[The Federal Republic of Canada]

George Bush and Jacques Chirac were elected. Puff Daddy, Britney Spears and Mick Jagger sold records. The King of Thailand, was, well BORN.

And? Bush, Chirac, Puff Daddy, Spears, Jagger and Bhumipol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, were all born. I don’t see how your comment plays into the discussion. My point was that a head of state, no matter how they are chosen, cannot be compared to a celebrity.

Great model. Pick the right parents when you're born.

How does anyone pick their parents? Hence, leaving the choice of a king or queen to the completely natural occurrences of birth and death makes them non-partisan and owing to nobody other than the entire population of their realm which opts to keep them as an un-biased balance to their elected officials.

I’ve said as much in my posts before.

All true, but the queen GOT HER POSITION BY BIRTH.

I don’t need to repeat myself on the benefit of having a head of state chosen by that method. But remember, the Queen ultimately has her position because our constitution says she does.

If 30 million Canadians wished to bind themselves together and move towards a republic, it could certainly be done, and the Queen would cease to be a queen in this country. However, the system of constitutional monarchy is far more advantageous for the many reasons I’ve already stated, so why would this country want to move to a less stable form of government (especially for a federation like Canada)? Certainly there have been, and perhaps still are, constitutional issues in Canada—but removing the Crown would not solve any of them, and would more than likely cause even more divisions within the country.

Good point. But symbols matter, as you have demonstrated at length.

Of course there is a symbolic aspect to a head of state. But keep in mind that symbols only appear to each individual as they alone interperate it— and too many people incorrectly interperate the Canadian Crown as the British Crown ruling Canada simply because Elizabeth II is sovereign of both. If more people realised she is distinctly the Queen of Canada, separate to the Queen of the United Kingdom, Belize, Tuvalu, Australia, Jamaica, St. Kitts, and so on, then she would become a different symbol to them. The Canadian Crown would mean more. I am a case in point.

However, the Crown and position of sovereign is far more complex than simply a symbolic one.

And if it were a choice between keeping Canada together and keeping the monarchy, I wouldn't hesitate for two seconds.

Indeed, if left with that choice, I would probably opt for the same—rather like sacrificing a limb to save a life. But, though Canada might remain together, it would, like someone who has lost a limb, face a difficult recovery after that loss with a strong possibility of death. I suspect removing the Crown to save Canada would only lead to the destruction of the present Canada when it came time to re-write the constitution in a republican fashion. Imagine the debates and demands from all the regions, provinces, and peoples of Canada. Is the president elected by the people? By the politicians? Appointed? Do Quebecois votes count for more? Will the president only be an appointee by Ontario? How will a president from the Maritimes represent the people of the West? Must the nominees alternate between French-speaking and English-speaking? What about First Nations? Will First Nations votes count for more? What powers will the president hold? How do we know they wont be a partisan yes-man to the Prime Minister? And on, and on, and on, and on. Billions of dollars, argument after argument, and for what? Some ultra-Canadian, politically correct, uber-nationalist, symbolic notion?

Also, your choice would be an ultimatum, a last chance to keep the country alive. Right now, why would we choose to cut off our own limb when we’re already quite strong and healthy?

Anyway, I hope you’re not implying a link between Quebec sovereignty and the Crown.

[The Federal Republic of Canada]

Don't we have bigger issues to contend with then whether or not various people are happy with the monarchy aspect of our governmental structure?

I mean, why not focus on something meaningful instead of wasting time and effort on a big fat red herring?

Ignore the childish cynicism of KrustyKidd, because you're absolutely right. There are much bigger issues to contend with in this country.

Why I'm posting here is purely because there seems to be so much complete and utter ignorance about the Crown in Canada. I can't allow a couple of people to spread inaccuracies and baseless opinions without posting some truths and facts to try and counteract them.

I mean, that's the only way anyone can make a proper and informed opinion, right?

[The Federal Republic of Canada]

ROYALTY, CELEBRITIES, AND THE AVERAGE CANADIAN

From what I understand, you feel that all celebrities, a group in which you seem to include the Queen and the Royal Family, should be banished and the average working (or unemployed) Canadian elevated to take their places.

Well, your first mistake is painting the Queen and Royal family with the same brush as Hollywood stars (and I would assume professional athletes as well). To claim that the Royals remain royal simply because they get millions of dollars, world wide fame, and the use of these mysterious ‘Royal Powers’, in the same manner that any type of celebrity remains famous because they get millions of dollars, world wide fame, and mysterious ‘Star Power’, is a baseless argument.

Whatever your opinion about Barbara Streisand or Janet Jackson, or even your opinion of the monarchy, celebrity cannot be associated with being a head of state. That would be like comparing George Bush to Puff Daddy, Jacques Chirac to Britney Spears, or the King of Thailand to Mick Jagger.

While it is an unfortunate truth that today many people treat the Queen as a celebrity, she is seen that way mostly because she is spread all over tabloids and appears frequently on television in some sort of baseless, media concocted scandal. Little is ever shown of her performing her constitutional duties, which leaves most people ignorant of the fact that she is the Canadian (or even the British) Head of State. Yet, the truth remains: being head of state has absolutely nothing to do with celebrity status, money, or fame. The powers and responsibilities associated with being a head of state are vastly different to those that come with being a Star. So, the fact is: the Queen is not queen because of celebrity. The Queen is not queen because of money, fame, or power.

