Let's keep Victoria Day

[CANADIEN]

Actually, the Royal Union Flag (Union Jack) is still an official Canadian flag, only just as a symbol to be flown on Commonwealth Day and the like. Canada used to be represented by the Red Ensign, which had a RU in the canton and the shield of the Royal Arms of Canada on the main. I don't particularly dislike that flag, but it was very similar to a number of other flags of ex-British colonies and didn't stand out the way the Maple Leaf flag does.

As for Dominion Day, it wouldn't have been so bad if the word "dominion" didn't come to be synonymous with "self-governing colony of the British Empire." After that it did take on a connotation of subservience, and even the Commonwealth Office dumped the word in the 1950s in favour of "realm," in order to better reflect the equality that had been established amongst the countries.

Thanks for the clarification about the Union Jack. It is also flown when the Queen is in the country - to that I would say, she's the Queen of Canada, the Canadian flag should do.

Speaking of the Red Enseign... not that it has anything to do with what our flag should be, but unlike the current flag (or the Union Jack for that matter), it was ugly

Canada is no longer a Dominion. As for the world realm... if we have a Queen, let's call ourselves a Kingdom.

[Leafless]

The Queen is not a Canadian. And there might be a lot of problems with an hereditary as well as non-hereditary Head of State; the one advantage of non-hereditary Heads of State is that in a democracy they are not there for life, so if they don't do a good job they can be replaced.

How ignorant you are my little francophone friend.

The Queen holds no citizenship.

She cannot be a British citizen or Canadian, as her Majesty IS the BESTOWER OF CITIZENSHIP for ALL countries she is head of state.

And the Queen does not need a passport to enter Canada because ALL Canadian passports are issued in the Queen's name.

The Queen of Canada by the virtue of her position also bestows all 'Order of Canada ' honours.

The Queen is more Canadian than you are, my little friend.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Leafless

[Leafless]

Canada is no longer a Dominion. As for the world realm... if we have a Queen, let's call ourselves a Kingdom.

Canada is still a Dominion.

Dominion is the legal title conferred on Canada in the Constitution of Canada, namely the Constitution Act, 1867 (British North America Acts), and describes the resulting political union. Specifically, the preamble of the BNA Act indicates:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom ...

and, furthermore, sections 3 and 4 indicate that the provinces:

... shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.

Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

But I will tell you why the feds don't use it:

The last major change was renaming the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day in 1982. Official bilingualism laws also contributed to the disuse of dominion, as it has no acceptable equivalent in French.

Thank you Quebec, thank you for nothing.

[g_bambino]

Thanks for the clarification about the Union Jack. It is also flown when the Queen is in the country - to that I would say, she's the Queen of Canada, the Canadian flag should do.

Speaking of the Red Enseign... not that it has anything to do with what our flag should be, but unlike the current flag (or the Union Jack for that matter), it was ugly

Canada is no longer a Dominion. As for the world realm... if we have a Queen, let's call ourselves a Kingdom.

Yes, I think the RUF is flown when the Queen is here, sometimes. But it actually is far down the precedence list, behind her personal Canadian standard, the GG's flag, the LG's flags, and the national flag; plenty of the latter do fly when HM is here!

I think Canada is still technically the Dominion of Canada (the original 1867 name) but certainly is no longer a Dominion in the sense of being a semi-autonomous part of the Empire subordinate to the UK. But I agree, Kingdom of Canada would be just fine; it was, after all, Sir John A's choice for the country's name.

[g_bambino]

How ignorant you are my little francophone friend.

The Queen holds no citizenship.

She cannot be a British citizen or Canadian, as her Majesty IS the BESTOWER OF CITIZENSHIP for ALL countries she is head of state.

And the Queen does not need a passport to enter Canada because ALL Canadian passports are issued in the Queen's name.

The Queen of Canada by the virtue of her position also bestows all 'Order of Canada ' honours.

The Queen is more Canadian than you are, my little friend.

