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

[Guest American Woman]

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?

Ummm. The reality of the situation is taught in the schools.

But seriously. You are comparing a holiday in the U.S. to your head of state?? You don't think one might be a little more serious matter than the other?

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?

Why change it? Because it's archaic; it's based solely on bloodlines and birth order, and it's exclusive of an entire religion. It's based on "royalty" and "commoners" (don't touch! a commoner mustn't touch your head of state!) and not at all on merit - not at all on who the people might actually chose, given a choice. "Given a choice." There's a novel idea, eh?

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.

I'm not basing my opinion on the cost. I agree that cost, other than the thought of my "commoner" tax dollars going to support "royalty," isn't all that relevant.

[GostHacked]

Ditch the Monarchy. It has outlived it's purpose, it provides no benefit to us at all. If we want to evolve as a country and start to really do things for ourselves, getting rid this monarchy is a good first step.

[g_bambino]

Ditch the Monarchy.

Do you have anything more intricate to offer than a t-shirt slogan?

[GostHacked]

Do you have anything more intricate to offer than a t-shirt slogan?

Our tax dollars help support these high class welfare recipients. That money train needs to stop now, so we can spend the money on things that matter. If they want money, tell them to get a fucking job like the rest of us peasents/subjects.

[g_bambino]

That money train needs to stop now, so we can spend the money on things that matter.

I suppose you mean things you think matter. This would suggest you don't believe the monarchy matters. If such is the case, then surely you can explain how it is that our system could function without this element that apparently doesn't matter. Extra points for why, if it matters as little as you say it does, it's pretty much the most difficult thing to get rid of from our constitution.

[Shwa]

Ummm. The reality of the situation is taught in the schools.

And yet the myth is often cited verbatim, as truth. Like "terra nullis" itself an antiquated idea that persists as a reason to be as some sort of 'manifest' destiny.

But seriously. You are comparing a holiday in the U.S. to your head of state?? You don't think one might be a little more serious matter than the other?

But seriously, such simplism is beneath you I think.

Why change it? Because it's archaic; it's based solely on bloodlines and birth order, and it's exclusive of an entire religion. It's based on "royalty" and "commoners" (don't touch! a commoner mustn't touch your head of state!) and not at all on merit - not at all on who the people might actually chose, given a choice. "Given a choice." There's a novel idea, eh?

The problem with your viewpoint is that you believe it has some sort of real, practical influence other than symbolic and legally serving to Parliament. We have a "Queen" which is a quaint and pleasant idea that fits in with our national mythology as a nation. Like Apple Pie and Land of the Free.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

The GG, who must be approved by the monarchy, is representing your head of state, which is the monarchy. It's the British royal that is your head of state, making it hardly irrelevant.

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.

Perhaps you should, since the monarch is your head of state.

[Guest American Woman]

And yet the myth is often cited verbatim, as truth. Like "terra nullis" itself an antiquated idea that persists as a reason to be as some sort of 'manifest' destiny.

If you say so.

But seriously, such simplism is beneath you I think.

Yes, it is. So could we stop trying to make this about me and address the actual issue? - A holiday is comparable to a head of state? Really?

The problem with your viewpoint is that you believe it has some sort of real, practical influence other than symbolic and legally serving to Parliament. We have a "Queen" which is a quaint and pleasant idea that fits in with our national mythology as a nation. Like Apple Pie and Land of the Free.

Now you're comparing your head of state to a motto, to apple pie? okaaaaaay..............

[TimG]

The GG, who must be approved by the monarchy, is representing your head of state, which is the monarchy.

The GG is appointed by the PM. By convention the PM's pick will always be approved by the monarch. A monarch that failed accept the PMs choice would trigger a constitutional crisis that would likely end with the monarch being fired. So I am 100% certain the monarch will always approve the PM's choice.

Perhaps you should, since the monarch is your head of state.

So? Monarchies are, by definition, exclusive clubs. I see no point in getting exercised over who monarchs are allowed to marry. The fact is the GG is real symbol of the monarchy in this country to most people and that role is open to any Canadian. Even marrying a seperatist does not disqualify you from the job. Edited May 15, 2011 by TimG

[g_bambino]

The GG is appointed by the PM. By convention the PM's pick will always be approved by the monarch. A monarch that failed accept the PMs choice would trigger a constitutional crisis that would likely end with the monarch being fired. So I am 100% certain the monarch will always approve the PM's choice.

