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

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Sure, it could. IF things were changed. I'm not so sure it would be "easily," but things would need to be changed. Precisely my point. We are talking about things as they stand now; about Canada's current situation.

"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.

You don't think a system that would allow anyone - based on their merits - the opportunity to be head of state over a system that automatically gives someone the position by virtue of their bloodline and birth order to be more fair? Seriously??

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?

If you would look at our history, you would see that people who came from all economic classes have gone on to be POTUS. They earn the connections, the support, et al by their accomplishments; by their own merits. Furthermore, you don't "choose" your head of state at all. Your "choice" will be whoever is the next monarch of Britain.

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.

Whether or not it "worked" for that long is a matter of opinion. My countrymen didn't think so. They didn't think having a monarch across the ocean dictating their lives to them, without representation, "worked."

But what you would "gain" is a voice in your head of state. What Catholics would hopefully gain is not being excluded. You don't see that kind of restriction against one religion as wrong? Seriously?? This is your head of state. Why can't a Catholic or a Catholic spouse fulfill that position? And how can it be anything but intolerance to not allow one religion access to that position?

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.

Who, during the times of civil unrest in the 50's and 60's, would have thought that the U.S. would have a black president in their life time? Of course it's conceivable that a Muslim/candidate with a Muslim spouse could be POTUS. Furthermore, there's nothing to prevent it from happening. You keep ignoring the question: how would you feel if Congress passed a law preventing that from happening? Do you honestly think you, Canada, the world, wouldn't have an opinion about that? And what do you think the opinion would be? - We get flack over two Muslims not being allowed on a plane, a decision made by one pilot, and you're excluding all Catholics from any part of the position of head of state; an exclusion endorsed by your government.

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

We're not going to put a Muslim in the campaign just for the sake of putting one in, but we wouldn't exclude anyone on that basis, either. But no matter how badly you want to compare what you think the odds of a Muslim being elected POTUS are to a Catholic not being allowed, not even a spouse, they are two very, very different things. And I'm sure we'd hear just how different it is if we were to pass a law banning Muslims in any way. Do you seriously think otherwise? You think there would be no judgement?

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.

Really. You've never had an opinion on our government? And it wouldn't bother you in the least if we passed a law excluding Muslims? You'd have no comment, it would be just fine with you? And you think the rest of the world would feel the same?

The fact that it doesn't bother you that the monarch can't be a Catholic or marry a Catholic is not a tolerant attitude. It's not a very enlightened attitude, especially in a nation that prides itself on tolerance and multiculturalism. Canada bends over backwards to be tolerant of Muslims, yet it's perfectly ok to exclude Catholics from being their head of state.

Whether or not I have a say in what Canada does doesn't affect whether or not I have an opinion.

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.

And I've clearly stated that many times, so I don't need it repeated in every discussion. The anyone I speak of is an American born citizen over 35 who resides in the U.S. I hope that's now settled for once and for all. But the child of citizens not born in the U.S. can qualify, which means any family could produce a president regardless of bloodline or religion. Based on their merits.

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.

It's not "may the best person win:" it's may the best American born person over 35 who has resided in the United States win. With no restrictions regarding religion. One group of people isn't excluded based on their bloodline or their religion, and their children have every opportunity to become POTUS.

My main point is, Canada is up front about the limitations we put on our head of state, the US is not.

What?? We couldn't be more upfront about it. It's stated in the Constitution.

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!

The fact that they can, and have, is what it's all about. The fact that they CAN vs. CAN'T by virtue of government endorsed restrictions regarding bloodlines and religion is what is at the heart of it. If the possibility exists vs the possibility NOT existing, then the former is better than the latter.

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.

Again you speak of "could be changed." I'm speaking of as it is. As for what the original purpose was, do you honestly not know how the role of the monarchy has changed in Canada over the years?

[Guest American Woman]

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

I said it simply as the way it is, in response to others who are claiming otherwise.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

The most powerful job being what, exactly?

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.

