Do we owe any loyality to the Queen?

[Smallc]

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.

First, I did mean well, not badly, so thank you for the person that pointed it out to me. I think of too many things at once sometimes and that is the result.

Second, I apologize for assuming when it comes to your intentions. Most of the time, when someone asks a question like this, its because they don't like the way things are and want us to drop what we have and take on something else because they think its better.

The way I personally see it, the Crown is part of an honored tradition here. We have a parliamentary system that involves the Crown and because things are working well at the time, there is really no reason to change it. There are certain duties that the Crown has, such as representing Canada, dissolving parliament, dismissing (very rare) and appointing Prime Ministers as needed and so on. In the event of a dismissal of the PM, it is up to the GG to then solve the then created constitutional crisis and either ask the opposition to form government or call an election.

As I said, I see no reason to change this system at the current time.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Smallc

[August1991]

We have a parliamentary system that involves the Crown and because things are working well at the time, there is really no reason to change it.

They are not working well. Canada is not a united country and the British monarch is a divisive symbol.

Canada should become a Federal Republic. This change is both long overdue and, IMHO, would put an end to the Quebec sovereignty movement.

[Hcheh]

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?

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.

[Smallc]

They are not working well. Canada is not a united country and the British monarch is a divisive symbol.

Canada should become a Federal Republic. This change is both long overdue and, IMHO, would put an end to the Quebec sovereignty movement.

Oh, but they are working well. Canada may not be united, but neither is the United States despite your assertion that republicanism creates that. They may be united under one flag, (we still are too, in case you've forgotten) but they are a country split right down the middle politically, and there is nothing more divisive than politics.

Your assertion that republicanism would quiet separatists in Quebec is almost laughable. The people who are staunch separatists will always remain so no matter the system that we use.

The truth is, according to polls taken around Canada Day, Canada has never been more united and Canadians have never been more proud to live here. There is no reason for switching to a republic. Looking south and believing that things are so much better and that the grass is so much greener is fine and all (though it isn't necessarily true), but as Stephen Harper often points out, Canada is not the United States, and what works in one country doesn't necessarily work in the other.

[g_bambino]

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)

To answer your question, it would first have to be proved that the Queen is just a symbol. However, she is not. Laws, including constitutional ones, are enacted by her, but she is a constitutional monarch, meaning she abides by laws and customs. Royal Assent could be denied to a bill passed by parliament, but this has never happened in the federal parliament, and only infrequently in provincial legislatures. This reserve power, along with others, can only be used in the most extreme circumstances.

So, why do we keep a monarch at the head of our state? I think the best answer is that doing so ultimately keeps power out of the hands of self-interested and partisan politicians.

[Smallc]

So, why do we keep a monarch at the head of our state? I think the best answer is that doing so ultimately keeps power out of the hands of self-interested and partisan politicians.

I very much agree with that. The Reserve Power is a very important thing when it comes to keeping governments that that may be very bad for the country in line.

[g_bambino]

Your assertion that republicanism would quiet separatists in Quebec is almost laughable. The people who are staunch separatists will always remain so no matter the system that we use.

Precisely. Separatists who want to use the Queen as a political tool always have to make her foreign; hence the constant references to her as British. But, it's true that even if our monarch was dismissed, the Quebec separatists would still claim victimhood under the oppression of the federal government of the republic of Canada, and complain that a president elected by the majority English-speaking populace of the country was not representative of Quebec. Nothing would change.

[Hcheh]

To answer your question, it would first have to be proved that the Queen is just a symbol. However, she is not. Laws, including constitutional ones, are enacted by her, but she is a constitutional monarch, meaning she abides by laws and customs. Royal Assent could be denied to a bill passed by parliament, but this has never happened in the federal parliament, and only infrequently in provincial legislatures. This reserve power, along with others, can only be used in the most extreme circumstances.

So, why do we keep a monarch at the head of our state? I think the best answer is that doing so ultimately keeps power out of the hands of self-interested and partisan politicians.

But we still have partisan politics, parties attacking each other.. etc. Anyway, are we to invest this responsibility into ONE PERSON? It just doesn't seem right to me that one person could actually inherit, by just being yourself, all this power and authority. Could the monarch not be corrupt just as easily as anyone running for office? We are all humans.. All humans are subject to corruption. QE2 may be nice, but what about all the other future monarchs down the line? QE2 isn't going to last forever.