This is because:

a) She does not earn any money from being Queen. Britons pay directly for the maintenance of royal palaces and the Queen’s travels when she represents Britain. Canadians pay for the Vice-regal residences, the expenses of the Governor General, and the Queen when she is acting in her role as Queen of Canada. Canadians pay nothing directly to the Queen—nothing at all. In essence, what we pay for is the office of the Crown.

Certainly she is personally wealthy, but it is not because she makes any money from being queen. Unlike Madonna and Janet Jackson, the Queen does not sell her image, or sell any royal ‘product’. Even though you see her and her children plastered across newspapers, on the news, or in documentaries, you must know that they make no money from it. The Queen is not paid to be in the tabloids, or to have footage of her used on TV. She doesn’t even give interviews at all. The Queen’s personal wealth comes only from inheritance, horse breeding, and her investment portfolio—all of which goes towards her own private expenditures. Even the money made off of her lands (the Royal Farm and Windsor Private Estate) is net outgoing—it does not go to her purse. Her children earn their personal money in the same manner as any other independently wealthy person. And Prince Charles receives no money from the State (Canada, Britain or elsewhere), but funds himself from the profits made from the Duchy of Cornwall, and what he earns from it he pays tax on (approx. 40%).

Most of the ‘wealth’ we see does not belong to the Royal Family. The palaces, much of the art, the coaches, the cars, and the Crown Jewels do not belong to them. The Queen, as the Head of State, holds them in trust because they belong only to the State. If the Queen were to become personally bankrupt, she would still be the same Queen of all her realms, and still live in the palaces as she does now.

She does not do it for the fame. She actually dislikes all the invasive, prying media attention paid to she and her family. I believe she feels that when she or her relatives appear in the media it should be about their official duties as representatives of the state, rather than about what kind of underwear Andrew wears. And you’ll never see her hosting the MTV awards.

c) She gains no personal power being queen. You claimed “Why do they seek to stay in that office? Why do Stars try to make comebacks?…. Money, fame, beats taking orders from a teenager.” And, “They all like the power first, the feeling that they are doing something their way and, in a way that they think is beneficial to the people. It is really not all that hard to understand in human nature.”

Well, the Queen never gets things ‘her way’. Maybe with Prince Phillip when he leaves the toilet seat up, but not when she is in her role as sovereign and representing the people of Canada. Unlike Madonna’s selling power, the Queen’s constitutional powers do not belong personally to her, as she is vested with them only through our constitution as sovereign of the Canadian Crown. The reserve powers are very real, but to exercise them without the blessing of the people would be a breach of trust, would mean breaking her Coronation Oath, and would break the laws of Canada. As the saying goes, the Queen does not rule, she only reigns. All she can ever do is the will of the people.

Or, as another author put it: “The Crown has no power in itself except the power to prevent others having absolute power”

Elizabeth II is queen only because the constitutions of sixteen countries around the world say she is, and she is the descendent of a family that has played major roles in the history of Britain, Europe, North America, Canada, and the world. She does not have an agent, and does not market herself. She is not a commodity. As a matter of fact, she, and any other king or queen around the world, is less of a ‘marketed’ item than any president. Presidents must be elected, and that makes them politicians—and as such they must campaign. Going on the campaign trail is just another way of saying ‘selling myself to the people’. The Queen need never ‘sell herself’, but must only fulfill her duties to her people.

Your second mistake is claiming average citizens would make better leaders, or should be ‘idolised’ (placed on a “pedestal”, as you put it), simply because they have lived ‘every day’ lives.

Your comments infer that you feel that someone who has struggled over their tax forms, or those who’ve kicked their cars in frustration when they broke down on the highway, or those who’ve lost their jobs, would somehow make a more acceptable role model. And because we are talking about the Queen here, I would assume a better head of state as well.

Well, firstly, a head of state must be a role model providing example to the people of their country, but at the same time must be a mirror of the people, taking example from them. Yet surely someone’s personal wealth or background plays no part in this. Money and fame have nothing to do with the ability to lead or be an example (ie. a head of state). Nor does a lack of it.

Just because Joe had a tax audit, or Emily had her car break down, does not mean they would be better than the Queen. Conversely, Janet Jackson or 50 Cent, for all their fame and money, would most likely not make an acceptable head of state either. What makes an appropriate head of state, one who can be respected, is someone who can represent and look out for the best interests of their people, and at the same time have a deep knowledge of government, of foreign affairs, of economics, of diplomacy, and many other things.

You can’t look at it simply as who has done ‘average’ things, and who hasn’t. For instance, when do you think was the last time Mary McAleese or Johannes Rau did their taxes or took their car to the garage? Do you think they’ll worry about their kids’ dental when they leave their post as president? They will receive big pensions, security for life, and use their positions as ex-presidents to sell their books and go on lecture tours.

