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

[Scotty]

Expanding further on what August has already said in response, your head of state can't even be married to a Catholic; marry a Catholic, and lose the crown.

While an American president can give a facial to a Jewish girl in the Oval Office and still hang on to his job as Head of State!

[TimG]

Letting the people have a say in their head of state rather than having it be determined by bloodlines and birth order and religion IS accomplishing something useful.

You are missing a key part of the picture: the GG assumes all of the monarchs duties in Canada. The GG is appointed by Canadians and for Canadians. The fact that a british royal is the titular head of government is a historical irrelevency.

I'd really like to know what you think about the whole 'can't convert to or marry a Catholic' stipulation. Are you ok with that? If the U.S. determined that the POTUS couldn't be Muslim or marry a Muslim, what would your reaction be?

I would be considered if it applied to the GG - but it does not. I could not care less what rules apply to the monarch. Edited May 15, 2011 by TimG

[Scotty]

"Correcting every tradition" and getting rid of a major archaic tradition which no longer serves the purpose that it did in the past are two very different things.

And how the hell would you know whether that institution still serves a purpose in Canada? Have you ever even been to Canada?

Lots of things are difficult by design. Does that mean people should just sit back and not make changes? Seriously. You think Canada isn't up to the task?

If you want to redesign how a country operates shouldn't you start with yours? I mean, ours seems to be functioning pretty well. Yours, on the other hand, is an out of control eighteen wheeler headed for a cliff while a bunch of people fight and curse and struggle for control of the wheel.

[Scotty]

So a Canadian republic would forbid/exclude Catholics too?

I put my question to you: I'd really like to know what you think about the whole 'can't convert to or marry a Catholic' stipulation. Are you ok with that? If the U.S. determined that the POTUS couldn't be Muslim or marry a Muslim, what would your reaction be?

The rules for the royalty originate in the monarch's being not merely the head of state but the titular head of the Church of England. You clearly can't have a Catholic running the Church of England. And I say that as a Catholic. What ought to be done, I think, is to remove the Monarch from his/her role as head of the Church of England. That would enable the rule against Catholicism to be removed, as well.

[Guest American Woman]

Was it worth finding out? Were the gas lines, 14% inflation and 8% unemployment worth it?

Were all of those things due to Watergate? We've never experienced such things before or after? Our system always gets us through, which Watergate proved.

Would need a constitutional amendment for that. Our constitution bars royal titles.

I realize that. Which is why I suggested you start a petition. The "good luck with that" still stands.

I repeat. I no more believe a Head of State would be non-political than I believe the Easter Bunny goes hopping down the bunny trail. Just because it says so on paper doesn't mean the actions would be nonpolitical. One acts on one's beliefs, whether it's as an elected Democrat/Republican or an appointed "nonpolitical" leader whose beliefs follow one party or the other.

[Scotty]

Proof, please.

I don't need to prove anything to you. You're not a Canadian and have no say in this anyway.

All Canadians understand how national polls are skewed by Quebec.

[Smallc]

Yet Watergate resolved itself. The world as we know it didn't come to an end.

And the world has come to an end in the Commonwealth Realms? When? Why wasn't I told?

Edited May 15, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

The rules for the royalty originate in the monarch's being not merely the head of state but the titular head of the Church of England. You clearly can't have a Catholic running the Church of England. And I say that as a Catholic. What ought to be done, I think, is to remove the Monarch from his/her role as head of the Church of England. That would enable the rule against Catholicism to be removed, as well.

I know what the rules originate in, but the question is, can Canada do anything about it? Does Canada have any influence in that regard? This is, after all, your head of state too. And more to the point, has Canada, which prides itself on its multiculturalism and tolerance, even tried to do anything about it? Or do you all just accept it? - The way you would accept it if the US made the provision that a Muslim or anyone married to a Muslim couldn't become POTUS.... (Yeah, right about that, eh?)

[Scotty]

I repeat. I no more believe a Head of State would be non-political than I believe the Easter Bunny goes hopping down the bunny trail. Just because it says so on paper doesn't mean the actions would be nonpolitical. One acts on one's beliefs, whether it's as an elected Democrat/Republican or an appointed "nonpolitical" leader whose beliefs follow one party or the other.

The difference between the monarch and an elected head of state is that while both might have personal preferences on given issues the monarch has been schooled since childhood to look towards the best interest of the nation and in the long term, whereas politicians are trained to think of the short term, and the need to please the passing fancies of the electorate. The Queen has made an excellent head of state, and I can't imagine a Canadian politician who would have done as well.

[Scotty]

I know what the rules originate in, but the question is, can Canada do anything about it? Does Canada have any influence in that regard? This is, after all, your head of state too. And more to the point, has Canada, which prides itself on its multiculturalism and tolerance, even tried to do anything about it? Or do you all just accept it? - The way you would accept it if the US made the provision that a Muslim or anyone married to a Muslim couldn't become POTUS.... (Yeah, right about that, eh?)

