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

[Dave_ON]

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?

Indeed, it is something that irks me also. Much as when people fail to pronounce the U in Aunt, ans say it as ANT. But I digress.

[Shwa]

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?

Come off it.

It seems that it is technically incorrect to refer to Columbus as the discoverer of "America." Why does American media (and Americans) often make this mistake?

[g_bambino]

It is discrimination as one cannot change their place of birth.

While it may be something within one's control (or their parents', depending on), the US president also can't be someone who's lived outside the US for more than 14 years.

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed, it is something that irks me also. Much as when people fail to pronounce the U in Aunt, ans say it as ANT. But I digress.

OK...but the larger point is one concerning the very custom, which in practice is not understood very well. My perception based on travels here at MLW is that Canadians are more knowledgeable of the American protocols than their own with respect to Canadian "royalty". It can't just be the torrent of American media, although that certainly is a factor. Something else is amiss in the way of ambivalence and/or outright ignorance.

[bush_cheney2004]

Come off it.

It seems that it is technically incorrect to refer to Columbus as the discoverer of "America." Why does American media (and Americans) often make this mistake?

Beats me....why is there a province named "British Columbia"?

[g_bambino]

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?

Likely a combination of any number of factors: Poor education on such matters in Canadian schools; laziness around fact checking; Canadian media outlets purchasing pre-written news pieces from American and European conglomorates that themselves don't fact check (especially on matters of Canadian and Commonwealth law and sovereignty). Then again, 300 years on and people still commonly but incorrectly refer to the "Queen of England"; even Brits. Old habits die hard.

[bush_cheney2004]

Likely a combination of any number of factors...

All reasonable explanations, but not consistent with the passions on display here. If the Canadian monarchy as an institution is at the core of Canadian federalism, one would expect a bit more of an investment in the legal tradition beyond "ceremonial figurehead" too hard to change.

[Shwa]

Beats me....why is there a province named "British Columbia"?

Because it was named after the district that took it's name from the river that was named by an American from Boston who named it after his ship?

[Wilber]

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.

We have had four Prime Ministers in our history who were not born in Canada and their allegance was never in question. Your country is only willing to trust non American born citizens so far. That is a double standard.

People have changed their religion to become the Monarch. It was their choice to do so. No one gets a choice when it comes to their place of birth. To discriminate on that basis is the same as discriminating by race. You give reasons that justify that discrimination in your mind but it is discrimination none the less. There are always reasons given for discrimination and their validity is always in the mind of the discriminator.

The Monarchy is an important part of our history, a big reason it came to be the country it is. If you find it archaic that is your problem, we have no need to justify it to you.

It's interesting that you who gained your independence by choosing war don't trust anyone born outside it to hold its highest office and many of your citizens justify the right to bear arms as a means to defend themselves from their own government. We who come from the same roots but gained our independence by peaceful means do not share that paranoia. I think it is a basic difference between our two cultures.

Your problem seems to be that in your opinion there is only one way to do something, the American way and anything that isn't is inferior. We disagree. Many of us watch the American system quite closely in this country and while there are things we admire about it, on balance, most of us would not choose it for our country.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because it was named after the district that took it's name from the river that was named by an American from Boston who named it after his ship?

..and it was so named by Queen Victoria in 1858, no an American fixated on Columbus.

[g_bambino]

All reasonable explanations, but not consistent with the passions on display here.

I think this site tends to attract a higher percentage of people with at least a fundamental understanding of Canadian civics than one would find at random on the streets.

If the Canadian monarchy as an institution is at the core of Canadian federalism, one would expect a bit more of an investment in the legal tradition beyond "ceremonial figurehead" too hard to change.

One would expect that. But, the government's policy from the late 1960s through to 2005 has been, for various self-serving reasons, to slowly subvert the Crown; gradually remove the symbols, take the subject out of curricula, information for new immigrants, training for civil servants, and the like; a kind of official process of forgetting. What some Liberals couldn't do all at once through the front door in the 1970s became a more subliminal project of achieving the same goal slowly through the back door.

[bush_cheney2004]

We have had four Prime Ministers in our history who were not born in Canada and their allegance was never in question. Your country is only willing to trust non American born citizens so far. That is a double standard.

I think you meant natural born US citizens, i.e. citizens at birth. This may or may not mean born on US soil, and is related to other factors. These US presidents were not born in the USA, as it did not exist at the time of their birth:

* George Washington

* John Adams

* Thomas Jefferson

* James Madison

* James Monroe

* John Quincy Adams

* Andrew Jackson

* William Henry Harrison

The Monarchy is an important part of our history, a big reason it came to be the country it is. If you find it archaic that is your problem, we have no need to justify it to you.

Understood, and certainly no changes are required. However, the monarchy is also an important part of American history, for altogether different reasons.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What some Liberals couldn't do all at once through the front door in the 1970s became a more subliminal project of achieving the same goal slowly through the back door.

