g_bambino Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 as a monarchist interviewed on cbc last night stated (to the best of my recollection) "sexism in the monarchy has no place in the 21st century" to which I would add the monarchy has no place in the 21st century...if the debate is to be opened then the opportunity presents itself to eliminate these anachronistic freeloaders... If sneery ad-hominems and vapid t-shirt slogans is all you anti-monarchist types have to offer, then what's the point of opening a debate? No actual debate will take place. Quote
treehugger Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 I'm curious as to the ethnic descent of some of the more vocal anti-monarchy posters in this thread. My ancestors came from Scotland to land at Pictou, Nova Scotia in 1773. That's 238 years ago! Along the way came many Irish and English. The British part of my ancestry is strong and until after the second world war was the mainstream for English Canada. We had other nationalities contribute, of course, but still, we were of British stock and proud of it! But it should not be forgotten, our first loyalty was for Canada! When we had sent soldiers, sailors and pilots to help out the Mother country, many British officers had to be forcefully reminded of the fact that were were NOT British colonists! Canada is a Dominion, a realm that through history and ancestry shares a Monarch with Britain but that's all. Britain does not rule us and even our shared monarch only rules as a constitutional rather than an absolute monarch. We have always welcomed immigrants, especially for the last 60 years or so. However, it seems only in the last 30 or more have we been hearing all this talk about jettisoning our monarch to become some sort of republic. Have those who champion this idea have any notion of how this can sound to a Canadian of many generations? We welcome people in who promptly want to change the decor of the entire house! If there had been a poll taken in 1950 that welcoming immigrants would have lead to this result, what do you think the results would have said? Personally, I am proud of my British heritage (perhaps a bit more for the Irish and Scot! ) and loyal to my Queen. Those that want to change it can piss off! EXACTLY! If you don't like the way the country is then move to a republic or comunist country. Don't come here and try to change a country that is doing very well the way it is. Have some respect for the way things are done here.. Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 If sneery ad-hominems and vapid t-shirt slogans is all you anti-monarchist types have to offer, then what's the point of opening a debate? No actual debate will take place. I'm not sure what is to debate here. These will be negotiations, first of all between the Realms, and then Australia and Canada will take it back to their states and provinces and work out the issues. It's theoretically possible that if some Australian states or Canadian provinces refuse to cooperate that it could throw a monkey wrench in the machinery, but if history is any guide, when Edward VIII abdicated and the realms as they stood then had to agree to alter the succession to Prince Albert and Princess Elizabeth, it passed, even in the Irish Free State, despite a bit of a mean spirited attempt by de Valera to cause a fuss over it (the change was adopted in Ireland a day later than everywhere else). So if a real republican of the first order ultimately saw the wisdom of not rocking the boat, I doubt it will cause that much of a problem even in Quebec. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) While Cameron has made noises in this direction, the fact remains that the Queen is the Head of the Church of England, and to allow a Catholic Monarch would create considerable constitutional difficulties. It appears that while Cameron has made pleasing noises in that direction, it's not on the table right now.In the longer view, the only two solutions I've seen are either to disestablish the Church of England, which would be a major constitutional overhaul in England (and would certainly create far more controversy than I think most people would imagine), or a somewhat awkward concept of a proxy who would, in the event of a Catholic becoming the Sovereign, hold the office of Supreme Governor. Without this, even if you did remove the ban on Catholics on the throne, without changing who exactly was Supreme Governor of the Church of England, any Catholic, upon his or her secession, would technically be breaking with the Catholic Church and would, by definition alone, be excommunicating themselves. My question was more broadly directed. Spain and Belgium, for instance, have Catholic monarchies. I'm sure the presidents of many Latin American republics are Catholic. While it's hard to imagine any problem arising because of their faith and the fact the leader of it is also a head of state, that combination was essentially the reason why Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church and established his own: the Pope felt he had sovereignty over the King, and therefore his country, and the King disagreed. The other Protestant monarchies thereafter followed suit: in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and possibly Norway, the monarch must be of a Protestant Christian faith. It is only in England, though (as far as I know) that the monarch is also the head of the established state church, which presents all sorts of issues when a change to the succession laws is considered, as you point out. I'm not sure, though, how the Church of England would be very negatively affected by removing the monarch as its Supreme Governor. In Denmark, the Lutheran Church exists as the official state church, even though the Queen of Denmark is not its chief officer. [c/e] Edited October 13, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 Your post demonstrates a weakness in being tied down to a system that is too wide-spread, requires too many differing factions to unanimously agree in order for effectual change to take place. Who's tied to anything? Canada is in personal union with the other Commonwealth Realms by pure, voluntary choice. And it's an international relationship that has, thus far, worked. Of course, domestic constitutional realities in any one of the sixteen countries could present a bump or a block in the continuance of the present arrangement, but we've yet to see if that'll actually happen. And it doesn't mean that Canada is bound in any way to follow some other country's diktat; we can amend our constitution, including the succession laws, as we see fit. Quote