Up here, we have more important things to worry about than the minutia of the religion of the head of state. I understand how this confuses you as American politics is obsessed with minutia to the exclusion of all else.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't need to prove anything to you. You're not a Canadian and have no say in this anyway.

All Canadians understand how national polls are skewed by Quebec.

Alright then, it's just as I thought. You have no proof.

[g_bambino]

How should I know?

By educating yourself before coming to conclusions, perhaps? The Act of Settlement can be amended to remove the anti-Catholic clauses; it is Canadian constitutional law now and is thus amendable only by the Canadian monarch in parliament. At the same time, Canada, along with the 15 other Commonwealth Realms, has freely agreed to a kind of conventional treaty amongst those countries whereby no one country will alter its line of succession without the approval of and a parallel change made by the others; it's a multilateral matter. There have been discussions about changing the laws, the subject has been raised relatively frequently recently, but no definitive action seems to have yet been taken. Harper was asked about this during the last election campaign, but he said it wasn't a priority at the moment.

Are you ok with that?

No.

[Smallc]

You are missing a key part of the picture: the GG assumes all of the monarchs duties in Canada. The GG is appointed by Canadians and for Canadians. The fact that a british royal is the titular head of government is a historical irrelevancy.

That's right, except for three powers (the emergency appointment of extra Senators, the creation of new awards...and.....something else, I forget), all of the powers that the Queen has can be and are exercised by the Governor General of Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

Up here, we have more important things to worry about than the minutia of the religion of the head of state. I understand how this confuses you as American politics is obsessed with minutia to the exclusion of all else.

Can't answer the question either, eh? I'm patiently waiting for anyone to actually address it.

In the meantime, I find an exclusion for the position of head of state based on religion to be considered 'not very important' very admirable. Good on ya. Tell me again how tolerant y'all are - as you avoid, yet again, what your reaction would be to the provision that the POTUS cannot be Muslim or married to a Muslim. I'm rather enjoying all of the dodges.

[Smallc]

If you want to redesign how a country operates shouldn't you start with yours? I mean, ours seems to be functioning pretty well. Yours, on the other hand, is an out of control eighteen wheeler headed for a cliff while a bunch of people fight and curse and struggle for control of the wheel.

I wish we still had that like button that was removed because Dobbin didn't want it...and then left anyway.

Oh, like.

[Scotty]

Can't answer the question either, eh? I'm patiently waiting for anyone to actually address it.

In the meantime, I find an exclusion for the position of head of state based on religion to be considered 'not very important' very admirable. Good on ya. Tell me again how tolerant y'all are - as you avoid, yet again, what your reaction would be to the provision that the POTUS cannot be Muslim or married to a Muslim. I'm rather enjoying all of the dodges.

I couldn't care less whether your head of state is a Muslim or not. I just wish there was a rule that he be competent. But then you'd have been without a head of state for the last forty or fifty years.

All that really matters is that our system works. Too bad you can't say the same.

[g_bambino]

The difference between the monarch and an elected head of state is that while both might have personal preferences on given issues the monarch has been schooled since childhood to look towards the best interest of the nation and in the long term, whereas politicians are trained to think of the short term, and the need to please the passing fancies of the electorate. The Queen has made an excellent head of state, and I can't imagine a Canadian politician who would have done as well.

Not only that, but any politically biased act made when it wasn't necessary (i.e. outside of some crisis that threatens the continuity and stability of government) would mean a violation of her coronation oath and a quick ticket off the throne; the system could no longer function with a partisan sovereign; a game refereed by one of the players will quickly descend into chaos. The system is built so that there's absolutely nothing to be gained by the monarch entering the political arena.

[Guest American Woman]

By educating yourself before coming to conclusions, perhaps?

That's hilarious. I just threw your "how should I know?" to my question back at'cha to see what kind of reaction I'd get. Love it! Especially since the question actually pertains to your country.

The Act of Settlement can be amended to remove the anti-Catholic clauses; it is Canadian constitutional law now and is thus amendable only by the Canadian monarch in parliament.

So has that been going on?

At the same time, Canada, along with the 15 other Commonwealth Realms, has freely agreed to a kind of conventional treaty amongst those countries whereby no one country will alter its line of succession without the approval of and a parallel change made by the others; it's a multilateral matter. There have been discussions about changing the laws, the subject has been raised relatively frequently recently, but no definitive action seems to have yet been taken. Harper was asked about this during the last election campaign, but he said it wasn't a priority at the moment.

