Queen grooming Prince Wiliam

[Topaz]

The British press is reporting that the Queen is guiding Prince William as a "shadow King" making one to believe that she is thinking of handing over soon, to Prince William and skipping Charles as King. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235375/Prince-William-share-Queens-duties-Treasury-document-reveals-secret-plan-make-Shadow-King.html

[ToadBrother]

The British press is reporting that the Queen is guiding Prince William as a "shadow King" making one to believe that she is thinking of handing over soon, to Prince William and skipping Charles as King. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235375/Prince-William-share-Queens-duties-Treasury-document-reveals-secret-plan-make-Shadow-King.html

Wow! That's a 180 degree shift of direction. Is Charles sick? Is the Queen? It's very very strange to have the eldest son of the heir to the throne being directly handed such a large scale of duties. I wonder if Charles may finally be deciding that he's never going to sit on the Throne.

[Guest American Woman]

Wow! That's a 180 degree shift of direction. Is Charles sick? Is the Queen? It's very very strange to have the eldest son of the heir to the throne being directly handed such a large scale of duties. I wonder if Charles may finally be deciding that he's never going to sit on the Throne.

There's been talk of the Queen bypassing Charles for years, so I don't think this is really that big a shift in direction. He's divorced and remarried, and from what I've read, Camilla will never be given the position/title of Queen, so I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the throne is handed over to William.

Charles, at 60, is the oldest heir-in-waiting in Britain's history, so from what I've read, he does fear that he will never be king. link

As an American, ie: not part of the commonwealth, I have to wonder why there's a need for royalty in a country with a PM and parliament, especially in light of all the money that they get (money that could be serving the country), but I suppose maybe that line of thought is considered offensive for those whom the king/queen serve?

[bush_cheney2004]

....As an American, ie: not part of the commonwealth, I have to wonder why there's a need for royalty in a country with a PM and parliament, especially in light of all the money that they get (money that could be serving the country), but I suppose maybe that line of thought is considered offensive for those whom the king/queen serve?

It is very UN-American, in and of itself a very important element in defining tha Canadian identity as we have opined on many threads. God save the Prince and all that jazz.

[bloodyminded]

It is very UN-American, in and of itself a very important element in defining tha Canadian identity as we have opined on many threads. God save the Prince and all that jazz.

It's very important to some Canadians, but I believe most of us are indifferent at best. I tend to see it in a way some might call typically American, personally: I think the monarchy is more or less a useless waste of time and money.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's very important to some Canadians, but I believe most of us are indifferent at best. I tend to see it in a way some might call typically American, personally: I think the monarchy is more or less a useless waste of time and money.

No doubt there are many Canadians who are indifferent to such matters, while others must insist on supporting the protocol if only to reject "Republicanism", the very core of historical CanAm differences.

I personally welcome the opportunity to witness the royal transfer of the Sovereign from one human being to another, all while skipping the one in between because he married a commoner....twice! Even the Holy Trinity never managed to do that.

[Guest American Woman]

I tend to see it in a way some might call typically American, personally: I think the monarchy is more or less a useless waste of time and money.

We're in complete agreement, then. I might also add that I find it offensive that I, as a "commoner," would have to "bow" to their superiority. That's pretty archaic in our world today where we recognize that we are all "created equal."

Edited December 13, 2009 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

No doubt there are many Canadians who are indifferent to such matters,

Not "many." "Most."

[bloodyminded]

We're in complete agreement, then. I might also add that I find it offensive that I, as a "commoner," would have to "bow" to their superiority. That's pretty archaic in our world today where we recognize that we are all "created equal."

Yes, I think it's absurd. And the only answer you can ever be given is that it's "tradition," as if the word is holy writ and an answer unto itself.

Tradition is good only when it's...well, when it's good. It has absolutely zero value in and of itself.

[ZenOps]

Queen Elizabeth II is old. No offense meant, but shes what almost 84 now?

According to a lot of people we aren't created equal. The Pope arguably owns more than the Queen and has more power than the President of the US. Tiger Woods is a billionaire because noone else in the world can drop things into holes like he can, haha

The whole idea of Canada is based on British superiority (if not as a race, at least as a superior lawmaking system) Heck, in this world everyone knows that Coke is better than Pepsi or Dr. Pepper.

[Smallc]

As an American, ie: not part of the commonwealth, I have to wonder why there's a need for royalty in a country with a PM and parliament,

There has to be something above those institutions.

[g_bambino]

The British press is reporting that the Queen is guiding Prince William as a "shadow King" making one to believe that she is thinking of handing over soon, to Prince William and skipping Charles as King. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235375/Prince-William-share-Queens-duties-Treasury-document-reveals-secret-plan-make-Shadow-King.html

I'm not entirely sure why this was posted in the "Rest of the World" section; are the Queen and her successors not part of Canada?

Anyway, for some days now I've been baffled by how this story has become so hot. An heir to the throne being prepared for his future role. Well, duh; that our head of state is trained to be a head of state is one of the strenghts of our system. Plus, it's been going on for about a thousand years, now; where, again, is the breaking news?

