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

[g_bambino]

She's way more useless...

You haven't yet established she's useless.

[g_bambino]

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.

Actually, what's truly bizarre now is the mystery of what you're responding to. I certainly didn't say the Queen was "more than politics"; I said the state is more than politics; can you dispute that? I know we have a lot of it, but do you think Canada is all fractious partisan competition? Since the Queen is considered the personification of the state, she stays above politics, remaining impartial, not involving herself and taking sides in the goings on of the political arena, which is necessary for our system of governance to function as it does.

[ed.: sp]

Edited December 15, 2011 by g_bambino

[jbg]

She's way more useless than the President.

You haven't yet established she's useless.

Ask Gough Whitlam (link to site about the Gough Whitlam affair) how useless the Queen (through her vice-regal) is.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ask Gough Whitlam (link to site about the Gough Whitlam affair) how useless the Queen (through her vice-regal) is.

The Royal Family has long arms. Does anyone really think the Queen to be either penniless or powerless? Does anyone really think the Crown divested itself of all powers in perpetuity ? The barristers can argue the law till the cows come home but at the end of the day one word still stands in the light, sovereign. That word came from somewhere and it means something. Once that concept is understood, Churchill's quip about democracy becomes a little more clear.

[cybercoma]

Not equal. The Queen is our head of state, Harper is our head of government. The US President is head of state and head of government.

True.

[eyeball]

Actually, what's truly bizarre now is the mystery of what you're responding to. I certainly didn't say the Queen was "more than politics"; I said the state is more than politics; can you dispute that?

No, I misread your sentence is all. I guess I'm responding to the illusion I grew up with that there really is something noble and right and honourable about Canada and that being Canadian meant something special. Not special enough to receive good honest and fair governance apparently. I admit to being naive and much to my own regret I trusted the government to be honest for too long. I grew up as one of those kids waving flags and singing Ca-na-da 1 little 2 little 3 Canadians...we love thee. Like it was Barney the dinosaur or something. Christ what a sucker. Sure set me up I tell you.

I know we have a lot of it, but do you think Canada is all fractious partisan competition?

I honestly think it's a misbegotten monstrosity that I wish would just disintegrate.

Since the Queen is considered the personification of the state, she stays above politics, remaining impartial, not involving herself and taking sides in the goings on of the political arena, which is necessary for our system of governance to function as it does.

[ed.: sp]

Right, completely useless just like I said. Useless like our system of governance if the state of my region's fisheries are anything to go by.

Never mind our oaths what about the oaths a monarch or a politician swear when they assume power? Who or what do they make them to, God or the Crown he placed above them all? Maybe the reason our country seems so misbegotten is that the authority to run it is based on a delusion.

[expat voter]

For now, the monarchy functions adequately as a symbol of state, as explained in the opening post. It's not bad to maintain some traditions and customs, for stability's sake. At least until Canadians agree upon something better - and I wish we could.

But let's be sure to keep the monarchy at the level of a symbol. The layer of upper crust elitist privilege that you see in the UK is not what most Canadians want. It's illegal in the UK to talk about abolishing the monarchy - the mere idea of such a prohibition in Canada would cause revolt.

Harper's love-in with all things "Royal" is childish, and not very true to his populist Reform roots. Demagogic-yes, populist-no.

Edited December 16, 2011 by expat voter

[expat voter]

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

No, not "equal." Not even close to "equivalent."

The systems are different. Canada's head of state is not the head of its executive, 2 roles that the US president fulfills.

[expat voter]

I honestly think it's a misbegotten monstrosity that I wish would just disintegrate... Maybe the reason our country seems so misbegotten is that the authority to run it is based on a delusion.

Don't know what to reply to the above, other than: This is getting close to the core of the matter.

[g_bambino]

Right, completely useless just like I said.

Yea, just like you keep on saying, but never actually confirm. Because the Queen didn't fly in and make the fisheries to your liking isn't justification for calling her useless; if it were, you'd have to regard yourself as useless, too.

[g_bambino]

It's not bad to maintain some traditions and customs, for stability's sake. At least until Canadians agree upon something better - and I wish we could.

It's not just a symbol, of course; it's the core of Canada's constitution. Good luck with finding something better.

