The British Royalty: How come this never seems to come up in Federal e

[Queenmandy85]

The GG represents the Queen and therefore must not be tainted by politics. If we elect the GG, we simply put one more politician into power. The ultimate authority resides with the Queen. The power of the House of Commons is the control over taxes. The Queen of Canada can declare war on Paraguay but only Parliament can vote money to pay for it. It is the perfect check and balance.

(Edit: no offence to Paraguayans)

Edited May 19, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[JamesHackerMP]

Wilber, aren't the senators appointed by the GG on the "advice" of the PM? (Which in practical terms means they're prime ministerial appointments)  Canadians on this website have complained about the composition of the Senate for that exact reason: they're all hacks of former prime ministers.  By that logic, the GG is the hack of any given present prime minister.  It seems that the only way to have a Canadian governor-general who is totally apolitical is to turn back the clock to the days when he was "London's man", actually appointed by H.M. [British] Government.  My research shows that before 1952, the GG's were British citizens, not Canadian residents, and usually peers.  (That phun phact brought to you by...)  But that of course would make the GG not a Canadian, and maybe such a person would not act in Canadian interests.

There is a term political scientists use to describe a country like Japan or Canada: a "crowned republic".  In the UK no one picks the Queen.  But the Canadian viceroy (GG) is picked by the PM.  From what I have now read, Canada's been a de facto republic since 1952.  It seems to me it's now a crowned republic and not an actual constitutional monarchy.  In the actual UK, the Queen, while restricted by tradition (which she is extremely unlikely to violate), still has the authority to exceed the scope of a simple figurehead if the right circumstances presented themselves.  You may call it "royal assent" when your GG signs a bill into law, but again, it's a prime ministerial appointee affixing his signature, with the constitutional fiction that he's doing it on behalf of a monarch 3,000 miles away.  A constitutional fiction can be important, but it's fiction nonetheless.  If a figure of authority is very, very unlikely to exercise it, it's just as good as not having it at all.

Edited May 21, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

On 5/19/2017 at 1:53 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The GG represents the Queen and therefore must not be tainted by politics. If we elect the GG, we simply put one more politician into power. The ultimate authority resides with the Queen. The power of the House of Commons is the control over taxes. The Queen of Canada can declare war on Paraguay but only Parliament can vote money to pay for it. It is the perfect check and balance.

(Edit: no offence to Paraguayans)

Well, call me a typical Yank, but I cannot agree with you there.

[Queenmandy85]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Authority is the right to make a decision, power is the ability to carry it out. As long as the Queen has the authority, no one else can legally usurp that authority.

We have had pretty good success with our Governors General. They have maintained political neutrality and have used their authority with restrain and sound judgement. The Queen could intervene in a crisis, but she understands the consequences of such action. 

Queen Elizabeth received pre- job training for 14 years and has been trained by such people as Churchill. The Prince of Wales has been training for the role of King for 65 years. It is a system that has produced about 5 duds out of a line of 42 Monarchs. That is a pretty good record.

Happy Victoria Day, Sir James. 

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Edited May 21, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[JamesHackerMP]

I understand the function of the Crown, in that it's not intended to wield power but to prevent someone else from occupying the same position and wielding it.  All well and good for the position of head of state, but it provides no checks on the power of the prime minister.  If I understand correctly, your PM has enough power to make Richard Nixon drool with envy.  As Sir Humphrey himself said: "The prime minister giveth, and the prime minister taketh away.  Blessed be the name prime minister."

 

P.S.: which ones were "the duds"?

Edited May 21, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[Queenmandy85]

4 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I understand the function of the Crown, in that it's not intended to wield power but to prevent someone else from occupying the same position and wielding it.  All well and good for the position of head of state, but it provides no checks on the power of the prime minister.  If I understand correctly, your PM has enough power to make Richard Nixon drool with envy.  As Sir Humphrey himself said: "The prime minister giveth, and the prime minister taketh away.  Blessed be the name prime minister."

 

P.S.: which ones were "the duds"?

Richard the Lion Heart, Edward II, Richard II, Charles I (maybe), and George IV. I guess you could also throw Edward VIII in there too.

