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

[G.P. Lehmann]

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.

[+]

No one is proposing that the foundation of the monarchy be removed. Your right that it is the underlying basis for our institutions and jurisdictional divisions. However when the topic of removing the monarchy from Canada is discussed, as indicated in the preamble to this thread, we are referring to the symbolic aspects such as its influence on our head of state, the armed forces and so on.

[Dave_ON]

Why would a system where the people elect the head of state not be possible? Why shouldn't the citizen's of Canada choose who does those things?

Why should the head of state be politicized? Why must all officials be elected? There is already electoral fatigue in Canada, for our standard 4-5 year elections. This quick succession of minority governments and the steady decline in voter participation illustrates that. Christ I can't imagine constantly having to elect someone every other month for some type of post like you do in the US.

I just don't get the why people are convinced that EVERYONE needs to be elected to be "truly" democratic. Our current system has worked fine for the better part of 4 centuries, what do we gain by changing to a yet untested system?

Several million savings would still be some money in the taxpayers' pockets, to put towards their lifestyle rather than royalty's.

There would be no savings with the necessity to hold elections all the time. How much does the US, and individual states spend on the incessant elections? I'll be it's about or more then what we spend on the GG and Royal visits.

I realize from previous posts that you would like to do away with royalty regarding Canada, and I understand. Obviously I would feel the same way.

The fundamental question is what's the point? There isn't any real political or public will in Canada to make a change. Of course you'd feel the same way you're an American, your ancestors threw off the monarchy long ago, but there were many of your own former citizens that remained loyal to the crown and fled to Canada so they could remain so. In fact the city I grew up in Saint John NB to this very day still celebrates Loyalist Day as it was founded by Royalist Americans fleeing the illegal revolution incited by traitors to the crown

[GostHacked]

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.

Queen Elizabeth II IS a British Royal. And she is our head of state. You could not be more wrong.

[Dave_ON]

"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.

You've failed to demonstrate your point, because something is old does not make it useless. On the Contrary I would say that in terms of systems of governments it makes it all the more useful. How does it not server the purpose it did in the past? Please explain how the Monarchy has failed to fulfill it's role?

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?

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.

It's difficult by design precisely because it shouldn't be changed on a whim. If the change is truly desired it must be worked for, thus we prevent half-hearted whimsical changes to the foundation of our society.

What do we gain by electing a head of state other than politicizing the whole affair. I like that the head of state is traditional, a symbol that unites rather than divides. Politicizing the whole thing only adds another election, with little benefit.

The crown is eternal, the person who wears it isn't as important. I find it curious, how very enamored the US is with the monarchy though, almost as if they regret their decision. I was in Illinois, during the Royal wedding and I couldn't turn to a single channel without seeing the coverage. Why do Americans care about a foreign monarchy? Why is it so on their mind and for goodness sakes why the heck were they so enamored with the Duchess of York? You try and change the office of the president and the first lady in to a kind of Monarchy, attempting to capture the regal aura, but don't quite make it and why? It lacks permanence, and a foundation in tradition.

Says you. Other people don't think so.

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 don't care that Monarch cannot be a catholic, and I suspect most Canadians are of the same mind. Most of Canada may be Catholic in name but I doubt very much they are in practice. I for one was raised protestant, as were millions of other Canadians.

Question for you, do you honestly think that any person would EVER be elected POTUS if they were Muslim or married to a muslim? What about a gay or lesbian president? Come now, get off your high horse for a second and think about what you're saying. Whether you acknowledge it or not you are as bound by tradition and convention in the US as much as we are in Canada, you're just not as honest with yourselves about it as we are.

Why is electing the head of state as it exists in Canada any better? What benefit do we gain?

Edited May 16, 2011 by Dave_ON

[g_bambino]

Queen Elizabeth II IS a British Royal. And she is our head of state. You could not be more wrong.

Queen Elizabeth II is a British royal. She is also our head of state. Neither fact makes me wrong, however. Canada is an independent country; the idea that it is under a foreign institution (i.e. the British monarchy) is therefore untenable.

[GostHacked]

Queen Elizabeth II is a British royal. She is also our head of state. Neither fact makes me wrong, however. Canada is an independent country; the idea that it is under a foreign institution (i.e. the British monarchy) is therefore untenable.

If we are independant, why do we still need a representative of the Monarch in our government? Let's get rid of it.

You said she was not a head of state - She is.

You said she was not a British Royal - She is.

Edited May 16, 2011 by GostHacked

[Dave_ON]

Queen Elizabeth II is a British royal. She is also our head of state. Neither fact makes me wrong, however. Canada is an independent country; the idea that it is under a foreign institution (i.e. the British monarchy) is therefore untenable.

Where I think GH is confused, is that he fails to realize that Queen of the United Kingdom is but one of QEII's titles, she's also Queeen of Canada, Australia and many other commonwealth realms.

[g_bambino]

No one is proposing that the foundation of the monarchy be removed. Your right that it is the underlying basis for our institutions and jurisdictional divisions. However when the topic of removing the monarchy from Canada is discussed, as indicated in the preamble to this thread, we are referring to the symbolic aspects such as its influence on our head of state, the armed forces and so on.

This makes no sense. If you support the idea of a Canadian republic, you are, at least, advocating the removal of the monarchy. Quite aside from the symbolism, the monarchy is the keystone of our constitution; its place as the foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government in all eleven of Canada's jurisdictions is not symbolic, it is quite real. It will take a Herculean effort to abolish it.

[g_bambino]

If we are independant, why do we still need a representative of the Monarch in our government?