The stuff about Charles being passed over is pure tabloid junk; without constitutional change in every country of which Elizabeth is queen, and barring the death of the Prince of Wales before his mother, there will be a King Charles III.

[g_bambino]

We're in complete agreement, then. I might also add that I find it offensive that I, as a "commoner," would have to "bow" to their superiority. That's pretty archaic in our world today where we recognize that we are all "created equal."

Good grief. You "bow" to your president, don't you? Or, do you think you live in a Bolshevik utopia where you and everyone else are his equal and are as entitled as he is to use Air Force One for your next family trip? I wonder...

[c/e]

Edited January 2, 2010 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Good grief. You "bow" to your president, don't you? Or, do you think you live in a Bolshevik utopia where you and everyone else are his equal and are as entitled as he is to use Air Force One for your next family trip? I wonder...

[c/e]

In case it really wasn't clear to you, I was referring to "literally" bowing to the queen, not "figuratively."

So if you really don't know, the answer is most definitely no. I do not bow to my president, and I never will. Nor are we required to even figuratively bow to the president.

For the record, because I'm not entitled to use Air Force One doesn't mean I am not the POTUS's equal. I'm not entitled to use my neighbor's transportation, either, but by the same token, that doesn't mean I'm not her equal.

Furthermore, in the U.S. anyone any natural born citizen* can grow up to become president. Can't say the same about succeeding the crown, eh?

*Edited to read "any natural born citizen" rather than "anyone" after Smallc pointed out "Unless of course you weren't born in America."

Edited January 2, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

doesn't mean I am not the POTUS's equal.

Unless of course you weren't born in America. Is natural American blood more pure than that of others? I could grow up to become Governor General...to represent the Queen in Canada. I couldn't become a King anymore than an American born in Mexico could become president.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

Unless of course you weren't born in America. Is natural American blood more pure than that of others? I could grow up to become Governor General...to represent the Queen in Canada. I couldn't become a King anymore than an American born in Mexico could become president.

Representing the queen is a far cry from succeeding the throne. But true. I should have stipulated "natural born citizen" when saying "anyone can grow up to be president." The Mexican-born American's child could grow up to be president, though, while your child could never grow up to succeed the crown, so there is an equality there that does not exist with the crown.

Edited January 2, 2010 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

[

In case it really wasn't clear to you, I was referring to "literally" bowing to the queen, not "figuratively."

Well, then, AW, don't in future put the word you meant literally in quotation marks, as doing so in the context you did communicates precisely that you didn't mean the word literally. Hence, I took your word "bow" as a stand in for any kind of deference. If you meant "bow" as literally a bend at the waist, then no need to worry; the requirement that you bow before the monarch or any member of the Royal Family is long, long gone. Protocol explicitly advises that you may do so only if you choose to.

For the record, because I'm not entitled to use Air Force One doesn't mean I am not the POTUS's equal.

Uh, yeah, it does.

Furthermore, in the U.S. anyone any natural born citizen* can grow up to become president. Can't say the same about succeeding the crown, eh?

As the rules in Canada stand, not anyone can become the head of state, that's true. However, the rules are not unchangeable. Thus, as anyone, Canadian born or not (as opposed to the "all are equal" exclusion of those not native born in the US), can work towards having the law of succession changed to make them monarch, or having the country become a republic so that they may become president, technically, one can indeed say that anyone can grow up to become Canada's head of state.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, then, AW, don't in future put the word you meant literally in quotation marks, as doing so in the context you did communicates precisely that you didn't mean the word literally. Hence, I took your word "bow" as a stand in for any kind of deference.

Fair enough. I went back and re-read it, and I likely did mean both literally and figuratively at the time, so I stand corrected.

If you meant "bow" as literally a bend at the waist, then no need to worry; the requirement that you bow before the monarch or any member of the Royal Family is long, long gone. Protocol explicitly advises that you may do so only if you choose to.

That's good; progress is being made, but I still find the whole 'royalty' thing outdated in societies such as ours. The idea that just because someone is born into a specific family makes them suitable for any kind of leadership/representation of said country is totally against our democratic principles. We've had to deal with a Bush 'jr.' Imagine if there were no end to that line. I feel the same way about the monarchy.

Uh, yeah, it does.

Umm. No. It doesn't. I can't use anything that doesn't belong to me/go with my job, and same goes for the POTUS. I can't use my neighbor's private company jet either, but that doesn't mean I'm not their equal. The guy down the street that doesn't own a car can't use my car, but that doesn't mean he's not my equal. You have an odd sense of what "class" and "equal" and "bowing down" entails.

As the rules in Canada stand, not anyone can become the head of state, that's true. However, the rules are not unchangeable. Thus, as anyone, Canadian born or not (as opposed to the "all are equal" exclusion of those not native born in the US), can work towards having the law of succession changed to make them monarch, or having the country become a republic so that they may become president, technically, one can indeed say that anyone can grow up to become Canada's head of state.

Yes, I'm sure all Canadians can look forward to the possibility of succeeding the monarch; if only things change completely.

Edited January 2, 2010 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

That's good; progress is being made...

