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

[Wilber]

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.

It's estimated the Monarchy adds $825 million to the UK's tourist income per year and the royal wedding added $175 million to London's economy alone. It's also a big business.

[Tilter]

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.

mideval

as in an expression , as of something that is past it'd "better before"

None of the A/M (crown or person) are in any way important to anyone except themselves.

They are leeches on the lifeblood of anyone in the "commonwealth' the only "wealth" that is common are we, the idiots, who allow it and "Common" as in "comm'on to my bank account says the queen, a human who has NO right to our money.

[g_bambino]

None of the A/M (crown or person) are in any way important to anyone except themselves.

Why, then, was it made so difficult to remove the Crown from our constitution?

[Guest American Woman]

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.

She's Canada's head of state because she's the queen of the United Kingdom, so yes, she is Canada's head of state by virtue of being the queen of the UK. Whoever reigns over the UK will be Canada's head of state because Canada is part of the British commonwealth.

[Bonam]

She's Canada's head of state because she's the queen of the United Kingdom

No, she is Canada's head of state because she is the Queen of Canada.

[Guest American Woman]

No, she is Canada's head of state because she is the Queen of Canada.

No, she's the queen of Canada because she's the queen of the UK. Simple as that. Canada is part of the British commonwealth, and whoever reigns over the UK will be Canada's head of state for that reason.

Her Royal Highness, the Queen of England visits Ottawa for Canada Day

Edited May 16, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

No, she's the queen of Canada because she's the queen of the UK. Simple as that. Canada is part of the British commonwealth, and whoever reigns over the UK will be Canada's head of state for that reason.

Wrong. She is Queen of Canada because Canada's constitution says so, not because the UK's does, or because of Canada's place in the Commonwealth of Nations ("British Commonwealth" went out 50 years ago, AW), and there is no provision in the Canadian constitution that requires the Canadian monarch to be the same person as the British monarch. If the UK abolished its monarchy or altered its line of succession, there would be no change to the law in Canada and Elizabeth would remain our queen.

[+]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

Wrong. She is Queen of Canada because Canada's constitution says so, not because the UK's does, and there is no provision in the Canadian constitution that requires the Canadian monarch to be the same person as the British monarch. If the UK abolished its monarchy or altered its line of succession, there would be change to the law in Canada and Elizabeth would remain our queen.

You are splitting hairs here. At the end of the day all the commonwealth has one queen, no matter how many hats she wears. Since the Queen does not offer Canada anything in return for her service, we should not wait and just write the british monarchy/royalty out of our laws and constitution. I don't think anyone will be able to give any valid reason to keep her as an active or figurative head of state.

Technically she is the Queen of Canada, technically, she is the queen of *.* country, but at the same time she is the queen of Britain.

However, they were all originaly of the German royalty. Saxe-Coburg, they end up just changing the name to Windsor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_windsor

The House of Windsor is the current royal house of the Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on the 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of his family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I. Currently, the most prominent member of the House of Windsor is Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch of the Commonwealth realms.

[Guest American Woman]

Wrong. She is Queen of Canada because Canada's constitution says so, not because the UK's does, and there is no provision in the Canadian constitution that requires the Canadian monarch to be the same person as the British monarch. If the UK abolished its monarchy or altered its line of succession, there would be change to the law in Canada and Elizabeth would remain our queen.

No, she's not the queen of Canada because Canada's constitution says so. She's the queen of Canada because in 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of Queen of Canada. link

[Wilber]

However, they were all originaly of the German royalty. Saxe-Coburg, they end up just changing the name to Windsor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_windsor

So if the Brits don't have a problem with the Monarch being a German, why should we? The origins of the family has SFA to do with anything in a country made up of immigrants. As the saying goes, A Canadian is an immigrant with seniority.

[Dave_ON]

No, she's the queen of Canada because she's the queen of the UK. Simple as that. Canada is part of the British commonwealth, and whoever reigns over the UK will be Canada's head of state for that reason.

Her Royal Highness, the Queen of England visits Ottawa for Canada Day

My earlier responses/questions got buried it seems, so I'll restate them.

Why precisely should we change a system that has worked for nearly 4 centuries simply because it's old? What benefit is there to an elected head of state over a hereditary one?

