Canadian town at standstill over councillors' refusal to take oath of allegiance to King Charles
Canadian town at standstill over councillors' refusal to take oath of allegiance to King Charles
The new council in Dawson City, Yukon, cannot make official decisions until the issue is resolved.
Summary
Dawson City in Canada is facing a crisis as the new mayor and councillors won’t take the required oath of allegiance to King Charles.
They refused in support of an Indigenous councillor who opposes the oath due to the Crown’s history with Indigenous people.
Without the oath, their election could be canceled, and they can’t make official decisions.
The council has asked for a different oath, but Yukon law requires the pledge. Authorities are now looking into the situation.
You're viewing a single thread.
Weren't people a bit more positive about monarchy back when Elizabeth II was alive? I feel like she had a sort of mystique that made her feel more legit for some reason.
He's widely unpopular in the UK because he's very politically involved via the massive amount of lobbying efforts he personally funds; something that the crown specifically promised not to do. Then there's Charles' hush money payments to cover up Prince Andrew's "indiscretions" with their family friend, Jeffrey Epstein.
Rumour has it that Charles is incredibly angry about the whole thing and Andrew is very much in danger of being cut off completely if he doesn't keep his head down, so while Charles has paid people off, he has not forgiven or forgotten.
There's also that he wasn't king at the time he made those payments and may have been protecting their mother rather than his brother at the time. Andrew, idiot though he is, was the Queen's favourite.
Had the Queen already been dead and Charles been king at the time the news broke, he might well have let Andrew suffer the consequences.
As it says in that article, the hush money payments are strictly rumours. First Elisabeth supposedly did it, then Charles suddenly got a role in it too. The only source appears to be an anti-monarchy group, so not sure exactly how reliable that is (afaik the Daily Telegraph and the Sun published the accusations, and we all know how reliable they are).
We do know for a fact Charles stripped Andrew of his remaining royal duties, fully cut the money he receives from the monarchy (no wage and no money for protection anymore) and is trying to get him out of his current home, but apparently there's legal reasons making that difficult to do. He's a lot harder on Andrew than Elisabeth was.
And while he used to be quite political before he became king, he mostly stopped after he was coronated. That, as far as I know, got him more critique, because he mostly lobbied in favour of green policies against climate change.
She was more relatable. She had corgis. She loved cows. She was an ambulance driver and mechanic during WWII. Nobody likes Charles.
The Queen's face and name has been on everything for decades. There are Canadians in their 70s who never knew anything different. That's just the way things were. It was tradition. That's how I saw it anyways. Anyone who complained about it was just complaining about a symbolic action we've all been doing for generations. Nobody is actually swearing their life to the queen--it's just a tradition. Then she died.
Now some random old guy's face and name is going to be on everything. If we're going to change everything anyways, then why not change it to something different? The argument that was seen as a small complaint before now makes a lot of sense. If we're changing the words to our oath anyways, then why not change them to words we can all agree on?
Everyone loved the powder pink lizard queen.