While you're correct in that our monarch saying "no" to the prime minister's nomination for governor general would trigger a constitutional crisis, it is, more specifically, the monarch insisting on refusing the prime minister's advice that would do so. There's nothing to say the Queen can't, in private, express to the prime minister her objection to the suggested appointee; it is still her right to encourage, advise, and warn. But, if the prime minister insists, then the Queen cannot, ultimately, refuse, unless, that is, her agreement would lead to some threat to the continuity and stability of government.

The fact is the GG is real symbol of the monarchy in this country to most people...

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I'd think the Queen whose face is on our coins, $20 notes, medals, in airports and government buildings, and in magazines, newspapers, and on television is the figure most associated with the Canadian monarchy (despite the fact people still anachonistically call it "British"). People who know we have a governor general tend to be aware, at least somewhat, that the he represents the Queen; but, that means they understand he's a deligate and not himself the embodiment of the Crown.

[+]

Edited May 15, 2011 by g_bambino

[TimG]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. I'd think the Queen whose face is on our coins, $20 notes, medals, in airports and government buildings, and in magazines, newspapers, and on television is the figure most associated with the Canadian monarchy

This is all true but you need to seperate tradition and celebrity from the actual exercise the reserve powers of the crown. For example, during the fuss over progation it was the GG's decision - not the Queen's. Most people would be surprised - even upset - if the Queen had involved herself in such issues. Edited May 15, 2011 by TimG

[g_bambino]

This is all true but you need to seperate tradition and celebrity from the actual exercise the reserve powers of the crown. For example, during the fuss over progation it was the GG's decision - not the Queen's. Most people would be surprised - even upset - if the Queen had involved herself in such issues.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Fair enough, then.

[Bryan]

I get the feeling you don't understand our system.

So you think the monarchy is not ascended to though bloodline?

[g_bambino]

So you think the monarchy is not ascended to though bloodline?

Is our system only a bloodline?

[Bryan]

Is our system only a bloodline?

ONLY? Who said it was?

[g_bambino]

ONLY? Who said it was?

You seemed to be implying it was. Why did you focus only on that one part, otherwise?

[c/e]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[SF/PF]

The GG, who must be approved by the monarchy, is representing your head of state, which is the monarchy. It's the British royal that is your head of state, making it hardly irrelevant.

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you don't even know the facts, surely you must agree that your opinion on the facts is entirely irrelevant.

[RNG]

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you don't even know the facts, surely you must agree that your opinion on the facts is entirely irrelevant.

QEII is our head of state. The GG is her representative. Deal with it.

[SF/PF]

QEII is our head of state. The GG is her representative. Deal with it.

Exactly. And yet AW is still wrong. Deal with it.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you don't even know the facts, surely you must agree that your opinion on the facts is entirely irrelevant.

Sorry, but I'm not wrong. I'm quite aware of the facts and it's just as I said.

[SF/PF]

Sorry, but I'm not wrong. I'm quite aware of the facts and it's just as I said.

If you were aware of the facts, you'd know that Canada's head of state is not a British royal.

[Shwa]

Now you're comparing your head of state to a motto, to apple pie? okaaaaaay..............

Really AW? Really?

LOFL!

I am "comparing" a head of state to "a motto, to applie pie??"

No. I am comparing national mythological symbols of two countries. I thought you would have easily picked up on that, but I was obviously mistaken.

My apologies.

[g_bambino]

QEII is our head of state. The GG is her representative. Deal with it.

Queen Elizabeth II being head of state and the governor general her representative isn't where AW is wrong. It's her belief that a British royal is Canada's head of state. Given that Canada is an independent country, the thought is untenable.

[G.P. Lehmann]

As much as I support the notion of Canada as a Republic, most Canadians do not feel that this is a pressing matter and would rather see their elected officials focus on more prominent issues.The monarchy is purely symbolic and in no way affects the quality of life for Canadian citizens. Once all our other problems are solved we can address this matter.....

[g_bambino]

The monarchy is purely symbolic...

Nope, it's not. Something purely symbolic wouldn't be so hard to amend or remove from our constitution. Though the public may see it mostly acting symbolically, the Crown is actually the central pillar of governance in Canada, in the federal and provincial jurisdictions.

I agree with you, though, that it isn't at all a pressing matter.

[+]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino