Jump to content

What is the Queen of Canada, the Crown, and our oaths to them?


Recommended Posts

Thought this subject was interesting. From another thread, dre replying to me re: pledging allegiance to the Queen of Canada:

Excuse me? I will pledge allegience to absolutely god damn nothing. My allegience to the government is a PRIVILEGE that they must continue to EARN on an ongoing basis. It doesnt get "pledged".

Fair enough. I just wanted to share with others on here what i learned years ago in university, some of which surprised me, about specifically what the Crown and the Queen of Canada is and what it/she represents.

When someone pledges allegiance to the Queen they aren't really pledging allegiance to the individual person or glorifying her. From my dusty 2nd year university Canadian political institutions textbook by Rand Dyck:

"The concept of the Crown is not widely understood by Canadians...For example, since the Queen represents the whole state (of Canada) and its people, oaths of allegiance to the Queen are really pledges of support for the Canadian political system, and "God Save the Queen" really means "God help us govern ourselves". To put the Queen's picture on stamps and coins, in classrooms or courtrooms, is not to glorify her personally, but to recognize her as a unifying symbol of the state."

More from the textbook...

"The Crown is not only the collectivity of executive powers; it also represents the entire state and embodies what belongs to the people collectively. This can be seen in ie: Crown lands (state-owned lands), and Crown corporations etc.

...

The Queen embodies the Crown. The term 'royal' is also widely used in Canada to refer to institutions that function for the advantage of all in the name of the Queen, ie: Royal Canadian Mint, royal commissions, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police etc."

So pledging allegiance to the Queen isn't really pledging allegiance to the woman personally, more like pledging support for the state of Canada and its institutions. Similar to how pledging allegiance to a flag isn't pledging allegiance to a piece of coloured cloth, but what it represents.

And, of course, the Queen is not a foreign monarch and to Canadians is not the Queen of the U.K./Britain/England, but officially known as the Queen of Canada. "The Queen's relationship with Canada no longer has anything to do with the country called the United Kingdom". She is equally the monarch for all the Commonwealth countries, including the U.K. and Canada.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To put the Queen's picture on stamps and coins, in classrooms or courtrooms, is not to glorify her personally, but to recognize her as a unifying symbol of the state.

Of course. That's all Gaddafi was doing too, right? Mugabe? Even now, Kim Jong-il, is he just unifying the state symbolically? Aziz Al Saud in Saudi Arabia? What about Kagame in Rwanda? ;)

Edited by Bryan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, of course, the Queen is not a foreign monarch and to Canadians is not the Queen of the U.K./Britain/England, but officially known as the Queen of Canada. "The Queen's relationship with Canada no longer has anything to do with the country called the United Kingdom". She is equally the monarch for all the Commonwealth countries, including the U.K. and Canada.

If one looks at cultural obeisance and honors she's Queen of the U.S. itself, even though our Constitution forbids installing a monarch directly. The Queen was at our observance of the 400th anniversary of British settlement at Jamestown. The Queen was a visitor shortly before the bicentennial observance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. That's all Gaddafi was doing too, right? Mugabe? Even now, Kim Jong-il, is he just unifying the state symbolically? Aziz Al Saud in Saudi Arabia? What about Kagame in Rwanda?

The difference between those figures and our queen of course being that they're the active governors of their respective countries with no accountability to anyone besides, perhaps, appeasement to their generals, whereas Elizabeth II, at all times but during the most egregious crises, leaves governance to parliament, ministers drawn from and responsible to the elected chamber of parliament, and the courts, and is herself accountable to the legislature.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone pledges allegiance to the Queen they aren't really pledging allegiance to the individual person or glorifying her. [it's] more like pledging support for the state of Canada and its institutions.

That's right: the Queen is the personification of the state, which is more than politics and more, even, than the government. dre can thus rest assured that he doesn't have to give allegiance to the government in this country; that is the practice of totalitarian states where one is forced to ally themselves with the governing party and its policies.

And, of course, the Queen is not a foreign monarch and to Canadians is not the Queen of the U.K./Britain/England, but officially known as the Queen of Canada.

Also correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it's more than me or not, if you do, why then are you complaining about promising to abide by the rule of law as personified by the Queen?

I'd rather see the rule of law personified by the people who are most affected by them, not some symbolic figurehead that's thousands of miles away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that The People is a neboulous, ill-defined concept.

I didn't say The People. I meant real people in a more regional context, above some symbolic figurehead that's thousands of miles away.

At least with the Queen (who's vested with authority by us through our constitution) we know exactly what we're talking about.

Well, I would have thought the damn Queen and constitution could have protected the people in my region from the decades of the Crown's/State's mismanagement that ruined most of our fisheries to the point of their extinction and our economic collapse.

All we were told however was how the Crown had a fiduciary and constitutional responsibility to some nebulous ill defined concept called...The People, strangely enough.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant real people in a more regional context, above some symbolic figurehead that's thousands of miles away.

How bizarre; Elizabeth is a less real person because of her proximity to... where, exactly? Ottawa? Cape Spear?

Well, I would have thought the damn Queen and constitution could have protected the people in my region from the decades of the Crown's/State's mismanagement that ruined most of our fisheries to the point of their extinction and our economic collapse.

The Queen can really only do what the constitution allows her to, and that does not include stepping into political matters such as the one you refer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen can really only do what the constitution allows her to, and that does not include stepping into political matters such as the one you refer to.

Exactly. Comparing her to Gaddafi or Kim Jong-Il etc. is a bit ridiculous since "the people" have been limiting the powers of the monarch via law in our system since the Magna Carta in 1215.

Elected government no longer acts as a check on the monarch's power as vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How bizarre; Elizabeth is a less real person because of her proximity to... where, exactly? Ottawa? Cape Spear?

You know what's really bizarre? Calling her a personification of the state, more than politics and more, even, than the government. You make her sound surreal.

The Queen can really only do what the constitution allows her to, and that does not include stepping into political matters such as the one you refer to.

That's right, she's completely useless. As for the management of things that people and communities rely on for their day to day livelihoods these should be matters of local governance, not distant politics.

I'm supposed to bow down to the personification of this state of affairs? She can kiss my hairy butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's really bizarre? Calling her a personification of the state, more than politics and more, even, than the government. You make her sound surreal.

That's right, she's completely useless. As for the management of things that people and communities rely on for their day to day livelihoods these should be matters of local governance, not distant politics.

I'm supposed to bow down to the personification of this state of affairs? She can kiss my hairy butt.

You know she's Canada's Head of State, right? She's equal to the President in the US for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,723
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    DACHSHUND
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • babetteteets went up a rank
      Rookie
    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      First Post
    • paradox34 earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...