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

[g_bambino]

So in effect the UK Parliament could determine who Canada's monarch could be, including a Catholic dog catcher!

Nope. No law passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom has effect in Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

As it is when the limitation is on one's place of birth. Perhaps more so, since one can change their religion but can't help where they were born.

Good Lord. One. More. Time. No, it's not discrimination. Again, you fail to grasp the definition of discrimination. Requiring that a head of state be born in that state is not based on prejudice; it's based on a job requirement. It's based on the idea that the POTUS shouldn't have mixed allegiances because of the duties that the position includes. It's based on a valid reason. It's a job requirement same as other jobs have requirements. It's no more discrimination than a job that requires a university degree is discrimination.

The fact that one can change their religion has nothing to do with it. The discrimination against the religion still exists.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope. No law passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom has effect in Canada.

Not now, but it did back then.

[g_bambino]

No, it's not discrimination.

Yes it is.

I thought you said you weren't engaging in this conversation anymore.

[sp]

Edited May 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Not now, but it did back then.

With the Canadian government's consent, yes. But, I was talking with GH about the present.

[bush_cheney2004]

With the Canadian government's consent, yes. But, I was talking with GH about the present.

No consent was required in 1936 as the protocol was already in place.

Canada's Succession to the Throne Act (1937) was superfluous.

[g_bambino]

No consent was required in 1936 as the protocol was already in place.

It was, as per the Statute of Westminster.

Parliament of United Kingdom not to legislate for Dominion except by consent.

No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

Statute of Westminster; S.4

Canada's Succession to the Throne Act (1937) was superfluous.

Somewhat, as it came some months after the fact. It just cemented the consent given by Mackenzie King in 1936 and recorded parliament's approval of the abdication (since the Canadian parliament wasn't in session in December 1936). It did ensure there was no confusion about the succession in Canada from then on.

[+]

Edited May 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

....Somewhat, as it came a year after the fact. It just cemented the consent given by Mackenzie King in 1936 and recorded parliament's approval of the abdication (since the Canadian parliament wasn't in session in December 1936). It did ensure there was no confusion about the succession in Canada from then on.

[+]

Right, so this is an opening, albeit a small one, into just how "hard" it is to change such things, maybe not on a grander constitutional scale, but certainly on the specific matter of the reigning monarch. You probably don't agree, but it is debatable based on this instance (and perhaps others) wherein such flexibility is/was required.

[SF/PF]

Good Lord. One. More. Time. No, it's not discrimination. Again, you fail to grasp the definition of discrimination. Requiring that a head of state be born in that state is not based on prejudice; it's based on a job requirement.

Is it a valid job requirement? I'm not so sure. Would it be discrimination if a local coffee shop printed a help wanted add that read "applicants must be 35 years of age and born in the United States"? What about the position of POTUS demands that a person be born on US soil, or be 35 years of age?

It's based on the idea that the POTUS shouldn't have mixed allegiances because of the duties that the position includes.

From here:

They also point to the fact that the monarch must swear to defend the faith and be a member of the Anglican Communion, but that a Roman Catholic monarch would, like all Roman Catholics, owe allegiance to the Pope. This would, according to opponents of repeal, amount to a loss of sovereignty.

Even if we stripped the requirement to be Anglican, should we abide a head of state that owes allegiance to a foreign head of state?

Also, there are other problems...

...the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise the Church of England as an apostolic church, a Roman Catholic monarch who abided by their faith's doctrine would be obliged to view Anglican and Church of Scotland archbishops, bishops and clergy as part of the laity and therefore "lacking the ordained authority to preach and celebrate the sacraments". ... a Roman Catholic monarch would therefore be unable to be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury

A catholics own religion prevents them from being crowned.

This quote sums it up best, in my view:

When in December 1978 there was media speculation that Prince Charles might marry a Roman Catholic, Enoch Powell defended the provision that excludes Roman Catholics from ascending the throne. Powell claimed his objection was not rooted in religious bigotry but in political considerations. He claimed a Roman Catholic monarch would mean the acceptance of a source of authority external to the realm and "in the literal sense, foreign to the Crown in Parliament ... Between Roman Catholicism and royal supremacy there is, as St Thomas More concluded, no reconciliation".