Yes...that is readily apparent. I suspect this was at least partially driven by issues concerning Quebec nationalism. I am old enough to distinctly remember a Canada not so divorced from royal institutions in such a public way. On paper, outsiders like me can follow the continuum since 1867, but superficially it is harder to reconcile staunch support for the monarchy with the absence of the very things you describe. Inevitably, the American brand of republicanism becomes one of the political "reasons" to keep the monarchy.

[Scotty]

There's a huge difference between job requirements that are based on relevancy to the job and discrimination, which excludes those with the same qualifications based solely on their religion.

How is that relevant to the job? You're saying that if I'm born in England, and move to the US when I'm six months old I'm not going to be a real American even after growing up and spending fifty years there?

[Scotty]

I feel somewhat the same about the provisions of the Act of Settlement that bar Catholics from the throne. The Papacy just doesn't have the clout it did in the 17th century.

I think the point was, though, that each country has its limitations on who can be head of state.

[correct]

All they need to do is separate the monarch from his/her role as head of the Church of England. Which, imho, should have been done ages ago anyway. With that done, they can remove the worry about Catholics.

[Scotty]

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.

So if they wrote into the constitution that the president had to be White, that wouldn't be discrimination, because that would now BE a job requirement!

Gotcha!

[Scotty]

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

Because they're lazy, stupid and incompetent?

[Guest American Woman]

We have had four Prime Ministers in our history who were not born in Canada and their allegance was never in question. Your country is only willing to trust non American born citizens so far. That is a double standard.

Three of them served in the 1800's and we had presidents who weren't born on American soil back in the day, too. The last of your PM's not born in Canada served out the end of Pierre Trudeau's last term after after he retired, and never won an election. Furthermore, three were of Scottish Canadian decent and the fourth English Canadian decent. Considering your head of state is British, all four had ties to the Commonwealth which Canada is a part of, and therefore there wasn't a whole lot to question regarding their allegiance.

People have changed their religion to become the Monarch.

The fact that they changed their religion doesn't make the exclusion any less discriminatory.

It was their choice to do so. No one gets a choice when it comes to their place of birth.

As pointed out, their descendants can become POTUS, and no one has to change anything. No descendants of Catholics can become head of state or marry a head of state unless they change their religion.

To discriminate on that basis is the same as discriminating by race.

Of course it isn't. Race applies to one set of people whereas the requirements apply to anyone born anywhere who was not born an American citizen. It's not discriminatory when it applies to all. By the same token, one could say Canada discriminates against residents who are not citizens.

You give reasons that justify that discrimination in your mind but it is discrimination none the less.

No it isn't. The discrimination is in your mind. According to you, since jobs have different requirements, they are all discriminatory. Since a resident of Canada needs to be a citizen of Canada to become PM, that's discrimination.

The exclusion regarding your head of state applies to one group of people only, regardless of where they live. It's religious discrimination. If our requirements applied only to those born in Arab countries or only those born Catholic or only those born with black skin then it would be discrimination. It doesn't.

There are always reasons given for discrimination and their validity is always in the mind of the discriminator.

And sometimes it's not discrimination. As I said, it's not discrimination to require the PM be a Canadian citizen. That's a valid requirement. It's not discrimination to that a job position require a university degree when deemed a valid requirement. There are all sorts of different requirements for all sorts of positions, and when there is a valid reason given other than one's religion, race, sex et al, it's not discrimination. When one is excluded bases solely on their religion and it's only their religion, it's discrimination. I think your laws would prove what I say as well as ours.

The Monarchy is an important part of our history, a big reason it came to be the country it is. If you find it archaic that is your problem, we have no need to justify it to you.

It's not a problem for me at all. It's my opinion. Same as you have opinions regarding my country. And it's not just my opinion, either. If you don't like it, you're the one with the problem, not me.

It's interesting that you who gained your independence by choosing war don't trust anyone born outside it to hold its highest office and many of your citizens justify the right to bear arms as a means to defend themselves from their own government. We who come from the same roots but gained our independence by peaceful means do not share that paranoia. I think it is a basic difference between our two cultures.

The difference between our two cultures at the time you are referring to is that the Americans didn't accept government without representation. That we have the right to bear arms means we don't have to accept an unfair government, as was the case with British rule. Furthermore, that we recognize a person who has become a naturalized citizen could very well feel just as much an allegiance to their country of birth as ours is not so much a matter of trust but a matter of security based on an understanding of human nature.

Your problem seems to be that in your opinion there is only one way to do something, the American way and anything that isn't is inferior.