I might suggest you be careful when throwing around blunt accusations of ignorance, lest you start to look like a hypocrite. I could, after all, point out a couple of errors of "ignorance" in your post: the Queen doesn't need a Canadian (or British, or Australian, or whatever) passport to enter any country, and she is the fount of all honours in Canada, not just the OoC. Other than that, though, you are correct: in legal theory because the Queen is the sovereign of Canada, she is the embodiment of the country's sovereignty, and thus could be said to herself be Canada. When media or other sources say "Canada makes/decides/allows/deports X" they mean that the Queen has made/decided/allowed/deported X, as every act of government is done in her name with her authority. Of course Cabinet makes the decisions pretty much all the time, but nationality is all a matter of symbolism anyway.

[CANADIEN]

I might suggest you be careful when throwing around blunt accusations of ignorance, lest you start to look like a hypocrite. I could, after all, point out a couple of errors of "ignorance" in your post: the Queen doesn't need a Canadian (or British, or Australian, or whatever) passport to enter any country, and she is the fount of all honours in Canada, not just the OoC. Other than that, though, you are correct: in legal theory because the Queen is the sovereign of Canada, she is the embodiment of the country's sovereignty, and thus could be said to herself be Canada. When media or other sources say "Canada makes/decides/allows/deports X" they mean that the Queen has made/decided/allowed/deported X, as every act of government is done in her name with her authority. Of course Cabinet makes the decisions pretty much all the time, but nationality is all a matter of symbolism anyway.

The Queen may technically have no citizenship, but she is British. She is Canada's head of State, but if she was just a plain ordinary person she would have to apply for citizenship to become a Canadian, as she was not born a British subject, not a Canadian citizen.

[g_bambino]

The Queen may technically have no citizenship, but she is British. She is Canada's head of State, but if she was just a plain ordinary person she would have to apply for citizenship to become a Canadian, as she was not born a British subject, not a Canadian citizen.

I'm confused. On one hand you say Canadian citizenship is necessary to be seen as a Canadian, but on the other, the Queen doesn't need British citizenship to be deemed British. Why the conflicting double standard?

Citizenship is just a legal status granted by the monarch; so, yes, the Queen is not a Canadian citizen, but, then, why would she apply to herself for it? Further, if she herself grants the citizenship that defines, in your books, what a Canadian is, how then can she not herself be Canadian? Perhaps you too have been sucked into the republicanesque mythology built around Canadian citizenship in the last 30 years; if so, I don't blame you for it. But, really, do we leave it solely up to the Canadian Citizenship Act to define who we are? As you've already revealed, if we do then the Queen ends up being nothing at all.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm confused. On one hand you say Canadian citizenship is necessary to be seen as a Canadian, but on the other, the Queen doesn't need British citizenship to be deemed British. Why the conflicting double standard?

Citizenship is just a legal status granted by the monarch; so, yes, the Queen is not a Canadian citizen, but, then, why would she apply to herself for it? Further, if she herself grants the citizenship that defines, in your books, what a Canadian is, how then can she not herself be Canadian? Perhaps you too have been sucked into the republicanesque mythology built around Canadian citizenship in the last 30 years; if so, I don't blame you for it. But, really, do we leave it solely up to the Canadian Citizenship Act to define who we are? As you've already revealed, if we do then the Queen ends up being nothing at all.

The Queen is not a citizen of Rome..she is Rome. You really can not dump the monarch or continue propogating the fact to young Canadians that she is but a useless powerless figure head. She is not..she is the boss.

[Leafless]

I might suggest you be careful when throwing around blunt accusations of ignorance, lest you start to look like a hypocrite. I could, after all, point out a couple of errors of "ignorance" in your post: the Queen doesn't need a Canadian (or British, or Australian, or whatever) passport to enter any country, and she is the fount of all honours in Canada, not just the OoC.

You are the one that should be careful. And don't imply one does not know what you stated.

What I said was regarding passports was:

And the Queen does not need a passport to enter Canada because ALL Canadian passports are issued in the Queen's name.