The Catholic religion differs in important ways from the other religions of the world.

Edited May 19, 2011 by SF/PF

[g_bambino]

Right, so this is an opening, albeit a small one, into just how "hard" it is to change such things, maybe not on a grander constitutional scale, but certainly on the specific matter of the reigning monarch.

GH was talking about the outright elimination of the monarchy from the constitution. How to do that is spelled out specifically in the Constitution Act 1982:

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province...

Constitution Act 1982

That's a pretty massive undertaking, given that we can't seem to get even a majority of provinces to agree on lesser constitutional changes (ahem... Meech Lake).

As for changing the reigning sovereign before his or her death (getting back to the subject of the abdication), I've heard the theory that, since changing the succession doesn't really change the office of the Queen, just the occupant of it, that provincial input isn't even required. I'm not sure that I agree, but my confidence in my opinion on that isn't adamantine. Still, it's certain that a law passed in the UK in that regard would have no effect in Canada; if the British parliament amended its succession to skip Charles and make William king upon Elizabeth's demise, and Canada did not do the same, Charles would become King of Canada while his son became King of the UK. For the lines of succession to remain parallel, Canada would have to pass a law similar to the Succession to the Throne Act. That is the premise of symmetry that underlies the relationship between the Commonwealth Realms.

[g_bambino]

Would it be discrimination if a local coffee shop printed a help wanted add that read "applicants must be 35 years of age and born in the United States"?

Exactly.

Even if we stripped the requirement to be Anglican, should we abide a head of state that owes allegiance to a foreign head of state?

There actually is no requirement that the sovereign be an Anglican; he or she could be Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim, just not Catholic. The question of allegiance is the only one I give pause to in the debate around the Act of Settlement; whether or not our head of state should owe allegiance to another head of state is a valid consideration. However, the King of Spain is a Catholic, as is the King of the Belgians, and there must be many Catholic presidents around the world as well. How do they and their countries cope with the arrangement? Can one owe allegiance to the Pope as the head of a church but not the head of a state, rather like Canadians give their allegiance to the Queen of Canada and not the Queen of the UK, though the two are the same person?

[SF/PF]

There actually is no requirement that the sovereign be an Anglican; he or she could be Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim, just not Catholic.

The act requires the monarch to "join in communion with the Church of England," whatever that means exactly.

However, the King of Spain is a Catholic, as is the King of the Belgians, and there must be many Catholic presidents around the world as well. How do they and their countries cope with the arrangement?

I'm sure they cope fine. But when the soveriegn owes allegiance to a foreign head of state, I think something is lost.

Can one owe allegiance to the Pope as the head of a church but not the head of a state, rather like Canadians give their allegiance to the Queen of Canada and not the Queen of the UK, though the two are the same person?

Thats a tricky question with regards to the Pope. As I mentioned earlier, I think the catholic religion is unique when compared to other world religions. The church and state of the Vatican are inseperable. The church IS the state. And not even just in the sense of being the "state church," but the church is literally the state.

[Guest American Woman]

Is it a valid job requirement? I'm not so sure.

Those writing the Constitution did think it was a valid job requirement, for the reason I stated - the POTUS is also Commander in Chief, and as such, shouldn't have any mixed allegiances to another country.

Would it be discrimination if a local coffee shop printed a help wanted add that read "applicants must be 35 years of age and born in the United States"? What about the position of POTUS demands that a person be born on US soil, or be 35 years of age?

Are you comparing working in the local coffee shop to POTUS? Surely you realize POTUS would have different qualifications. By the same token, you do realize that your Prime Minister has to be a Canadian citizen, right? And you realize that a lot of your government positions require an ability to speak English and French? Do you see that as discrimination against residents who aren't citizens and those who speak only English or French? Or do you see it as valid job requirements?

From here:

Even if we stripped the requirement to be Anglican, should we abide a head of state that owes allegiance to a foreign head of state?

So there is no separation of Church and State. You have a head of state that swears to defend the Anglican faith which is different from swearing to defend the country; the faith of only some of your citizens. What about all the other citizens? You don't see a problem with that? That's really one of the points I've been making - the idea that your head of state should swear loyalty to one religion while excluding another. I see it as archaic and I don't see it in the best interest of the nation. I don't think a head of state should be involved in religion. Do you?

