Do we owe any loyality to the Queen?

[Hcheh]

Hi, I've always thought that how Canada works was like how the U.S.A worked. A constitutional republic, with the Queen on the top for symbolic purposes, or purposes I could never really understand. So then I got to thinking, what is the point of that? As a result to this thought, I looked some things up.. and it turns out that when you join the Canadian army, you don't pledge your allegiance to the constitution nor the Canadian Flag. You pledge allegiance to the Queen and her Crown. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the Queen has the last say on whatever is passed or decided in Canada. So therefore, technically, she remains control in Canada and could refuse whatever she doesn't like.

Here I am thinking that we've gain our rights as a completely sovereign.. And I find these facts to the contrary notion. So okay, I guess we are a "constitutional monarchy".. Then answer me this, if Canada got attacked, would the Queen, the UK and all of Her dominions come to our rescue? What if we were falling into a collapse, would She come and help us? Also, I believe that Canadians are Commonwealth citizens, does this mean we have the right to live, work..etc in the UK and other Commonwealth nations?

If all of the above is true, then a Constitutional monarchy ain't so bad.

Thanks

[Wild Bill]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the UK to come and help us, unless it was a NATO thing. She is the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK but Canada and the UK have nothing else legally in common. As a figurehead, she couldn't force the UK to come and help, no more than she could force Canada to help the other way.

We share a figurehead. That's it.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-quoted Opening Post

[Topaz]

My understanding is that if a country belongs to British commonwealth and any country within that commonwealth is invaded or attacked, the other commonwealth countries will come to your aid.

[Hcheh]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the UK to come and help us, unless it was a NATO thing. She is the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK but Canada and the UK have nothing else legally in common. As a figurehead, she couldn't force the UK to come and help, no more than she could force Canada to help the other way.

We share a figurehead. That's it.

So what is the point of this figurehead? Why do we have to swear to the queen if she will do nothing for us? In a Monarchy, a peasant/working class person believes that, by living under the land owned by the king or queen, he/she is safe. In return, the denizens would pledge their loyalties to the crown and pay taxes. We don't pay any taxes to the queen and she doesn't come to help us. So where is this connection? Also, the pledge makes you swear an oath of fealty to the queen and her successors.. What is the meaning of this? I know we don't have to rush to help the U.K. and her dominion.. Like in WW2, when Canada didn't go headstrong into the war. So this oath holds no meaning? Why can't we just swear an oath to the constitution or the country? If we are completely sovereign, what is the point of this figurehead? It seems kind of stubborn.. as it doesn't really hold any modern day relevance.

By the way, do you know anything about the commonwealth citizenship? Does that mean we can live in the UK or is that just the EU citizenship?

[PoliticalCitizen]

Check out my thread where I asked the same questions:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=11840

[Wild Bill]

My understanding is that if a country belongs to British commonwealth and any country within that commonwealth is invaded or attacked, the other commonwealth countries will come to your aid.

I think you've confused the Commonwealth with NATO...

[Hcheh]

Check out my thread where I asked the same questions:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=11840

Hey. Yeah, I checked out the thread just now, I think I should wait for replies on this one - don't want to resurrect an old thread. Didn't find any logical or answers with any base in that thread anyway. Here are some answers that didn't make sense/unresolved:

1) A: Canada would fall into chaos if we had no Queen and became a republic

If the Queen is only a figurehead, what is the harm in taking it away? If the queen really holds the power to make a significance in our political system, then she is not just "symbolic". I don't see why we couldn't just become a system without the queen and act exactly as we are now. Practically nothing we do in Parliament requires the queen.

2) Someone pointed out that we would have to make a new constitution..

Why?! This is absurd. We function under our constitution and pieces of legislature everyday. The Bill of Rights was established by a Canadian. The Charters of Rights and Freedoms was established by a Canadian. What's the queen got to do with it?? Sure, we may have to change the wording here and there, but we wouldn't need to make a new constitution.. at all.

3) On the oaths

I still don't understand why we have to swear an oath of fealty and allegiance when you join the army and/or become a citizen. As I pointed above, the queen will do nothing for us, at least nothing another allied country wouldn't do. So we're on our own! What does the queen have to do with this country? So there's millions of people in Canada, who had to, or is currently swearing, this oath - for this queen that has nothing to do with us. We owe no taxes or extra loyalties, and she does not owe us any protection or services. What is the point? There is no connection anymore. Why can't we swear an oath to our constitution or the country? Something that isn't a PERSON. Swearing an oath to something that doesn't have a royal status. We should swear to the constitution, because the law should have the highest regard. Not a monarch. My allegiance lies with Canada. My allegiance lies with the people and this great country in which they inhabit. My allegiance lies with the law, not to a monarch who, by her technical power, could single-handedly control our laws. Let me ask you what is more important to you - upholding Canada? Or protecting the queen?

