The Canadian Monarchy

[olp1fan]

why not just make wayne gretzky our king?

he doesn't live in the country so we can still keep the Governor General

[capricorn]

Any actual reason for this vitriol? Or, is it merely what comes from consuming too much tabloid slander?

Everything I've read over the years written by Charles and about Charles has convinced me he is not suitable to replace his mother. The basic problem is that he has ventured into subjects about which, as heir to the Throne, he should have remained silent. This lengthy essay written by Max Hastings in Dec. 2010 reflects my position on why Charles would negatively impact the monarchy.

I heard one of the cleverest men in Britain, master of an Oxbridge ­college, quite calmly say the other night: ‘The best hope for the ­monarchy is that Prince Charles dies before the Queen.’

This seemed a brutal observation from a kindly and temperate man, but he went on to justify it: ‘We spend our lives here educating a new ­generation to understand that rational behaviour requires us to reach conclusions and make ­decisions by examining evidence.

‘Yet now we have the heir to the throne demanding — not in a ­throwaway remark, but in an entire book to which he has just put his name — that we should reject science and evidence in favour of following our instincts. This is surely disturbing.’

The Prince’s new book Harmony is indeed a startling piece of work. He begins it by writing: ‘This is a call to revolution. “Revolution” is a strong word, and I use it deliberately. For more than 30 years I have been ­working to identify the best solutions to the array of deeply entrenched problems we face.

‘Having considered these questions long and hard, my view is that our outlook in the Westernised world has become far too firmly framed by a mechanistic approach to science.’

He continues: ‘This approach is entirely based upon the gathering of the results that come from subjecting physical phenomena to scientific experiment.’

Though the Prince says he does not dismiss all science as bosh, his book is a call to arms against ‘the great juggernaut of industrialisation’ which he deplores.

Some of his phrases are ­messianic: ‘I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to point this out and indicate possible ways we can heal the world.’

Now, you may say it’s a fine thing we have an heir to the throne who cares passionately about the planet and is determined to do something about it. But what if his prescriptions are wrong?

At the heart of the Queen’s brilliant success for almost 60 years is that we have been denied the slightest clue as to what she thinks about anything but dogs and horses. Her passivity has been inspired, because her subjects can then attribute any ­sentiments they choose to her. She has never said a word to raise a hackle.

Prince Charles, by contrast, wears his heart on his sleeve. He outraged the medical ­profession by bullying the last government into providing NHS funding for his cherished homeopathic ­medicine. This, doctors pointed out, meant transferring tax­payers’ money from proven remedies to quackery — panaceas for which there is no scientific evidence at all.

A leading breast cancer ­specialist, Professor Michael Baum, wrote an open letter to the British Medical Journal after the Prince suggested drinking carrot juice and taking coffee bean enemas might help to ­combat cancer.

The Professor furiously wrote that his own 40 years of study and 25 years’ involvement in cancer research might be thought to offer at least as solid a basis for addressing this issue as the Prince’s ‘power and authority, which rest on an ­accident of birth’.

The Government is ­committed to trialling genetically modified crops, which many agriculturalists think offer the best hope of feeding the people of the world. But the Prince repeatedly ­condemns GM as the devil’s work — just as he opposes nuclear power and much ­modern architecture.

Constitutionally, it’s ­irrelevant whether his views are right or wrong: by wading into ­high-­profile controversies and using his status to influence government decisions, he may please green enthusiasts, but he also makes many enemies — some of them much more clever ­people than himself, who reject his ideas about how to better humanity.

In this way, he compromises the Royal Family.

...cont'd

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1339707/Prince-Charles-dangerous-king-This-eccentric-royal-imperil-monarchy.html#comments

[wyly]

I'd ask for the link you failed to provide, but, on second thought, it doesn't really matter. One poll is meaningless; one can find polls showing the majority favouring the status quo as easily as one can find a poll result showing desire for change. It's the trends that matter, and the average over the past decade or so has been around the 50% mark. And, once again, can we really give credence to polls that ask skewed questions about "ties" and "British monarchy", implying lack of sovereignty, to a population that apparently has no correct idea about Canada's governmental system? Pretty clearly, the answer is: no.

you claimed "Not one shred of evidence to support that inane claim. On a republican's best day, the poll shows somewhere around 50% looking for abolition" I gave you the evidence and you try slither away...a simple cut and paste of the relevant post would've found the link but you're not interested in the actual evidence just you own opinion...those who support anachronistic kowtowing and butt licking trail far behind... Edited October 15, 2011 by wyly

[g_bambino]

you claimed "Not one shred of evidence to support that inane claim. On a republican's best day, the poll shows somewhere around 50% looking for abolition".