The Queen's name is simply 'Sovereign' and she herself does not require a passport but others in the royal family do require a passport.

And secondly, I am not giving a course on the role of the Queen in Canada, but 'Order of Canada Honours are the highest CIVILIAN honour within the Canadian system of honours applied to any ordinary Canadian worthy of receiving such an honour.

All other honours are mostly relating to military and not your average Canadian citizen.

[Wilber]

Double Post

Edited May 19, 2008 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Dya think the Queen or any other head of state or government ever gets asked for their passport.

On a military note. Canadian Victoria Cross

[JB Globe]

Personally I prefer to celebrate Canada on national holidays, not a foreign monarch.

[CANADIEN]

I'm confused. On one hand you say Canadian citizenship is necessary to be seen as a Canadian, but on the other, the Queen doesn't need British citizenship to be deemed British. Why the conflicting double standard?

Citizenship is just a legal status granted by the monarch; so, yes, the Queen is not a Canadian citizen, but, then, why would she apply to herself for it? Further, if she herself grants the citizenship that defines, in your books, what a Canadian is, how then can she not herself be Canadian? Perhaps you too have been sucked into the republicanesque mythology built around Canadian citizenship in the last 30 years; if so, I don't blame you for it. But, really, do we leave it solely up to the Canadian Citizenship Act to define who we are? As you've already revealed, if we do then the Queen ends up being nothing at all.

Sorry if it looks like a contradiction or a double standard. I am not the one, after all, who tossed "she has no citizenship" argument in the ring (and yes, I know it was not you).

Blame my poor writing skills for giving the impression that I believe citizenship is in and by itself what makes Canadian. I don't. But the fact is that the only link between her and Canada is her function. If tomorrow, for a reason or another, she had to choose between her duties as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Canada (or of the Bahamas, or Tuvalu for that matter), her duties as Queen of the United Kingdom would come first. I don't blame her for it, indee I'd expect it, but that's a fact. And that's why I consider her British and not Canadian.

I am ready to concede that the Crown is a Canadian institution, since our Government freely accepted and it is part of the Constitution. That does not make the person who sits on the throne a Canadian.

[CANADIEN]

BTW. HAPPY VICTORIA DAY to all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CANADIEN]

Hugh Segal wrote a compelling text about the importance of Victoria Day. I don't agree 100% with him (not on the need to keep the Monarchy, anyway, and he overstates his case a few times), but he clearly states why this is an important day to celebrate.

Some of what he said is particularly worth repeating, and often:

Victoria Day is actually part of our nationalist and uniquely Canadian identity. The relationship is quite fundamental.

In no other francophone or Commonwealth country, in no other country in the Americas, in no other country on the planet has the interplay between the culture and civilization of France, the history and Empire of Great Britain, and the French civil and British common law interacted to produce a country like Canada: federal in structure, compassionate in disposition, welcoming and embracing of many cultures and creeds, bilingual and multicultural, and the envy of many worldwide.

But whether we gather at a local park for hot dogs, pack a lunch of samosas and curries or head to the cottage with a crisp new flag for the pole that needs painting, it is good to reflect not only on where we are headed, but also on where we have been. Whatever part of the world we, our parents, our grandparents or our great-great-grandparents left to join the Canadian family, the nature of that family, the manner of our reception and the frame within which we now draw the Canadian picture, reflects much of what took root during Victoria's reign.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....f=3&t=11316

[Leafless]

I am ready to concede that the Crown is a Canadian institution, since our Government freely accepted and it is part of the Constitution. That does not make the person who sits on the throne a Canadian.

And where do you suppose your Canadian identity comes from?