There is precedent for action by the GG. Gov. Gen. Byng dismissed PM MacKenzie King for cause, in what became known as the King - Byng affair. Byng suffered for it but he got the job done.

I can give many practical reasons for the current system but my real personal reason is a longing for a past that never was. If it were up to me, I would eliminate the position of Prime Minister and have direct rule. It is not up to me for a very good reason. I am not delusional, just wistful. 

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[JamesHackerMP]

Well, that would eliminate the whole purpose of constitutional monarchy, then wouldn't it?

In any political system there must be some sort of "national leader"; not just a passive one, but one who has active political power.

[Omni]

17 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Well, that would eliminate the whole purpose of constitutional monarchy, then wouldn't it?

In any political system there must be some sort of "national leader"; not just a passive one, but one who has active political power.

That would be why we have a PM. The GG, in practicality, is the passive one.

[JamesHackerMP]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

That would be why we have a PM. The GG, in practicality, is the passive one.

Exactly my point.  You can't not have a PM.

BTW wasn't George III nuts?

Edited May 22, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[Omni]

1 minute ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Exactly my point.  You can't not have a PM.

And that's one of the duties of the GG, to ensure we have one.

[Wilber]

10 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Exactly my point.  You can't not have a PM.

BTW wasn't George III nuts?

For a lot of his reign he was a pretty good king, and he did have help screwing up the American file. He was the third longest reigning monarch after Elizabeth II and Victoria.  It's unclear whether his nuttiness was actually mental illness, or caused by a physical affliction, or by the medication he was being given. Regardless, his son was appointed regent when he got too bad.

[Omni]

Would this be the appropriate time to wish all a Happy Victoria Day Holiday?

[JamesHackerMP]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Would this be the appropriate time to wish all a Happy Victoria Day Holiday?

Why not.  Thanks. 

16 minutes ago, Wilber said:

For a lot of his reign he was a pretty good king, and he did have help screwing up the American file. He was the third longest reigning monarch after Elizabeth II and Victoria.  It's unclear whether his nuttiness was actually mental illness, or caused by a physical affliction, or by the medication he was being given. Regardless, his son was appointed regent when he got too bad.

The prince-regent of which you speak was played by Hugh Laurie on "Blackadder the Third".  Hilarious show.

[blackbird]

On 2011-05-14 at 1:04 AM, Tyciol said:

I am curious how come we keep printing the Queen on our money and our soldiers have to swear loyalty to her, how she must approve the Governor General.

I understand legal tradition and all that, but surely we could get rid of these things if we wanted to. Do most people just not feel it is wrong or important enough to mess with?

For me it's like, the question is how come we don't change that? I don't see the point in it at all.

From what I've read the constitutional monarchy has certain advantages to ensure the continued existence of our parliamentary democracy.  Supposing we had a Prime Minister who decided he wanted to abolish our parliamentary democracy and set up a dictatorship with himself being the President.  With our system of having a Queen and Governor General, it so happens that the armed forces and the RCMP have sworn allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.  This means if someone attempted to seize power by abolishing parliament and perhaps dismissing the governor general, the RCMP and Canadian Forces would be immediately under the authority of the Queen and could arrest such a usurper.

Other situations could arise for example, where there is a lack of confidence in the governing party in Parliament.  If there were no Queen or Governor General with enough authority, the governing party could simply ignore the will of parliament and refuse to resign and call an election.  These are just two examples where the Queen acts as a kind of protector to our Parliamentary system without having to do much. 

It also would be much more difficult for a governing party to bring in a clearly unconstitutional law because the Governor General acting on behalf of the Queen could refuse to sign a bill into law if he felt it was seriously contrary to the Constitution.  Normally he doesn't refuse to sign a bill into law, but the fact it must be signed into law by the GG means he does have that residual authority and is not beholden to any political party in the same way MPs and senators might be.

The other thing is the fact we have the Queen as head of state and head of the Commonwealth means we automatically have the other Commonwealth countries on our side in the event of an attack against Canada by some other country.  In the same way when Britain went into war against Germany, and Canada was automatically in the war with Britain, I would think being part of the Commonwealth would mean Britain and other Commonwealth countries would almost automatically be on Canada's side in time of war.