Oh my, you do get all worked up about this. Fine, yes, I was wrong; republicans' best day was on July 1, 2009, when a poll found that 65% of respondents wanted to "cut its connection to the monarchy". Other polls have shown different results. By October, 2009, the numbers were 45% for a republic; by November, it was 35% or 43% for an elected head of state (depending on which of the polls taken that month one looks at); 36% for an elected head of state by May, 2010; etc., etc. It's not as though "70%" of Canadians "and still growing" (to use your exact words) are, right now, demanding an end to the Canadian Crown, which is precisely what you falsely claimed. That's what I said was bullshit.

[-]

Edited October 15, 2011 by g_bambino

[Sir Bandelot]

You've said this, but not what the actual benefit is over what we have now. And, frankly, I see the addition of "monarchical elections" to actually be disadvantageous, divisive and easily taken over by political parties.

We should then become disentangled from the political influences/ beliefs/ cultural bias of other commonwealth countries. We need only make decisions with our own Monarch.

[Rocky Road]

William is ok, but I agree with the post that says Charles is a bit too ecentric.

I understand that certain ecentricities may be acceptable, but the Queen surely

upholds a pleasant demeanour in public.

[g_bambino]

We should then become disentangled from the political influences/ beliefs/ cultural bias of other commonwealth countries. We need only make decisions with our own Monarch.

We can only make decisions about our own monarch. But, it is entirely possible to disassociate our sovereign from that of the other Commonwealth Realms. The question is: what's the need? Canada doesn't seem to have been hampered in any way by its personal union with the Queen's other countries; not yet, anyway. Changes to the monarchy are likely to be stifled more by internal politics than external, I'd say.

[Sir Bandelot]

We can only make decisions about our own monarch. But, it is entirely possible to disassociate our sovereign from that of the other Commonwealth Realms. The question is: what's the need? Canada doesn't seem to have been hampered in any way by its personal union with the Queen's other countries; not yet, anyway. Changes to the monarchy are likely to be stifled more by internal politics than external, I'd say.

It is hampered. You just demonstrated it.

In the recent example, you said it is unlikely that the they change the male progenitor, even if Canada voted for it. Like it or not, the next Canadian Monarch must be a male first, if there is a male heir in line!

This shocks and offends my conscience...

[g_bambino]

It is hampered.

I asked: how have we been hampered? What popular desire for change has been thwarted by Canada's personal union with the other Commonwealth Realms? I don't think you can say we're hampered until it's been demonstrated that we are.

In the recent example, you said it is unlikely that the they change the male progenitor, even if Canada voted for it

Actually, I said that Canada will likely be the one to hamper the other Realms, since we have the most stringent rules for royal-related constitutional amendments out of all the countries. Hence, changes to the Canadian monarchy are likely to be stifled more by internal politics than external. I don't have a problem with that; alterations to an institution like the Crown should not be easy.

[scribblet]

William is ok, but I agree with the post that says Charles is a bit too ecentric.

I understand that certain ecentricities may be acceptable, but the Queen surely

upholds a pleasant demeanour in public.

As much as I support the Monarchy as part of our heritage and wouldn't like to see it go, I couldn't accept Charles. Hopefully he will step aside for William when the time comes.

[g_bambino]

Everything I've read over the years written by Charles and about Charles has convinced me he is not suitable to replace his mother. The basic problem is that he has ventured into subjects about which, as heir to the Throne, he should have remained silent.

Charles is in an unenviable position: what's he to do while waiting and waiting and waiting for his mother to die? If he does and says nothing, he's a useless clod unable to articulate a sentence of his own making. If he takes up causes and speaks out on issues he finds important, he's a meddling prince who's overstepped his bounds.

Frankly, until he becomes king, he's a denizen as allowed to express his opinion as the rest of us; he can write to ministers and MPs just as you or I can. (The media's portrayal of Charles doing so as him "bullying" and "meddling" in government is ridiculous.) He runs charities that raise hundreds of million of dollars every year and help who knows how many people and offers support to others. He's taken on experiments and projects in farming and urban planning, some successful, some not, but still a worthwhile venture to try, and at no cost to the taxpayer. As an architect myself, I don't agree with everything Charles says on the subject; but, he's made some points that did make me think.

Princes don't have to be silent ornaments. The Prince Consort (Queen Victoria's husband) was instrumental in education reforms, the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, improvements to urban living conditions, and more. Prince Edward (the Duke of Kent, Victoria's father) left an indelable mark on Nova Scotia, having led a number of urban planning and fortification projects in and around Halifax, where he lived for a decade. Another Prince Edward (when himself Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII) fostered sports and the arts, founded artistic institutions, and argued publicly (sometimes in contradiction to his mother) about policy issues. He went on to be a perfectly fine and, in fact, very popular king; he ceased such activities and acted as all constitutional monarchs do. I don't see, really, how Charles will be any different.

[g_bambino]

the monarchy serves no useful purpose...

Then please give us your comprehensive plan on how to remove it and what to replace it with. Thanks.

