Pliny Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Well I didn't know that there was a difference between the Queen and the Crown.. I thought that the Crown just stands for the royal family and it's power over a state. The Queen is just the incumbent monarch. However, the monarch is not elected and is a family role passed down for generations and generations. To my knowledge, the monarchs believed that they were touched/appointed by god, therefore, have a right to this position. I have looked at some of the titles the queen has and one of them was "graced by god". Does she still think that she and her family were appointed by divinity? That's absurd. The Corporation of the City of London has authority over the city of London. It's unusual form of governance specializes in keeping their businesses as well as their citizens in good shape. However, the members, I believe, are elected? So the differences are: 1) Corporation of the City of London - The Corporation of the City of London has an unusual form of governance, focusing on businesses as well as the citizens. - The members are elected - Only has authority over London 2) The Queen/Crown - Not elected, the role is passed on - Traditional form of governance - Has full authority over its realm (UK, Canada..etc) Sorry, I don't really know what you were getting at there.. could you clear this up? For the second section, I don't really have a good knowledge on this, but I believe that the crown appoints a person to do all its legal stuff? The crown attorney or something. The crown attorney is not elected. We see the relationship between Queen and country and it is understood that the Queen is the head of State. She doesn't appear to be actively doing much so she is just a figurehead, really. In simplicity that is it. There is however in the legal perspective a very deep connection with the Queen, the Crown, the Commonwealth of Nations and economically with the City of London referred to as "the square mile". You can research it from a legal standpoint if you are interested, your research should also include the Bank of Canada. The government actually represents the Crown, you will find that the ownership of the Bank of Canada, if you go to their website, is claimed to be the government. The Minister of Finance holds it in trust. Since the Government represents the Crown should we assume that the single share of the Bank of Canada then is held in trust for the Crown? It would seem so? There isn't much concern for any of this and not too many bother to even think about it. Perhaps that is best as long as the Crown remains passive and benevolent. The Governor-General in Australia did act to remove a ruling party in 1975, called the Dismissal and you can also read about the King-Byng affair that occurred in Canada in the 1920's. I believe that any act to become a republic and remove the Queen and the Crown from holding any capacity in Canadian government would be blocked by the Governor-General. I could be wrong but one day we may find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjp Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 why not just merge into the USA if we want a republic.. lets check to see if their articles of confederation hold any weight still, after all article 11 invited canada into the USA.. so why not just merge with them.. then you will have your president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 .... If you look at how dysfunctional the United States has become, I'll bet that they had a monarch who could use it's reserve powers to veto away. No, the United States was born (and thrived) by doing exactly the opposite....namely booting a monarchy squarely in the ass. It has worked out quite well, but to pay respects to their former imperialist history, Americans retain the tradition in the way of retail fast food franchises (i.e. Burger King). Next stop, the issue concerning the division of the francophones and anglophones. Then we'll have a perfect country I think not.....plenty of other "dysfunctional" issues to address. God Save the Queen (of Canada). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 One of the greatest accomplishment of Americans was overthrowing the rule of the Monarchy over their land and people. The impetus of this rebellious and independent streak still reverberates today. Of course, the founding fathers and the inclusive American constitution that followed played a great role into tapping peoples potentialities and innovation. The system in the U.S is very resilient as a result. France is on its fifth republic while the single American constitution has been amended only 2 or so dozen times.I still fail to see how putting emphasis on a person/office (in this case the queen) can play an inclusive role. Perhaps that could be at the heart of whats missing our reconciliations as peoples united among a common purpose. All the Americans did was throw out one monarchy in order to establish another; I don't know where you're looking if you don't see that they have more of an emphasis on one person/office than any constitutional monarchy does. In our system the power is held by the monarch but normally only exercised on the advice of the Cabinet, which relies on the support of the elected House of Commons. In the US, the President is prime minister and monarch combined; an executive figure who wields power and is unaccountable to the parliament. As it is that office which divides the nation because of its partisan nature, I don't see how our apolitical monarch could be the cause of any chasms between Canadians. The Fathers of Confederation were already aware of this in 1867; Sir John A. said: "By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle - the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party — to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all." Nothing much has changed since then, either north or south of the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 All the Americans did was throw out one monarchy in order to establish another; I don't know where you're looking if you don't see that they have more of an emphasis on one person/office than any constitutional monarchy does..... Actually, it is far more sophisticated than that, but nevertheless, the Americans and their constitutional republic seldom look back or compare their fortunes to a long ago rejected monarchy. If only the Loyalists could be as firm in their convictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 the Americans and their constitutional republic seldom look back or compare their fortunes to a long ago rejected monarchy. Yes, yes; I've heard all the national myths Americans keep telling themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Yes, yes; I've heard all the national myths Americans keep telling themselves. Americans had a lot more time to invent "myths" before 1982.....and they didn't need a pet Queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 To us Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada, not England. We swear allegiance to the Crown of Canada. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: “Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”. The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Americans had a lot more time to invent "myths" before 1982..... Yep, that's right. And it's gone on so long they now don't know the difference between myth and reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcheh Posted October 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 All the Americans did was throw out one monarchy in order to establish another; I don't know where you're looking if you don't see that they have more of an emphasis on one person/office than any constitutional monarchy does. In our system the power is held by the monarch but normally only exercised on the advice of the Cabinet, which relies on the support of the elected House of Commons. In the US, the President is prime minister and monarch combined; an executive figure who wields power and is unaccountable to the parliament. As it is that office which divides the nation because of its partisan nature, I don't see how our apolitical monarch could be the cause of any chasms between Canadians. The Fathers of Confederation were already aware of this in 1867; Sir John A. said: "By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle - the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a sovereign who is placed above the region of party — to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all." Nothing much has changed since then, either north or south of the border. These are very good points. Especially with that Sir John A. Macdonald quote.