You would not be Canadian without Kings and Queens of Britain:

The current Canadian monarchy can trace its ancestral lineage back to the Anglo-Saxon period, and ultimately back to the kings of the Angles and the early Scottish kings. Parts of the territories that today comprise Canada were claimed under King Francis I in 1534, while others were claimed by Queen Elizabeth I in 1583; both of whom are blood relatives of the current monarch. Throughout the 18th century, via war and treaties, the Canadian colonies of France were ceded to King George III. The colonies were confederated by Queen Victoria in 1867 to form Canada as a kingdom in its own right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada

[g_bambino]

You are the one that should be careful. And don't imply one does not know what you stated.

What I said was regarding passports was:

The Queen's name is simply 'Sovereign' and she herself does not require a passport but others in the royal family do require a passport.

And secondly, I am not giving a course on the role of the Queen in Canada, but 'Order of Canada Honours are the highest CIVILIAN honour within the Canadian system of honours applied to any ordinary Canadian worthy of receiving such an honour.

All other honours are mostly relating to military and not your average Canadian citizen.

You were unduly rude and then did, technically, make errors yourself, regardless of what you meant to say. Further, there are no Order of Canada "Honours," just the Order of Canada. It is the highest civilian honour, but not all others are related to military fields; Canadian civilians may be appointed to the Royal Victorian Order, and the Order of tthe Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, as well as recieve decorations such as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage, and Medal of Bravery, to name a few.

Edited May 19, 2008 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Sorry if it looks like a contradiction or a double standard. I am not the one, after all, who tossed "she has no citizenship" argument in the ring (and yes, I know it was not you).

Blame my poor writing skills for giving the impression that I believe citizenship is in and by itself what makes Canadian. I don't. But the fact is that the only link between her and Canada is her function. If tomorrow, for a reason or another, she had to choose between her duties as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Canada (or of the Bahamas, or Tuvalu for that matter), her duties as Queen of the United Kingdom would come first. I don't blame her for it, indee I'd expect it, but that's a fact. And that's why I consider her British and not Canadian.

I am ready to concede that the Crown is a Canadian institution, since our Government freely accepted and it is part of the Constitution. That does not make the person who sits on the throne a Canadian.

It did sound contradictory, but if you didn't mean it, that's okay. Still, the "no citizenship" point is a valid and true one; the Queen is not a citizen. Yes, her main legal link to Canada is her role as sovereign, but, then, without any citizenship, is that not the same link between her and the UK? Therefore, what is it then that makes her British, and more than she's Canadian (and Australian, Bahamian, and Tuvaluan)? And that legal link alone is a pretty bloody big one. Someone who sits on the throne of Canada, to my mind, couldn't be anyone but a Canadian. Let me ask you this: would you consider George II to have been British?

Beyond that, who are we to comment on the Queen's personal feelings? I'll say, though, she's proven herself to be pretty good at not playing favourites; a key function for any constitutional monarch.

Edited May 19, 2008 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

It did sound contradictory, but if you didn't mean it, that's okay. Still, the "no citizenship" point is a valid and true one; the Queen is not a citizen. Yes, her main legal link to Canada is her role as sovereign, but, then, without any citizenship, is that not the same link between her and the UK? Therefore, what is it then that makes her British, and more than she's Canadian (and Australian, Bahamian, and Tuvaluan)? And that legal link alone is a pretty bloody big one. Someone who sits on the throne of Canada, to my mind, couldn't be anyone but a Canadian. Let me ask you this: would you consider George II to have been British?

Beyond that, who are we to comment on the Queen's personal feelings? I'll say, though, she's proven herself to be pretty good at not playing favourites; a key function for any constitutional monarch.

The fact that the Queen is not a citizen is a secondary issue, that has nothing to do with the question of whether the Queen is Canadian or not.

If there was no British monarchy today, there would likely not be a Queen of Canada; there could be a British moarchy even if the Queen was not also Queen of Canada, The link between the British monarchy and Canada exists first and above all because of its link with Great Britain, and would not exist without it. If the monarchy was abolished in Great Britain. I doubt very much it would survive long in most of her other kingdoms, while she had remained Queen of Great Britain (and her other kingdoms) even though some of the countries she had reigned over are now republics.

