The Federal Republic of Canada

[g_bambino]

and a canadian born anywhere has no chance of becoming queen...

Except, um, the Queen.

[bush_cheney2004]

...That depends on which American you're talking about. It's possible for anyone to become Canada's monarch; they just have to get the laws changed by the federal and provincial parliaments. It's difficult, but not impossible. Just like it is for a lot of Americans to become president.

So not only is it presently impossible, it is highly unlikely to be changed for the very reasons you champion the royal status quo.

Any natural born American of 35 years age can become president.

[dre]

This is pretty much a non issue. I dont not much of a fan myself but its a part of the history of Canada, and a lot of Canadians think its important. I dont think its worth having a big argument over at this point.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is pretty much a non issue. I dont not much of a fan myself but its a part of the history of Canada, and a lot of Canadians think its important. I dont think its worth having a big argument over at this point.

Well the rest of the human race thinks it's delightful fun to tease Canadians about their queen in funny hats.

[dre]

Well the rest of the human race thinks it's delightful fun to tease Canadians about their queen in funny hats.

Shrugs. Tease away!

[Wilber]

There's always going to have to be limitations on who can become head of state. In republics, there are written rules that exclude, as there are in monarchies. But, since presidents are also politicians, who must run in elections and be elected, there develop in republics additional unwritten factors limiting who can and cannot become HoS. Hell, it's not so infrequently that family dynasties emerge in republics, anyway; just politically powerful ones; which, ironically, is more akin to absolute monarchy than most actual monarchies.

[c/e]

The US can do what it wants. Just pointing out that we are not the only ones who set arbitrary restrictions on who can be head of state.

[g_bambino]

[W]e are not the only ones who set arbitrary restrictions on who can be head of state.

Indeed.

[Sukhpreet Singh]

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you're saying any less inane. To build your case, you first have to show 1) how the monarchy is "completely against" democratic priniples (especially in light of the fact that a number of other countries around the world both have monarchies and are considered democracies), 2) when the monarchy has ever been "despotic", and 3) why misconceived symbolism matters more than facts and rational thought.

1. The head of state is not elected, we the people have no choice in who that is. It is determined by accidental birth to a certain family who has been ruling before him or her. People having a decision in electing heads of government is considered a democracy. I hope that clears up the definition of democracy to you. Its really not that hard to understand.

2. Its despotic rule of the 13 colonies is well established, the king or queen has enacted laws without consent or say from the public, has been brutal in terms of its crackdown, you need to review monarch history in britain. In canada today thats not the case, but im sure people in canada believe in full democratic principals, so its hyprocritical to defend the monarchy because its roots and alot of its history has been anything but democratic. Look up the meaning of monarchy and thats what the symbolism is today.

3. So i guess not electing your own head of state, not ever having a say in who that is, and nobody that is from another religion other than the church of england can be king or queen (it discriminates there as well) is more rational right? Give your head a shake.

[guyser]

1. The head of state is not elected, we the people have no choice in who that is. It is determined by accidental birth to a certain family who has been ruling before him or her. People having a decision in electing heads of government is considered a democracy. I hope that clears up the definition of democracy to you. Its really not that hard to understand.

2. Its despotic rule of the 13 colonies is well established, the king or queen has enacted laws without consent or say from the public, has been brutal in terms of its crackdown, you need to review monarch history in britain. In canada today thats not the case, but im sure people in canada believe in full democratic principals, so its hyprocritical to defend the monarchy because its roots and alot of its history has been anything but democratic. Look up the meaning of monarchy and thats what the symbolism is today.

3. So i guess not electing your own head of state, not ever having a say in who that is, and nobody that is from another religion other than the church of england can be king or queen (it discriminates there as well) is more rational right? Give your head a shake.

You'd have an easier time debating science w Stephen Hawking than monarchy with the bambino.

But give it your best shot.

BTW, his Q's were not answered.

[Sukhpreet Singh]

...and succession laws passed and subsequently supported by generations of parliamentarians elected as representatives of the political majority. So, your point is...?

[+]

ok........ and that makes it alright? It wont change the fact that it is by birth (accidental birth to a certain family) who has more rights and freedoms compared to the rest of the public. I think Canadian values are everyone has equal rights and no one should have special privilages. The monarchy is a symbol of that, and we have one that is the head of our state.

[guyser]

ok........ and that makes it alright? It wont change the fact that it is by birth (accidental birth to a certain family) who has more rights and freedoms compared to the rest of the public. I think Canadian values are everyone has equal rights and no one should have special privilages. The monarchy is a symbol of that, and we have one that is the head of our state.