Frankly, many Canadians have felt Americans should justify many things regarding our government, but that's another topic altogether. Fact is, Americans have just as much a right to question your government as you do ours, and I see the exclusion of Catholics as very intolerant; something I would have a problem with. I see having a head of state based on bloodlines and birth order, regardless or merit or lack thereof, as archaic. And feeling as I do, I will state my opinion.

[g_bambino]

What difference does it make if she became queen by Canada's constitution and not Britain's?

Because it makes you wrong.

[Dave_ON]

"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.

I don't understand your hangup on the whole matter. What are you implying, that Canada is somehow still subject to the British, simply because our Queen, the Queen of Canada that is, is also the Queen of Britania, Australia, New Zealand, Turks and the Caicos, and several other realms? There was no need or reason to change the monarch, though we could have. I fail to see your point. She's not the Queen of Canada because she is the Queen of Britain, she's the Queen of Canada, because our constitution states thus. We chose to maintain the same monarch as Britain, not because we were constrained to do so by some foreign parliament as you seem to be implying. You just can't get it through your head, that QEII is the Queen of many realms, UK is but one of them.

I think you fail to understand on even a most basic level who or what the sovereign is. This I can excuse as it's not the system you grew up with, you were taught about how the evil British were oppressing your ancestors, taxation without representation and all that rot.

[Dave_ON]

Sure, it could. IF things were changed. I'm not so sure it would be "easily," but things would need to be changed. Precisely my point. We are talking about things as they stand now; about Canada's current situation.

You don't think a system that would allow anyone - based on their merits - the opportunity to be head of state over a system that automatically gives someone the position by virtue of their bloodline and birth order to be more fair? Seriously??

Fair? Why does fair matter? You fail to understand on a fundamental level what the Monarch really is. It's a symbol of our nation, it's a tie to our history, our roots and our heritage. It's a symbol, that unites and should not be politicized so it will ultimately divide. How the Monarch is chosen, yes I use the word chosen, is rather immaterial, it's what the Monarch represents that matters more than anything. Yes succession is an older method of choosing, but the fact remains, we choose as Canadians to continue with the system we currently have. We're not forced into it as you seem to be implying. We could change it, but there is no need. The head of state is not a political figure in a constitutional monarch as they are in a presidential republic. I think this is where we are having our disconnect.

But it doesn't allow ANYONE as you stated below, just those over 35 who were born in the US. Doesn't matter if someone better from another country, and bleeds apple pie and baseball would be a better choice you discriminate based on country of birth. That too is a bloodline discrimination.

If you would look at our history, you would see that people who came from all economic classes have gone on to be POTUS. They earn the connections, the support, et al by their accomplishments; by their own merits. Furthermore, you don't "choose" your head of state at all. Your "choice" will be whoever is the next monarch of Britain.

We chose to keep our current head of state and remain loyal to the crown, even as your ancestors chose to betray the crown. Many of your then citizens chose to leave the US and come to Canada where they could continue to choose to remain loyal to the crown. You imply disparity where none exists.

Whether or not it "worked" for that long is a matter of opinion. My countrymen didn't think so. They didn't think having a monarch across the ocean dictating their lives to them, without representation, "worked."

Indeed, let's discuss how the Westminster system is not only the longest standing and most successful systems of governance but also the most widely used. But what does the rest of the world know right?

But what you would "gain" is a voice in your head of state. What Catholics would hopefully gain is not being excluded. You don't see that kind of restriction against one religion as wrong? Seriously?? This is your head of state. Why can't a Catholic or a Catholic spouse fulfill that position? And how can it be anything but intolerance to not allow one religion access to that position?

Why does it matter? Why must I have a voice in the head of state as the office exists in Canada? What direct control does the sovereign exert over my life? I think you're confusing the current head of state with Medieval absolute monarchs. The role of the Monarch is vastly different than the office of the president. There is a balance, between the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The executive, based on their role, need not and should not be politicized. It should remain separate from the whims of the day, that's the role of parliament. You are operating under the assumption that nothing but an elected head of state will suffice. So your forefathers believe, mine believe differently. Your forefathers, also believe it was their job to "liberate" we Canadians from the Monarchy. We fought you to preserve our way of life, and yet to this very day you still fail to understand, it has always been our choice.

