The Federal Republic of Canada

[eyeball]

She doesn't get involved in politics for a reason.

It's our governance that's the problem.

[g_bambino]

How much would it cost the Queen to say a word or two now and then in defence of our increasingly abused parliamentary system?

How do you know she doesn't? She would never say anything publicly about a matter such as that, not directly, anyway. For the sake of the system, she cannot appear partisan; MPs likely wouldn't take well to being openly chided (ie. embarrassed) by the monarch and would seek revenge in some way (cut royal-related budgets, advocate for a new monarch or a republic); and it just isn't her style. Only if there were some breach of constitutional law or convention (which, despite some lamentable actions by the government and parliamentarians, there hasn't yet been) would she or her viceregal representative act; and even then, it would likely be action only, without any public statement on the matter; she'd merely be carrying out her constitutional duty. Since this country is a democratic parliamentary constitutional monarchy, solutions to problems are first left to the government that has the confidence of the elected House of Commons, parliament itself (dominated by the House of Commons), the courts, or the electorate in an election, should it come to that; it all depends on the circumstances of the situation.

However, the Queen can and does say what she wants behind closed doors. She cannot tell ministers what to do, but she does use her right to advise, encourage, and warn; she's known to be very knowledgeable and quite shrewd at exercising influence over politicians. (If you ever wish to, read up on her part in the patriation of the constitution; her effect on Trudeau (achieved by using methods that included flirtation) is almost humerous.) She'll have met with Harper today in London. You can rest assured she'll sit down with him knowing everything that's been happening in politics in this country recently.

[eyeball]

When I see the cheering crowds, overhead flyby's and blaring horns heralding the Royal Jubilee I'm reminded of the closing scenes in heroic stories where the celebration follows a triumph of good over evil or the rise of enlightenment after a long spell of darkness. Maybe I have too romantic a notion of what real majesty is or should be about. I mean, I don't expect the Queen to dispatch Her Shining Knights to give Ottawa a smack upside the head but if majesty is not about nudging our governance as opposed to our governments now and then towards the higher ideals that are represented by royalty then I really can't get to cheering on more of the same old same old.

[eyeball]

How do you know she doesn't?

I don't, I'm pretty much forced to take it on faith.

She'll have met with Harper today in London. You can rest assured she'll sit down with him knowing everything that's been happening in politics in this country recently.

What signs should we be looking for that she's smacked him upside the head for his lamentable actions of late?

[g_bambino]

What signs should we be looking for that she's smacked him upside the head for his lamentable actions of late?

Don't look for bruising. She knows better than to hit above the collar.

[eyeball]

Don't look for bruising. She knows better than to hit above the collar.

How about the hunched over look of someone who's been kicked below the belt?

[cybercoma]

When I see the cheering crowds, overhead flyby's and blaring horns heralding the Royal Jubilee I'm reminded of the closing scenes in heroic stories where the celebration follows a triumph of good over evil or the rise of enlightenment after a long spell of darkness. Maybe I have too romantic a notion of what real majesty is or should be about. I mean, I don't expect the Queen to dispatch Her Shining Knights to give Ottawa a smack upside the head but if majesty is not about nudging our governance as opposed to our governments now and then towards the higher ideals that are represented by royalty then I really can't get to cheering on more of the same old same old.

How about this frightening notion... maybe she has been subtly reeling it in.

[eyeball]

How about this frightening notion... maybe she has been subtly reeling it in.

Reeling it in? Frightening? I'm afraid I don't follow.

[Wild Bill]

The biggest wave of immigration to Canada occurred between 1890-1910. And it involved people who were neither French nor English speaking. These immigrants assimilated into the English community yet few were Protestants.

In 1976, Trudeau changed the immigration law and simply made it unbiased. We would not favour immigrants of any particular origin.

"our own prosperity began to decline" WTF? European incomes rose to North American levels. Soon, Indians and Chinese will also be as rich as we are.