You’re correct to say that those who sacrifice their time and money for the betterment of others deserve their due respect (and the Queen and Governor General often recognise these people with awards and honours). But, If you argue that those with money do not make acceptable leaders or role models, then not just the Queen, but Paul Martin, both George Bush Senior and Junior, John F. Kennedy, Jean Chretien, Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau, etc., were, or are, all terrible people for their positions. They were, or are, after all, independently wealthy people. Basically, none of them were just an Average Joe. (You must especially dislike Trudeau who was not only rich, but also outright famous.) But in all honesty, does that, or did that, truly affect their abilities to be presidents or prime ministers? Should it affect someone’s ability to be a king or queen?

Your third mistake is to take these opinions that the ‘common’ man is below the Queen, her blood is ‘superior’, etc., and confuse all of this with racism, giving the reason to be because the royal families of dozens of European countries once married amongst each other.

I think you’re making an error associating social position with race. You said “a commoner cannot be king Because his blood is considered inferior. Hmmm, I suppose in retrospect that it is racist.” And “Anything to avoid getting commoner blood injected into the line. Smells like racism to me.”

Well, since when were the poor a race? Or even the middle class, for that matter? I hope I don’t have to explain to you what racism means.

As I said, because the current Queen of Canada can identify numerous ancestors from different races, you cannot claim that the ‘royal bloodline’ is racist. Did royals exclude a certain CLASS of people in the past? Yes. But that was common practice for centuries amongst all European societies. Even non-royalty adhered to the rules of class divisions. A respectable middle class family of the 19th century would not look happily on their son or daughter marrying ‘below’ them.

To believe that the Queen feels she is still ‘Queen by the grace of god’ as her medieval ancestors did, or that she believes her children should only marry other royals with blood as blue as her own, is a fantasy perpetuated by an ignorance of the modern monarchy. The Queen knows that she is a human being, like all others on earth. She knows she is no ‘better’ in the sense of being super-human, or a demi-god. She is not better because she is rich. She is not better because she has white skin. She is only ‘above’ in the sense that all our leaders are ‘above’ the rest of us. The President of the United States is never regarded as a common man. The Prime Minister of Canada is never regarded as a common person. They are all, president, prime minister, king or queen, elevated ‘above’ us as they are leaders. As I said before, they don’t take their cars to the garage, or worry about their kids’ dental. Even once out of their positions they never return to ‘average’ life. Race and the ‘common man’ plays nothing into it.

There will always be divisions between the rich and the poor, between the leaders and the ‘commoners’, the “us and them” you talked about. It seems you believe that we can somehow rid the world of these divisions—no rich vs. poor, no union vs. independent, no leader vs. follower, no American vs. Canadian, no Leafs vs. Habs. Well, that’s nothing more than an uber-communist fantasy where everyone is some kind of banal replication of everyone else.

Face it, there are people in the world who are not ‘Average Joes’—indeed, what exactly defines the average person? Humanity has a broad spectrum of different people in different positions in different societies. So, yes, the Queen is indeed different to me. Better? As a human being? No. As a Queen? As a head of state? As an international diplomat? Yes. Her family is definitely different to mine, being one which has played such an important role in the history of Canada, Britain, Europe, and the world for more than 1500 years. Yet, at the same time, they are just a family.

Elizabeth Nickson put the whole thing excellently in the National Post: “...And that's the fundamental argument to be made for royalty. They represent. They are defiantly ordinary people...They are not movie stars, they are not extra-smart, they are not "special." After learning from the blow-outs of the 1980's and 90's, they show up every day and, without fuss, do the work. They represent the values of ordinary middle-class families all over the world, who are restrained, sensible, kind, practical, steadfast, penny-pinching, punctual, dutiful, charitable, trustworthy and good. These are the values we must celebrate and promote, because these are the values, and no others, that make our lives possible; not the awful corruptions of Hollywood or the "I'm so clever I must run your life" egomania of Ottawa. That's why we must keep the Windsors in perpetuity. And that's why I'll curtsy if I ever meet The Queen.”

MONARCHY AND DEMOCRACY

You claim that the monarchy is undemocratic when you say “no, they would be left to the people who vote the politicians in. You know, democracy.” It seems you’d find a republic more democratic than a constitutional monarchy. Well, I think this argument, yet again, has hints of your ‘common man’ vs. monarch beef, and again, the argument is baseless.

If you feel the monarchy is undemocratic, then tell me, what means does it use to impose itself on this oppressed nation? Mind-control? A secret police? If it is, it’s a surprise to me. The monarchy exists because it has the support and consent of the ‘ordinary people’ of this country you talk so much about. That is true democracy.

When you say it's undemocratic, what you’re really saying is that it is outside the boundaries of party politics. That's not an argument against it, that is an argument in its favour. No republican leader can be above partisan politics, as the impeachment of President Clinton showed very clearly.

So, for all your talk of voting, and ‘the people’, how do you account for the fact that no elected official can ever remain above, or out of, partisan politics? It is their job to appeal to one group or another, and they will always be biased towards one group or another. How many times do I have to say this? – only a monarch can represent all the people. They don’t owe their allegiance to any one group of voters, donors, army, etc. They owe their allegiance only to the people. all the people.