Who, during the times of civil unrest in the 50's and 60's, would have thought that the U.S. would have a black president in their life time? Of course it's conceivable that a Muslim/candidate with a Muslim spouse could be POTUS. Furthermore, there's nothing to prevent it from happening. You keep ignoring the question: how would you feel if Congress passed a law preventing that from happening? Do you honestly think you, Canada, the world, wouldn't have an opinion about that? And what do you think the opinion would be? - We get flack over two Muslims not being allowed on a plane, a decision made by one pilot, and you're excluding all Catholics from any part of the position of head of state; an exclusion endorsed by your government.

You're avoiding the question. WOULD A MUSLIM GET ELECTED PRESIDENT OR EVEN NOMINATED? as things are now? You seem to be quite content to bring up this as they are now point so please elucidate me. I'm not interested in COULD BE's I want your honest response in this.

We're not going to put a Muslim in the campaign just for the sake of putting one in, but we wouldn't exclude anyone on that basis, either. But no matter how badly you want to compare what you think the odds of a Muslim being elected POTUS are to a Catholic not being allowed, not even a spouse, they are two very, very different things. And I'm sure we'd hear just how different it is if we were to pass a law banning Muslims in any way. Do you seriously think otherwise? You think there would be no judgement?

Actually you are excluding Muslims precisely because you know it would be political suicide. You refuse to out and out admit that I am correct that a Muslim would never at present, nor in the foreseeable future be elected president. Look at the furor surrounding the building of the mosque at ground zero. That is a prime example of how amiable the American people would be a Muslim candidate. The difference is, our exclusion of Catholics, is not a social convention, it's a legal one. Laws are far easier to change than are peoples minds. Yes a Muslim "Can" be president legally. But Socially a Muslim "can't" be president, You fail to see there is little difference, between a legal written law and an unwritten social convention.

Really. You've never had an opinion on our government? And it wouldn't bother you in the least if we passed a law excluding Muslims? You'd have no comment, it would be just fine with you? And you think the rest of the world would feel the same?

The fact that it doesn't bother you that the monarch can't be a Catholic or marry a Catholic is not a tolerant attitude. It's not a very enlightened attitude, especially in a nation that prides itself on tolerance and multiculturalism. Canada bends over backwards to be tolerant of Muslims, yet it's perfectly ok to exclude Catholics from being their head of state.

Whether or not I have a say in what Canada does doesn't affect whether or not I have an opinion.

As I said, it may not be official that Muslims can't be POTUS from a legal stand point that doesn't change the fact that they can't from a social standpoint. There are many things in US I have opinions about, that doesn't change the fact that I cannot do anything about it.

Please now there's no need to be insulting, I didn't start off by calling you an ignorant American, because our opinions and attitudes are different doesn't make one of us unenlightened. If you truly believe that you are the sole proprietor of enlightenment, then this discussion is already over.

And I've clearly stated that many times, so I don't need it repeated in every discussion. The anyone I speak of is an American born citizen over 35 who resides in the U.S. I hope that's now settled for once and for all. But the child of citizens not born in the U.S. can qualify, which means any family could produce a president regardless of bloodline or religion. Based on their merits.

It's not "may the best person win:" it's may the best American born person over 35 who has resided in the United States win. With no restrictions regarding religion. One group of people isn't excluded based on their bloodline or their religion, and their children have every opportunity to become POTUS.

Why the limitation of American born? I'm asking sincerely. Your furor is all well and good but how much of it is simply what you're used to? How has having an elected head of state actually measurably improved the lives of Americans over that of Canadians? What true benefit is there? What is a say going to do for us based on the role of our head of state? How is that better? I'm sorry but having a say isn't a sufficient response. My life is not adversely affected by the fact that my Monarch is selected based on bloodline. Furthermore the amount of effort required in order to change this simply so I could "have a say" is not enough. The monarch acts in the interest of the country, he/she does as his/her parliament and council, duly elected by the people, advise. End of story, what really is the problem with this?

