dlkenny Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 I agree that it would be a waste of money. But, it would hardly be about mere symbolism; the entire constitution is built around the monarchy. Pull out that kingpin and something has to be put in its place, else the entire system spins apart. I disagree, I think the government would function perfectly well. In 1947 the "Letters Patent of King George VI" transferred all duties of the Head of State to the Governor General of Canada. That means that since 1947 the Monarchy is completely an historic symbol. If the Monarchy were completely evicted from Canadian Government all it would mean is the Governor General would become the Head of State, otherwise nothing would change. Quote If you understand, no explanation necessary. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 Unless we were to develop our own Crown (around which so many things in this country are based) a great deal would change. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 In 1947 the "Letters Patent of King George VI" transferred all duties of the Head of State to the Governor General of Canada. That means that since 1947 the Monarchy is completely an historic symbol. If the Monarchy were completely evicted from Canadian Government all it would mean is the Governor General would become the Head of State, otherwise nothing would change. Er, no. The Letters Patent permitted the Governor General to exercise almost all of the sovereign's royal prerogative; no transfer took place. What you claim is a myth disseminated by Rideau Hall to support their other myth that the Governor General is head of state above the Queen. Remove the monarchy and the Governor General has no authority. Quote
Bryan Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 It's funny how much polls within polls contradict each other. People have no idea what they want. That contradictory opinion is pretty much in line with how I look at it too though. I recognize the importance of tradition, and I firmly believe that we should embrace the monarchy as one of our traditions. I just think it should be strictly ceremonial with no real power whatsoever. Our elected government should not need Royal "permission" for anything, ever. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Our elected government should not need Royal "permission" for anything, ever. Given that royal permission is the people's permission, are you therefore advocating despotism? Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 Remove the monarchy and the Governor General has no authority. That's right, you'd have to create a new monarchy in its place with the GG as the Monarch...or course them all agreements with the previous Crown would have to be resigned by the new Crown (just as if we changed to a republic) and I think renegotiating everything involved in this country could turn one of them ost stable countries in the world into much less stable of a country. Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 Our elected government should not need Royal "permission" for anything, ever. What if something that they're doing is in direct violation of the Constitution? What if what the government of the day chooses to do would greatly endanger the country (say a unilateral bill to separate by one of the provinces]). It's not a just a pat of our history, and more people have to recognize it. The Canadian Crown is very much alive today. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Our elected government should not need Royal "permission" for anything, ever. Given that royal permission is the people's permission, are you therefore advocating despotism? What if something that they're doing is in direct violation of the Constitution? I prefer Bambino's answer. For the part about what if they do something in violation, for that we have the SCofC Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) We do, but that's an after the fact thing. The Crown is (as the Head of State is supposed to be) the protector of the Constitution. They thankfully don't have to protect it very often. I like Bambino's answer also though. I was simply adding to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Governor_of_Alberta#History This is an example of the Court and the Crown agreeing on such an issue. Edited November 11, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Bryan Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Given that royal permission is the people's permission, are you therefore advocating despotism? I reject that very concept. Keep the people as the people, and take the Royal(s) out of the equation. Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 Why is it necessary to remove such a thing when it would come at huge dificulty and result in absolutely no gain, and probably a loss. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 I reject that very concept. Keep the people as the people, and take the Royal(s) out of the equation. So, because you reject a concept you expect the rest of us to suffer under the resulting despotism? No thanks. Some figure has to act on behalf of the people in ensuring the system runs smoothly and by the book; even the Supreme Court Justices have to be appointed by someone. Quote
Bryan Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 So, because you reject a concept you expect the rest of us to suffer under the resulting despotism? No thanks. Some figure has to act on behalf of the people in ensuring the system runs smoothly and by the book; even the Supreme Court Justices have to be appointed by someone. Right. Because Monarchs have never been dictatorial. Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 Ours certainly haven't been for a very long time. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Right. Because Monarchs have never been dictatorial. Red herring. Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 On this topic: During the Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa, the Governor General placed a wreath on behalf of the people of Canada, but what did the note attached to the wreath placed by the Prince say? Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 On this topic: During the Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa, the Governor General placed a wreath on behalf of the people of Canada, but what did the note attached to the wreath placed by the Prince say? Camilla is getting long in the tooth...are you free for tea? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 I don't think that was it. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Maybe he can hook up with the Governor General; then we could really have Queen Michaelle! She sure looks damn hot in her CF uniform (and Charles looks sharp in his too; love the big 'ol "Canada" flash on his shoulder). Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 I like the very unique rankless uniform of the GG with just her symbol on the shoulder. I have a question though. Why is Charles a Lieutenant General? Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) And who is that wearing the same uniform beside her? I also notice the ER initials on the shoulder of the uniform Charles is wearing. I don't see the Queens initials on other uniforms. Edited November 11, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) It seems to be the Governor Generals secretary or whatever they call it. The initials seem to do with being part of the royal party as the Captain (I think) with him also seems to have them. Edited November 11, 2009 by Smallc Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 And who is that wearing the same uniform beside her? I also notice the ER initials on the shoulder of the uniform Charles is wearing. I don't see the Queens initials on other uniforms. While he is the colonel in chief of a few reg'ts, he only wears their insignia when he is officiating with them, like last night when he wore the Hackle, otherwise he wears the monogram of his CinC. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Bryan Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Red herring. I don't believe it is. You're saying we should place our trust and ultimate power in someone whose only qualification is having been born to the right family. A position that does have a history of tyranny. And you're claiming that the reason for that is to AVOID such tyranny. I'm saying that power rightfully belongs to someone the people actively decide to give it to. Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 There are far more bad republics than there are bad monarchies. Quote
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.