As the Queen herself said, the role of a constitutional monarchy is “To personify the democratic [italics mine] state, to sanction legitimate authority, to ensure the legality of its measures, and to guarantee the execution of the popular will [italics mine]. In accomplishing this task, it protects the people from disorder.”

Let me put it this way—while politics and elections are one of the major cornerstones of our democracy in Canada, our head of government, the prime minister, will always take sides. Anyone who is elected will. So, having an elected politician as our head of state is like asking one of the players in a hockey game to also be the referee. Our Queen can be impartial in a way no elected office holder ever can.

Sir Charles Petrie said: “No elected ruler can feel that the people are his children in the way that a king can feel it; for the former they can never cease to be his fellow-citizens, and those who have assisted him to reach his high office are naturally dearer to him than the others. When, for example, Queen Elizabeth II refers to "my people", she is giving expression to a sentiment which no president can possibly share, and without which any nation must be poorer.”

The other benefit to having a non-elected, non political head of state, is though politicians are leaders, they will come and go, beginning their political career in their 20s and ending it in their 50s. A monarch, on the other hand, is taught to be a head of state from their birth, and will be so until they die. It has been said by many prominent ministers in Britain, Canada and elsewhere that because her reign has been so long, and so much has happened in the last fifty years, the Queen is one of the best people to go to for advice on global or national affairs. She may not be able to propose laws or vote, but she is still very aware of everything that is going on in her realms, and meets very often with ministers to discuss it.

Finally, you also seem to think that monarchy is, as you put it, “archaic”, and so by inference I’d imagine you think a republic is un-archaic, and therefore modern. Plato wrote 'The Republic' around 400BC. That's nearly two and a half thousand years ago. That’s a thousand years older than the monarchy that reigns over us now. So, don’t go saying monarchy is archaic.

No, constitutional monarchy is very democratic, and a very stable system of government. Canada has a history of constitutional stability that only a tiny handful of republics could even claim to match. How many presidents has Argentina, a sophisticated, cosmopolitan, educated society, once one of the richest countries in the world, had recently? There’s a country with a fine modern, republican constitution. What exactly has France gained by the adoption of a republican regime for the fifth time? Does it count any more in the counsels of the world, or are its citizens any happier, than if the French King were reigning in Paris? The stormy and chequered career of Germany since the conclusion of the First World War hardly encourages the belief that the Reich is better for the absence of an Emperor, or its constituent members for that of their particular dynasties.

More importantly, do any of them see themselves as any more democratic than Canada? And what do you think they would give for the stability that our monarchy provides, and which you are so eager to destroy?

THE CANADIAN CROWN AND CANADIANS

You seem to continue to have this belief that the Queen, as sovereign of the Canadian Crown, is somehow still a symbol of Britain and exercising Imperial British rule over Canada. Again, your opinions on the monarchy are about 200 years out of date.

Canada is a fully autonomous and independent country. We are no longer, in any way what-so-ever, a colony of Britain, and the Queen, for our affairs, has nothing to do with Britain. So, why then do you say “if there was a French King, watching 6 million of my fellow Canadians have him as their figure head would make me retch.” What does a French king have to do with anything?

There is no foreign monarch reigning over Canada. No King of Norway. No Danish monarch. Not the King of Thailand. Only the Canadian monarch—Elizabeth II who is titled Queen of Canada. If you’re confusing this with the fact that she also reigns as Queen of the United Kingdom, then you may as well take it further and bitch that the Queen of Jamaica reigns over Canada, or the Queen of New Zealand. But that would, of course, be wrong.

Just because we share a queen with fifteen other countries, does not mean in any way that any of those countries have sovereignty over us. The sixteen countries of which Elizabeth II is currently queen are all equal and autonomous nations.

Thus, as I’ve said before, if some Canadians, French-speaking or not, view Elizabeth II as the British Queen ruling over Canada, then all they are doing is demonstrating an extreme ignorance about the very country in which they live. And, as I’ve also said, to change the system to suit the ignorance, rather than erradicate the ignorance itself, would be the most useless and damaging route to take.

To wrap it all up I want to quote Dalton Camp, a political columnist: “The point to be made is that the Queen is Our Monarch and likely she and her successors will be all that will be available in that line of work. Our ruler only does what we say and only says what we asked be said, and goes where we tell her to go......But for all those who don't want the Queen there are easily as many who don't want a President and even more who certainly would not want one if they knew who it would be. As you can readily see, I have given more thought to this subject than most and I have reached my own conclusion. God save the Queen.”

[Newbie Question]

“Next time the government is seeking cutbacks to provide tax relief, why not terminate the office of Governor General? We could save some major bucks there.”

Just how do you propose to eliminate the Governor General? How are you going to get the people of Canada to vote in a referendum, as well as get the Legislatures of all 10 provinces, the entire House of Commons, and the Senate to agree to re-write the constitution without the Canadian Crown?

Imagine the costs involved in all that. And, even if you did do it, what would you replace the Queen with as our Head of State? If we maintain our parliamentary system we need a president. If we go with the American system, we need a president. Either way, presidents cost money—and a lot more than the Governor General.

You’re tax relief would be no different with or without the Governor General.

[The Federal Republic of Canada]

Uh...is that really necessary? Seriously, you can make your point without resorting tio use of racial slurs, even if it is suppossed to be "ironic".

I didn't enjoy using that particular word, but you'll note it was in quotations. I was only using the very word the person I was replying to used about himself (at the end of his post above he says "Turf em' all, make them pay taxes like the rest of the human race. At worst, if you need a security blanket, elect a King or Queen. I'm tired of being the cereimonial nigger for a bloodline that should have ended circa French Revolution.")

I should use the disclaimer "the opinions expressed by my opponents do not reflect the views of myself....", or something like that.

No offence was meant.... on my part anyway.

[The Federal Republic of Canada]

WTF?

The whole point of the monarchy is that birth alone decides who wins. And (*cough, snicker*) what a wonderful basis for society it is!

Yes, it is true that birth mostly dictates who the monarch is. But, parliament can override the direct line of decent and name some other member of the family to take the throne. It was done when Queen Anne (who was also a Queen of the Canadian colonies) died in 1714. The Act of Settlement, passed in 1701, barred anybody but Protestants from taking the throne. So the next who was technically in line after Anne, who was Catholic, was bypassed. The Crown went to the members of the Protestant House of Hannover, cousins of the late Queen Anne.

That law, as wrong as it is today, is still in effect. So, if Prince William were to convert to Catholicism, or marry a Catholic, he would be barred from taking the throne, and Prince Henry would become the next king.

But before you go on a rampage about the Act of Settlement, just remember that it is an outdated Act of Parliament. An outdated Act of British Parliament. There has been much discussion about repealing this law, and though the Queen has no power to withdraw the law herself, she has expressed no opposition to the idea. Personally I agree that it should be repealed.

So, the Canadian parliament, which is completely independent of the British, could decide, for whatever reason, to skip over Charles, and name somebody else to the Canadian throne. So long as they are related to Elizabeth II.

[The Federal Republic of Canada]

BTW-- ignore that emoticon. The programme interperated my letters as something I didn't want. I think you can figure out what should be there.

[The Federal Republic of Canada]

I can see why the French Canadians have separation on the table. We still want to feel like we belong to something. How about starting with our own country?

First off-- don’t be so presumptuous as to think all french-speaking Canadians want to separate from Canada.

Secondly, French-speaking Canadians belong to Canada as much as every other Canadian. Seperatists from anywhere in this country (remember there are many in the west as well) just choose to believe they don’t, or shouldn’t. And, as I said earlier, that belief has nothing to do with whether Canada has a president or a king.

And, as an aside on the topic of the Crown and french-speaking Canadians, perhaps many should remember these words from Jean Chretien: "When you think about it, the American Revolution was promoted by the French. And they, Quebec, refused to join. It was nothing to do with language but a lot to do with religion. And they felt more secure in the main, Catholics in Canada. More security for the religion, what the Monarchy was giving them in those days, compared to the Americans. So they stayed."

But I don’t understand what it is you’re really getting at. When you say “We still want to feel like we belong to something. How about starting with our own country?” are you implying that we still have a monarchy because we feel we still need to “belong” to the British Empire? If that’s the case, then I hate to tell you, but the British Empire is gone. Canada doesn’t even have a link to the British Crown anymore, aside from the fact that we share the same woman as Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada. You need to get this through your head: For you and I, Elizabeth II is only the Queen of Canada. The Queen is ours, she is Canadian, every bit as much as she is Britain’s, Australia’s, New Zealand’s, Belize’s, and so on. Because she is our Queen doesn’t mean we have to belong to anything.

I'd like to belong to that, not a country so desparate [sic] for identity that it has to have a King or Queen so that we know we are the common people.

So, what you’re saying is those who brought about Confederation retained the monarchy because they wanted the Canadian identity to be that of groveling commoners? Is that what Trudeau thought when he entrenched the monarchy in the Constitution Act in ’82? Is that what the Premiers of all ten provinces meant in 1978 when they said about the Crown: "Provinces agree that the system of democratic parliamentary government requires an ultimate authority to ensure its responsible nature and to safeguard against abuses of power. That ultimate power must not be an instrument of the federal Cabinet." That’s certainly an interesting theory you have.

But, the fact is Canada does not have a monarchy because we are desperate for identity. Sure, there’s the argument that it makes us different to the United States. But, though it is true, I think it’s a weak one. We have a monarchy because of the passage of history, and the system of government our ‘founding fathers’ set up 137 years ago. And that system was reaffirmed 22 years ago. Canada grew from colony, to self-governing nation with a constitution that remained in Britain, to a fully independent country that relies on no-one but ourselves to run our affairs. Our governing system evolved to the one we have today, which includes our very own Canadian Crown. Be as it may, there are problems with the system. But removing the Crown will not solve any of them. Having a president will give us absolutely no gain. It will only introduce one more politician, and we know how much Canadians love their politicians.

If you feel you do not belong to Canada, then by all means, you are able to move elsewhere. You have that freedom.