Because the person who is our monarch is also monarch of other countries and, by the general laws of physics, can't be in all of them at the same time.

You said she was not a head of state...

No, I didn't.

You said she was not a British Royal...

No, I didn't.

[g_bambino]

Where I think GH is confused, is that he fails to realize that Queen of the United Kingdom is but one of QEII's titles, she's also Queeen of Canada, Australia and many other commonwealth realms.

I think that's the problem, too. I was trying to lead him to a revelation of the fact that Canada's monarchy and the UK's monarchy are entirely distinct, though the same person is monarch of each.

If he still persists, he'll have to explain why it is the UK remains a colony of Canada.

[+]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

I think that's the problem, too. I was trying to lead him to a revelation of the fact that Canada's monarchy and the UK's monarchy are entirely distinct, though the same person is monarch of each.

How are they distinct? Maybe you can explain that then?

[g_bambino]

How are they distinct?

The same way the Dutch monarchy is distinct from the Spanish. Or the Thai monarchy is distinct from the Jamaican. They're sovereign of one another. The British monarch (that is, the Queen in her British council, British parliament, and British courts) has as much sovereignty over Canada as does the Canadian monarch (that is, the Queen in her Canadian council, Canadian parliament, and Canadian courts) does over the UK; i.e none.

For a start, have a read of Monarchy of Canada and Commonwealth realm.

[+]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[Tilter]

Why would we change it? What would be the point?

What is the point of carrying on a medieval custom that costs us millions if not billions and benefits us not at all?

Is not the queen's shit brown, breath awful in the AM, her blood red (not blue as Victoria BC thinks.

She is an ordinary human who has reaped the benefits of being born into an old German family and is sucking the the UK & the "colonies" dry.

[Molly]

I'm reminded of a small child to whom family relationships were being explained.

It was all fine until someone said, "...and Poopsie is our cousin." The child was prepared to draw blood of anyone claiming that Poopsie was anything at all other than 'MY SISTER!!!'

[Dave_ON]

What is the point of carrying on a medieval custom that costs us millions if not billions and benefits us not at all?

Is not the queen's shit brown, breath awful in the AM, her blood red (not blue as Victoria BC thinks.

She is an ordinary human who has reaped the benefits of being born into an old German family and is sucking the the UK & the "colonies" dry.

Technically since our current monarchy is from the 17th century, it originated in the modern era. The mideval period ended close to a centruy and a half prior to the act of settlement, two and a half if you are of the mind that it ended circa 1300. Either way the Renaissance era was even gone by the time our current monarchy came to be.

The fact that the monarch is human is immaterial, the Crown is what is important not the person who occupies the position of monarch. If one monarch fails, abdicates or what have you, the act of settlement provides stipulations for who will succeed that person. The crown continues even though the individual monarchs come and go.

[jbg]

What is the point of carrying on a medieval custom that costs us millions if not billions and benefits us not at all?

If you had the agony of watching the U.S.'s slow-motion meltdown between 1972 and 1974, you'd understand the point.

[g_bambino]

What is the point of carrying on a medieval custom that costs us millions if not billions and benefits us not at all?

Is not the queen's shit brown, breath awful in the AM, her blood red (not blue as Victoria BC thinks.

She is an ordinary human who has reaped the benefits of being born into an old German family and is sucking the the UK & the "colonies" dry.

Garbage.

[Benz]

What is the point of carrying on a medieval custom that costs us millions if not billions and benefits us not at all?

Is not the queen's shit brown, breath awful in the AM, her blood red (not blue as Victoria BC thinks.

She is an ordinary human who has reaped the benefits of being born into an old German family and is sucking the the UK & the "colonies" dry.

Even if there would be no saving to change it to a federal republic, just for the sake of killing the blue blood heritage, it's worth it. Head of state determined by blood heritage. It goes against the principle of equality and democracy.

You should look up on how much Canada spend thru the Commonwealth in order to subside the Royal family. Everytime someone from the Royal family comes in Canada, we pay for it.

Perhaps the royalists beleive the queen never farts and it grants her the right to be fund by public money.

[g_bambino]

It goes against the principle of equality and democracy.

Present arrangements would indicate otherwise.

You should look up on how much Canada spend thru the Commonwealth in order to subside the Royal family. Everytime someone from the Royal family comes in Canada, we pay for it.

One would find nothing, since you're mistakenly conflating a number of separate matters.

[Guest American Woman]

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

If you were aware of the facts, you'd know that it is.

[g_bambino]

If you were aware of the facts, you'd know that it is.

No, it's not.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

So if apple pie is a national mythological symbol of the US, and you're comparing the Queen to it, you ARE saying she's a mythological symbol as you compare her to one. So yeah, I did pick up on it and it's exactly as I took it. No apologies necessary.

[Bonam]

Queen Elizabeth II IS a British Royal. And she is our head of state. You could not be more wrong.

She is Canada's head of state in her capacity as Queen of Canada, not as Queen of England. Our Queen is a Canadian Royal.

[Guest American Woman]

She is Canada's head of state in her capacity as Queen of Canada, not as Queen of England. Our Queen is a Canadian Royal.

She's a British Royal. From The Official Website of THE BRITISH MONARCHY: The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms.

[g_bambino]

She's a British Royal. From The Official Website of THE BRITISH MONARCHY: The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms.

Nobody's denying she's a British royal. We are, however, discussing her place as Canada's head of state, not the UK's. Elizabeth is not Canada's head of state by virtue of being the Queen of the United Kingdom (a British royal), she is Canada's head of state as Queen of Canada (a Canadian royal). Two different, separate monarchies headed by the same individual.

[+]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino