Page 2 of 2
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:33 pm
by Monroe
Captain Seafort wrote:"Ran out of time"? Ran out of time for one of the most important periods in European history? What idiot was responsible for that?
Well that period is covered in English History II. I only had English History I. I enjoyed the class had a good teacher if a bit unrealistically tough.. 15 page essay exam ugh.
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:17 pm
by Sionnach Glic
You learned British history in the US? Odd. We learned none. Well, unless it was them invading us yet again.
Don't mind at all, in fact I'm rather proud of it (despite my ancestry being Dutch).
Okay. Why is that?
Once again, no problem. She holds very limited power which is delegated to the Governor General, who is appointed by the ruling party. Besides, I liked the idea of swearing my oath when I signed up to the Queen. Meaning I was bound not to the Charter of Rights or the party in power but to the Head of State, nicely cutting out all those loyalty issues that arise in a civil war.
Aye, I can see how such a thing would be preferable to a soldier.
Any civilians care to weigh in their opinion on this matter?
No. The Queen (through the GG) provides an additional check on Parliament. If it becomes bogged down or ineffective, the GG can dissolve Parliament and appoint a PM and Cabinet until an election can be held.
Fair point. But couldn't a president provide the same service?
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:29 pm
by Monroe
It was a college class... I learned Aztec history first so.. its not that unusual
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:21 pm
by Aaron
Rochey wrote:
Okay. Why is that?
It's nice to trace your countries history back to the country that founded it and have a Head of State that is separate from the government itself, that holds no political aspirations and limits itself to getting involved only in times of crisis.
Fair point. But couldn't a president provide the same service?
Probably, though at the time we became a Dominion relations with the US were strained and this was likely a decision made to distance us from them, though the practise is common throughout the Commonwealth. It also simplifies elections and keeps yet another jack ass out of the system.
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:40 am
by Mikey
Rochey wrote:We learned none.
English history in an Irish school:
"They suck! Now, take out your mathematics books..."
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:50 am
by Deepcrush
I always thought it was funny that the US just broke away and everyone else just stuck around semi. Never really understood how that worked out.
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:55 am
by Aaron
Deepcrush wrote:I always thought it was funny that the US just broke away and everyone else just stuck around semi. Never really understood how that worked out.
There wasn't any need for us to break with Britain, so why would we?
Re: A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:39 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Indeed. For quite a few places, life in the Commonwealth back then was pretty good. At the very least, it gained you protection from the other major empires of the world in that era.