The layer of upper crust elitist privilege that you see in the UK is not what most Canadians want.

Ah, the class warfare strawman. Elitism isn't tied to the monarchy and thus won't go away if the monarchy ever does.

[eyeball]

Yea, just like you keep on saying, but never actually confirm.

Why should I? You confirmed that yourself by pointing out her inability or unwillingness to involve herself in the affairs of the state she personifies. I guess mucking about in the lower reaches of society is beneath her.

Because the Queen didn't fly in and make the fisheries to your liking isn't justification for calling her useless; if it were, you'd have to regard yourself as useless, too.

I regard myself as being powerless which is what you seem to be implying about the Queen.

[eyeball]

It's not just a symbol, of course; it's the core of Canada's constitution. Good luck with finding something better.

The symbol is not at the core, it's at the very top above it all.

Ah, the class warfare strawman. Elitism isn't tied to the monarchy and thus won't go away if the monarchy ever does.

No, what the concentration of wealth and opportunity is tied to is the concentration of power i.e. at the top.

Edited December 16, 2011 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

Why should I?

Because you keep making the assertion.

You confirmed that yourself by pointing out her inability or unwillingness to involve herself in the affairs of the state she personifies.

I didn't say any such thing. I said she doesn't involve herself in political matters unless absolutely necessary, since a non-partisan sovereign is key to the working of our system of governance, and the state, and its affairs, isn't all politics.

[g_bambino]

The [Crown] is not at the core, it's at the very top above it all.

You could also say it's the foundation.

No, what the concentration of wealth and opportunity is tied to is the concentration of power...

What?

[eyeball]

I didn't say any such thing.

You said the Queen is considered the personification of the state, she stays above politics, remaining impartial, not involving herself and taking sides in the goings on of the political arena, which is necessary for our system of governance to function as it does.

I said she doesn't involve herself in political matters unless absolutely necessary, since a non-partisan sovereign is key to the working of our system of governance, and the state, and its affairs, isn't all politics.

I never suggested the Queen should take sides amongst the stakeholders and competing interests found within fishing communities, but something sure as hell needs to be done about politicians and senior bureaucrats in places like DFO for example that do. You speak of the Queens impartiality as if it means something, if anything I would think her impartiality should stand as an example for other people in power to follow.

Can you give me an example of an absolutely necessary moment in which she did intervene or swing some clout in a political matter?

[eyeball]

You could also say it's the foundation.

Not given the order in which the authority to govern flows in this country, from God to or through the Crown on down through the monarch and into the government...

Notice how the flow of shit and corruption are likewise unidirectional and pointed down instead of up. Like I said, who do the Queen and the minions of the state swear an oath to?

What?

Let me guess you must be one of those people who didn't get the OWS message.

Edited December 16, 2011 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

It's not just a symbol, of course; it's the core of Canada's constitution. Good luck with finding something better.

It wouldn't be hard to find something better, but it would be nearly impossible to implement it.

[eyeball]

It wouldn't be hard to find something better, but it would be nearly impossible to implement it.

Here's the idea I'd go with, but personally, I think it'll only be possible after the break up of Canada.

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

Bioregionalism stresses that the determination of a bioregion is also a cultural phenomenon, and emphasizes local populations, knowledge, and solutions.

As a competing interest within a fishing community I'm reminded of an oft heard phrase within the movement to establish area-based management; it's hard to stab someone in the back when they're sitting on the other side of the negotiating table. Of course that explains why you get some ally within the government to do the dirty deed for you. This is why we see so many revolving doors between the industries and governments in this country in case anyone was wondering.

Of course we could always get back together in a post bioregional world. Imagine a country that was founded on reality from the bottom up instead of...a sky fairy and imagining some high falutin' oath to it will prevent all the shit and corruption we're deluged with from on high.

[g_bambino]

I never suggested the Queen should take sides amongst the stakeholders and competing interests found within fishing communities...

Yet, you complained that she didn't; didn't take your side on the matter, in particular, and make sure it was implemented. It was that lack of intervention on which you based your decision that she's useless.

omething sure as hell needs to be done about politicians and senior bureaucrats in places like DFO for example that do. You speak of the Queens impartiality as if it means something, if anything I would think her impartiality should stand as an example for other people in power to follow.