Incidently, I haven't passed comments on the Queen's personal feelings, or on the way she is performing her duties. Indeed, if there was a conflict between her duties as Queen of Great Britain and Queen of any of her other kingdoms, she would be duty bound to either stay neutral (which would be in opposition with her role as Queen of either country) or have her obligations as Queen of Great Britain take precedence.

As for the comparison with George II... There is one essential difference between him and Elizabeth II. Although he was both King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover, being King did not make him Elector, and being Elector did not make him King.

Edited May 19, 2008 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

The fact that the Queen is not a citizen is a secondary issue, that has nothing to do with the question of whether the Queen is Canadian or not.

If there was no British monarchy today, there would likely not be a Queen of Canada; there could be a British moarchy even if the Queen was not also Queen of Canada, The link between the British monarchy and Canada exists first and above all because of its link with Great Britain, and would not exist without it. If the monarchy was abolished in Great Britain. I doubt very much it would survive long in most of her other kingdoms, while she had remained Queen of Great Britain (and her other kingdoms) even though some of the countries she had reigned over are now republics.

Incidently, far from me to question or comment on the Queen's personal feelings on any matter, and my not considering her to be Canadian has nothing to do with the way she has performed her duties. That being said, as Queen she is deemed to be a symbol of each of her kingdoms; what if two of her Kingdoms were at war? Wouldn't she then be (symbolicly at least) at war with herself?

As for the comparison with George II... There is one essential difference between him and Elizabeth II. Although he was both King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover, being King did not make him Elector, and being Elector did not make him King.

History is what it is. The British monarchy came first and the Canadian one grew out of it; I don't see how that could be disputed. But this isn't 1867 anymore - Elizabeth is now the fourth monarch of a distinct Canadian monarchy; one that has been, as you admitted earlier, constitutionally entrenched. Yes, the monarchy would continue to exist in the UK if Canada abolished it, but, conversely, the monarchy would continue to exist in Canada if the UK abolished it. So, what does all this have to do with whether or not Elizabeth could be considered Canadian?

George II - and George I, for that matter - are pertinent examples because they parallel the contemporary situation for Elizabeth II. Elizabeth too is not Queen of the UK because she is Queen of Canada, nor is she Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the UK. Like the Georges, she is one sovereign, born, obviously, in one place, yet reigns over two countries. Thus, if you answer that George I and George II were British because they were Kings of Great Britain, despite being born in and also reigning over Hanover, then you would have to say Elizabeth is, at least partly, Canadian.

Alternately, James VI & I would be another example - English, Scottish, or both?

[CANADIEN]

History is what it is. The British monarchy came first and the Canadian one grew out of it; I don't see how that could be disputed. But this isn't 1867 anymore - Elizabeth is now the fourth monarch of a distinct Canadian monarchy; one that has been, as you admitted earlier, constitutionally entrenched. Yes, the monarchy would continue to exist in the UK if Canada abolished it, but, conversely, the monarchy would continue to exist in Canada if the UK abolished it. So, what does all this have to do with whether or not Elizabeth could be considered Canadian?

George II - and George I, for that matter - are pertinent examples because they parallel the contemporary situation for Elizabeth II. Elizabeth too is not Queen of the UK because she is Queen of Canada, nor is she Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the UK. Like the Georges, she is one sovereign, born, obviously, in one place, yet reigns over two countries. Thus, if you answer that George I and George II were British because they were Kings of Great Britain, despite being born in and also reigning over Hanover, then you would have to say Elizabeth is, at least partly, Canadian.

Alternately, James VI & I would be another example - English, Scottish, or both?

Obviously, I will not convince you that the Queen is not Canadian, nor will you convince me she is. So I consider it an unconcluded matter and retire for the battlefield. :-)

[g_bambino]

Obviously, I will not convince you that the Queen is not Canadian, nor will you convince me she is. So I consider it an unconcluded matter and retire for the battlefield. :-)

Unfinished it shall be, then.

Edited May 19, 2008 by g_bambino