Do you believe that a Muslim president would EVER get elected or even someone married to a Muslim? Is the US not bound by it's own set of traditions and conventions that are equally archaic?

Thus far you've talked much about the fact as to Canada needing to change from a successive Monarchy but have failed to outline any benefits as to why, other than that what your particular frame of reference dictates is "right". Further you mentioned the monarchy no longer serves it's original purpose, I'd be curious for you to indicate in what specific instances the Crown has failed to serve Canada, when it was called to do so.

[g_bambino]

Since the Queen does not offer Canada anything in return for her service, we should not wait and just write the british monarchy/royalty out of our laws and constitution.

The British monarchy has been written out of our constitution. But, I'll assume you mean the Canadian monarchy. You still haven't explained why, if the Queen has no purpose, the Crown is pretty much the most difficult element of our government to eliminate from the constitution.

[Dave_ON]

No, she's not the queen of Canada because Canada's constitution says so. She's the queen of Canada because in 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of Queen of Canada. link

Lol you really don't want to get into a debate over the place of the monarchy and the constitution with G Bambino... unless you want to lose of course.

[g_bambino]

No, she's not the queen of Canada because Canada's constitution says so. She's the queen of Canada because in 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of Queen of Canada. link

Reign and title are separate matters; note the site you link to says the proclamation of Elizabeth as Queen of Canada "reaffirmed the new monarch's position as Queen of Canada" [emphasis mine], not that it established her as Canada's queen. Elizabeth could be titled by Canadian law as "High Priestess of Zorbar" and she'd still be the queen of Canada because Canada is a constitutional monarchy and she, according to the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Succession to the Throne Act 1937, both of which are part of the Canadian constitution, should be the reigning monarch.

[Guest American Woman]

My earlier responses/questions got buried it seems, so I'll restate them.

Why precisely should we change a system that has worked for nearly 4 centuries simply because it's old? What benefit is there to an elected head of state over a hereditary one?

I already explained why. In an independent nation that has a legislature and a prime minister, royalty is outdated; becoming head of state simply by virtue of blood and birth order is outdated. Being born into the royal family isn't any assurance of being up to the task, and in this day of 'equality' the idea of a 'royal' is outdated. The idea that people in an independent nation have no say as to who has the position of head of state is archaic - the idea that it couldn't be any one if them is archaic - but people in this day and age should be able to have a say in such matters. And as I've pointed out, Canada prides itself on its diversity and tolerance, yet you have an archaic system of "royalty" as your head of state that excludes Catholics, even as a spouse.

Do you believe that a Muslim president would EVER get elected or even someone married to a Muslim? Is the US not bound by it's own set of traditions and conventions that are equally archaic?

There is nothing preventing a Muslim from being POTUS while a Catholic or even a Catholic spouse is prohibited from becoming British royalty. And yes, I do believe a Muslim could get elected, same as Catholic JFK got elected when no one thought a Catholic had much of a chance. But the key word there is "could" get elected, whereas in Britain a Catholic/royal with a Catholic spouse cannot reign. I'll ask of you - what would you think if the US had a stipulation that the POTUS could not be Muslim, could not be married to a Muslim? Seriously. What would you think of that?

Thus far you've talked much about the fact as to Canada needing to change from a successive Monarchy but have failed to outline any benefits as to why, other than that what your particular frame of reference dictates is "right". Further you mentioned the monarchy no longer serves it's original purpose, I'd be curious for you to indicate in what specific instances the Crown has failed to serve Canada, when it was called to do so.

I said it doesn't serve it's original purpose, and it doesn't. That's a fact. I've never said that it failed to serve Canada, but that a more modern system, based on merit, not exclusive of one religion, would be more in keeping with a modern, independent, multi-cultural, tolerant Canada. If I were a Catholic Canadian, I wouldn't see the exclusion of my religion from being tied even by marriage to the Head of State as very tolerant. It is, in fact, very intolerant. As an American I don't see it as any more tolerant than the rest of the world would see it if the US were to put a provision into effect banning a Muslim or anyone married to a Muslim from being our Head of State.