Wild Bill, is that a bad thing?

Canada is a civilized country despite the British monarchy, not because of it.

Sorry August but I truly feel your Quebecois bias is showing! I don't think your views are the majority outside of Quebec.

That being said, many Quebec separatiste politicians, including and especially Rene Levesque, were monarchists! They would have kept the Queen even after dumping TROC!

Anyhow, we must agree to disagree, mon ami.

[cybercoma]

Reeling it in? Frightening? I'm afraid I don't follow.

Perhaps she's already doing what you want her to be doing and it could be a hell of a lot worse than it is.

[eyeball]

Perhaps she's already doing what you want her to be doing and it could be a hell of a lot worse than it is.

It's probably too little too late - there's just too much at stake to hope that her nibs can pull off the moral and ethical suasion the times seem to be crying out for on her own.

How about if she displayed a little of her mythical persuasiveness come election time and remind her subjects of their responsibility and voting's importance in the scheme of our democratic parliamentary tradition - not for who but for what, I wonder if that would make a difference?

It's hard to imagine anyone getting their nose out of joint over that limited display of royal displeasure at the sorry state of democracy in her realm, at least in public.

[g_bambino]

There are many Parliamentary republic that exist in the is world.

They have presidents. Presidents aren't free.

[PIK]

I wish the young in this country had the work ethic of a 86 year old queen of canada. That is probably why they hate her so much. But yet they hate the american style of goverment, so get rid of the queen and we hate america so that leaves what ........socialism?

[bleeding heart]

I wish the young in this country had the work ethic of a 86 year old queen of canada. That is probably why they hate her so much.

Hey, yeah, that's a fantastic theory.

On the other hand, when your job is to be filthy rich, a work ethic is pretty simple to muster. A motivating factor.

But yet they hate the american style of goverment, so get rid of the queen and we hate america so that leaves what ........socialism?

Yep: it's either the Queen, the USA...or socialism. Those are the choices.

Edited June 6, 2012 by bleeding heart

[PIK]

Hey, yeah, that's a fantastic theory.

On the other hand, when your job is to be filthy rich, a work ethic is pretty simple to muster. A motivating factor.

Yep: it's either the Queen, the USA...or socialism. Those are the choices.

You are right on, those are the choices. And hey if it ain't broken why change it, that is progressives for ya, keep changing until the whole works is fucked up. And of course change history to hide thier failings. Edited June 6, 2012 by PIK

[g_bambino]

On the other hand, when your job is to be filthy rich, a work ethic is pretty simple to muster.

That's pretty ignorant. What part of her constitutional, ceremonial, and philanthropuic duties in 16 countries requires her to be "filthy rich"?

[bleeding heart]

That's pretty ignorant. What part of her constitutional, ceremonial, and philanthropuic duties in 16 countries requires her to be "filthy rich"?

It was spoken in jest, except for the implication: that we should all be gazing with loving reverence upon the Queen's "work ethic," when countless millions of people all over the planet work a lot harder for virtually nothing.

It's rank celebrity worship, a ceremonial cousin to moaning over Gwyneth Paltrow's skill at wearing a dress on a red carpet. With a dash of nationalist sentiment thrown in for good measure.

And my remark was not even about the Queen, whom I find inoffensive, and imagine to be a decent sort. It's about the fanboys and-girls.

[g_bambino]

You are right on, those are the choices.

Well, don't forget self-interested politician.

[T]he most persuasive argument for monarchy is this: What would be its replacement? A republic, of course, with a Canadian head of state — a President of Canada, elected by the people. And it's obvious, isn't it? Our politics would be so much nobler, intelligent and elevated, with every player on the field grubbing for popularity, hacking away at his or her opponents on Twitter, sniping, deking and ducking whenever it is expedient to do so. Pat Martin is a master at this kind of rhetorical warfare, as are a minority in every party. It's not surprising that some would like to see the style extended, across the breadth of our public life.

