Australia to dump British monarchy - we should do the same!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Feudalism was a good system too, wasn't it? It worked really well for many centuries... Why did anybody bother changing it? Incomprehensible...

Uh there are actual advantages to switching from Feudalism. You've come up with nothing in terms of benefits from switching to a Republic.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Uh there are actual advantages to switching from Feudalism. You've come up with nothing in terms of benefits from switching to a Republic.

How about getting rid of the remnants of Feudalism, something France has done a couple of centuries ago?

[Guest TrueMetis]

How about getting rid of the remnants of Feudalism, something France has done a couple of centuries ago?

What remnants would that be?

[jbg]

It is time for us to relinquish the ties to the dark colonial past and become the nation we are meant to be - a country of the 21st century where immigrants from all nations live peacefully side by side and work together to make their homeland an example for the rest of the world.

We in the U.S. envied your system when we had Richard Milhous Nixon clinging to power. Are you really sure you'd want a power-mad poodle like Nixon being both the P.M. and head of state?

[jbg]

How about getting rid of the remnants of Feudalism, something France has done a couple of centuries ago?

And how many "Republics" has France gone through?

[maple_leafs182]

See, you're not reading what I write. I didn't say a republic would make "us" less equal, I said the provinces would lose their equal status vis-a-vis Ottawa; a president as the head of state would be an agent solely of Ottawa and thus unable to preside in each jurisdiction equally as the Queen reigns in them now.

No federal republic in the world grants its constituent parts as much autonomy as our provinces have now. So, again, without good reason for change, you're going to fail to convince anyone to even bother trying to alter the present arrangements.

I don't care what others do, we don't have to copy them.

Personally I like the first constitution America had, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union

Article II - Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

[PoliticalCitizen]

What remnants would that be?

Ummm.... a monarch?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ummm.... a monarch?

A monarchy isn't a product of Feudalism, Monarchies existed long before Feudalism. You can even have a Feudalism without a Monarch. You could have a Theocratic Feudalism or even a Feudalism without a singular powerful entity at the top and instead just multiple powerful lords.

Edited August 18, 2010 by TrueMetis

[bjre]

We have grown as a nation and have built our society around values such as FREEDOM and EQUALITY.

Have poor kids EQUALITY when he has to go to a school that less than 10% kids can pass provincial standard, with the kids from wealthy families who can buy house near a school that 100% kids can pass provincial standard?

Have poor patients EQUALITY when they have to wait several months in queue to see a doctor, with the rich patients who can fly abroad to find a doctor?

Has a poor guy EQUALITY when he face a judge with a limited legal aid, against a wealthy guy who hire an expensive lawyer?

Did native people have EQUALITY when their land be taken away and they kids be sent to residencial schools?

Does any one believe he has the EQUALITY with the Queen?

[g_bambino]

[W]e can say she had to have a place of bitrh... which is most likely Britain and may have a place of residence (which I believe is Buckingham palace); both of which make her British.

It's an easily affirmable fact that she has more than one residence; half a dozen in Britain alone. She has eight places of residence in Canada: Rideau Hall, La Citadelle, and the Government Houses of British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Rideau Hall was [the Queen's] home, as much as Buckingham Palace in London or Hollyrood Palace in Edinburgh. The three services of Canada - the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force - took turns mounting guard at her Ottawa residence...

Rideau Hall, in Ottawa, a rambling residence much added to over the decades, has been the Royal Family's Canadian address since 1865...

Fifty Years the Queen; Bousfield, Arthur; Toffoli, Gary

Government House ("Rideau Hall") is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen (when in Ottawa)...

Government House: Her Majesty's official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals...

A Crown of Maples; MacLeod, Kevin

And since when did not being born in Canada preclude someone from being Canadian?

Oh, that's right: only when you said it did.

Well, despite your assumption of the role of Granter of Canadian Status, the fact remains that, as the sovereign of Canada, the Queen cannot be, an therefore is not, a foreigner to Canada.