Again, I have no problem. I see my opinion as the better way to do it just as you see your opinion as the better way. You think you don't see your opinion as the only way to do something?? And I never said it was "inferior," those are your words. You need to grow a thicker skin; I have as much a right to an opinion regarding your country/your government as you do ours. And I will especially state my opinion in light of the criticism the US gets, such as using the actions of one pilot to claim there's not freedom of religion in America - as your country discriminates on the basis of religion for the position of head of state. As your countrymen justify the discrimination. It looks pretty hypocritical from where I sit.

We disagree. Many of us watch the American system quite closely in this country and while there are things we admire about it, on balance, most of us would not choose it for our country.

Yes, you do watch it quite closely and have never been shy about stating your opinions in that regard. Just as I've been saying. And do I see that as a problem? No, I do not. Think what you will, and express what you will. Just don't expect any differently from me/us/Americans.

--------------------------------

EDITED TO ADD: Not all Canadians agree with you, either. Some, like me, see the system as outdated and archaic.

Edited May 19, 2011 by American Woman

[Shwa]

..and it was so named by Queen Victoria in 1858, no an American fixated on Columbus.

Get your history straight. It was "so named" by Queen Victoria based on the district named for the river which was named by an American explorer taken from the name of his boat, the 'Columbia Rediviva.'

[bush_cheney2004]

Get your history straight. It was "so named" by Queen Victoria based on the district named for the river which was named by an American explorer taken from the name of his boat, the 'Columbia Rediviva.'

American explorers do not get to name provinces, but they are allowed to name their boats.

[Guest American Woman]

So if they wrote into the constitution that the president had to be White, that wouldn't be discrimination, because that would now BE a job requirement!

Gotcha!

Yes, because that would be a valid reason and would have so much to do with the power entrusted to the POTUS as Commander in Chief - and/or anything else. :rolleyes:

There is a requirement that the PM be a Canadian citizen. Do you see that as discrimination against all the residents of Canada who aren't citizens? Or do you see that as a reasonable job requirement?

[Wilber]

Three of them served in the 1800's and we had presidents who weren't born on American soil back in the day, too. The last of your PM's not born in Canada served out the end of Pierre Trudeau's last term after after he retired, and never won an election. Furthermore, three were of Scottish Canadian decent and the fourth English Canadian decent. Considering your head of state is British, all four had ties to the Commonwealth which Canada is a part of, and therefore there wasn't a whole lot to question regarding their allegiance.

It would have been pretty hard for them to be born on US soil when the US didn't exist. All were born on locations that became future US states.

As for Canadian PM's, the first three were Scots. There had been 400 hundred years of warfare between Scotland and England before the Crowns were united.

The fact Turner didn't win an election is irrelevant. He did serve as PM and if he would have won an election he would have served. Losing an election is not the same as being disqualified from running.

The fact remains, if all four of them had been born in Borneo, that wouldn't have disqualified them from running for PM as long as they had become Canadian citizens.

The fact that they changed their religion doesn't make the exclusion any less discriminatory.

Who said it wasn't discriminatory? You are saying only your form of discrimination is valid. I say bullshit.

No it isn't. The discrimination is in your mind. According to you, since jobs have different requirements, they are all discriminatory. Since a resident of Canada needs to be a citizen of Canada to become PM, that's discrimination.

Your country has decided to discriminate according to place of birth. We have not. Other countries don't feel the need. So there.

It's not a problem for me at all. It's my opinion. Same as you have opinions regarding my country. And it's not just my opinion, either. If you don't like it, you're the one with the problem, not me.

Then why are you wasting so much time on this topic trying to show us the error of our ways? Who we make our head of state is none of your concern. While I may express opinions on their policies, I do not on how you chose your President because it's none of my business.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

...Your country has decided to discriminate according to place of birth. We have not. Other countries don't feel the need. So there.

Again...this is not technically correct. The alleged "discrimination" is based on natural born citizenship, regardless of the location. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but was still qualified to be president by virtue of his birth to American citizens in a US military hospital. The requirements for "natural born citizenship" abroad have varied greatly over time.

[Wilber]

Again...this is not technically correct. The alleged "discrimination" is based on natural born citizenship, regardless of the location. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but was still qualified to be president by virtue of his birth to American citizens in a US military hospital. The requirements for "natural born citizenship" abroad have varied greatly over time.

I understand that but place of birth is still an issue that can disqualify one from being President.

[Scotty]

Yes, because that would be a valid reason and would have so much to do with the power entrusted to the POTUS as Commander in Chief - and/or anything else. :rolleyes:

Being a naturalized citizen is no more of an advantage than being White. Neither has any actual valid reason behind them.

There is a requirement that the PM be a Canadian citizen. Do you see that as discrimination against all the residents of Canada who aren't citizens? Or do you see that as a reasonable job requirement?

It certainly discriminates against non-citizens, and I think the great majority of Canadians are okay with that. Yours discriminates against citizens, and you are clearly okay with that.