Of course it's not a priority at the moment. Not as big a priority as criticizing the U.S. if it had such a provision excluding Muslims/being married to a Muslim from becoming POTUS. I can just hear the outcry coming from north of the border if that were to happen. And rightfully so. I feel the same way about the exclusion of Catholics, or even marriage to a Catholic, regarding your head of state.

No.

Yet you support the monarchy. I wouldn't support a system that excluded a Muslim, or marriage to a Muslim, from being our head of state. I find it odd that Canada/Canadians have been so silently accepting of this; that you apparently don't see it as that big an issue. That you don't see it as an issue worth addressing. Very odd in a nation that prides itself on its diversity and tolerance, wouldn't you have to agree?

Edited May 15, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I couldn't care less whether your head of state is a Muslim or not.

That doesn't address/answer the question, does it?

I just wish there was a rule that he be competent. But then you'd have been without a head of state for the last forty or fifty years.

:lol: Keep those laughs coming.

All that really matters is that our system works. Too bad you can't say the same.

Yes, Americans have often wished that the U.S. could be as successful as Canada has been. Americans have been looking north of the border with longing and thoughts of "if only...."

[Scotty]

I find it odd that Canada/Canadians have been so silently accepting of this; that you apparently don't see it as that big an issue. That you don't see it as an issue worth addressing. Very odd in a nation that prides itself on its diversity and tolerance, wouldn't you have to agree?

I find it odd that a nation on the verge of economic collapse and bankruptcy finds itself obsessed with abortion, gun control, gays, and whether the president can produce his birth certificate.

[Guest American Woman]

I find it odd that a nation on the verge of economic collapse and bankruptcy finds itself obsessed with abortion, gun control, gays, and whether the president can produce his birth certificate.

Good for you. Now that you've got that off your chest, how about answering the question? Or is it too difficult for you? So far you've been really, really good at dodging questions; now let's get a look-see at how good you are at actually answering them.

[g_bambino]

I just threw your "how should I know?" to my question back at'cha to see what kind of reaction I'd get.

Yes, I know you did. However, you asked me about a hypothetical future scenario, which obviously nobody can predict. I asked you about current reality, which you should be able to educate yourself on.

Yet you support the monarchy. I wouldn't support a system that excluded a Muslim, or marriage to a Muslim, from being out head of state.

The Act of Settlement bars Catholics from the throne, not Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or the Dutch. But, I'm not sure how many times I've said this, yet it doesn't seem to be getting through to you: the existence of the monarchy does not rely on the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement. The monarchy was there before the clauses were passed by the British parliament in 1701 and it can continue once the clauses are repealed by the pertinent parliament or parliaments. Argument against anti-Catholicism in the Act of Settlement is not argument against the monarchy.

[sp]

Edited May 15, 2011 by g_bambino

[Scotty]

Yes, Americans have often wished that the U.S. could be as successful as Canada has been. Americans have been looking north of the border with longing and thoughts of "if only...."

They would be, if Americans weren't generally too ignorant to know much about either how their own country is being run or how others work.

[Guest American Woman]

And how the hell would you know whether that institution still serves a purpose in Canada? Have you ever even been to Canada?

Yes.

If you want to redesign how a country operates shouldn't you start with yours? I mean, ours seems to be functioning pretty well. Yours, on the other hand, is an out of control eighteen wheeler headed for a cliff while a bunch of people fight and curse and struggle for control of the wheel.

Another sensitive Canadian that can't take an American having any opinions on Canada. Let me guess, at the same time you're one of those Canadians who criticize Americans for not knowing anything about Canada, right? Or perhaps we're supposed to know everything but not ever voice an opinion; just sit politely, silently by the border - the way Canadians, who never express their opinion about anything regarding the U.S., do.

But do keep throwing the "the US is falling off a cliff" comebacks in response. It's oh-so-relevant and backed by - your opinion! - making it all the more *ahem* relevant.

Edited May 15, 2011 by American Woman

[Shwa]

I have no idea what you are talking about .........

You said, "Seems to me it's just an archaic left-over from days past."

Well certainly everyone that knows anything about North American history knows that Columbus certainly did not "discover" America at all. You know that right?

So why the pesistance with the false myth that Columbus discovered America? Why is it still taught in your schools? Why do they still have a 'Columbus Day?' One would think that L'anse aux meadows would have changed all that, yet it didn't even make a scratch on that venerable myth. Why is that?

In the same way, Canadians have their national myths - almost untouchable - about the Monarchy, all things British, General Brock, stiff upper lip and so on. Wink, wink; nudge, nudge, say no more. Why should we change all of this, when it serves us perfectly well? Why re-order government to satisfy something that, in the end, is simply esoterica that would get any ruling party tossed from government in a hurry?

When we talk about "costs" of maintaining such myths, well that is wholly immaterial since it serves peace, order and the greater good and all that rot.