Queen grooming Prince Wiliam

[Smallc]

That's true, but even so, while most Quebecers are republicans, most really don't care...at all.

[g_bambino]

That's true, but even so, while most Quebecers are republicans, most really don't care...at all.

Yes, there are only a certain few who really bother to make anything of it. Hopefully time will eventually erase the remainder of the vitriolic propaganda that’s fused itself into the last couple of generations of Quebecers, and there can be a return to sanity. I mean, what other group can screech about its unique identity and history while simultaneously insisting it needs to represent that distinctive status a form of government it has never known? The French Canadians refused to participate in the American overthrow of the British monarchy in North America, and the French Revolution occurred a decade or so later, long after that country abandoned the unique Quebecers. Yet, Quebec now needs to be a republic. Truly and utterly bizarre.

[factual correction]

Edited January 3, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

Yes, there are only a certain few who really bother to make anything of it. Hopefully time will eventually erase the remainder of the vitriolic propaganda that’s fused itself into the last couple of generations of Quebecers, and there can be a return to sanity. I mean, what other group can screech about its unique identity and history while simultaneously insisting it needs to represent that distinctive status a form of government it has never known? The French Revolution occurred long after that country abandoned the unique Quebecers, and the French Canadians refused to participate in the American overthrow of monarchy some decades later. Yet, Quebec now needs to be a republic. Truly and utterly bizarre.

[sp]

If Quebec does secede, then I'd say the odds are extremely great that they will have a republic. But if secession does happen, it's still a ways off. It's pretty clear that Seperatism is at a low ebb, and the success of the Bloc has more to do with dissatisfaction in the Tories and the Grits.

As to republicanism itself, like I said, I'm ambivalent. If Canadians want end the monarchy, then so be it, but to do it for no other purpose than some sort of egalitarianism is an utter waste of the vast resources that will be required to replace the Crown. What's more, once you open that constitutional can of worms against, we'll light the fires of regionalism that seem finally to be fading back to a dull roar. If we move to end the monarchy we will be in a Meech Lake x 1000. The end result will almost certainly Quebec's departure, internecine political warfare between Ontario and the West of a kind that will make the Trudeau years seem like a paradise of brotherly love. And for what, so that the person who forwards their mail of Rideau Hall for a few years is elected rather than selected? It's worse than pointless egalitarianism, it would be a tragic destruction of a successful governing system and like lighting a stick of dynamite in the heart of the country.

I'm a monarchist purely because the system works, for the most part. It has produced centuries of generally responsible and stable government, has not in generations in any way adversely influenced our democratic institutions and that, in general, is all I can expect from government. No one has explained to me how the alternatives would deliver a better government, and none seem willing to admit the kind of danger going down that road would represent for national unity and territorial integrity.

[Smallc]

If Quebec does secede, then I'd say the odds are extremely great that they will have a republic. But if secession does happen, it's still a ways off.

It's probably more than a ways off. Quebec can't afford it, and with a growing population of anglophones and allophones as well as continually increasing bilingualism, there isn't much change of separatist sentiment increasing in the short or long term in any real sense.

[Bugs]

I hope y'all realize that the Queen doesn't get to say who her heir is.

Not since Cromwell.

This is the kind of stuff that started civil wars, though it's hard to imagine Charles fighting over anything.

It used to be that the top politicians held a veto on these things. (These days, it's probably decided by a committee of the EU, who are a little concerned that the position isn't open to people of all races and genders.)

The thing is ... in general, Canadians don't have any attachment to these people. They couldn't tell Harry from William. How many of these young princes did she whelp, anyway? How many people know?

The thing we have to free ourselves from is not the British monarchy, it's the institutions, and the legal assumptions that go with the monarchy. That is, the people are subjects of a top-down state, rather than sovereign. That's a real problem.

[Smallc]

That is, the people are subjects of a top-down state, rather than sovereign.

As made obvious by the above statement, what we need to do is improve education about the monarchy.

[g_bambino]

I hope y'all realize that the Queen doesn't get to say who her heir is...

The thing we have to free ourselves from is [that] the people are subjects of a top-down state, rather than sovereign.

Um, given that the sovereign is the state, your post contradicts itself. How can a monarch be simultaneously bound by law and above the will of the populace? As the former is correct, the latter is impossible.

[ToadBrother]

I hope y'all realize that the Queen doesn't get to say who her heir is.

Not since Cromwell.

I think you mean William III and Mary. It's called the Glorious Revolution, and that's when Parliament became supreme. But the laws of succession are fairly clear.

This is the kind of stuff that started civil wars, though it's hard to imagine Charles fighting over anything.

It used to be that the top politicians held a veto on these things. (These days, it's probably decided by a committee of the EU, who are a little concerned that the position isn't open to people of all races and genders.)

The thing is ... in general, Canadians don't have any attachment to these people. They couldn't tell Harry from William. How many of these young princes did she whelp, anyway? How many people know?

The thing we have to free ourselves from is not the British monarchy, it's the institutions, and the legal assumptions that go with the monarchy. That is, the people are subjects of a top-down state, rather than sovereign. That's a real problem.

It's strange how you confuse your own ignorance for everyone else.

At any rate, if we can't get a Constitutional amendment through to, say, change the makeup of the Senate, do you actually suppose that anyone is going to try to supplant the monarch.

I stand by what I said. The system formulated in 1688 after James II was give the boot has been extraordinarily successful.

Edited January 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ZenOps]

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."

You better bow the Queen, you better bow to your Saudi oil king masters too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd425zfw5Ew

Really though, its a sign of respect not deferrence of power. I yell "Wassup" to my peeps on the cellphone too... Sign of respect.

Edited January 6, 2010 by ZenOps

[Oleg Bach]

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.

Don't be so sure. Who knows what the past and the future hold. Not being some sort of stuck up Royalist blinded by tradition - I can say one thing and that is thanks to the Royal family and their friends ....the door to England was opened to my parents after the war..and in turn the door opened to Canada...and yes I complain and bitch about my lot in life at this present time but I am truely thankful to the Queen.

[Rue]

I am still working on the title to this thread. I immediately had visions of Queen Liz picking and eating flees off of Willy's head.

I am sure Willy is a nice boy but its time to revisit whether having a soverign monarch is antiquated.

As for Chuck, I will say this. He married this hideous creature that reminds me of the Salt Creature in the old Star Trek episode which tried to suck all the salt out of Capt. Kirk's head and had chameleon qualities so it could disguise itself as a woman which of course Kirk fell for since he was a player.

The idea of Camilla Bowels (what an appropriate name) being the King of Canada's chicky poo nauseates me.

Its time we appoint our own Queen. I nominate Mr. Jay from next American Model who is Canadian and clearly has the qualifications.

[Smallc]

I am sure Willy is a nice boy but its time to revisit whether having a soverign monarch is antiquated.

Why would it be? It's quite common in the developed world.

[ToadBrother]

I am still working on the title to this thread. I immediately had visions of Queen Liz picking and eating flees off of Willy's head.

I am sure Willy is a nice boy but its time to revisit whether having a soverign monarch is antiquated.

As for Chuck, I will say this. He married this hideous creature that reminds me of the Salt Creature in the old Star Trek episode which tried to suck all the salt out of Capt. Kirk's head and had chameleon qualities so it could disguise itself as a woman which of course Kirk fell for since he was a player.

The idea of Camilla Bowels (what an appropriate name) being the King of Canada's chicky poo nauseates me.

Its time we appoint our own Queen. I nominate Mr. Jay from next American Model who is Canadian and clearly has the qualifications.

So the justifications for replacing the monarchy is whether or not Prince Charles picked a beautiful wife (hint: he did, and it ended up a right bloody disaster).

The monarchy works. Period. No one has ever demonstrated how we would produce a better government with some other head of state. That's basically what has kept the Monarchy going since Victoria's time, when the first post-Cromwellian republicans began making noises.

[jbg]

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.

Many Americans, including myself, still consider the Queen to be the titular head of the English-speaking world. A look at my signature will show the great stock I place in the decency and relative openness of the Anglosphere.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many Americans, including myself, still consider the Queen to be the titular head of the English-speaking world. A look at my signature will show the great stock I place in the decency and relative openness of the Anglosphere.

The very existence of the United States is antithetical to the Queen being the "titular" head. Spain has a Queen too, but not such a big deal for Hispanic Americans living in the "Anglosphere".

Sir, we shall have death before another putrid crop of kings and queens.

Edited February 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

That's a first. I've seen Americans refighting the Vietnam War online, Americans fighting the Civil War, and Americans and Canadians fighting the War of 1812... but never Americans refighting the American Revolution.

Do we have any Prussians on the board btw ?

[Guest American Woman]

The monarchy works. Period. No one has ever demonstrated how we would produce a better government with some other head of state. That's basically what has kept the Monarchy going since Victoria's time, when the first post-Cromwellian republicans began making noises.

I think we have a better government without a monarchy head of state, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief.

[jbg]

I think we have a better government without a monarchy head of state, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief.

Watergate changed my mind on that. There was no good way to remove a deranged and dishonest President. The damage done by Watergate was corrosive and to this day Congress has lacked fiscal discipline largely as a result of the President being humbled. Ditto the War Powers Act and other destructive legislation, passed largely to deal with the "Nixon problem".

[bush_cheney2004]

Watergate changed my mind on that. There was no good way to remove a deranged and dishonest President. The damage done by Watergate was corrosive and to this day Congress has lacked fiscal discipline largely as a result of the President being humbled. Ditto the War Powers Act and other destructive legislation, passed largely to deal with the "Nixon problem".

War Powers Act was signed by FDR....War Powers Resolution was vetoed by Nixon but passed by the Congress anyway.