He would crap in his pants if he ever had to do manual labor for the rest of his life, cook his own food and so on and forth. His job is so so soooooo hard with all that fundraising that Hollywood Stars, wearing sunglasses to hide their drug high, do it, so they have something to do while they are waiting for their poodle to get clipped .

Just for the record, Prince Charles works quite often out in the fields of his own organic farm at Highgrove. He is also very interested in the farming that takes place in Canada’s praries.

And if you choose to belittle the efforts of people to raise money for the betterment of others, well, that just goes to show your moral values.

Though, I do wonder at the accuracy of your claims that fundraising Hollywood stars all wear sunglasses to hide their drug highs. Were you getting high with them?

Retire and what? Talk politics? Write nasty letters to the editor? LOL, he doesn't have to, he's the King, Queen, Crown ring piece cleaner whatever! He will never retire, that's why his mum, the grand old bitch herself hangs onto the scepter and will, until every hair has fallen off her toothless head

Yes, that’s exactly what I said. He will never retire. Nor will Her Majesty the Queen (unless you count death as retirement). And she has made it very clear that she will not abdicate just because she is getting old. She took an oath at her coronation to reign to the best of her abilities and serve the people of all her dominions. She’s never faltered from that pledge.

She likes it. Gets off on it, makes her feel that she is better than you and I. If you tell me that her postition [sic] is like taking a daily ten mile walk over burning coals, and that she only does it for love of Canada ..... forget it. LOL, she holds onto power because she is, after all, royalty.

That seems like a bit of an assumption. Do you have any proof of your claim that Her Majesty only reigns because she “gets off on it”? I’d say it’s more because of her strong sense of duty, and a knowledge of how important her role is in the constitutions of many countries.

As she said when opening the Canadian Parliament in 1977: “"I dedicate myself anew to the people and the nation I am proud to serve."

Besides, that claim doesn’t help in your republican argument. I could take your very words and apply them to any president. Every president on the planet ran for the presidency because they “get off on it”, and once in office hold “onto power because [they are], after all, [the president].” As President of the United States, George Bush “likes it”. “Gets off on it, makes [him] feel that [he] is better than you and I.” And so on…..

Elizabeth II holds power only because our constitution says she does. She holds reserve powers to be used at times of governmental crisis. They’re pretty much the same reserve powers most presidents would hold.

All your words have pointed out is nothing more than a personal hatred for members of the Royal Family based on ignorance and jealousy.

It brings back the good old days I suppose, where some were better than others. White men were better than blacks, Chinese, Arabs right? Is that what you think? If it isn't broken, why fix it? No need for human rights, we have a ceremonial slut that provides an example of how there is an order in bloodlines.

I don’t understand your point. Are you implying the Queen should not be our Head of State because she is racist? How did you come to know that?

Or are you condemning the Queen for being queen because she is white (as though ‘white’ is a race)? That could be interpreted as being a little racist in itself. But anyway, she is the Queen because a) our constitution says so, and because of who her ancestors were. And those ancestors include people who were Arab, Armenian, Croatian, French, German, Greek, Italian, Persian etc... As such, the Queen is very capable of representing the great majority of Canadians.

Here’s a quote you might find interesting:

"...a king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world -- the accident of birth -- Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person."

Canadian historian Jacques Monet.

The other benefit to having a sovereign ascend to the throne because of their bloodline is this: They are not elected. Unlike elected officials, they owe no allegiance to any party, to any army, to any union, to any friends, or to anyone who donated to their campaign. They only owe their allegiance to every citizen of the countries of which they are sovereign—regardless of race, colour, language, religion, political belief, or annual income. All those biases can be left to the politicians.

Plus the symbolic fact that the Queen is the descendent of kings and queens who played important roles in the development of this country. Elizabeth II became Queen of Canada because her ancestors (direct and indirect) were the 32 kings and queens who had reigned over the country since Henry VII and Francois I. These monarchs brought about the discovery, exploration, settlement, defence and development of Canada.

And I think if you do your research you’ll find the Queen, and Adrienne Clarkson (a refugee herself), are strong advocators of human rights.

Same with her AWOL crony Adrianne [sic]. The person that is her representative in Canada. The one who is only supposed to be in one of two places, Canada and Buckingham Palace giving her report. Instead, she likes to do that oh, oh oh sooooooooo hard job of public relations, flying off to foreign countries to spend your money.?

Where do you get this stuff? Please show me where it says that Madame Clarkson must “report” to the Queen at Buckingham Palace? The Queen and the Governor General both receive the same information from the Privy Council of Canada.

Indeed, the Governor General is the Queen’s representative in Canada. However, as the Crown represents all people in Canada, and the Queen and the Governor General are both members of the Crown, the Governor General also represents Canadians. This is why she goes on State Visits.

As for the money spent on State Visits, it comes from other ministries and departments. Against what you seem to believe, the Governor General can’t simply fly off with her friends to someplace and send Ottawa the bill. It is constitutional convention that the Queen and Governor General follow the advice of ministries and departments. So, when it comes to a State Visit, the Governor General will be asked by the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs to take the trip. Who goes and how much will be spent is decided by Foreign Affairs. How they get there is decided by the RCMP. Heritage Canada may also play a role. So, don’t go ignorantly believing that Madame Clarkson lives some kind of Marie Antionette lifestyle all at the taxpayer’s expense.

