Example, the supreme court of Manitoba is now called “The Court of King’s Bench” – but the URL still says queen: https://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/court-of-queens-bench/

Double takes abound. There should be a non-gendered form to use. “Court of Monarch’s Bench” or something ;)

  • ImplyingImplications
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Government documents also typically say “Queen’s Printer” on them. I always laughed at the idea that the Queen has some HP printer in her study that everyone is using. Guess they all need to say King’s Printer now.

    • TroyOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s be a good wifi hotspot name - tongue in cheek of course. Even more so if you’ve got one of those crazy sovereign citizen type neighbours you can poke fun at.

  • psycotica0
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the gender neutral that gets used the most is “crown”, but maybe that has a different connotation.

    More importantly, though, Queens are rare, we just happened to had one during a huge period of technological advances, etc.

    But we already have a king, his heir the kind lined up, and that king already has a male heir. Obviously shit can happen, but we’re pretty far from another queen in any of our lifetimes…

    • The Gay Tramp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We also had one while Canada was being set up, so like all the treaties we signed were between her majesty and the various indigenous groups. So a lot of historical stuff is queen this and queen that, and then combine that with the past 70 years of queening and you get a very significant proportion of Canada’s history being queenly

    • TroyOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Odds should be about 50/50 now that succession is gender neutral by default.

      • The Gay Tramp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Barring anything substantial changing we’ll have kings for at least the next 70 years (George will be about 80 by then)

    • jerkface
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can change our monarch at any moment through an act of Parliament.

  • SpaceCowboy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Royal Navy figured this out a long time ago. Just call it HM’s Ship. Works for both Her Majesty and His Majesty. Don’t ever need to repaint the name on the side of the ship.

  • ninjamice
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I became a citizen this month after applying back when we still had a Queen and I got tripped up when saying the oath due to this—I’m on my 30s, there’s been a Queen forever, I’m not used to having a King. I’m sure I’ll get used to it at some point but man that felt weird.

    • altasshet
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretty much the same for me. The citizenship test booklet I used hadn’t been updated yet, even though it was a fair bit after she’d passed. And in the ceremony, it was all about the king.

      (Not to mention that it’s super weird to affirm your allegiance to a monarch no matter what…)

  • jerkface
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It confuses me to see photos of the King in the royal regalia. I’ve only ever seen a woman wear that purple robe and it looks to me like the King is cross-dressing. “Drag Queen.”

    • TroyOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you blur the lines between the person in the position, and the position itself, then perhaps the monarchy is simply trans…