That depends on what you consider progress to be. Bowing to the sovereign began as, and is still considered to be, a sign of respect to the nation, which the monarch is the embodiment of, not to the monarch as an individual person. To my mind, it's an odd sort of progress when the trend moves towards the general attitude that each of us is so important that we need not show respect and deference to the state to which we belong; a real sign of the "me generation".

The idea that just because someone is born into a specific family makes them suitable for any kind of leadership/representation of said country is totally against our democratic principles.

Ah, but only in your misguided opinion. The tenets and structures of constitutional monarchy are far more complex than you assume; monarchs haven't reigned with impunity since the Magna Carta. They now reign with the people's consent, according to the laws enacted by their representatives in parliament, all, therefore, fully in accordance with democratic principals.

You have an odd sense of what "class" and "equal" and "bowing down" entails.

I'd say the same about you; it appears that in your world, exclusion, privilege, and divisions mean equality.

Yes, I'm sure all Canadians can look forward to the possibility of succeeding the monarch; if only things change completely.

No, as they are now. You must have missed what I wrote.

[+]

Edited January 2, 2010 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

That's good; progress is being made, but I still find the whole 'royalty' thing outdated in societies such as ours.

Not really. Half of the worlds most prosperous countries are monarchies, from Norway, to Luxembourg, to New Zealand. The idea of a Crown is something bigger than ones self - and I'm not talking about royalty at all here. I'm talking about the Crown itself. The Crown represents a continuous, unwavering, unbroken administration, that can represent all people...even the damned republicans. The Crown is part of the idea that the institution at the head of the county is above politics. No one voted for it, because no one should have. It simply exists, persists, and continues.

Oh, and for the record, I would consider being named Governor General to be an immense honour, as the representing of the Crown is a very import position in Canada.

[ToadBrother]

That's good; progress is being made, but I still find the whole 'royalty' thing outdated in societies such as ours. The idea that just because someone is born into a specific family makes them suitable for any kind of leadership/representation of said country is totally against our democratic principles. We've had to deal with a Bush 'jr.' Imagine if there were no end to that line. I feel the same way about the monarchy.

And yet, for the most part, since 1688 (when our Constitutional Monarchy finally took on a largely modern form) no Monarch, even if they were like GWB, have in fact behaved in such a way. The Sovereign acts upon the advice of His or Her Ministers, and it is a system which has worked for over 320 years, which still beats the American system by nearly 90 years, and what's more, never had a massive civil war to finally set down where the powers of the States meet the powers of the Federal Government.

If we take away all the "people shouldn't be put on high" philosophical musings (and if you don't think the US has an aristocracy which wields an enormous amount of influence over its institutions, then you're being extraordinarily naive), and actually look at the quality and stability of the governing institutions themselves, then I think our system has proven itself sufficiently that I don't think it needs defending. The Queen, overall, has probably been one of the most successful heads of state in modern history. She has nearly 60 years of experience, through many skilled and even less skilled political leaders, through extraordinary and dangerous world events. The advice she can give her Ministers comes from a wellspring of knowledge and experience that I doubt many other governments could boast. We're talking about a woman who began her job under the wings of no less than Winston Churchill, for goodness sake.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the monarchy. I think the problems in our government have nothing to do with the Queen or her Vice-regal, and everything to do with the elected officials. So getting rid of the Queen, or parting ways with Great Britain when she dies, won't solve a single problem. It's not as if the the republicans in Canada are suggesting we go to an American or French model, with a politically powerful head of state. If the system works, don't fix it, and if it doesn't work, fix the problems.

[g_bambino]

It's not as if the the republicans in Canada are suggesting we go to an American or French model, with a politically powerful head of state.

Actually, they've no idea what model to support. For them, that's actually incidental; the argument is purely nationalist, and resorts to ignorance, self-contradiction, Bolshevik class warfare, and borrowed American mythology in order to be so. Their plan is to get everyone to want a republic first and then think about what kind.

[Machjo]

It is very UN-American, in and of itself a very important element in defining tha Canadian identity as we have opined on many threads. God save the Prince and all that jazz.

Not quite. Many Quebecers are very republican.

[Smallc]

I wouldn't say that many Quebecers are 'very republican'. Most Canadians don't care either way. More in Quebec are against the idea of monarchy (or more specifically, a monarchy that traces its roots to the British Empire), but they're aren't very many staunch republicans in Canada.

[g_bambino]

I wouldn't say that many Quebecers are 'very republican'. Most Canadians don't care either way. More in Quebec are against the idea of monarchy (or more specifically, a monarchy that traces its roots to the British Empire), but they're aren't very many staunch republicans in Canada.

Well, Quebecers certainly appear to be mostly against the present monarchy, and nobody in Quebec seems to be endorsing the idea of creating another one to replace it. In fact, since the Quiet Revolution, Quebec intellectuals and politicians who pretend to be intellectual have espoused a republic for that province that mimicks the one now existing in France, even trying in the 1970s to get a provincial republic within a monarchical Canada. It's all, of course, a mass of nationalist theories and dreams built on revisionism and bigoted legend, but it's there, nonetheless. I should have in my earlier post distinguished the Quebec republicans from other Canadians of similar mind; their motives are quite different.