But is that best for the rest of us? Before they turn thumbs down on monarchy, would-be republicans might take another look, a close look, at the Queen and her family. They should consider not the people they are, necessarily, but the people they aspire to be, in their public lives. Decency, kindness, courtesy, and devotion to duty are anachronistic now. MPs who arrive in Ottawa with such quaint, idealistic notions are quickly disabused of them. Is Ottawa so firm in its foundations that we can afford to cast aside a family entirely devoted to them, and to our shared history?

Watch yourself and your colleagues in Question Period, on any given day, Pat. Then, maybe, think again.

Canada's monarchy makes no sense — until you consider the alternatives

To be sure, [people] also respect her for her sense of duty, but that, too, is the product of heredity: not in the sense of an inherited trait, but as her chosen response to circumstances that were very much not of her choosing, the life she was born to, and the responsibilities that come with it.

This is the gate at which many critics of the monarchy stumble. Most will profess to admire the Queen personally. Some claim to like the idea of the Crown, in some disembodied way, and of a head of state, separate from the head of government, as the repository of state sovereignty. But, they squirm, couldn't they be chosen in some other way? By election, or appointment, or, I don't know, just not heredity?

But this is to misunderstand the special genius of monarchy. You think all those people would have half-drowned themselves for the sixtieth jubilee of an elected head of state? You think an elected head of state would even have been around that long? Of course not. In the course of her long reign Elizabeth has seen a dozen British prime ministers come and go, along with 11 Canadian prime ministers and who knows how many more across the Commonwealth.

Where she represents continuity, and the affection that grows with time, they represent popularity, as fleeting as the weather.

It is in the nature of elected office to be temporary: we tire of them, they tire of the job, precisely because it is a matter of choice on either side... In the end, it is just a job.

But now consider the lot of a heredity monarch. You aren't elected or appointed or selected in any way. Indeed, you did nothing to earn it. But neither did you seek it. You just are. It is not a job or a position or even a calling. It is you: from the day you are born until the day you die. You may think the Queen's life a privileged one, but I can't imagine most of us would trade places with her. It is a life sentence, and yet one she accepts uncomplainingly.

As the Queen endures, so does the nation that loves her

[bleeding heart]

You are right on, those are the choices.

If you really believed this, you would be a simpelton.

But you're not; so you don't.

[g_bambino]

[W]e should all be gazing with loving reverence upon the Queen's "work ethic," when countless millions of people all over the planet work a lot harder for virtually nothing.

I think you're deliberately blowing things out of proportion; or, at least, focusing on what's been said by others who themselves have blown things out of proportion. "Loving reverence" for the Queen's "work ethic" is one thing; respect for her dedication to service and sense of duty is altogether something different. The Queen had no choice in being queen, yet she has carried on as queen - with the burden that comes with the job - for sixty years, barely flagging. Think there's no burden whatsoever to being a sovereign? Explain why George VI went to an early grave.

It's rank celebrity worship

Funny, I don't see Gwyneth Paltrow ever having been or being at her age now, let alone at 86, patron of hundreds of charities, meeting thousands of people at hundreds of engagements she's been requested to attend each year, working with ministers on constitutional and diplomatic matters, or supporting (and holding the respect of) armed forces and veterans, all for no salary, no multi-million dollar contracts, and with no prospect of retirement. Do you?

[ed.: +]

Edited June 6, 2012 by g_bambino

[bleeding heart]

I think you're deliberately blowing things out of proportion; or, at least, focusing on what's been said by others who themselves have blown things out of proportion.

????

I was unequivocally, explicitly, and as stated, "focusing on what's been said by others who...have blown things out of proportion."

People on this thread.

To whom I was responding.

"Loving reverence" for the Queen's "work ethic" is one thing; respect for her dedication to service and sense of duty is altogether something different.

And I was critiquing exactly and only the first. There's no mistaking it, since I spelled it out.