What?? We couldn't be more upfront about it. It's stated in the Constitution.

As stated above, there is "official" then there is "reality". Ours is expressly written as well, it's not a social reality, it's a legal one.

The fact that they can, and have, is what it's all about. The fact that they CAN vs. CAN'T by virtue of government endorsed restrictions regarding bloodlines and religion is what is at the heart of it. If the possibility exists vs the possibility NOT existing, then the former is better than the latter.

Again you speak of "could be changed." I'm speaking of as it is. As for what the original purpose was, do you honestly not know how the role of the monarchy has changed in Canada over the years?

Yes it could be changed, but why? I'm asking you what YOU believe what the original purpose was. It is my firm belief you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the monarchy functions and what it's purpose in our system is. If you're truly interested in learning about it, I applaud you. If you simply wish to pontificate about archaic systems, which is interesting being as your country still uses the imperial system of measurement, I have little interest in discussing the matter. You believe choice and merit are everything, I believe that a balance between elected and appointed, or in the case of the sovereign hereditary is a better system, and that not all officials need be elected.

[Wilber]

The most powerful job being what, exactly?

Prime Minister. He/she has far more power within our country than the President in yours.

Frankly, many Canadians have felt Americans should justify many things regarding our government, but that's another topic altogether. Fact is, Americans have just as much a right to question your government as you do ours, and I see the exclusion of Catholics as very intolerant; something I would have a problem with. I see having a head of state based on bloodlines and birth order, regardless or merit or lack thereof, as archaic. And feeling as I do, I will state my opinion.

Feel free but I don't feel I have the right to question how you chose your government or your head of state. That is for Americans alone to decide.

On edit.

I for one am quite happy we have as our head of state, someone with no political axe to grind, who doesn't need to get re elected and who's only responsibility is the Constitution. You have to rely solely on the Supreme Court for that, who also happen to be political appointees.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Wilber

[g_bambino]

The role of the Monarch is vastly different than the office of the president. There is a balance, between the executive, the legislative and the judicial. The executive, based on their role, need not and should not be politicized. It should remain separate from the whims of the day, that's the role of parliament... You believe choice and merit are everything, I believe that a balance between elected and appointed, or in the case of the sovereign hereditary is a better system, and that not all officials need be elected.

That pretty well sums up much of what I appreciate about constitutional monarchy. Some republics have worked fairly well (so far; hardly any around today have been in existence for very long, relatively speaking). But, since a president will always be a politician, which guarantees the import of partisanship into the state itself, the balance between fleeting popular whims and stable permanence of the state will be affected, to some degree; the more partisan and politically involved the president, the more the balance tips.

[Shwa]

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.

Well I am glad that is all cleared up because when you wrote this:

I don't see the point in it either. When a country's government consists of a legislature, prime minister/president, and court system, where is the need for a monarchy? Seems to me it's just an archaic left-over from days past.

It was almost as if you didn't have a clue and completely misunderstood the purpose of the Monarchy in Canada and other British-isms that are often associated and enjoyed here.

Carry on...

[Scotty]

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.

Yes, yes, we know that Quebec nationalists are no fans of the monarchy.

And no one cares!

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.

We don't subsidize the royal family, and we pay for all international visitors.

And I notice you're not bitching about that silly, made-up organization le francophnonie!

[g_bambino]

[W]e pay for all international visitors.

I think the more apt point would be that we pay for all Canadian public servants. Why should we not cover the costs incurred when our Royal Family is acting on behalf of Canada? (A question to Benz and other anti-monarchists, not you, Scotty.)

[+]

Edited May 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[Scotty]

Another sensitive Canadian that can't take an American having any opinions on Canada.