Since the members of the Royal Family visit Canada in their capacity as family of the Queen of Canada, it is not accurate to refer to the "Queen of England" or the "British Royal Family."

Royal Family Titles; Government of Saskatchewan

Royal Family means those persons, being subjects of the Canadian Sovereign, who bear the title "Royal Highness"...

Royal or State Salutes consisting of 21 guns to the reigning Sovereign, members of the Royal Family, foreign sovereigns and members of reigning foreign families, heads of state of foreign countries...

The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces; Department of National Defence

The Royal Family, as the Queen's Family, is considered Canada's Royal Family.

Commissioners of the Territories; Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

It is a remarkably simple yet powerful principle: Canada is personified by the Sovereign just as the Sovereign is personified by Canada.

A Crown of Maples; MacLeod, Kevin

Even those in the Royal Family call themselves Canadian:

One of the most unusual events related to the Order of Canada and the Crown occurred in 2000 when Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was made an honorary Companion of the Order of Canada (CC). This is a distinction that [Prince Philip] has refused because the individual firmly believes appointment as an honorary CC is tantamount to saying that [he] is foreign and not a Canadian.

The Crown and Honours: Getting it Right; McCreery, Christopher

From the moment when I first set foot on Canadian soil, the feeling of strangeness went, for I knew myself to be no only amongst friends, but amongst fellow countrymen.

Address to Canadians; Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh

As Queen of Canada for nearly six decades, my pride in this country remains undimmed. Thank you again for your welcome. It is very good to be home.

Address to Canadians; Elizabeth II

As proud and grateful Canadians, we pause today... all Canadians mourn our collective loss.

Address to Canadians; Elizabeth II

I am proud to be the first member of the Canadian Royal Family to be greeted in Canada's newest territory.

Speech to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut; Elizabeth II

Thankfully, not everyone adheres to your narrow minded vision of nationalism.

[+]

Edited August 18, 2010 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I don't care what others do, we don't have to copy them.

Personally I like the first constitution America had, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union

You don't care what others do but want to copy what others did. Right.

It seems I have to repeat myself quite a lot with you. Once again: No federal republic in the world grants its constituent parts as much autonomy as our provinces have now. So, without good reason for change, you're going to fail to convince anyone to even bother trying to alter the present arrangements.

[Shwa]

No federal republic in the world grants its constituent parts as much autonomy as our provinces have now.

Really? Not even the USA? If not, then on what basis are you coming to this determination of state autonomy versus provincial autonomy with regard to their respective federal arrangments?

[M.Dancer]

Really? Not even the USA? If not, then on what basis are you coming to this determination of state autonomy versus provincial autonomy with regard to their respective federal arrangments?

Which US state has ever exercised the Notwithstanding clause?

[ToadBrother]

Feudalism was a good system too, wasn't it? It worked really well for many centuries... Why did anybody bother changing it? Incomprehensible...

I'm trying to figure out from never-ending cascade of non sequiturs and red herrings whether you have no desire to defend your point of view or you simply cannot.

[ToadBrother]

A monarchy isn't a product of Feudalism, Monarchies existed long before Feudalism. You can even have a Feudalism without a Monarch. You could have a Theocratic Feudalism or even a Feudalism without a singular powerful entity at the top and instead just multiple powerful lords.

No kidding. Feudalism, at least the European kind, evolved in the late Roman period. Rome had a monarchy (of a kind) for a couple of centuries before hand.

In fact, Feudalism reached its own stride during a relative lack of central authority. Feudal kings were relatively weak compared to their Renaissance counterparts. It was the fading of the feudal system that lead to the evolution of absolutism. Look at the difference between, say, King John and King Henry VIII. John was ultimately at the mercy of his barons, while Henry VIII had the organs of a modern nation state at his disposal to impose his will.

Even in Britain were a few "feudal" estates like the Duchy of Cornwall persist, they function nothing like the old Seignorial system.

Edited August 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

I'm trying to figure out from never-ending cascade of non sequiturs and red herrings whether you have no desire to defend your point of view or you simply cannot.

He seems to understand the world only in comparison to his own little one, overrun more, as it appears to be, with the most base French/Irish/American nationlist, anti-monarchy myth than with any (even the most basic) understanding of history or civics.

[c/e]

Edited August 18, 2010 by g_bambino

[Shwa]

Which US state has ever exercised the Notwithstanding clause?

Which province has capital punishment?

[PoliticalCitizen]

A monarchy isn't a product of Feudalism, Monarchies existed long before Feudalism. You can even have a Feudalism without a Monarch. You could have a Theocratic Feudalism or even a Feudalism without a singular powerful entity at the top and instead just multiple powerful lords.

Monarchy and Feudalism go hand in hand, the exceptions you quoted just reinforce the rule.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Have poor kids EQUALITY when he has to go to a school that less than 10% kids can pass provincial standard, with the kids from wealthy families who can buy house near a school that 100% kids can pass provincial standard?

Have poor patients EQUALITY when they have to wait several months in queue to see a doctor, with the rich patients who can fly abroad to find a doctor?

Has a poor guy EQUALITY when he face a judge with a limited legal aid, against a wealthy guy who hire an expensive lawyer?

Did native people have EQUALITY when their land be taken away and they kids be sent to residencial schools?

Does any one believe he has the EQUALITY with the Queen?

I meant equality of rights.

[PoliticalCitizen]

It's an easily affirmable fact that she has more than one residence; half a dozen in Britain alone. She has eight places of residence in Canada: Rideau Hall, La Citadelle, and the Government Houses of British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

And since when did not being born in Canada preclude someone from being Canadian?

Oh, that's right: only when you said it did.

Well, despite your assumption of the role of Granter of Canadian Status, the fact remains that, as the sovereign of Canada, the Queen cannot be, an therefore is not, a foreigner to Canada.

Even those in the Royal Family call themselves Canadian:

Thankfully, not everyone adheres to your narrow minded vision of nationalism.

[+]

Well unfortunately the queen doens't share the same enthusiasm about being "Canadian"... just take a second look at the British Monarchy website...

What, in your opinion, makes her "Canadian"?

[g_bambino]

just take a second look at the British Monarchy website...

Doing so doesn't at all affirm the claim that

..the queen doens't share the same enthusiasm about being "Canadian"...

What, in your opinion, makes her "Canadian"?

Basic logic supported by all the sources I earlier provided plus many more.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Basic logic supported by all the sources I earlier provided plus many more.

Fair enough....after all, the Pope will tell you the same thing about the Holy Trinity.

[g_bambino]

I meant equality of rights.

We've had that since William and Mary assented to the Bill of Rights in 1689.

[ToadBrother]

Monarchy and Feudalism go hand in hand, the exceptions you quoted just reinforce the rule.

No they do not, unless you're using a definition of feudalism quite apart from the norm. Feudalism as a political-economic system didn't evolve until the late Roman Empire, and in fact marked the decline of centralized authority (ie. kings) and the rise of landed nobility (the barons of England, for instance). Feudalism declined for a number of reasons, but part of that process was that the landed nobility began to lose power, and the monarchs of Europe became increasingly powerful, until a number of nation states (that's what they became as Feudalism broke down and the ties between tenant laborer and gentry and nobility broke down and power was centralized) adopted one form or degree of absolutism or another. The powerful monarch with centralized authority was in fact something that most Feudal kings could only wish for.

This is basic European history 101. You don't know what you're talking about. It's like your knowledge of monarchy and feudalism come from a Cracker Jack Box.

[ToadBrother]

We've had that since William and Mary assented to the Bill of Rights in 1689.

The basic fact that Parliament had the power to depose a king and offer to the throne to someone else ought to tell you that the Monarchy of the late 17th century was considerably different than the monarchy of the 12th century. But as I have pointed out, but this poor historically ignorant fellow doesn't seem to realize, feudalism in general was a period when central authority was fairly weak as compared to the Absolutism of the Renaissance and Enlightenment rulers.

Edited August 18, 2010 by ToadBrother