4) On honouring our heritage and history.

This excuse here is, to me, the only one that really holds anything. I agree that we should honour our heritage and history. I also believe that we should honour the queen. To me, they are not dependant on one another. We should honour the queen because she agreed to make this nation as great as it is. However, I disagree with the method in which we honor her with. We should let the students and children learn about the queen in our schools. We could have honourary festivals, parades and events. But to give her an actual place of authority? The pinnacle of Canadian authority? This I disagree with. We are fully well and able to function and govern ourselves, without this monarch. Now, with the history and heritage of our country. Is the queen all we have of Canadian history and heritage? Is that what Canadian history means to you?

No, that is not that what it means to me. What about John Diefenbaker? He established the Bill of Rights so that no one shall be discriminated according to race, religion nor creed. The rogue Tory who always tried to stick up for the "little man"? What about William Lyon Mackenzie King? The man who alone served as prime minister longer than any one in the history of the commonwealth countries. The man who led us through WW2? Or Lester B. Pearson, the man who established universal health care, Canadian student loans and pension plans? We Canadians have a great history of great people. For this great history, I am really proud.

[M.Dancer]

Hi, I've always thought that how Canada works was like how the U.S.A worked. A constitutional republic, with the Queen on the top for symbolic purposes, or purposes I could never really understand.

I suggest you enrol in one of Topaz's Poli-sci classes.....

first course would be an overview of republics who have monarchs...it would be a very short course.

[Smallc]

I think you've confused the Commonwealth with NATO...

But since Canada and the UK are members of both it doesn't really matter. I would think that the UK would step in and help Canada though. We're not exactly enemies.

[blueblood]

I suggest you enrol in one of Topaz's Poli-sci classes.....

first course would be an overview of republics who have monarchs...it would be a very short course.

Carefull, some leftwing posters are crying foul of the tinfoil and toaster comments, yet seem fit to stalk and spout outrageous personal attacks.

[Smallc]

Then answer me this, if Canada got attacked, would the Queen, the UK and all of Her dominions come to our rescue?

To us Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada, not England. We swear allegiance to the Crown of Canada.

[Pliny]

I don't think anyone has answered your question of why we keep the Queen as a figurehead? It seems rather quaint and a nice thing to do, doesn't it? Isn't that enough? She could visit once in awhile as a guest at our expense.

Well, there it is! Need you know more than the fact she is merely a figurehead?

In actuality. It is a very legally complicated position but the opinion is matter-of-factly forwarded that there be no reason we Canadians need pry further.

[dpwozney]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the UK to come and help us, unless it was a NATO thing. She is the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK but Canada and the UK have nothing else legally in common. As a figurehead, she couldn't force the UK to come and help, no more than she could force Canada to help the other way.

We share a figurehead. That's it.

What law states that the Queen is a “figurehead”?

[g_bambino]

Hi, I've always thought that how Canada works was like how the U.S.A worked. A constitutional republic, with the Queen on the top for symbolic purposes, or purposes I could never really understand. So then I got to thinking, what is the point of that? As a result to this thought, I looked some things up.. and it turns out that when you join the Canadian army, you don't pledge your allegiance to the constitution nor the Canadian Flag. You pledge allegiance to the Queen and her Crown. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, I believe that the Queen has the last say on whatever is passed or decided in Canada. So therefore, technically, she remains control in Canada and could refuse whatever she doesn't like.

Here I am thinking that we've gain our rights as a completely sovereign.. And I find these facts to the contrary notion. So okay, I guess we are a "constitutional monarchy".. Then answer me this, if Canada got attacked, would the Queen, the UK and all of Her dominions come to our rescue? What if we were falling into a collapse, would She come and help us? Also, I believe that Canadians are Commonwealth citizens, does this mean we have the right to live, work..etc in the UK and other Commonwealth nations?

If all of the above is true, then a Constitutional monarchy ain't so bad.

None of the facts you mention are contrary to any notion of sovereignty for Canada. The country has its own monarchy (which is why we give allegiance to the monarch, as is every other monarchy), though it shares the monarch with other counties in a relationship called a personal union, like when Britain and Hanover had the same king between 1714 and 1837, or when Norway and Sweden had the same king between 1814 and 1905. But this means that the countries that share the Queen now are not linked in any way but through her and the line of succession to the throne. Because the Queen acts on Canadian affairs only on the advice of her Canadian ministers, and ditto for all her other realms, then if Canada were to be attacked, the other countries would not necessarily intervene; in fact, there have been times when two countries under the shared crown have been at war with each other, like Pakistan and India in 1947, when both states had George VI as their respective king. The relationship between the Commonwealth realms, though, and probably the Commonwealth of Nations as a whole, is a type of alliance, and so I imagine that if Canada were attacked, other Commonwealth countries would stand by us, only it would be more for reasons of friendly history and shared culture rather than because we have the same person as our sovereign.