[Guest American Woman]

Reign and title are separate matters; note the site you link to says the proclamation of Elizabeth as Queen of Canada "reaffirmed the new monarch's position as Queen of Canada" [emphasis mine], not that it established her as Canada's queen. Elizabeth could be titled by Canadian law as "High Priestess of Zorbar" and she'd still be the queen of Canada because Canada is a constitutional monarchy and she, according to the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Succession to the Throne Act 1937, both of which are part of the Canadian constitution, should be the reigning monarch.

Ok. So it reaffirmed that the new queen of England was also the queen of Canada. She was reaffirmed the queen of Canada by virtue of her being queen of Britain. Sounds amazingly like what I already said.

[Wilber]

As an American I don't see it as any more tolerant than the rest of the world would see it if the US were to put a provision into effect banning a Muslim or anyone married to a Muslim from being our Head of State.

Our Head of State has no more power than that which our elected representatives give them. The most powerful job in our government is open to any citizen, not just ones born in our country to Canadian citizens.

Frankly, I see no more need for Canadians to justify their form of government to Americans than I do Americans to justify theirs to Canadians.

[g_bambino]

She was reaffirmed the queen of Canada by virtue of her being queen of Britain.

The site you linked to says nothing of the sort, and rightly so. Elizabeth became Canada's sovereign according to: the Constitution Act 1867, which spells out that Canada is a constitutional monarchy; the Act of Settlement 1701, which states that the monarch must be the most direct, legitimate, non-Catholic descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover; the Succession to the Throne Act 1937, which eliminated Edward, Duke of Windsor, and his heirs from the line of succession; and the constitutional convention that the succession adheres to cognatic primogeniture. As the UK parliament had no ability since 1931 to legislate for Canada, Elizabeth became queen in 1952 by virtue of the Canadian constitution, not Britain's.

[+]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

Alright, so no matter what her status is for Canada, it simply is no longer needed and can be written out of the constitution because it no longer provides us with any meaningful benafits.

[Dave_ON]

I already explained why. In an independent nation that has a legislature and a prime minister, royalty is outdated; becoming head of state simply by virtue of blood and birth order is outdated. Being born into the royal family isn't any assurance of being up to the task, and in this day of 'equality' the idea of a 'royal' is outdated. The idea that people in an independent nation have no say as to who has the position of head of state is archaic - the idea that it couldn't be any one if them is archaic - but people in this day and age should be able to have a say in such matters. And as I've pointed out, Canada prides itself on its diversity and tolerance, yet you have an archaic system of "royalty" as your head of state that excludes Catholics, even as a spouse.

But that's precisely the point you're missing, while yes the direct succession is determined by the act of settlement that could easily be changed. Perhaps even my family could be selected and I could be come King of Canada. "could" is the key word, but I think that's all rather immaterial. The crown is eternal, the person who occupies the title of monarch is not, nor are they particularly relevant. Why must head of state be open to all people? I don't feel that's more "fair" or modern, just different. It grinds against your world view, I get that, but you're operating from the premise that a choice, or a chance, even a false choice or chance is better than none at all. Every little boy and girl dreams of being the president of the US, how many of them really have a shot? How many of them have the capital, connections, support, charisma etc. etc. to back this up? We may "choose" our head of state via bloodline, but you "choose" your head of state by who has the best resources out of two potential candidates, unless an independent is running of course, but when in the entire history of your country has a non partisan president been elected?

That still doesn't answer the question though, what would we truly gain? The fact that we got to choose is immaterial, that's not really a gain. Maybe it makes you feel good. Even if it turns out to be a dud, at least you chose that dud. To me that's not a good reason to change a system that has worked for longer than your country has even been in existence.

There is nothing preventing a Muslim from being POTUS while a Catholic or even a Catholic spouse is prohibited from becoming British royalty. And yes, I do believe a Muslim could get elected, same as Catholic JFK got elected when no one thought a Catholic had much of a chance. But the key word there is "could" get elected, whereas in Britain a Catholic/royal with a Catholic spouse cannot reign. I'll ask of you - what would you think if the US had a stipulation that the POTUS could not be Muslim, could not be married to a Muslim? Seriously. What would you think of that?