Also, there are other problems...

A catholics own religion prevents them from being crowned.

Again, separation of church and state would alleviate that problem. I go back to my original statement, that in this day and age, for a country like Canada, independent and priding itself on multi-culturalism and tolerance, a head of state excluding one religion strikes me as archaic. And it is discriminatory. Whatever the reasons. It's exclusive of one religion and one religion only; a religion that many of its citizens belong to.

The Catholic religion differs in important ways from the other religions of the world.

Not really, when you consider that the UK has a head of state that represents the official religion of the state - and that head of state is also Canada's head of state. I know of no other nation that has a problem with the Catholic religion in that way, other than the UK - and by extension, Canada.

But the same could be said about other religions, too - that they differ in important ways from other religions, but to point that out is discrimination. Face it, there are selective accusations of "discrimination" regarding some religion as other forms of discrimination are justified. This is a prime example.

[SF/PF]

Those writing the Constitution did think it was a valid job requirement, for the reason I stated - the POTUS is also Commander in Chief, and as such, shouldn't have any mixed allegiances to another country.

So you'd defend a requirement that excludes as POTUS someone that spent the first 3 days of their life on foreign soil, but decry a requirement which prevents a head of state that owes allegiance to another head of state? In the name of preventing "mixed allegiances?"

Are you comparing working in the local coffee shop to POTUS? Surely you realize POTUS would have different qualifications. By the same token, you do realize that your Prime Minister has to be a Canadian citizen, right?

Being a citizen of the nation that you seek office in is a pretty reasonable requirement, in my opinion. Far more reasonable than requiring that one be born on domestic soil.

And you realize that a lot of your government positions require an ability to speak English and French?

I live in a bilingual country. Again, that strikes me as pretty reasonable.

So there is no separation of Church and State. You have a head of state that swears to defend the Anglican faith which is different from swearing to defend the country; the faith of only some of your citizens.

The monarch acts as the head of the Church of England in one role. And the nation as a whole in another. I'm not a religious person at all, and I wouldn't object to removing the monarch from the position of leader of the church. But I don't see any major problem with the current state of affirs, either.

What about all the other citizens? You don't see a problem with that? That's really one of the points I've been making - the idea that your head of state should swear loyalty to one religion while excluding another. I see it as archaic and I don't see it in the best interest of the nation. I don't think a head of state should be involved in religion. Do you?

In a sense it is a throwback to a time when the Catholic church was an empire onto itself, perhaps the superpower of Europe. But as I've said before, the catholic church is still, today, a state. Not just a church.

Again, separation of church and state would alleviate that problem. I go back to my original statement, that in this day and age, for a country like Canada, independent and priding itself on multi-culturalism and tolerance, a head of state excluding one religion strikes me as archaic. And it is discriminatory. Whatever the reasons. It's exclusive of one religion and one religion only; a religion that many of its citizens belong to.

In a sense, the seperation of church and state is the very reason that Catholics were prevented from sitting on the throne. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that yoou believe that being born on foreign soil is a mixed allegiance, but actually owing allegience to a foreign head of state is A-ok.

Your position is incoherent.

Not really, when you consider that the UK has a head of state that represents the official religion of the state - and that head of state is also Canada's head of state. I know of no other nation that has a problem with the Catholic religion in that way, other than the UK - and by extension, Canada.

The UK, like many countries has a state church. The difference is that in most countries, the church is not synonomous with the state in the way that it is with the Catholic chruch/state. The British do not live under Anglican law. The Danes and Swedish don't live under Lutheran law.

But the same could be said about other religions, too - that they differ in important ways from other religions, but to point that out is discrimination. Face it, there are selective accusations of "discrimination" regarding some religion as other forms of discrimination are justified. This is a prime example.

Well, for starters, the leaders of other world religions are not, in thier role as heads of a church, also a head of state. Thats a pretty important difference, no?

[Smallc]

It's also important to point out that Elizabeth II, in her role as defender of the faith as it pertains to Canada, is the defender of all faiths, and not just the Church of England. I do think that the religion requirement should be changed, but, it isn't going to be a problem for about 50 years anyway. We have the time.

[g_bambino]

The monarch acts as the head of the Church of England in one role.

And only in one country. The Queen of Canada has no religious role. It would be easier for us, then, to amend our constitution to remove the religious limitations placed on the sovereign than it would be for the UK to do the same.

[g_bambino]

It's also important to point out that Elizabeth II, in her role as defender of the faith as it pertains to Canada, is the defender of all faiths, and not just the Church of England.

That's quite right.

[Wilber]

And again. A requirement that the head of a state be born in that state is not discrimination; if you truly believe that it is, you clearly don't understand the meaning of "discrimination." How does one discriminate against the whole world? The requirement sets no one apart. It doesn't apply to any specific nation. You're really grasping at straws here to avoid seeing the situation for what it is - discrimination based on religion. It's amazing to me what some people will try to justify - and the lengths they will go to in their attempt.

It is discrimination and it is arbitrary. You have two classes of citizen, those born in the US and those not born in the US. In our country, a citizen is a citizen.

There were good reasons for Catholics being excluded from positions of power in the UK, which for all practical purposes are an anachronism today and only apply to the Monarch but no more than your President having to be US born. In fact there is no requirement for the Queens representative to Canada not to be Catholic as many have been. How many Catholic presidents have you had? Just one I believe.

And their descendants could become president; they weren't prevented from it by their bloodline. Unlike your head of state.

True but the fact still remains, any citizen can become the most powerful person in our government. Not in yours.

[Guest American Woman]

It is discrimination and it is arbitrary. You have two classes of citizen, those born in the US and those not born in the US. In our country, a citizen is a citizen.

In our country a citizen is a citizen, too. Only in your mind are they different "classes." The fact that the president must be born in the United States isn't a "class" issue; as I said, their descendants can become POTUS, unlike your head of state. So if you want to use your line of thought, a citizen isn't a citizen in Canada as a Catholic will never become your head of state - and that includes their descendants. Catholics are locked into a "class of their own" that their descendants don't even transcend because it's based solely on religion; which is what makes it discrimination.

There were good reasons for Catholics being excluded from positions of power in the UK, which for all practical purposes are an anachronism today and only apply to the Monarch but no more than your President having to be US born.

The requirement that our president be US born is in relation to allegiance to the nation, not to a figure head - a figure representing a religion. As I said, that's archaic in this day and age. As I pointed out, you have many Catholics in your nation and they are being excluded from representation, not to mention the exclusion by bloodline. But a catholic cannot even be the spouse of your head of state. We have no requirements regarding who the POTUS marries. Our requirement is just that - a job requirement applying to all. The exclusion of Catholics is discrimination and has to do with allegiance to a figurehead rather than to the country - and it extends to the spouse.

In fact there is no requirement for the Queens representative to Canada not to be Catholic as many have been. How many Catholic presidents have you had? Just one I believe.

I couldn't care less if the representative of your head of state is Catholic; a representative is not the head of state.

True but the fact still remains, any citizen can become the most powerful person in our government. Not in yours.

I happen to think someone who just became a citizen shouldn't be able to become "the most powerful person in our government." If you're cool with that, so be it, but others would have legitimate concerns. Our forefathers were aware of this regarding how strong one's loyalty is and where it could/would ultimately lie. It has nothing to do with the exclusion of one nationality, one race, one religion, which is what discrimination is. But the fact still remains that our head of state is not limited by/determined by bloodlines or exclusive of religion. Nothing changes that fact. Furthermore, your observation about the power of the Prime Minister is another reason why I think having a monarchy is archaic.

[Smallc]

Maybe the system is archaic in principle...but some of the best places in the world use this archaic system. Norway, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Japan, Liechenstein (the richest country per capita on the planet), Luxembourg, Monaco, New Zealand, Sweden....of course, there are some pretty bad ones too (like Lesotho), but, overall, this archaic system seems to create quite the stability.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

It is discrimination and it is arbitrary.

She's not going to concede; if there's one thing about AW, it's that she never thinks she's wrong. Ever.

In an earlier discussion, she was adamant that one can have dual citizenship without dual allegiance. Now excluding people from the office of head of state based on their place of birth is not discrimination, since its neccessary to avoid dual allegiance. (No matter that was the very reasoning behind the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement that she just can't stop being outraged about.) It's a real unique definition of "discrimination" she has to uphold. I guess, in her mind, it'd be okay for the US president to be a dual citizen, but not a person born outside the US, since the former doesn't involve dual allegiance, but the latter does. Go figure.

