Smallc Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Posted November 11, 2009 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. Yes, but I still wonder why the particular rank of Lieutenant General is awarded to him. Quote
Riverwind Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 looks damn hot in her CF uniformAnyone know what the medals she is wearing mean? Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
M.Dancer Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Anyone know what the medals she is wearing mean? Yes, Yes I do. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Yes, but I still wonder why the particular rank of Lieutenant General is awarded to him. It only looks like a lieutenant General's rank..his canadian rank is actually Vice Admiral of the Canadian Forces. And it only looks that way cause some dip unified the forces and made the navy use army insignia. 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 Oh, I see now. CTV made the mistake of saying Lieutenant General. Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 11, 2009 Report Posted November 11, 2009 Oh, I see now. CTV made the mistake of saying Lieutenant General. That would be the case, if they said Lt Gen.... I remember a few years ago they said a British soldier had died in suffolk (AB) while engaged in a friendly fire exercise. I read that and thought, yikes, there's some bloody tough and pointless training... Oy, Trooper, Look Lively you Idle Baaastaaard....go over by that tree...we are going to pretend we think you are a fooocking camel humper.....and we are going to shell you..got it? Right, Off! Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
g_bambino Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Anyone know what the medals she is wearing mean? Around her neck is the insignia of a Companion of the Order of Canada. On her medal bar are (left to right) the Canadian Forces Decoration and Commemorative Medal for the Centennial of Saskatchewan. Charles has the insignia of the Order of Merit (I assume) at his neck, and on the medal bar: the medal of an Extra Companion of the Queen's Service Order (New Zealand), the Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal, the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal, the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, the Canadian Forces Decoration (with two clasps), and the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal. Below is the badge of the Order of the Garter. Quote
Riverwind Posted November 12, 2009 Report Posted November 12, 2009 Around her neck is the insignia of...Thanks Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 What that means is Charles will have no problems claiming his title as the King of Canada since no Canadians have no interest in the constitutional debates required to get rid of him. Canadian law requires that the executive government and authority of and over Canada be vested in a Queen. Prince Charles will never be a Queen. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Canadian law requires that the executive government and authority of and over Canada be vested in a Queen. Prince Charles will never be a Queen. well there is a chance. Quote
Smallc Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Posted November 16, 2009 Canadian law requires that the executive government and authority of and over Canada be vested in a Queen. The Crown. The sovereigns name is easy to attach and remove because they are all a constant lineage representing the same ideas. A change to a republic isn't quite that easy....though I think you may have been making a funny. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The Crown. Well, technically the constitution says "the Queen". But, according to the Interpretation Act, "the Queen" is synonymous with "the King", "the Crown", "His Majesty", and "Her Majesty". The monarch is inseparable from the Crown. Quote
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Well, technically the constitution says "the Queen". But, according to the Interpretation Act, "the Queen" is synonymous with "the King", "the Crown", "His Majesty", and "Her Majesty". The monarch is inseparable from the Crown. According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is the Sovereign. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown. Quote
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is the Sovereign. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown. The Queen is the Sovereign of Canada, and therefore any reference to the Crown refers to HRM. When the Queen abdicates then whomever takes her place will be appointed the Sovereign of Canada, and by default the Crown. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The Queen is the Sovereign of Canada, and therefore any reference to the Crown refers to HRM. When the Queen abdicates then whomever takes her place will be appointed the Sovereign of Canada, and by default the Crown. In your view, is the “Sovereign of Canada” not sovereign? Do you claim that the Crown is not sovereign? Quote
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 "The Crown" is not separate from "The Queen". They are one and the same. Canada does things on behalf of "The Crown" in Right of Canada, or in the case of provinces in "Right of Ontario" (et al). The Head of State is "The Queen" and the Governor General in Her absence. The GG represents "The Crown" and so when the Queen is replace with The King, the GG will be that Sovereign's representative, and our Head of State in absence of "The King" We cannot remove the Monarchy from our system, without also throwing out the system (including the Constitution). We are subjects of the Crown (and not independent citizens of Canada)and our Constitution was given to us by the Queen. If we want to become an independent republic, we would have to follow the US by first making a declaration of independence, and them implementing our own constitution. However, our difficulty would be that during the transition it would be quite probable that we would be subject to anarchy, or invasion since without a working government we would be open to exploitation. The only other way that we could make a transition to a republic, would be to first enter a period where we were under a dictatorship, which comes with its own risks. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. If the Crown is sovereign, the Crown is the Sovereign. The Crown is a real non-man-made legal entity, a real non-man-made being. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown. Quote
wyly Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 However, our difficulty would be that during the transition it would be quite probable that we would be subject to anarchy, or invasion since without a working government we would be open to exploitation. The only other way that we could make a transition to a republic, would be to first enter a period where we were under a dictatorship, which comes with its own risks. oh man, the scare tactics monarchists come up with to save the royal pigs, ANARCHY! INVASION! DICTATORSHIP!...too funny Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
charter.rights Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. If the Crown is sovereign, the Crown is the Sovereign. The Crown is a real non-man-made legal entity, a real non-man-made being. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown. "The Queen" is the Sovereign of Canada. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
eyeball Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 According to the Interpretation Act, 1889, references to the Crown are references to the Sovereign. The Queen is not sovereign. If the Crown is sovereign, the Crown is the Sovereign. The Crown is a real non-man-made legal entity, a real non-man-made being. Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of the Crown. And the crown is imbued with principles that recognize the supremacy of God. In reality or unreality as the case may be, we live in a de facto theocracy under the thumb of the being that made man. Its ridiculous. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
dpwozney Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 "The Queen" is the Sovereign of Canada. In your view, is the “Sovereign of Canada” not sovereign? If you accept the Constitution Act, 1982 as being valid, then you have to agree that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God. Quote
wyly Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 And the crown is imbued with principles that recognize the supremacy of God. In reality or unreality as the case may be, we live in a de facto theocracy under the thumb of the being that made man. Its ridiculous. and who are the head of the church of england??? the royals... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 the royal pigs Do you expect anyone to take you seriously with that kind of attitude? Quote
wyly Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Do you expect anyone to take you seriously with that kind of attitude? pig$ at a trough = senator$ and royal$...ya millions of people agree just not something monarchists and senators want to hear... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 pig$ at a trough = senator$ and royal$...ya millions of people agree just not something monarchists and senators want to hear... You didn't answer my question, again. 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.