wyly Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 And what, you don't have to defer the President of the United States or France? Give me a break. no I don't, give me a break... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 If sneery ad-hominems and vapid t-shirt slogans is all you anti-monarchist types have to offer, then what's the point of opening a debate? No actual debate will take place. If sneery ad-hominems and vapid t-shirt slogans is all you anti-monarchist types have to offer, then what's the point of opening a debate? No actual debate will take place. Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 EXACTLY! If you don't like the way the country is then move to a republic or comunist country. Don't come here and try to change a country that is doing very well the way it is. Have some respect for the way things are done here.. duh! we live in a democracy if you don't like living in a democracy than move to a totalitarian country where the democratic process and open discussion aren't permitted. have some respect for the way things are done here... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 If sneery ad-hominems and vapid t-shirt slogans is all you anti-monarchist types have to offer, then what's the point of opening a debate? No actual debate will take place. Thank you for proving my point. Quote
wyly Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 I'm curious as to the ethnic descent of some of the more vocal anti-monarchy posters in this thread. My ancestors came from Scotland to land at Pictou, Nova Scotia in 1773. That's 238 years ago! Along the way came many Irish and English. The British part of my ancestry is strong and until after the second world war was the mainstream for English Canada. We had other nationalities contribute, of course, but still, we were of British stock and proud of it! But it should not be forgotten, our first loyalty was for Canada! When we had sent soldiers, sailors and pilots to help out the Mother country, many British officers had to be forcefully reminded of the fact that were were NOT British colonists! Canada is a Dominion, a realm that through history and ancestry shares a Monarch with Britain but that's all. Britain does not rule us and even our shared monarch only rules as a constitutional rather than an absolute monarch. We have always welcomed immigrants, especially for the last 60 years or so. However, it seems only in the last 30 or more have we been hearing all this talk about jettisoning our monarch to become some sort of republic. Have those who champion this idea have any notion of how this can sound to a Canadian of many generations? We welcome people in who promptly want to change the decor of the entire house! If there had been a poll taken in 1950 that welcoming immigrants would have lead to this result, what do you think the results would have said? Personally, I am proud of my British heritage (perhaps a bit more for the Irish and Scot! ) and loyal to my Queen. Those that want to change it can piss off! only 30% of canada is of english/scottish heritage, the irish generally do not share your silly affection for all things british...the clear majority of canadians do not share your butt kissing, kowtowing, groveling love affair with royalty and that majority 70%of canadians emigrated to canada wanting to be canadians not british... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 Thank you for proving my point. you have no point... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 only 30% of canada is of english/scottish heritage, the irish generally do not share your silly affection for all things british...the clear majority of canadians do not share your butt kissing, kowtowing, groveling love affair with royalty and that majority 70%of canadians emigrated to canada wanting to be canadians not british... And despite all that, there's no great cry to end the Monarchy. Most Canadians, regardless of heritage, don't care one way or the other. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) only 30% of canada is of english/scottish heritage, the irish generally do not share your silly affection for all things british...the clear majority of canadians do not share your butt kissing, kowtowing, groveling love affair with royalty and that majority 70%of canadians emigrated to canada wanting to be canadians not british... Once again, in your rush to give a snide rebuttal you ignored my main point. (Geez, you can be an awfully ignorant SOB to talk to at times!) What percentage of Canadians in 1950 and before were of British heritage? And are you ignorant of NORTHERN Ireland? The context of my post was that only since relatively recent times have we diluted our previous mainstream heritage. Now we see those of the old mainstream being slapped in the face for their hospitality. You let some into the neighbourhood... Edited October 13, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 And despite all that, there's no great cry to end the Monarchy. Most Canadians, regardless of heritage, don't care one way or the other. Exactly, TB! I truly don't understand why some make it into such a big deal! Christ, we have children hungry and some want to rail against having a Queen, who in all but the most nitpicking of fashions is just a figurehead and a heritage symbol anyway. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
capricorn Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 I truly don't understand why some make it into such a big deal! Looks like the Prime Minister has his ear to the ground on this one. Stephen Harper has informed British Prime Minister David Cameron that Canada will support his plan to modernize the royal succession – as long it doesn’t get in the way of fixing the economy.The Prime Minister does not want to spend a lot of time in the Canadian Parliament debating this as “the government is focused on creating jobs and growth in the economy,” Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall told The Globe. Although the Conservative government has made its support for the monarchy clear, this nod to the economy is likely aimed at assuring Quebeckers and other Canadians, who are not big fans of the royal family, that these “reasonable modernizations” will not distract Mr. Harper’s team. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-backs-british-pms-plan-to-modernize-royal-succession/article2199964/ Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