[dpwozney]

... in fact, there have been times when two countries under the shared crown have been at war with each other, like Pakistan and India in 1947, when both states had George VI as their respective king.

Was George VI at war with himself?

[g_bambino]

Was George VI at war with himself?

Technically, yes.

[dpwozney]

Practically nothing we do in Parliament requires the queen.

Are you claiming that Canada is being operated in a state of lawlessness?

Laws of Canada state:

“The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.”;

“There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.”; and,

“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.

[Hcheh]

Are you claiming that Canada is being operated in a state of lawlessness?

Laws of Canada state:

“The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.”;

“There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.”; and,

“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.

Well, as I understand it, the queen acts as a symbol.. and the parliament / government could work perfectly fine without this symbol. Why should we keep it?

Please answer this question, it is not rhetorical, I really want to know. Does the queen have power over the constitution or any thing related? What would really happen if the queen overruled a parliament decision? and does she actually have this power ? (I believe that she does)

[Smallc]

Well, as I understand it, the queen acts as a symbol.. and the parliament / government could work perfectly fine without this symbol. Why should we keep it?

Why should we get rid of it?

[Pliny]

Why should we get rid of it?

Not an answer.

[Smallc]

Not an answer.

Oh but I think it is. Why should we change the system just because some people think that they know whats better. The system is working very well right now, and is based on a very old and successful Westminster tradition, so why should we change it?

As I understand it, the GG and Queen act to stave off Parliamentary corruption. They also sever to represent our country. There is no reason to get rid of the Crown. unless you want to save the amount that we spend on the GG every year which adds up to less than $1 per person based on the numbers that I last heard.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Smallc

[Pliny]

Well, as I understand it, the queen acts as a symbol.. and the parliament / government could work perfectly fine without this symbol. Why should we keep it?

Please answer this question, it is not rhetorical, I really want to know. Does the queen have power over the constitution or any thing related? What would really happen if the queen overruled a parliament decision? and does she actually have this power ? (I believe that she does)

First, find this out.

What is the difference between the Queen, the Crown and the Corporation of the City of London?

In the US, government legal procedure is preceded by "In the matter of the People vs. ________." In Canada the legal procedure is preceded by, "In the matter of the Crown vs. ________." The prosecuting Attorney in the US represents the interests of the people. In Canada does the prosecuting attorney represent the interests of the Crown?

[Pliny]

Oh but I think it is. Why should we change the system just because some people think that they know whats better. The system is working very badly right now, and is based on a very old and successful Westminster tradition, so why should we change it?

As I understand it, the GG and Queen act to stave off Parliamentary corruption. They also sever to represent our country. There is no reason to get rid of the Crown. unless you want to save the amount that we spend on the GG every year which adds up to less than $1 per person based on the numbers that I last heard.

A question to a question is not an answer.

He wants to know why we keep the Queen as a figurehead? I don't know that he is suggesting we change it. If he knew why we keep her as a figurehead maybe he would not want to change it.

Do you mean "the system is working very well right now". If it is "working very badly right now I don't understand how you see that it is "successful"?

[Hcheh]

A question to a question is not an answer.

He wants to know why we keep the Queen as a figurehead? I don't know that he is suggesting we change it. If he knew why we keep her as a figurehead maybe he would not want to change it.

Do you mean "the system is working very well right now". If it is "working very badly right now I don't understand how you see that it is "successful"?

Thank you sir, you are of great help to me. This forum needs more people like you. Anyway, yes. I do not have a full understand of the relationship between the crown and Canada, so therefore, I do not have a concrete opinion. Only questions. I just came back from obtaining some books from the library so I still have to read the post you authored addressing my latest question. Thank you again.

[August1991]

I suggest you enrol in one of Topaz's Poli-sci classes.....

first course would be an overview of republics who have monarchs...it would be a very short course.

Hey, that's a good idea.

Let's become the Federal Republic of Canada and then choose the Queen as our first President.

Why should we get rid of it?

Why should we get rid of the British monarchy?

For many, many reasons as shown in the following thread where you can also vote in the poll: The Federal Republic of Canada, In favour yes or no?

Edited October 5, 2008 by August1991