And, tell me how it is a president of a Canadian republic would be any different, or somehow spend any less.

Not elected, she still has the authority of the Queen. LOL, but the Queen has no authority somebody said

The Governor General does have the same authority of the Queen, but it is only to be used in extreme circumstances. Though they technically do have authority over who the Prime Minister is, in passing laws, and are the Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces, convention dictates that they stay out of day to day politics for the most part. If they were to exercise their authority without due cause it would be deemed an abuse of their powers, and action would need to be taken.

It’s a balance. The Crown holds authority over elected officials, but the constitution holds power over the Crown. If one over-steps their bounds, the other can take action against it. In essence, the Queen may fire the Prime Minister, but only the people of Canada can fire the Queen.

Turf em' all, make them pay taxes like the rest of the human race. At worst, if you need a security blanket, elect a King or Queen. I'm tired of being the cereimonial [sic] nigger for a bloodline that should have ended circa French Revolution.

The Queen does pay taxes in the UK (though, only residents of the UK pay taxes for her). We pay for the Governor General, and she has a salary, and I agree that she should pay taxes. But just because she pays taxes doesn’t mean she’d stop being Governor General.

To elect a king would make him a president. Are you therefore saying presidents are security blanket? Are you proposing Canada become a republic without a president? I’m interested to hear just how that would work.

Again, if you don’t like the way it is in this country… leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay. You are by no means an indentured “nigger”.

[The Federal Republic of Canada]

“I say, let's run our own affairs our own way, and let's be upfront about it.”

I wonder what you mean by this. Just who do you think has been running our affairs? I certainly hope you realise Canada has been a completely independent, totally self-governing country for 22 years now. I don’t think there’s been any secret about that, so how could we be any more upfront about it? Just because many Canadians are ignorant of our 3 point system of government (Parliament, Senate, and Crown), or wrongly believe our Queen reigns over Canada as Queen of the UK, doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy or anything.

“I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians”

Why do you speak of our Head of State from a purely symbolic point of view, whether monarch or not? I find it strange that you're talking about the monarchy or a potential presidency as though our Head of State is only about who goes on our money. A president or king is more than simply a symbol. Our current queen, and her representative the Governor General, are hardly just symbols.

The Crown is entrenched deeply in the Canadian Constitution, and is vested with very real reserve powers to be used in times of governmental crisis. Though we see the Queen and GG usually in a ceremonial role, that doesn't make their powers any less real. And because of its entrenchment, it is next to impossible to remove the Crown. It would take no less than the unanymous consent of all 10 provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate to make it happen.

Even if that herculean task could be achieved, it would be ridiculous to remove the Crown just to pander to the sensitivities of any Canadians, french-speaking or not, who ignorantly believe Elizabeth II somehow still exercises British Imperial power over Canada. To change the system because of ignorance, rather than for real benefit, only lessens the importance, and diminishes the influence a Head of State should posses. Indeed, more people need to realise that the Queen and Governor General actually represent all Canadians, regardless of the language they speak, their religion, or their political belief, hell, even if they’re republicans! That is what a Head of State does, as opposed to a Head of Government who only represents the majority of the electorate. The Crown in Canada is not the British Crown—it is ONLY the Canadian Crown, and our Queen and Governor General are just as concerned with the issues french-speaking Canadians face as any other leader in this country. They are concerned with the issues every Canadian faces, because they don’t need to pick and choose to create a political platform which will attract the majority of votes. And, most importantly, the Queen does not need to lie to be elected.

So, I cannot see how the ‘symbolic’ removal of the Crown would appease french-speaking Canadians. Nor can I see how a ‘symbolic’ new Canadian president would represent french-speaking Canadians in any better manner.

“Not broke? You mean 1995 referendum not broke? Or just not broke?”

Again, it is ignorant to assume that having a Canadian president would somehow hold this country together at a time when a province wishes to leave. First off- a Head of State must remain, for the most part, politically unaffiliated. The Queen can't take sides, and a president could not either. However, hypothetically, do you believe a president (elected on a certain platform, or even appointed by a small group of people -- whichever method you choose) who came from Alberta could somehow have appeased the people of Quebec? Quieted the ranting of the Parti Quebecois? Even come remotely close to stemming the tide of seperatism that flooded Quebec? I highly doubt it. The desires of Quebec to separate were politically and nationalistically driven. A Canadian president from Quebec could not have stopped it. Even a Prime Minister from Quebec could not.

“And what about principle? What about living a whole life lying, or finally telling the truth?”

What about it? What exactly is this lie you keep going on about?

“Principle? There's the face of a woman on our money and the woman is completely irrelevant to 95% of Canadians. The lie is that these symbols bear no connection to Canadians.”

Ah—so that’s the ‘lie’.

You know, the Queen does not have to be on our money. It is purely for the sake of tradition that her face remains on our bills (members of the Royal Family have appeared on Bank of Canada notes since 1935), and coins (typically, most countries put their Head of State, especially monarchs, on the back of coins). But, if the Bank of Canada and Royal Canadian Mint decided to remove her portrait, it wouldn’t make Canada any more of a republic.