wyly Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 Once again, in your rush to give a snide rebuttal you ignored my main point. (Geez, you can be an awfully ignorant SOB to talk to at times!) likewise...What percentage of Canadians in 1950 and before were of British heritage? And are you ignorant of NORTHERN Ireland?relatively few irish canadians came from N ireland, which is why I said most irish have little affection for the british royalty...the welcome was never that hospitable, non-british immigrants were always regarded as less desirable and still are...The context of my post was that only since relatively recent times have we diluted our previous mainstream heritage. Now we see those of the old mainstream being slapped in the face for their hospitality. You let some into the neighbourhood... you let too many in, we run the neighbourhood now... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Looks like the Prime Minister has his ear to the ground on this one. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-backs-british-pms-plan-to-modernize-royal-succession/article2199964/ I think everyone concerned knows that this isn't going to happen quickly. This isn't an urgent affair, as it was with the abdication of Edward VIII. There's lots of time to make the change. Edited October 13, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
wyly Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 And despite all that, there's no great cry to end the Monarchy. Most Canadians, regardless of heritage, don't care one way or the other. you interpret that as a good thing?...the apathy is sign of how little canadians care about the monarchy... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 you interpret that as a good thing?...the apathy is sign of how little canadians care about the monarchy... I don't interpret as a good thing, any more than I interpret the ignorance that many Canadians showed about our system of government when Tory supporters were out-and-out lying about the legal nature of the attempted Coalition in 2008. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot simply claim the apathetic as republicans. What it really means is, for better and for worse, the status quo is supported by default. No one seriously wants to delve so deeply into the constitution to remove the Crown. Even the mere act of amending the Act of Settlement will take time and will be mainly mundane, save for a few demented constitutional junkies like myself. There simply is no reason to get rid of the Monarchy, no one has demonstrated how it will actually improve our government in the tiniest degree. There are far more important things to worry about. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 you have no point... Au contraire: My point was you can't contribute to civil debate. You've provided affirmative evidence in spades, so far. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 13, 2011 Report Posted October 13, 2011 I don't interpret as a good thing, any more than I interpret the ignorance that many Canadians showed about our system of government when Tory supporters were out-and-out lying about the legal nature of the attempted Coalition in 2008... But the fact of the matter is that you cannot simply claim the apathetic as republicans. What it really means is, for better and for worse, the status quo is supported by default. If institutions were to be abolished as soon as there was indication the population was mostly apathetic towards it, we'd have no government. What's the average turn-out at elections, these days? Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 14, 2011 Report Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) If institutions were to be abolished as soon as there was indication the population was mostly apathetic towards it, we'd have no government. What's the average turn-out at elections, these days? Well Ontario's election was below 50%. I guess that means they should abolish the Ontario legislature. Edited October 14, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
Rupert S. Lander Posted October 14, 2011 Report Posted October 14, 2011 It is only in England, though (as far as I know) that the monarch is also the head of the established state church, which presents all sorts of issues when a change to the succession laws is considered, as you point out. I'm not sure, though, how the Church of England would be very negatively affected by removing the monarch as its Supreme Governor. In Denmark, the Lutheran Church exists as the official state church, even though the Queen of Denmark is not its chief officer. [c/e] As far as I can see, so far as Canada is concerned updating the laws governing succession to the Canadian Throne without completely removing the restrictions on Catholics (not just relaxing them as PM Cameron proposes) is a complete non-starter. From a political standpoint, it's an unjustifiable position in this country. Perhaps more importantly, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. There are two possible ways to change the Crown's succession in Canada. One would be to amend the Constitution and get all ten provinces to ratify the change. Obviously, predominantly Catholic provinces like Quebec are not going to ratify any change to the succession that explicitly promotes discrimination against Catholics. And Harper is clearly in no mood to reopen the Constitution over this. The other way is to simply enact a new Act of Succession in Parliament. This seems to be the PMO's preference - apparently they believe that a law that simply changes the succession to the Crown (without altering the rights and perogatives of the monarch) does not require a constitutional amendment that would need unanimous approval. But - if that view is correct, any new Act of Succession will still have to pass constitutional muster. Most importantly, the Act would have to conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which quite clearly prohibits discrimination based on religious affiliation. Going back to the O'Donoghue v. Canada case that challenged the Act of Settlement, that case was dismissed only because it was deemed non-justicable - the Act of Settlement was deemed part of the "unwritten" part of the Constitution which made it immune to the Charter. On the other hand, any new Act of Succession passed by Parliament alone would be, in effect, an ordinary law and would have no such immunity from Charter challenges. Quote
olp1fan Posted October 14, 2011 Report Posted October 14, 2011 How long until we get Prince William and Duchess Kate on our money? I wouldn't mind them, good looking couple Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted October 14, 2011 Report Posted October 14, 2011 I'm curious as to the ethnic descent of some of the more vocal anti-monarchy posters in this thread. Personally, I am proud of my British heritage (perhaps a bit more for the Irish and Scot! ) and loyal to my Queen. Those that want to change it can piss off! I'm curious as to the ethnic descent, of those that DO support the monarchy in this thread. Yours is clear to us now, and thus self-explanatory. Anyone else who's a staunch monarchist care to share your ethnic descent with us? Just curious... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.