[JamesHackerMP]

Hmmm, well that didn't play out that way in Fiji, did it?

[-TSS-]

When there was the republic-referendum in Australia the republic lost the referendum not really because people would love the British royals who reside 10000 miles away anyway but for practical reasons; if it ain't broken don't fix it.

Another reason was that there was confusion over the role of a supposed Australian president; would he be a ceremonial figurehead or one with large powers? People who thought it would be pointless to turn the office of the GG into president voted for things to stay as they were.

[blackbird]

Without the constitutional monarch, a dictatorial-minded PM could possibly dismiss the Governor General and refuse to call an election, on some pretext such as an invented national emergency or the threat of separatism.  With the monarchy, that would be very difficult to pull off because the RCMP and Armed Forces have sworn allegiance to the Queen, not to an appointed figurehead in Ottawa.  They would be able to arrest a would-be dictator who tries to set up a totalitarian system.

I would be very suspicious of a politician who is not supportive of our constitutional monarchy.

Edited May 22, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

On 2017-05-21 at 1:08 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

I understand the function of the Crown, in that it's not intended to wield power but to prevent someone else from occupying the same position and wielding it.  All well and good for the position of head of state, but it provides no checks on the power of the prime minister.  If I understand correctly, your PM has enough power to make Richard Nixon drool with envy.  As Sir Humphrey himself said: "The prime minister giveth, and the prime minister taketh away.  Blessed be the name prime minister."

 

P.S.: which ones were "the duds"?

The PM's power is somewhat limited by the fact the House of Commons can vote non-confidence in the government by a majority vote.  But Parliament has to be sitting and there are only certain times during it's sitting that they can do this.  It would require members of the governing party to support the motion to have a majority of MPs.  Then an election might have to be called.  

Also, the PM's power is limited by what is in accordance with the Constitution if I understand it correctly.   But maybe he issues executive orders through his ministers to do certain things using government departments. The PM can take actions that are in accordance with the powers he already has.  I think we are kind of in the dark about what powers the PM actually has. 

Back around 1970 the PM declared the War Measures Act in order to use the Armed Forces to occupy Montreal and suspend freedoms until the crisis with the FLQ passed. The FLQ had kidnapped a British ambassador and murdered a Quebec Minister of the government.

Edited May 23, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

Yes, as some have already said, a simple reason for keeping the Queen as head of state is if it works and ain't broken, don't fix it.  It has worked well since Canada was formed in 1867.  If the people don't like what the government is doing, they can throw them out in the next election.

[JamesHackerMP]

But until the next election, the Canadian Govt has a lot of power---far more than the executive branch south of the 49th parallel.  Elections don't always work to unseat tyrants, even in democratic countries.

From what I have learned of the Canadian government, there is a hierarchy in the Commons that is far steeper than its counterpart in London.  Good luck challenging the PM, either at the polls or within the party.

Edited May 23, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

As far as Australia, an Aussie president would not be one with large powers.  They wouldn't go for that in a [former] commonwealth realm.  Replacing the GG with an elected president would imply a parliamentary-style presidency; not an American-style president.

[Queenmandy85]

A President in a parliamentary - style presidency would have the same powers as the Queen with the added problem that they would be a politician. While I have known many eminent people who were politicians, I would not want one to be the personification of my country.

PS. George III likely suffered from porphyria.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-05-23 at 11:41 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

A President in a parliamentary - style presidency would have the same powers as the Queen with the added problem that they would be a politician. While I have known many eminent people who were politicians, I would not want one to be the personification of my country.

PS. George III likely suffered from porphyria.

Monarchs come and go - but not quickly, usually, and we have no choice in the matter. We were lucky with Liz. Charles would be a bit ridiculous for Canada. He has no real connections to the place. Let's grow up and choose our own figurehead. The current situation, where the GG is an appointed flunkey of the PM, is intolerable in a democracy. 

 

 

[-TSS-]

If Trump were the Prime Minister of the United States he would probably been already voted out of his job by a vote of no-confidence..

[JamesHackerMP]

Possibly.  Possibly not.  The investigation is still ongoing--though the facts so far are in the very least "extremely suspicious" and at worst, damning.