But to say that these symbols bear no connection to Canadians shows you don’t know much of Canada’s history, or present constitutional structure. I suspect you’re one of those people who believe Canada didn’t even exist before 1967. This country has been a monarchy for 500 years, whether French, British or Canadian. The Crown, of whom Elizabeth II is currently sovereign, is the body under which all law, police and military act in this country. The Crown also ensures that the provisions of the constitution are always followed, thus protecting the freedoms of all Canadians. It is also distinctly and uniquely Canadian. So, to me, that’s a pretty important symbol. If, as you claim, the Queen is irrelevant to 95% of Canadians, it is again because 95% of Canadians have been made ignorant of history and the system through lack of education. These people, whatever the actual percentage is, believe the media, who always refer to the Queen as the Queen of England, rather than educate themselves on the fact that, for them, the Queen is nobody but the Queen of Canada.

“Look, Prince Charles seems to have a pretty good job. How do you get a job like that? If the British want to organize themselves that way, I got no argument. But I don't see why we should have such nonsense here. And in fact, we don't. So let's get rid of the pretense and be honest.”

Does Prince Charles have a great job? You fill his shoes for a while, and we’ll see just how long you last. Consider it— the responsibilities of becoming the Head of State for 16 different countries, as well as constantly fund raising for charities, and being an international diplomat. And its not even something you can retire from. But, like his mother, and his ancestors for 500 years before him, he will reign over Canada until his death. No retiring to Florida at 65.

And technically, he gets the job because our government says so. He doesn’t become King of Canada just because of birth. In Britain, on numerous occasions and for different reasons, the ‘next-in-line’ was bypassed by an Act of the government, and some cousin or other relative put on the throne. It is the same here. Charles does not have to become King of Canada. It states in our Constitution that the heirs and successors of Elizabeth II will be the future Heads of State for Canada. So, if it was strongly wished, Prince William, as a descendent of Elizabeth II, could become the next King of Canada, while Charles reigned as King of the UK and other countries.

And again, be honest about what? Nobody is lying to you when they say Queen Elizabeth II is the sovereign of the Canadian Crown. Its pretty plain and simple.

All of this isn’t simply about whether we have some ideal bilingual, lumberjack, maple syrup making, ultra-Canadian representative who embodies the characteristics of every citizen of Canada. It’s silly to believe such a person even exists. This is about the Canadian constitution, Canadian history, Canadian identity, and Canada’s present and future. I think you need to consider a lot more than simply whether the ‘symbol’ of a Canadian president would please french-speaking Canadians when claiming Canada should be a republic.

[Newbie Question]

You've only had a one sided argument Legamus, and one with alot of inaccuracies at that.

The Governor General is indeed the Queen's (and yes, that's Queen of CANADA) representative in this country. The Canadian Crown was made distinctly seperate from the British Crown gradually through the BNA of 1867, the Royal Parliamentary Styles Act of 1927, the Statute of Westminster of 1931, and the Constitution Act of 1982 (the same Acts which eventually gave Canada full independence from Britian). The Constitution Act states very clearly the role and reserve powers of the King or Queen, and Governor General. So, although we see the GG and Queen mostly in their ceremonial roles, this does not mean they don't hold very real reserve powers to be used in times of governmental crisis. (Such as the King/Byng affair of '26, and the dismissal of PM Whitlam by GG Sir Kerr in Australia in '75.)

Because the Crown is so entrenched in the Canadian Constitution it is next to impossible to remove it. To do so would require no less than the unanymous consent of all ten provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate. On top of this, to keep our three point parliamentary system running it would require a president (otherwise we would completely have to re-write the constitution with an entirely new system of government-- and good luck with that). Even after who-knows-how-many billions are spent turning Canada from a monarchy to a republic, offices of presidents tend to be far more expensive than that of the GG. So, there's no hope that abolishing the office of Governor General will help you fill your gas tank.

Also, your blaming the Governor General herself for the spending is unjustified. By constitutional convention, the Governor General (and Queen) mostly follow advice from ministries and departments. The Governor General does not just fly off on a trip with her friends and then send the bill to Ottawa. She is asked by the Department of Foreign Affairs to undertake State Visits. She must travel as the RCMP tells her to. She participates in events run by Heritage Canada. So, your anger over costs should be directed mostly towards Foreign Affiars, the RCMP, the National Capital Commission, etc. Not just on Adrienne Clarkson.

I agree that $41 million is a large number. The State Visits to Russia, Findland and Iceland were badly managed and far too many people were invited (though, that guest list smacked of the typical government policy of "let's not offend anyone, so we'll invite everyone", so I knew Madame Clarkson was not to blame for that). I also agree that the spending of the office of Governor General should be audited and managed like any other government ministry or department. But, to call for the end of the office over this is nothing more than silly. The office of the Prime Minister squanders FAR more money than $41 million, but does anyone call for the abolition of that office?

Don't be misled away from the true mismanagement of money in Ottawa. All this isn't about the Governor General, really. Its only about Liberals and their penchent for financial mismanagement. Direct your anger there-- they're the ones who take all that tax off your paycheque.