Why do Australia and Canada still have a king?

They are part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Many of the independent countries of the former British Empire retain this tradition. I actually think it's good and connects us to history.

You tried it. Their kings are symbolic. They don’t govern and cannot legislate any policy nor enforce any action. You tried it though cause you know this piece of shit is trying to be a tyrant and you voted for him.

They reign but do not rule.

And yes it benefits their economies.

Because they are cunts

Any chance we can join?

Only needy sexy people can apply to be Canadian, R6.

OP, this thread has a several good posts and links regarding the benefits of the monarchy to Canada. In Canada, it would be extremely difficult to get rid of the monarchy, while in the UK it's relatively easy and in Australia it would take a referendum (the last one favored the monarchy). It is a bit discordant that the same individual is monarch of several independent nations. For example, as UK monarch Charles invites Trump for a state visit while as Canadian monarch he subtly supports Canada via various symbols and reads a throne (written by his government of course) in person where he rebukes Trump while not naming him.

Not speaking on behalf of all Canadian but, even as someone who's decidedly not a royalist, I prefer an actual king to a wannabe demented orange toddler one.

Very much of a if it ain't broke situation. More specifically, no one can agree on a suitable replacement.

Because we've looked at the US arrangements lately and decided ours look fine.

[quote]Only needy sexy people can apply to be Canadian

I was suggesting that the US join the Commonwealth. We do have the necessary background.

We don't want you

It gives A and C somebody to complain about identify with and put on the money. The royals were at one time the parent of the people. They protected their children from those that would do them harm. Those that would use them for nefarious reasons such as those filthy Aristocrats and Capitalists. Now the Royals are the filthy Capitalists.

Canada would need unanimous consent if all the provinces. As any change to the constitution would open up a Pandora’s box of proposed changes to the constitution this will never happen. It would be easier for the UK to chuck Chuck. Which would in theory only take an act of parliament. Australia tried but didn’t have a plan to put in a new head of state once the monarchy was gone and voters did t want to chance an unknown.

Apparently it keeps their standard of living up.

The Australians did have a plan - that the politicians only would vote for a president. The voters said 'fuck no' to that idea. A different proposal including direct presidential elections might well have passed.

Because they're not even real countries anyway.

[quote] Any chance we can join?

We already have a king.

The vast majority of Australians neither care about nor like the British Royal Family. Of course, Liz was considered as a lovely old dear and Diana as a gleaming icon, but at best, the rest are treated as fun, albeit startlingly ugly and quite stupid, celebrities ripe for the gossip mill. The aristocracy are non-entities and the titled honours system is considered hopelessly anachronistic and wanky. One RWNJ Prime Minister tried to bring Knighthoods for two years a decade ago and the entire country collapsed with laughter. Even his Conservative colleagues were weirded out.

But by the same token, the majority of Australian secretly don’t want a yellow/black/brown “takeover” so they believe a British monarchy represents the primacy of Anglo-Saxon values. I’M NOT SAYING THEY’RE RACISTS so don’t bite my head off. But the British colonising of Australia and the resultant image of a national suburban sprawl of good-natured bronzed blonds is meaningful to them. Even a good deal of the Asian/African/Pacific/South American/continental Europeans who move to Australia love the young-and-free, beachy Aussie Olivia Newton-John (born in Cambridge, UK) stereotype.

Very few actually say this out loud, of course. Some do. But most don’t want to sound like potential bigots and instead use excuses about respecting WWI veterans whenever the issue arises.

The British monarchs will likely remain the head of state in Australia at least until William dies or when the Commonwealth collapses.

There are advantages to a parliamentary government with a prime minister as head of government and either a monarch or president as head of state. If they make a mistake with their elected government, they don't have to wait to the next election cycle to remedy it. If the government loses the confidence of the parliament, it can be forced to resign or call for a new election.

[quote] a national suburban sprawl of good-natured bronzed blonds is meaningful to them.

Loved that description r20.

In Australia the 1999 Republic Referendum failed to pass. The 'NO' vote won by 10% I think. All major cities voted for Constitutional change (The Elites we were called). Don't think there will be another vote for a while.

R20 is talking out of his stupid racist arse. Australia retains the monarchy for the same reason that Canada does - apologies for speaking on your behalf Canadian cousins and tell me if I get it wrong - because the current system is too hard to undo.

Changing the Australian constitution requires a majority of voters in a majority of states / territories to agree via a referendum. The only time that this was attempted in Australia was in 1999 when the Prime Minister at the time, a far right-wing monarchist cunt called John Howard - a very clever politician - presented the referendum as a choice of a President elected by parliament, not by the people, knowing that that was doomed to fail. Which it did. Howard was duly rewarded with a British honour by his Queen.

It’s my dream that one day we will choose a system that will do away with having a King or Queen of Australia but for now successive governments have appointed some switched on Governors General, including the present GG Samantha Mostyn, herself a Republican, who rocks a fierce pants suit.

In the meantime I’d suggest that the model in place in the USA isn’t exactly something to which to be aspired - better get that sorted out first, girlfriends.

Do the commonwealth countries have some sort of trade treaty?

It's different in Canada though, R24. We also view having a monarchy as a reflexive reaction to our proximity of the U.S. and its strong influence over media and culture as a result.. Monarchy is something that sets us apart from the U.S., and historically Canada's existence is based on rejection of the American republic and loyalty to the crown e.g Loyalist settlers, the War of 1812.

[quote]The vast majority of Australians neither care about nor like the British Royal Family. Of course, Liz was considered as a lovely old dear and Diana as a gleaming icon, but at best, the rest are treated as fun, albeit startlingly ugly and quite stupid, celebrities ripe for the gossip mill. The aristocracy are non-entities and the titled honours system is considered hopelessly anachronistic and wanky.

Its the same here in New Zealand, R20 nailed it with this description. And as R10 said, if it aint broke dont fix it.

[quote]Because we've looked at the US arrangements lately and decided ours look fine.

R11 This.... so much