[sp]

Edited May 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[Dave_ON]

Good Lord. One. More. Time. No, it's not discrimination. Again, you fail to grasp the definition of discrimination. Requiring that a head of state be born in that state is not based on prejudice; it's based on a job requirement. It's based on the idea that the POTUS shouldn't have mixed allegiances because of the duties that the position includes. It's based on a valid reason. It's a job requirement same as other jobs have requirements. It's no more discrimination than a job that requires a university degree is discrimination.

The fact that one can change their religion has nothing to do with it. The discrimination against the religion still exists.

It is discrimination as one cannot change their place of birth. One's educational status, including the earning of a degree, is under their control and you are right THAT is not discrimination. You cannot possibly ever compare where one is born to educational level that is apples to oranges. If it is a conflict of interest that is your concern that why are you so upset over the catholic thing? Clearly you don't understand that conflict of interest or mixed allegiances as you put of having the head of the church of England be a catholic? You do understand how that would present a great problem don't you? Not being catholic is a job requirement to be head of a protestant church. Wow that is indeed a novel concept!

For the third time, disallowing someone from being head of state because of where they are born IS discrimination, they have no control over this and it runs counterman to what is supposed to be the very essence of your entire society, namely anyone can do anything in America on their own merit. POTUS notwithstanding. Why can't Alejandro Hortanado, who immigrated to the USA with his family at the age of 1 who for all intents and purposes is as American as anyone born there be POTUS? Because you discriminate on based on place of birth, something that is not under their direct control. Their education is, hell even ones religion is. Is disallowing a catholic from the throne discrimination, hell yes it is. Is that a problem, no given the other roles that the Monarch in the UK plays in the Church of England that's common sense. Is it a problem that the US requires n citizen to be born in the US, no I understand the intent behind this, something you fail to realize about the monarch apparently. But be that as it may, regardless of whether or not I think it's a good idea, or if it makes sense the limitation of being born in US IS discrimination base on place of birth.

The difference between you and I AW is I can accept that the Monarchy is in fact discriminatory, and I also do not take issue with that. Your problem is the POTUS is discriminatory also, but because you cannot abide this thought you must make outlandish comparisons, and call it a "job requirement" to make yourself feel better about the aforementioned discrimination. Canada's head of state is not elected and need not be elected to fulfill it's role, namely to protect and maintain the state. You still have to this point failed to demonstrate any benefit of having an open and elected head of state in Canada as the role exists. You have relied heavily on your own system which does not apply to us.

You have opinions about the Monarchy and I get that and you're more than entitled to them. But if you are trying to convince Canadians that they should get rid of the monarchy based on an American frame of reference you may as well give up now, it's not going to work. Not wanting to be Americans was precisely the reason our country was founded, we saw manifest destiny and didn't like it in the least.

Calling the monarchy discriminatory is a ridiculous argument, no one has ever claimed it has been otherwise. If we are to get rid of the Monarchy with what shall we replace it precisely? This is an earnest question. Based on OUR system, not a presidential republic, what HONEST suggestions do YOU have given the role of our head of state? What would you be able to live with in head of state selection?

Edited May 19, 2011 by Dave_ON

[Smallc]

Well, she's already said that she doesn't see a need for a president and a prime minister, so, that leaves either a presidential republic, or, that thing that South Africa does. In other words, she wants us to follow the model used by the US and most new world countries. I think I'll stick with the model that has generally done well in Europe and Japan/Oceania. I mean, really, besides the US, how many full presidential republics are there that are doing as well as Europe and Canada, which are mainly constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics with a couple of semi presidential republics thrown in?

I mean, look at this map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg

Look at the blue vs the red and orange. Who is really doing better as a system?

Edited May 19, 2011 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

It seems that it is technically incorrect to refer to the Canadian Royal Family as "British Royalty". Why do Canadian media (and Canadians) often make this mistake?

Edited May 19, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

It seems that it is technically incorrect to refer to the Canadian Royal Family as "British Royalty". Why do Canadian media (and Canadians) often make this mistake?

Because they don't fact check enough. Media from everywhere make mistakes constantly.