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Where's Canadien's two cents? Canada's dementia and the delusional continue to be the dog that chases its tail thinking it will catch it. Fact. King George abdicted the throne to the British Parliament dureing World War II. At that point the monarchy became irrelevant period. Fact. In 1970's the queen deferred all matters concerning the queen to the International Court of Justice. You have an issue with the Queen take it up with the court. Fact. That queen c""nt beoch and the liberal scum and supreme court imposed the 1982 constitution and the charter of Rights on Canada without a democratic vote from the Canadian people. Fact. Canada's political and bureacratic trash have used this constitution to erode and destroy the fabric of Canada. They have used this as a basis to drive Canada into a demographic and cultural immolation. Canada's population has balloned since the 1982 Constituion through economic migrants and other countries reject losers. Canada is not the dysfunctional country it once was. It is now a f'cked up country. Fact. Canada's legal framework lives and is tied in with the British statues and laws. Because the bureacratic and political trash imposed a constitution and charter on the people of Canada without a vote has opened the pandora's box and in fact affirmed the queen's sovereingty over Canada by this move. Through the abdiction of king George the British parliaments holds power over the monarch. Through Canada's insult on democracy with the 1982 constitution affirmed the queen's sovereingty over Canada. What is stopping the Queen and the British parliament from repealing all the laws in Britain that makes Canada and independent Nation? Sovereingty is often attributed with your ability to defend it. Canada's military is a joke and its constitution is not much of one. For the most part has a dysfunctional government and political structure. Canada is more about trough feeding bureacrats and politicians than about driving and creating an innovative country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Yep, that's right. And it's gone on so long they now don't know the difference between myth and reality. Correct...it has gone on for a very, very long time. No need to question loyalties or the very existence of a monarchy by comparison to other nations. But in the end, it is just America fulfilling its usual role as the reliable foil to help some Canadians define themselves (and their nation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Correct...it has gone on for a very, very long time. Indeed it has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Indeed it has. Let us know when you decide where such loyalties should be placed....what's another 100 years in the overall scheme of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Let us know when you decide where such loyalties should be placed....what's another 100 years in the overall scheme of things. Done. That was easy; what took Americans so bloody long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Done. That was easy; what took Americans so bloody long? Are you an Army of One? Keep wondering..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Where's Canadien's two cents?Canada's dementia and the delusional continue to be the dog that chases its tail thinking it will catch it. Fact. King George abdicted the throne to the British Parliament dureing World War II. At that point the monarchy became irrelevant period. Fact. In 1970's the queen deferred all matters concerning the queen to the International Court of Justice. You have an issue with the Queen take it up with the court. Fact. That queen c""nt beoch and the liberal scum and supreme court imposed the 1982 constitution and the charter of Rights on Canada without a democratic vote from the Canadian people. Fact. Canada's political and bureacratic trash have used this constitution to erode and destroy the fabric of Canada. They have used this as a basis to drive Canada into a demographic and cultural immolation. Canada's population has balloned since the 1982 Constituion through economic migrants and other countries reject losers. Canada is not the dysfunctional country it once was. It is now a f'cked up country. Fact. Canada's legal framework lives and is tied in with the British statues and laws. Because the bureacratic and political trash imposed a constitution and charter on the people of Canada without a vote has opened the pandora's box and in fact affirmed the queen's sovereingty over Canada by this move. Through the abdiction of king George the British parliaments holds power over the monarch. Through Canada's insult on democracy with the 1982 constitution affirmed the queen's sovereingty over Canada. What is stopping the Queen and the British parliament from repealing all the laws in Britain that makes Canada and independent Nation? Sovereingty is often attributed with your ability to defend it. Canada's military is a joke and its constitution is not much of one. For the most part has a dysfunctional government and political structure. Canada is more about trough feeding bureacrats and politicians than about driving and creating an innovative country. Right up there with your theories that First Nations did not have a language - only emitting sound like crows because their language didn't have a written form - and that God spoke through Jacques Cartier when the word "Canada" was invented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Are you an Army of One? Keep wondering..... But, are you a pebble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 But, are you a pebble? No, more like a rolling stone. Pebbles and peas are for a queen's bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 No, more like a rolling stone. Pebbles and peas are for a queen's bed. Ehhh... no, you stretched it too far on that one. You can do better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Ehhh... no, you stretched it too far on that one. You can do better than that. But that's what Americans do...stretch it as far as we wish. We don't have to worry about permission from a Queen or Governor General. See the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 But that's what Americans do...stretch it as far as we wish. We don't have to worry about permission from a Queen or Governor General.See the difference? Nope, sorry, I don't. I can't see the fantasies you maintain in your head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 (edited) Nope, sorry, I don't. I can't see the fantasies you maintain in your head. Of course you do....that is how you define yourself. Happy to be of service. Meanwhile...across the pond...the Queen stakes out her Canadian turf: http://www.royalinsight.gov.uk/output/Page5179.asp Edited October 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Of course you do....that is how you define yourself. Happy to be of service. Well, yes, I do suppose you allow me to see that I am relatively sane in comparison. That is useful of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 5, 2008 Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 Well, yes, I do suppose you allow me to see that I am relatively sane in comparison. That is useful of you. See...I knew you would eventually come around. Cling to your queen if you must...it's OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.