Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
5919 messages in 306 discussions
Latest Apr-23 by Showtalk
2870 messages in 221 discussions
21896 messages in 1001 discussions
6683 messages in 437 discussions
2969 messages in 237 discussions
6444 messages in 147 discussions
1244 messages in 636 discussions
966 messages in 94 discussions
3601 messages in 218 discussions
3030 messages in 133 discussions
7092 messages in 594 discussions
1853 messages in 101 discussions
8299 messages in 418 discussions
12986 messages in 643 discussions
842 messages in 24 discussions
This is the possible motivation for the interview. Money and a huge Netflix deal. When they said they watched some of The Crown, that wasn’t an idle question from Oprah. It may have been the crux of the whole interview.
They do seem highly preoccupied with making a lot of money, that much is clear.
They have all those high expenses. 24/7 security which they mentioned a lot in the interview. A $10 million mansion. No visible means of support anymore, except the vague Netflix project and speaking fees. I bet you wouldn’t mind a cushy Netflix deal for your films.
I didn’t mention why I asked you about the interview, in case anyone was curious but too polite to ask. It was because you have more knowledge of the Royals than I do, which I mentioned in the PM.
I would say generally most Canadians have little interest in British Crown affairs, beyond the salaciousness of it, being a Commonwealth Nation doesn't carry the weight it once did.
I see. They have no say over anything in your country?
Technically and in terms of tradition they do, the Queen guarantees our civil rights as Canadians are subjects not citizens, again that's technically, basically the Governor General (Queen's rep for the Federal Government) and Lieutenant Governor's (Queen's rep to the Provinces) rubber stamp any and all legislation, it's not really their job to interfere and if they do any of it can be countermanded by the Prime Minister due to laws set out in the British North America Act. They exist solely to fulfill a tradition, nothing more.
Do people respect that tradition? It seems that there is a lot of respect for them in England.
Depends on how you define respect, most Canadians have never really given it much thought, the Queen has been on our money for a long, long time that people accept it as actuality, people like the pomp and circumstance of the vice regal duties of the Governor General at Rideau Hall, that sort of thing, and of course whenever there's a royal visit everyone is all aflutter but that's more the celebrity of it than a bowing respect.
I see. What exactly is the Governor General and what do they do? Are they ever women?
The Governor General is a mostly symbolic role as the Queen's representative to Parliament, he or she preside over the newly elected Government throne speech (a motion of confidence that in a minority seat situation could be voted down, thus trigging an election) he or she is consulted or "informed" of the intent to call an election by the incumbent Prime Minister, this always happens as it is law. Back when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister he asked the GG to prorogue Parliament which bought Harper political cover without triggering an election, this angered a great many people and was instrumental in his eventual downfall, in a minority situation as I alluded to above, if the Government falls on a matter of confidence the GG does have the discretion to ask the leader of the Loyal Opposition if he or she can form a Government without an election being called, I'm not sure if this has ever happened certainly not in my life time, but the potential is there.
There have been three female Governor General's, Adrienne Clarkson, Michaelle Jean, and the recently disgraced Julie Payette.