[Smallc]

[ToadBrother]

Everything I've read over the years written by Charles and about Charles has convinced me he is not suitable to replace his mother. The basic problem is that he has ventured into subjects about which, as heir to the Throne, he should have remained silent. This lengthy essay written by Max Hastings in Dec. 2010 reflects my position on why Charles would negatively impact the monarchy.

As is often stated, the heir to the throne has no explicit constitutional role beyond basically sitting around and waiting for the person on the throne to die. At times, they may be forced to take on the royal duties as a regent (as George IV did during his father's final incapacity), but other than that, their constitutional role sits solely on the fact that they are next in line.

Charles is hardly the first Prince of Wales to say and/or do scandalous things. In fact, compared to some of his forebearers over the last couple of hundred years (including the aforementioned George IV), Charles isn't bad at all. Yes, he's made some public statements that certainly could be construed as attempts to intrude into the political realm, but since he is not the Sovereign, he is not interfering. If and when he becomes King, he will no longer be able to make such statements publicly.

Edited October 20, 2011 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

If and when he becomes King, he will no longer be able to make such statements publicly.

That's a consolation in itself.

[blueblood]

Then please give us your comprehensive plan on how to remove it and what to replace it with. Thanks.

Always figured the royals were clever. They passed off the grunt work to parliament and get quite the compensation package for giving royal assent. Given how free things are in the commonwealth, if someone wants to rubberstamp something based on a treaty long ago, they can have at it.

[ToadBrother]

That's a consolation in itself.

And he won't be the first Prince of Wales to which that precise sentiment was often applied.

[ToadBrother]

Always figured the royals were clever. They passed off the grunt work to parliament and get quite the compensation package for giving royal assent. Given how free things are in the commonwealth, if someone wants to rubberstamp something based on a treaty long ago, they can have at it.

The constitutional arrangement that William III and Mary accepted ultimately has given the Monarchy its longevity, and you'll note that where the similar arrangement was adopted by (or forced on) other monarchies, they too have proven resilient. Because the Monarch can no longer be accused of direct interference in governance, save at rare moments where the electorate does not delivered clear Parliamentary results, the monarch cannot be blamed for the misdeeds of any given government.

Where monarchs obstinately refused to give way to the will of popular legislatures; as happened to Napoleon III in France and, most infamously, to Nicholas II in Russia, saw their reigns end and their countries transformed.

[g_bambino]

If and when he becomes King, he will no longer be able to make such statements publicly.

Not if he wants to keep the job, he won't.

[g_bambino]

Always figured the royals were clever. They passed off the grunt work to parliament and get quite the compensation package for giving royal assent.

I don't think James II relinquished his throne willingly. It also seems it was the English parliament that, when putting him on the throne, told William to keep out of its business. Parliament still very much takes pride in its independence from monarchical influence and/or interference; hence, we still have the Usher of the Black Rod having the doors of the House of Commons slammed on him and he having to knock for permission to enter to summon MPs to hear the Throne Speech.

[blueblood]

I don't think James II relinquished his throne willingly. It also seems it was the English parliament that, when putting him on the throne, told William to keep out of its business. Parliament still very much takes pride in its independence from monarchical influence and/or interference; hence, we still have the Usher of the Black Rod having the doors of the House of Commons slammed on him and he having to knock for permission to enter to summon MPs to hear the Throne Speech.

My point was that William was clever for doing so. He could have been a horses ass and tried to cause problems to be able to rule, but why not let parliament do it and keep the figurehead title. It's much cheaper than having another war over it or a government overhaul. It's like negotiating a bankruptcy settlement, just pay the little bit and be done with it.

[g_bambino]

My point was that William was clever for doing so. He could have been a horses ass and tried to cause problems to be able to rule, but why not let parliament do it and keep the figurehead title.

Yes, but the alternative would've been to fight parliament and possibly end up like Charles I or James II. I'm not sure it's all that clever to opt for what he did.

Still, I'm not sure the "compensation package" was all that sweet. George VI was driven to his grave more quickly because he had the misfortune of being king through the Second World War. It's not all polo and ski holidays in the Rockies.

[g_bambino]

Actually, I said that Canada will likely be the one to hamper the other Realms, since we have the most stringent rules for royal-related constitutional amendments out of all the countries. Hence, changes to the Canadian monarchy are likely to be stifled more by internal politics than external. I don't have a problem with that; alterations to an institution like the Crown should not be easy.

In regard to my earlier comments above, Professor Anne Twomey seems to agree. The video in the attached link is quite long (40 minutes, or so), but she covers some examples of the issues surrounding royal succession in the Commonwealth Realms and concludes with the opinion that it's Canada - a combination of its constitutional rules and Quebec in particular - that tends to thwart any plans for amendment.

Anne Twomey on the rules of succession

[link]

Edited November 23, 2011 by g_bambino