I'll grant you there is no "law" preventing a Muslim from becoming the POTUS but you and I are both fully aware that, that will not happen in either of our life times nor is it terribly likely that it will happen in the next two centuries. However, we're dealing in "coulds" after all, so technically you are correct, there is no law standing in their way, but there are many unwritten social conventions that make it just as impossible. To say otherwise is ludicrous. I'm not certain if you're a Rep or a Dem but I would suggest you put forward a Muslim for nomination, good luck in the campaign

As I've mentioned it doesn't bother me that the Monarch cannot be catholic, by the same token I could care less what the US passes for it's own laws as I have absolutely no say in them. If they wish to exclude Muslims from the presidency that's your choice. The US already has a stipulation on the presidency that flies in the face of your anyone can be president. It is not true that any citizen can be the president, only citizens that are born in the US can. So even if I'm the most capable president in the entire US of A if I was not born on your soil I could never become the POTUS. This goes against your "may the best person win" philosophy.

My main point is, Canada is up front about the limitations we put on our head of state, the US is not. There are unwritten social conventions, politics and pragmatic matters that make it impossible for 99% of all US citizens to become the POTUS. The fact that they "can" is tantamount to a fairytale. Officially yes, realistically? Absolutely not!

I said it doesn't serve it's original purpose, and it doesn't. That's a fact. I've never said that it failed to serve Canada, but that a more modern system, based on merit, not exclusive of one religion, would be more in keeping with a modern, independent, multi-cultural, tolerant Canada. If I were a Catholic Canadian, I wouldn't see the exclusion of my religion from being tied even by marriage to the Head of State as very tolerant. It is, in fact, very intolerant. As an American I don't see it as any more tolerant than the rest of the world would see it if the US were to put a provision into effect banning a Muslim or anyone married to a Muslim from being our Head of State.

What precisely was it's original purpose in your view, I'm afraid you'll have to clarify. It has served it's intended purpose ever since Canada has been a country. Further, the current selection of the Monarch does not mean the monarchy is inherently flawed, the act of settlement could be changed, if the political will existed to do so. However, not enough political will exists to make that change in all commonwealth nations. I suppose it's a non issue for majority of us.

[g_bambino]

it simply is no longer needed and can be written out of the constitution because it no longer provides us with any meaningful benafits.

For the third time: If the institution is so useless, why is it just about the most difficult element of our system of government to amend or eliminate from our constitution?

[+]

Edited May 16, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

But that's precisely the point you're missing, while yes the direct succession is determined by the act of settlement that could easily be changed.

That fact has already been explained to her numerous times. She doesn't care, apparently.

[Guest American Woman]

The site you linked to says nothing of the sort, and rightly so. Elizabeth became Canada's sovereign according to: the Constitution Act 1867, which spells out that Canada is a constitutional monarchy; the Act of Settlement 1701, which states that the monarch must be the most direct, legitimate, non-Catholic descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover; the Succession to the Throne Act 1937, which eliminated Edward, Duke of Windsor, and his heirs from the line of succession; and the constitutional convention that the succession adheres to cognatic primogeniture. As the UK parliament had no ability since 1931 to legislate for Canada, Elizabeth became queen in 1952 by virtue of the Canadian constitution, not Britain's.

"Non-Catholic."

What difference does it make if she became queen by Canada's constitution and not Britain's? She's still your queen by virtue of being the Queen of Britain. The Swedish monarchy isn't going to be your monarch. Nor is Monaco's. Or Thailand's. Or a uniquely Canadian monarchy completely detached from Britain. The BRITISH monarchy is Canada's head of state; ie: by virtue of being the monarchy of Britain. Just as I said.

Yes, Canada can change that. That's what this thread/discussion is about - changing it. Until then, Canada's queen, or king, will be whomever Britain's monarch is.

[RNG]

"Non-Catholic."

What difference does it make if she became queen by Canada's constitution and not Britain's? She's still your queen by virtue of being the Queen of Britain. The Swedish monarchy isn't going to be your monarch. Nor is Monaco's. Or Thailand's. Or a uniquely Canadian monarchy completely detached from Britain. The BRITISH monarchy is Canada's head of state; ie: by virtue of being the monarchy of Britain. Just as I said.

Yes, Canada can change that. That's what this thread/discussion is about - changing it. Until then, Canada's queen, or king, will be whomever Britain's monarch is.

But you say this as if it is a bad thing. I don't think it is.

[Dave_ON]

But you say this as if it is a bad thing. I don't think it is.

It all started with a tea party many years ago...