g_bambino Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 She's the Queen of Canada. New citizens swear an oath to her, for goodness sake. By definition, as the Queen of Canada is a Canadian citizen. Well... Technically, she doesn't meet the requirements for citizenship as spelled out in the Citizenship Act. However, as I pointed out, it was with Royal Assent given in her father's name that the Citizenship Act came into effect and the authority behind it is now hers. Also, as you rightly state, that same act requires new citizens to swear an oath to the Queen and promise to obey her laws. So, while she isn't officially a citizen, she isn't a foreigner, either, and has said as much about herself on a number of occasions (as has Philip about himself, too). Quote
scouterjim Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 I'm still in favour of divesting ourselves of that lingering colonial office - the monarchy. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
ToadBrother Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 I'm still in favour of divesting ourselves of that lingering colonial office - the monarchy. Well, when you can explain how to such a major constitutional change without risking national unity, you let me know. Quote
g_bambino Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) I'm still in favour of divesting ourselves of that lingering colonial office - the monarchy. That's rather selective. Why it and not the French language, or habeas corpus, or the Navy? [sp] Edited April 19, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
scribblet Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 I think the window of opportunity will be open for 30 years or more... The line of succession at the moment I believe is.. The Prince of Wales Prince William Prince Harry The Duke of York Princess Beatrice Princess Eugenia The Earl of Wessex I think if William has a boy, he would be next line usurping Prince Harry et al. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
M.Dancer Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 I think if William has a boy, he would be next line usurping Prince Harry et al. Correct (usurp is not the correct word)...as did Andrews children bump Edward in the line... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
William Ashley Posted April 19, 2011 Author Report Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) Are you saying the queen ISN'T a foreigner? Last I saw, she does NOT have Canadian citizenship. I'm pretty sure the Queen could be a Canadian Citizen (and could grant it to herself by Letters Patent -- but it is problematic because she has British Honours... neither her nor Lord Conrad Black can be Canadian.. Lord Black is very Canadian -- but not a Canadian citizen--- wayne gretzky is American - a US citizen does it make him any less Canadian. The Queen has a lot of Canadian values - and hasn't disallowed any Canadian laws currently existing. I think you are hard pressed to call the Queen a foreginer -- likewise having more doors open is better than doors locked, citizenship is just a way of making legal barriers that end up screwing over the little guy. Citizenship is a collar for the commons that only serves to oppress the people. She has worked for decades for the Canadian government both in Canada and abroad she is one of the longest serving Canadian Government Employees period. It is very unfortunate that people are alienating their British roots and tossing the commonwealth to the side, if not for the British Canada would be an American backwater. 1. Canadian were British subjects up until the 60's or 70's or 80's. We were pourous with Britain until more recently --- now the borders are tightening this isn't good for the average guy. Locked borders mean more fees and more time hastles, and less efficiency. I don't know about you but my own ancstory is British. (as well as french german and dutch) However the point is that while my own ancestory is multifacetted, I think we only loose by attacking the British. Calling the British Foreigners is like calling your father the sperm doner. Edited April 19, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Sailor Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Do you really believe that what these politicians say and promise during the election will make a difference on gas prices?? Come on man.. You are asking to be lied to like the other thread suggests. Whoever gets in will have direct control of more than 30% of the price at the pump with the support of parliament, and no party in their right mind would go against a tax adjustment when we're being robbed blind like this. Quote Getting robbed blind at the gas pumps and our candidates aren't saying a word. What gives? Make gas prices a 2011 election issue - it's hurting all of us!
Sailor Posted April 19, 2011 Report Posted April 19, 2011 Sorry for getting off topic here, just had to respond Quote Getting robbed blind at the gas pumps and our candidates aren't saying a word. What gives? Make gas prices a 2011 election issue - it's hurting all of us!
Moonlight Graham Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I find it more than ironic that people are debating equality of rights when in comes to the monarchy. People shouldn't be debating whether or not girls should have the same chance as boys to lead the monarchy, they should be debating whether the monarchy should have any political power or relevance whatsoever. The monarchy really has little power in Canadian politics, so debating succession is moot. Male or female, if the king/queen ever meddled out of turn in Canadian internal affairs it would OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
g_bambino Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I find it more than ironic that people are debating equality of rights when in comes to the monarchy. Why? The monarchy really has little power in Canadian politics Is it all about politics? Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 The monarchy really has little power in Canadian politics, so debating succession is moot. Male or female, if the king/queen ever meddled out of turn in Canadian internal affairs it would OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! During the 1995 Quebec referendum, the Queen made a strong pitch for unity. She seems to have survived that well enough. Quote
CANADIEN Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 The only problem with the "Harper is right not to bring this debate during an election" line is that the Brits have been talking about his for about a year now,. As for the line about "the first in line is a man, the second in line is a man"... After Chuck, there will be Willy, then his children... that is his sons first, then his daughters, unless that anaachronism is removed. Quote
RNG Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 I have heard one legitimate argument in favor of the monarchy. In the US, if you critisize the president you are de-facto critisizing the country. Whereas we can critisize Harper or Martin or whoever, but they aren't the symbol of our country, the Governor General, ie the monarch is. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Sir Bandelot Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Never mind the bollocks, I'm all in favour of dropping the Monarchy. Eliminate the Governer General too. Give us a First Canadian. Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Never mind the bollocks, I'm all in favour of dropping the Monarchy. Eliminate the Governer General too. Give us a First Canadian. Yes yes yes, and ponies for all the kiddies and magic faeries to light the night sky, and every other manner of impossible thing. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Yes yes yes, and ponies for all the kiddies and magic faeries to light the night sky, and every other manner of impossible thing. Just sayin' Quote
ToadBrother Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Just sayin' Yes, you've said it. By the way, if we did boot the Monarchy, the last thing I'd want our head of state called is the "First Canadian". What a ridiculous name. I think "president", like pretty much all the other parliamentary republics use, would be quite sufficient. If you want to have a really impressive name, I'd pick "Consul". Quote
Molly Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 Poobah Extraordinaire... Head Biggie... the Right Worshipful Lord Lump of Us All (RWLLUA for short))... Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
g_bambino Posted April 20, 2011 Report Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) I have heard one legitimate argument in favor of the monarchy. In the US, if you critisize the president you are de-facto critisizing the country. Whereas we can critisize Harper or Martin or whoever, but they aren't the symbol of our country, the Governor General, ie the monarch is. The basic premise behind the term "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". [punct] Edited April 20, 2011 by g_bambino 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.