The Queen had no choice in being queen, yet she has carried on as Queen - with the burden that comes with the job - for sixty years, barely flagging. Think there's no burden whatsoever to being a sovereign? Explain why George VI went to an early grave.

I didn't say there was no burden.

I said the burden was shared--and in fact surpassed--by countless (and mostly uncounted!) millions of other human beings.

Just to be clear: I'm not one of them. I have an easy and contented life, by most comparisons.

Funny, I don't see Gwyneth Paltrow ever having been or being at her age now, let alone at 86, patron of hundreds of charities, meeting thousands of people at hundreds of engagements she's been requested to attend each year, working with ministers on constitutional and diplomatic matters, or supporting (and holding the respect of) armed forces and veterans, all for no salary, no multi-million dollar contracts, and with no prospect of retirement. Do you?

[ed.: +]

Who are you talking to? Whom are you trying to convince?

I think you're arguing with a phantom.

[g_bambino]

I was unequivocally, explicitly, and as stated, "focusing on what's been said by others who...have blown things out of proportion."

Yes, but did they actually express "loving reverence" for the Queen's "work ethic"? Or, did they say something else but you blew it out of proportion by interpreting it as such? As far as I can tell, one person said they wished "the young in this country had the work ethic of a 86 year old queen of canada". That compares the work ethic of one group to that of a separate person; it doesn't set the work ethic of the separate person as the highest possible standard against which all others' work ethic is to be judged, let alone express any "loving reverence". Your response was simply to denigrate the Queen's work, implying the Queen has no work ethic, since she has no work to do.

[cybercoma]

I wish the young in this country had the work ethic of a 86 year old queen of canada. That is probably why they hate her so much. But yet they hate the american style of goverment, so get rid of the queen and we hate america so that leaves what ........socialism?

The young have crippling debt and an unemployment rate that is more than double the national average. They're also some 4x more likely to be the victims of violent crime. You're clearly oblivious to the problems faced by our youth.

[punked]

The young have crippling debt and an unemployment rate that is more than double the national average. They're also some 4x more likely to be the victims of violent crime. You're clearly oblivious to the problems faced by our youth.

If only we could have all been boomers.

[g_bambino]

How about if she displayed a little of her mythical persuasiveness come election time and remind her subjects of their responsibility and voting's importance in the scheme of our democratic parliamentary tradition - not for who but for what, I wonder if that would make a difference?

It's hard to imagine anyone getting their nose out of joint over that limited display of royal displeasure at the sorry state of democracy in her realm, at least in public.

That's an interesting idea. In a democratic parliamentary constitutional monarchy, parliament is supreme, the House of Commons dominates parliament, and the Commons is elected by the constituency; in other words, the electorate almost always has the ultimate responsibility for its own governance. But, it is the sovereign's constitutional duty to ensure the system continues to function, and proper engagement of the electorate is a necessary element of the system's functioning.

However, there are practical limitations to your proposal. Firstly, how would it be composed? The Queen couldn't in any way in a message encouraging Canadians to vote "display royal displeasure at the sorry state of democracy" because such is not only a partisan statement - "I prefer [X] way of exercising democracy over [Y]" - but also a chiding of Canadian voters for not living up to their responsibilities, which I doubt many Canadians would take well, no matter the inherent truth of the claim. Secondly, who would pay for its production and airing? The Queen cannot simply appropriate tax dollars to fund a message she feels Canadians need to hear; such things need to be done on the advice of responsible ministers. To do otherwise would rather go against the democratic principles the message is trying to encourage. And lastly, would that many people really listen? Canadians are already told by politicians and celebrities and teachers and veterans to get out and vote; still, the numbers decline. Somewhere between 91 and 74% of Canadians don't even know the Queen is their head of state; why would they then heed what's being said to them by what they wrongly believe to be a foreign head of state?

I think the Queen knows she has to work in more subtle ways to influence, rather than command.