[Smallc]

But we still have partisan politics, parties attacking each other.. etc. Anyway, are we to invest this responsibility into ONE PERSON? It just doesn't seem right to me that one person could actually inherit, by just being yourself, all this power and authority. Could the monarch not be corrupt just as easily as anyone running for office? We are all humans.. All humans are subject to corruption. QE2 may be nice, but what about all the other future monarchs down the line? QE2 isn't going to last forever.

I would say that those kinds of risks are still less than you would get when you elect a partisan president.

[kengs333]

Technically, yes.

Pakistan is an excellent example of what becomes of republics.

[g_bambino]

But we still have partisan politics, parties attacking each other.. etc. Anyway, are we to invest this responsibility into ONE PERSON? It just doesn't seem right to me that one person could actually inherit, by just being yourself, all this power and authority. Could the monarch not be corrupt just as easily as anyone running for office? We are all humans.. All humans are subject to corruption. QE2 may be nice, but what about all the other future monarchs down the line? QE2 isn't going to last forever.

Yes, we do. And that's exactly why ultimate power should not be in their hands. That power has to be vested somewhere, every country has a chief executive. But why does inheriting it seem "not right"? Of course a monarch could be corrupt, but if any monarch acted unconstitutionally, the entire system would come down; to avoid that, an abhorrent sovereign would most likely be replaced by parliament. You see, the divine right of kings ended some time back around 1215, with the arrival of the Magna Carta, and now, as I mentioned, the sovereign must adhere to laws and customs. That includes the line of succession, which is governed by law, and, like any law, can be changed. Constitutional monarchies are essentially republics under a monarch (the term "crowned republic" is sometimes used) because the sovereign only reigns and acts at the behest of the people.

[kengs333]

But we still have partisan politics, parties attacking each other.. etc. Anyway, are we to invest this responsibility into ONE PERSON? It just doesn't seem right to me that one person could actually inherit, by just being yourself, all this power and authority. Could the monarch not be corrupt just as easily as anyone running for office? We are all humans.. All humans are subject to corruption. QE2 may be nice, but what about all the other future monarchs down the line? QE2 isn't going to last forever.

If you look at how the monarchy works, though, it's very much a family institution. Also, like it or not, our monarchy is the product of centuries of development and refinement, and it has now become something much more than simply power invested in one person. The Queen has a number of advisors aside from members of her family with whom she consults with on a regular basis, and she in turn is in constant contact with the British Prime Minister, from whom she is kept up to date in regards to the working of Parlaiment, and who she in turn advises when need be. So in reality, there is a sophisticated network that basically keeps everything in line and on a relatively moderate footing. We should count ourselves fortunate for having inherited such a stable form of government, and why we would want to replace it with something like a republic is beyond me.

[August1991]

Pakistan is an excellent example of what becomes of republics.

I could say the same of France or Russia. Monarchy amounts to putting all your eggs, literally, in one set of ovaries. That's not diversification.

When the system has to change as inevitably it must, you get a radical shock. I prefer piecemeal changes.

If you look at how the monarchy works, though, it's very much a family institution. Also, like it or not, our monarchy is the product of centuries of development and refinement, and it has now become something much more than simply power invested in one person. The Queen has a number of advisors aside from members of her family with whom she consults with on a regular basis, and she in turn is in constant contact with the British Prime Minister, from whom she is kept up to date in regards to the working of Parlaiment, and who she in turn advises when need be. So in reality, there is a sophisticated network that basically keeps everything in line and on a relatively moderate footing. We should count ourselves fortunate for having inherited such a stable form of government, and why we would want to replace it with something like a republic is beyond me.

So, kengs. You are more anti-American than you are a progressive.

Kengs, how can you defend a system where the choice of leader is based solely on birth? Think of what this means for other hiring decisions in society.

Monarchy? On principle, I want nothing to do with it. In Canada, the British monarchy is destructive.

[Bodhi]

How would Canada go about removing the moving the queen as its head? (practically speaking)

[kengs333]

I could say the same of France or Russia. Monarchy amounts to putting all your eggs, literally, in one set of ovaries. That's not diversification.

Yes, you are right: Russia is another example. It is becoming a totalitarian regime.

So, kengs. You are more anti-American than you are a progressive.

Not one word in my post about the USA.

Kengs, how can you defend a system where the choice of leader is based solely on birth? Think of what this means for other hiring decisions in society.

Easy, because it's the best system. We have a leader that can draw on centuries of tradition, has a legal and political system that has evolved over 800 years. I'd say that's way better than a political system that allows former B movie actors and peanut farms to become head-of-state.

Monarchy? On principle, I want nothing to do with it. In Canada, the British monarchy is destructive.

Then move to the US, because we don't need traitors in this country. If you don't accept Canada's political system and its traditions for what it is, then you don't love Canada and have no right to reside here.

Edited October 5, 2008 by kengs333

[Hcheh]

Yes, we do. And that's exactly why ultimate power should not be in their hands. That power has to be vested somewhere, every country has a chief executive. But why does inheriting it seem "not right"? Of course a monarch could be corrupt, but if any monarch acted unconstitutionally, the entire system would come down; to avoid that, an abhorrent sovereign would most likely be replaced by parliament. You see, the divine right of kings ended some time back around 1215, with the arrival of the Magna Carta, and now, as I mentioned, the sovereign must adhere to laws and customs. That includes the line of succession, which is governed by law, and, like any law, can be changed. Constitutional monarchies are essentially republics under a monarch (the term "crowned republic" is sometimes used) because the sovereign only reigns and acts at the behest of the people.

This posts has been the most convincing in this whole thread. Thank you for your input. I am starting to see the argument. I guess my view of a monarch was too out dated and traditional. I guess we have seen our share of partisan politics, but no where is it as bad as it is in the States. A monarch that only reigns and acts at the behest of the people.. I like that. Just some questions..

1) Is there a law that states that, if a monarch is seen as unfit to reign, parliament can take action? Or is this just a de facto statement?

2) I am still wondering if the queen can come to Canada and ignore the constitution/rise above it..etc. Can the queen/crown be subject to a court trial? If someone accuses or requests a trial.

3) Could you please name me some laws/bills/documents stating the monarchs limited power? Or is this de facto as well?

Finally, could you pin point an era of time when this model of constitutional monarchy came about? I am sure that some of the founding fathers of America would have liked this idea. For example, George Washington and John Adams were afraid of partisan politics destroying the nation.. John Adams also wanted to name the president with something more esteemed "his excellency"..etc.

I still don't like the fact that I have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. To me, the idea of this monarch is for the betterment of our country. So where do we really lay our allegiances? For the betterment of Canada or the Queen?

Edited October 5, 2008 by Hcheh

[g_bambino]

Think of what this means for other hiring decisions in society.

Ugh. That is such a typical republican argument; it treats everything, including the head of our national family, as though it were just another bureaucratic office to be filled by filing form 38-B in slot 45-344-29 between the hours of 8am and 4pm.

[August1991]

How would Canada go about removing the moving the queen as its head? (practically speaking)

A constitutional amendment with approval of all 10 provincial governments, the federal House of Commons, Senate and Governor-General.

We can thank Trudeau for this state of affairs. (I suspect that it will take the threat/revolution of Quebec independence to make Canada a federal republic.)

----

I have two measures of Harper, assuming he survives in federal politics: 1. Can he control/reduce federal spending? 2. Can he make the Conservatives a viable political party in French Canada?

Ugh. That is such a typical republican argument; it treats everything, including the head of our national family, as though it were just another bureaucratic office to be filled by filing form 38-B in slot 45-344-29 between the hours of 8am and 4pm.

Welcome to real life, bambino. Edited October 5, 2008 by August1991

[Bodhi]

A constitutional amendment with approval of all 10 provincial governments, the federal House of Commons, Senate and Governor-General.

We can thank Trudeau for this state of affairs.

Thank you A91.

[g_bambino]

Welcome to real life, bambino.

Thankfully that's only real life in August Land, not Canada.

[Hcheh]

Yes, we do. And that's exactly why ultimate power should not be in their hands. That power has to be vested somewhere, every country has a chief executive. But why does inheriting it seem "not right"? Of course a monarch could be corrupt, but if any monarch acted unconstitutionally, the entire system would come down; to avoid that, an abhorrent sovereign would most likely be replaced by parliament. You see, the divine right of kings ended some time back around 1215, with the arrival of the Magna Carta, and now, as I mentioned, the sovereign must adhere to laws and customs. That includes the line of succession, which is governed by law, and, like any law, can be changed. Constitutional monarchies are essentially republics under a monarch (the term "crowned republic" is sometimes used) because the sovereign only reigns and acts at the behest of the people.