Maybe it should serve as an example. But, if you're looking to her to force politicians to be impartial, you may as well expect her to make unicorns appear; partisanship is a job requirement for a politician. And partisanship is a necessity of democracy, which we would certainly not expect our sovereign to overrule as a dictator. She doesn't keep away from government altogether; she is able, as Bagehot put it, to advise, encourage, and warn any minister or parliamentarian; and she does. But, decision making of the kind you're referring to is left to the elected parliament and the ministers of the Crown chosen by it; the Queen is only expected to make decisive interventions if either parliament or the ministers aren't abiding by the rules of parliamentary democracy, i.e. the constitution.

As a UK parliamentary committee put it:

The Queen's constitutional prerogatives are the personal discretionary powers which remain in the Queen's hands. They include the rights to advise, encourage and warn Ministers in private; to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers; to assent to legislation; to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts ministerial advice whether she personally agrees with it or not.

Public Administration Select Committee

Can you give me an example of an absolutely necessary moment in which she did intervene or swing some clout in a political matter?

She's had influence in various affairs of state over the last 60 years: when nobody else could, it was she who devised a way to patriate the constitutions of the Australian states in 1986 (ending an awkward situation wherein she reigned as Queen of Australia federally but as Queen of the United Kingdom in each of the states). She was also apparently key in the patriation of the Canadian constitution; Trudeau mentioned this and thanked her in his memoires. In 1956, she had to choose a prime minister for the UK when Eden resigned. No doubt the Queen is involved right now in working out the mess that Papua New Guinea's parliament has made with the prime minister and governor general.

The monarch's representatives have been called into making unilateral decisions on a number of occasions: Canada in 1926, Alberta in 1937, Saskatchewan in 1961, and Australia in 1976.

[g_bambino]

It wouldn't be hard to find something better...

What is it, then?

[g_bambino]

Not given the order in which the authority to govern flows in this country, from God to or through the Crown on down through the monarch and into the government...

Oh, you're still stuck with that idea that the Queen's crowns are divine conduits of some kind. The rest of us understand that the Queen derives her power from the constitution. The Divine Right of Kings came and went with the Renaissance.

[cybercoma]

bambino, perhaps it would be helpful if you created a post explaining Constitutional Monarchy for everyone. Even people that understand that this is what kind of government we have don't seem to understand exactly what that means or how it works. I bet less than 10% of Canadians have any understanding of Constitutional Monarchy beyond "uh... we have a Queen and a Constitution." Outside of that, there's misconceptions that she's some kind of symbol only or that it's merely a ceremonial role. At least these are things that I was thinking before we had those many discussions about it.

[eyeball]

Yet, you complained that she didn't; didn't take your side on the matter, in particular, and make sure it was implemented.

I did no such thing. I complained that she was as useless as anyone else at protecting an entire region of her subjects from decades of the state's mismanagement. What you keep referring to as a political issue is a matter of governance. That's what should be impartial.

Maybe it should serve as an example. But, if you're looking to her to force politicians to be impartial, you may as well expect her to make unicorns appear; partisanship is a job requirement for a politician.

Favouritism is not partisanship, it's corruption.

decision making of the kind you're referring to is left to the elected parliament and the ministers of the Crown chosen by it;

Again, I never asked her to render a political decision.

the Queen is only expected to make decisive interventions if either parliament or the ministers aren't abiding by the rules of parliamentary democracy, i.e. the constitution.

Great, she can keep the state from cocking itself up but as far as ensuring our governance is right and honourable she's as useless as tits on a boar.

[eyeball]

Oh, you're still stuck with that idea that the Queen's crowns are divine conduits of some kind. The rest of us understand that the Queen derives her power from the constitution.

So she doesn't swear an oath to anyone or anything at all - like the almighty buck all oaths stop with her?

The Divine Right of Kings came and went with the Renaissance.

And yet we haven't changed the way we coronate our head of state in 1000 years. Why seems more than just symbolic in a world where The Divine Right of Kings has morphed into the state right of corporations and things like expanding income gaps and the privatization of common property are...all to common. Maybe it's time for another revolutionrenaissance.