Your opinion is dumb. And I mean that in the kindest way. A lot of Canadians have an emotional attachment with the monarchy as an institution, and as part of Canada's traditions and history. It doesn't need to be further explained than that. It works, and we like it.

Your country has a weird fixation with guns shared by no one else on earth, and largely created by Hollywood movies about a fictitious old west where guns were the symbol of independence. This bizarre, sentimental attachment with the notion of yourselves as pioneers defending the homestead causes untold deaths and misery every year, but you won't even consider doing anything about it because too many of you have your minds wrapped up in a romantic concept of what being an American means.

So if you want to change something, go ahead and change your own country's love for firearms and ignore us and our quaint attachment to the monarchy.

[Scotty]

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.

I bet you don't have a clue what, if anything, we spend on the monarchy.

[Scotty]

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

I'm a British citizen. I'm also a Canadian citizen. I can't be both?

[GostHacked]

I'm a British citizen. I'm also a Canadian citizen. I can't be both?

That is the point AW I think is making. No matter how many hats she wears, it is the same person who is wearing all those hats. It is the same person we all are suposed to bow down to. We are all the subjects of one familiy.

[GostHacked]

I bet you don't have a clue what, if anything, we spend on the monarchy.

If it's 100 dollars, it is still too much.

[Scotty]

There is nothing preventing a Muslim from being POTUS

Would he be allowed to ride in Air Force One or would the pilot refuse because he doesn't like to carry people in funny clothes?

[g_bambino]

No matter how many hats she wears, it is the same person who is wearing all those hats.

Ah, so it's not that she isn't the Queen of the UK reigning over Canada, it's that the Queen of Canada is a Brit. Well, even if she weren't also Canadian, the question would still remain: so what? Are you prejudiced against Brits?

It is the same person we all are suposed to bow down to.

This is an example of what I mean when I say republicans have to invent things to rant about and then provide us the solution to. When's the last time you saw anyone "bow down" to the Queen? A nod of the head is about as far as it goes; pretty much the same respect accorded to any head of state, because they are, well, the embodiment of the state (or at least a half of the state, for presidents).

[sp]

Edited May 18, 2011 by g_bambino

[Scotty]

If you would look at our history, you would see that people who came from all economic classes have gone on to be POTUS.

Just so long as they're not immigrants...

[g_bambino]

If it's 100 dollars, it is still too much.

I guessing about now you simply can't answer the question I put to you three times already.

[Scotty]

That is the point AW I think is making. No matter how many hats she wears, it is the same person who is wearing all those hats. It is the same person we all are suposed to bow down to. We are all the subjects of one familiy.

Yes, but she does have two hats, and she is Queen of Canada. And not to put too fine a point on it, if a Labour government of the UK abolished the monarchy they could legally come here and live and still be our royal family.

[Guest American Woman]

Just so long as they're not immigrants...

Let's see. A requirement that a head of state be born in said country, having nothing to do with bloodline, race, religion, et al, so their kids could be head of state some day, vs. a head of state restricted by bloodlines so no one else could be head of state AND by religion, so said head of state could not marry a Catholic; the spouse cannot even be Catholic.

And you want to compare the two as somehow equivalent?? One is blatant discrimination while the other is a job requirement applying to all - I'll leave it to you to figure out which one is the discrimination.

[g_bambino]

One is blatant discrimination while the other is a job requirement applying to all.

No, both positions are discriminatory. That's the point.

[Guest American Woman]

No, both positions are discriminatory. That's the point.

No, both aren't. That's the point. Unless you think requiring a doctor's degree for a physician's position is "discriminatory" to all of those who don't have one, including those who never even graduated from high school?

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.

[Guest American Woman]

Would he be allowed to ride in Air Force One or would the pilot refuse because he doesn't like to carry people in funny clothes?

OOOOOoooooh wow. One pilot not allowing two Muslims to board his plane, over his entire career, for a reason you made up vs. actual government sanctioned restrictions regarding an entire religion. That's soooooo the same. l.o.l.