Name two please

[g_bambino]

The head of state is not elected, we the people have no choice in who that is. It is determined by accidental birth to a certain family who has been ruling before him or her. People having a decision in electing heads of government is considered a democracy. I hope that clears up the definition of democracy to you...

Well, it clears up what your definition of democracy is: simplistic and basically wrong. Democracy is a system wherein as many of the governed as possible have influence on governance, have equal access to legislative processes. There's no rule, on the other hand, saying that democracy exists only where the head of state is elected.

You keep conveniently ignoring the fact that Canada's head of state is chosen not just according to the order of births in a certain family; in fact, that isn't even the penultimate selector. The laws of succession trump natural birth order; hence, males precede females, the heirs are ordered according to age, only descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover are eligible, Roman Catholics are omitted, etc. These laws - the common laws, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Statute of Westminster 1931, the Succession to the Throne Act 1937 - were either passed by duly elected representatives in the British parliament, inherited by Canada, and subsequently allowed to either rest or be voted on from time to time by elected Members of Parliament in Ottawa, or were originally created by the elected Canadian House of Commons. There's even now plans underway to change the succession rules, a process that will require the input and eventual approval of our elected representatives.

Ergo, Canada's system of governance fits the definition of democratic, with the monarchy as an intrinsic part of it; just like, as I mentioned (and you also ignored), the other countries around the world that are constitutional monarchies. Are you going to try to mount a serious argument that Sweden is not a democracy?

Its despotic rule of the 13 colonies is well established.

American myth. The laws that offended some colonists in the Thirteen Colonies were passed by the British parliament; they were not autocratic edicts from King George III alone. You only reinforce here my suspicion that you've missed the last 1500 years of British/Empire/Commonwealth history and have instead watched one too many Hollywood movie.

So i guess not electing your own head of state, not ever having a say in who that is, and nobody that is from another religion other than the church of england can be king or queen (it discriminates there as well) is more rational right?

This is all together nonsensical, incorrect, and irrelevant. You said you don't care that the Canadian monarchy is a constitutional one, i.e. one in which the rule of law is supreme, even over the monarch. Instead, you are more concerned with what you mistakenly believe the monarchy symbolises. Which means you place subjective and ill-conceived perceptions over fact and rational thought. Forgive me if that doesn't exactly inspire me to take up a pitchfork and join your march on Rideau Hall.

[c/e]

Edited November 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

it is by birth (accidental birth to a certain family) who has more rights and freedoms compared to the rest of the public.

Though the constitution accords them the exact same rights and freedoms as the rest of us, it seems members of the Royal Family actually have less freedom, in practice, than every other Canadian. Amongst other limitations, they cannot, by convention, vote. They can't, by law, marry without the government's consent. So, what extra rights and freedoms are these that members of the Royal Family enjoy by virtue of the succession laws?

I think Canadian values are... no one should have special privilages. The monarchy is a symbol of that...

Ugh, please. Push for the abolition of the post of prime minister, then; the occupant of that office enjoys some pretty nice living arrangements, travel perks, dining allowances, and other special privileges the rest of us don't now and very likely never could.

[c/e]

Edited November 8, 2011 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

...American myth. The laws that offended some colonists in the Thirteen Colonies were passed by the British parliament; they were not autocratic edicts from King George III alone. You only reinforce here my suspicion that you've missed the last 1500 years of British/Empire/Commonwealth history and have instead watched one too many Hollywood movie.

You only tell half the story...the Bill of Rights 1689 provided for a redress of grievances by the colonists, which was the basis for several petitions to King George...which were rebuffed. American fact soon followed.

Edited November 8, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Since that doesn't seem to be the case at all, you're going to have to provide some evidence. Many successful democracies follow a model that is very close to that of constitutional monarchies, even when they're republics.

Canada is so much so a de facto republic that people don't even know the Queen is our head of state. Our monarchy is a redundant anachronism that is indeed sybmolic of all the misdeeds and oppression that were carried out in its name, as the British monarchy, throughout history.

[cybercoma]

There have been lots of female presidents in republics, and candidates in the US with the opportunity to occupy the office. They were not excluded by royal sexism, which is different from Canada's prime minister.

No, they were excluded by cultural sexism.

[cybercoma]

It is technically possible, but regardless, they can be the Governor General of Canada.

So can Haitians. Who cares? It's a meaningless symbolic position.

[Smallc]

Canada is so much so a de facto republic that people don't even know the Queen is our head of state. Our monarchy is a redundant anachronism that is indeed sybmolic of all the misdeeds and oppression that were carried out in its name, as the British monarchy, throughout history.

In your opinion, that is.

There's no such thing as a defacto republic. We are a constitutional monarchy. That's the system of government that you call a defacto republic. Our monarchy is a symbol of this county, and of its people's success. It is a symbol of our enduring strengths and of our achievements. Our monarchy is not named the British Monarchy in its Canadian role.

[Smallc]

So can Haitians. Who cares? It's a meaningless symbolic position.

No, in fact it isn't. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of a parliamentary system of government, and statements like that make it clear.

The position occupied by the governor general within our system, in his duty to carry out the functions he does in the name of the authority of the Queen, is absolutely essential to the constitutional and legal functioning of our system of government. Indeed, similar positions exist in almost every constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic the world over (and by that I mean the position of a head of state [or in this case, a person acting through the name and authority of that head of state] separated from the political functioning of a country). It isn't symbolic. Calling it a symbolic position isn't even an opinion, but rather something that's completely false.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

The monarchy answers to Parliament which is elected by the public. Although it has the capability of acting unilaterally, precedent is that it does not. In any case, if it did it would create a constitutional crisis. Ultimately, Canada since Confederation has operated as a republic. The only example that I can think of off the top of my head where the monarchy acted unilaterally was the King-Byng affair. A decision which was crushed by parliament weeks later. The Crown has no practical power or authority in Canada, even if the rule of law is that it's the Head of State. Hell, The Crown doesn't even pick its representative in this country.

[Smallc]

The monarchy answers to Parliament which is elected by the public.

And that's pretty much the definition of a constitutional monarchy.

Although it has the capability of acting unilaterally, precedent is that it does not.

There are only very rare cases in which unilateral actions are required, or even desired. That's the way constitutional monarchy works.

In any case, if it did it would create a constitutional crisis.

Not in any case, no.

Ultimately, Canada since Confederation has operated as a republic.

No, it hasn't. Please give evidence.

The only example that I can think of off the top of my head where the monarchy acted unilaterally was the King-Byng affair.

That's actually something that can happen in almost all parliamentary republics. Constitutional monarchy is more about the selection of the head of state, and the location from which the state and the government derive their power. Our's comes from an eternal crown, personified in a sovereign. A parliamentary republic's...doesn't.

A decision which was crushed by parliament weeks later. The Crown has no practical power or authority in Canada, even if the rule of law is that it's the Head of State. Hell, The Crown doesn't even pick its representative in this country.

The Crown is the source of al power in this country. The above makes absolutely no sense.

[cybercoma]

The Governor General is Commander-in-Chief of Canada's military, but even Parliament's website explains the position this way:

As their Commander-in-Chief, the Governor General has an important symbolic and ceremonial relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces

From that same report:

Constitutional role and responsibilities of the Governor General of Canada

Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. In theory, this means that Canadians recognize the Queen as their Head of State. In practice, however, the duties of Head of State are performed by the Governor General and the lieutenant-governors. When the Letters Patent 1 were registered in 1947, virtually all the responsibilities of the Head of State, also called royal prerogatives, were vested in the Governor General, despite the fact that a number of the Governor General's powers and responsibilities were already set out in the Constitution Act, 1867.

This status of Head of State is often put forward to justify the nature and scope of the Governor General's activities. Although the Governor General has vast legislative powers under the 1867 Constitution and the Letters Patent of 1947, many of the most important conventions in the Canadian Constitution provide that these powers are, in practice, exercised individually by the Prime Minister and collectively by Cabinet.

According to Andrew Heard 2, these constitutional conventions prevent the Governor General from exercising the majority of these legal powers on his or her own initiative. They ensure that the vast legislative powers of the Sovereign's representative are maintained, even though the Governor General's field of activity is today defined primarily by Cabinet. The Governor General acts on the recommendations and at the request of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This aspect is critical in the context of the review of the Governor General's fiscal responsibility and accountability for the management of public funds allocated to him or her by Parliament

Symbolic. Ceremonial.

[cybercoma]

The source of power is the people who elect the parliament that tells the Governor General what to do through the Prime Minister.

[Smallc]

Well first, the Governor General of Canada is only the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces through the authority of the Queen, and not on his now, and second, you're still reinforcing the case that Canada is (because it is) a constitutional monarchy.

[Smallc]

The source of power is the people who elect the parliament that tells the Governor General what to do through the Prime Minister.

No, that's not the way that our system of government is set up. The people get the ultimate say, but constitutionally and legally, that isn't the source of the power wielded by the Government of Canada.