However, I can't say that the crown interjected enough when the shit hit the fan.. For example, the internment of Japanese CANADIANS and the whole aboriginals v.s. Mulroney mess.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Hcheh

[g_bambino]

1) Is there a law that states that, if a monarch is seen as unfit to reign, parliament can take action? Or is this just a de facto statement?

I don't believe anything is codified in law, no. But the monarch does swear in his or her coronation oath to govern the people of Canada according to their laws and customs. That is, in effect, a verbal contract, and the breaking of a contract usually has consequences.

2) I am still wondering if the queen can come to Canada and ignore the constitution/rise above it..etc. Can the queen/crown be subject to a court trial? If someone accuses or requests a trial.

The Queen can't stand trial in a court as the courts operate under her authority and in her name; she would essentially be judging herself, which clearly presents a conflict of interest. But, as already mentioned, she cannot act illegally without penalty.

3) Could you please name me some laws/bills/documents stating the monarchs limited power? Or is this de facto as well?

The laws are partly written and partly conventional. There are many laws that limit the monarch's powers; the documents that make up the Canadian constitution are some of them.

Finally, could you pin point an era of time when this model of constitutional monarchy came about?

There isn't really a specific point in time when the arrangement came into existence; it was more of an evolutionary process.

I still don't like the fact that I have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. To me, the idea of this monarch is for the betterment of our country. So where do we really lay our allegiances? For the betterment of Canada or the Queen?

Swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen does a number of things: Firstly, as she is the personification of the state, and the figure from whom all laws originate, giving allegiance to her means you are giving allegiance to Canada and promising to abide by its laws. Secondly, it means your allegiance is directed at something that is easily defined; "Canada" has multiple meanings, even depending on whom you ask for a definition of the word. Thirdly, it means your allegiance is directed at a living person, as opposed to something inanimate and unresponsive, like a constitution or a flag; when you give allegiance to the Queen, you are completing the other half of that verbal contract I spoke about in my answer to your first question.

[g_bambino]

However, I can't say that the crown interjected enough when the shit hit the fan.. For example, the internment of Japanese CANADIANS and the whole aboriginals v.s. Mulroney mess.

Those were partisan political affairs, not constitutional crises. Plus, what we think should be illegal now was not always considered that way.

[Hcheh]

I don't believe anything is codified in law, no. But the monarch does swear in his or her coronation oath to govern the people of Canada according to their laws and customs. That is, in effect, a verbal contract, and the breaking of a contract usually has consequences.

The Queen can't stand trial in a court as the courts operate under her authority and in her name; she would essentially be judging herself, which clearly presents a conflict of interest. But, as already mentioned, she cannot act illegally without penalty.

The laws are partly written and partly conventional. There are many laws that limit the monarch's powers; the documents that make up the Canadian constitution are some of them.

There isn't really a specific point in time when the arrangement came into existence; it was more of an evolutionary process.

Swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen does a number of things: Firstly, as she is the personification of the state, and the figure from whom all laws originate, giving allegiance to her means you are giving allegiance to Canada and promising to abide by its laws. Secondly, it means your allegiance is directed at something that is easily defined; "Canada" has multiple meanings, even depending on whom you ask for a definition of the word. Thirdly, it means your allegiance is directed at a living person, as opposed to something inanimate and unresponsive, like a constitution or a flag; when you give allegiance to the Queen, you are completing the other half of that verbal contract I spoke about in my answer to your first question.

Those were partisan political affairs, not constitutional crises. Plus, what we think should be illegal now was not always considered that way.

Very well, g_bambino et al. I am convinced, you win . My whole view on the monarchy was distorted by how it used to be, when it was more aristocratic. Now, instead of having the "all for one" attitude, through many and many decades, the concept of monarchy has become constitutional, naturally logical and it is actually working for the people. 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. Anyway, thank you all for clearing this up with me.

Next stop, the issue concerning the division of the francophones and anglophones. Then we'll have a perfect country

[Bodhi]

Very well, g_bambino et al. I am convinced, you win . My whole view on the monarchy was distorted by how it used to be, when it was more aristocratic. Now, instead of having the "all for one" attitude, through many and many decades, the concept of monarchy has become constitutional, naturally logical and it is actually working for the people. 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.

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.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Bodhi