wing media talk about it here the UK is supposedly the most right wing country in western Europe!
I think it is very unlikely.
There already is a King of Canada. Come on, keep up!
The obvious choice: JJ launches his political career, becomes taller than CN tower.
06:45 as a Brazilian living in British Columbia, I totally agree with you on this. For example, our right wing ex-president Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022) was constantly labeled as too much pro-America by left wing politicians.
Beautiful thumbnail, I ship Charles X Justin.
I'd definitely identify the minimal (or practically non-existent) political interest I have as progressive or left but I most certainly agree with you in regards to the need for or usefulness (or rather lack of either) of the monarchy in Canada. I don't know the answer to your question of what would it take for us to let it go but if you figure it out I'm very interested. Thanks for another interesting video :)
JJ is my king
Hello J.J. , I had a thought from here in the Midwest of the States. Many years ago, there was a newspaper article here with outlandish predictions. Although it may never happen, one prediction concerned how Canada would divide. It said that the Prairie Provinces would petition the USA to be admitted as states, after Québec left Canada. So, that may change the conversation about the monarchy. I do hope, however, that Canada would remain intact in its entirety. Thank you so much for your time in reading this.
no one in the prairie province want to join the dumpster fire that is the US.
At the rate of things, the next coronation might as well be in Ottawa.
When the question was asked how Canadians feel about King Charles, I wonder if that question was worded differently if it would change people's opinion. How did people feel about Elizabeth instead of Charles. Princess Diana was wildly popular. If you asked Canadians how they would feel about a Queen Diana, would their answers change? I feel like the favourability of who is in charge vs the actual system itself is probably more important to explore.
Great video JJ. I wondered whether scandals about the royals have had much of an effect on the public sentiment e.g. Prince Andrew's connection to Jeffrey Eppstein or whether the royals have just been broadly unpopular in Canada for some time?
Even though I don't like the monarchy, it was cool to be able to witness the first british coronation in 70 years in uk
Dunno about that, we deliberately went to Italy for the week. It was great, about 30secs of gold Cinderella coach and ridiculous hats. FC Napoli winning the Italian football championship was much more important. Not that I give a stuff about anybody's football in any event 🙂 ( went for the Giro de Italia ;-) )
Feel like this apathy is also apparent here in Scotland even the small tory towns where i live did little or nothing for the coronation while the cities like glasgow had absolutely nothing. That said despite this even Scotlands nationalist party attended the coronation and never suggest they want a republic despite the popualtions apathy/hostility.
I want Canada to be a republic so bad😭😭 loving your videos by the way
I've been pretty neutral about the monarchy my whole life but ever since this wave of tearing down statues, removing our first prime minister's name from schools, and the agenda to erase anything traditionally Canadian (like our new passports), it makes me more pro monarchy just so we can hold on to something that's historical.
Personally, I always hate when people want bring up hanging on to outdated concepts purely for historical/tradition. It's basically saying, "It may be ruining a lot of other people's lives, but I find change minorly inconvenient so fuck that."
@@Delightfully_Bitchy ruining peoples lives?