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

[g_bambino]

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.

You must be kidding; governance isn't political? Governing requires making choices, and groups of people making collective decisions is the definition of politics. As already explained, the Queen doesn't - cannot, for the sake of maintaining her impartiality that's essential to the stability of government - involve herself in political matters. You say protecting a region from state mismanagement is not political, it's just good governance; but what you define as mismanagement others will deem to be sound administration, making the issue a debatable, a political one. So, it is because the Queen didn't step in and dictatorially, without regard for parliament or the concept of responsible government, force everyone involved to practice what you think is good management that you deemed her to be "completely useless"; no caveats, not useless in some regards, just "completely useless". It seems you'd prefer a totalitarian state to live in and just hope the leader agrees with you on most matters.

[g_bambino]

So she doesn't swear an oath to anyone or anything at all

She swore an oath to us.

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

[g_bambino]

perhaps it would be helpful if you created a post explaining Constitutional Monarchy for everyone.

There's a slew of sources out there that explain it better than I could. For starters:

Monarchy of Canada

A Crown of Maples (chapter 3, in particular)

How Canadians Govern Themselves

House of Commons Procedure and Practice

[expat voter]

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

I agree that it would be tough to hammer out and get wide agreement upon an alternative justification for exercising authority in the territory now called Canada. "The authority vested in the Crown" - what is the source of that authority? The Medieval European idea of the Divine Right of monarchs to rule on earth? How did the original monarchs come to be? By military prowess and political acumen, by being able to secure and hold power? This is the origin of the authority to rule over the "dominion" of Canada.

Some adventurers came over and planted a stick with a piece of fabric on the shore of the continent in the name of these monarchs. Trappers eager for beaver and bible thumpers followed. European technology and alcohol helped subjugate the original population. Skirmishes and negotiations occurred with those other European settlers who rejected monarchy and argued that the right to rule came from the people, at least the wealthy white male ones. Borders were more or less set and new influxes of people were selectively allowed in to labor on and populate the land.

But more and more authority was slowly transferred to those who lived in the colony. In 1982 the Constitution was 'patriated,' a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which does not refer to any Divine Rights, was adopted, and Canadians agreed on how to amend the Constitution without the monarch exercising any real power over the process. Symbolic power perhaps, but no real power. Historically the monarchy was at the "core" of Canada's constitution, but it's arguable to say that it remains so. We've come a long way since Runnymede, and are pretty much a republic in practice, with the GG and the monarchy called on to decide on affairs only in extraordinary circumstances.

Had Michaelle Jean said no to Harper's prorogation, and had Harper then gone to QE2, the only right thing for Liz to say would have been "You live with what your GG decided."

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

But there is less mobility up and down social classes if we accept a hereditary elite. Edited December 17, 2011 by expat voter

[expat voter]

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

...after the break up of Canada and the USA. Maybe we are transitioning out of the era of nation states. Corporations already have. The over-arching bio-region of course is planetary. I just hope the regions will remain able to support the bios.

Edited December 17, 2011 by expat voter

[Wild Bill]

Interesting. Votes for this or that PM but not a single one for Mulroney!

:lol:

[eyeball]

You must be kidding; governance isn't political? Governing requires making choices, and groups of people making collective decisions is the definition of politics.

So would that be well defined groups of people or something more nebulous?

You say protecting a region from state mismanagement is not political, it's just good governance; but what you define as mismanagement others will deem to be sound administration, making the issue a debatable, a political one.

Well you've got a point there, I imagine the fish farmers are thrilled at the prospect of their competition disappearing along with all the wild salmon they used to catch.

It must be nice to have friends in high places.

[g_bambino]

"The authority vested in the Crown" - what is the source of that authority?

The source is us; the monarch reigns only at our collective behest.

Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people.

How Canadians Govern Themselves

[T]here is less mobility up and down social classes if we accept a hereditary elite.

And, yet, those whom social mobility has allowed to ascend to the elite can then pass their wealth and influence on to their children who then pass it on to theirs: A hereditary elite. Canadians accept this since the majority hasn't stripped the Westons, the Trudeaus, the Beaverbrooks, the Thompsons, the Bronfmans, the Aspers, & etc. of their assets, status, and resulting influence. Again, anti-elitism arguments against the monarchy are of the strawman variety; elites and elitism exist apart from the monarchy and won't disappear if the monarchy ever does.

[eyeball]

The source is us; the monarch reigns only at our collective behest.

Man oh man...you've got some nerve accusing others of nebulosity.

And, yet, those whom social mobility has allowed to ascend to the elite can then pass their wealth and influence on to their children who then pass it on to theirs: A hereditary elite. Canadians accept this since the majority hasn't stripped the Westons, the Trudeaus, the Beaverbrooks, the Thompsons, the Bronfmans, the Aspers, & etc. of their assets, status, and resulting influence.

Ah the Weston's. It's simply wonderful how their kids wound up inheriting much of the local access to our common property resource that our region was dispossessed of. That was our kid's heritage.

Again, anti-elitism arguments against the monarchy are of the strawman variety; elites and elitism exist apart from the monarchy and won't disappear if the monarchy ever does.

Okay, you've got me convinced, the monarchy really is useless.

So, do you have any suggestions for dealing with elitism other than meek fawning acceptance? I sooner slash my wrists, and those of my kids, thanks all the same.

[g_bambino]

Man oh man...you've got some nerve accusing others of nebulosity.

Where did I do that?

Okay, you've got me convinced, the monarchy really is useless.

Actually, you've convinced yourself by failing to perform due research and ignoring facts put before you.

So, do you have any suggestions for dealing with elitism other than meek fawning acceptance?

Sure: acceptance without meek fawning.

[eyeball]

Where did I do that?

You seemed to think I was appealing earlier to The People, apparently mocking the notion by referring to it as a nebulous, ill-defined concept. Never mind you're not above appealing to this concept yourself. She swears an oath us you said, us Peoples as the quote you provided termed it. She may as well be swearing it to the sky for all the good it does us down here on the ground.

Actually, you've convinced yourself by failing to perform due research and ignoring facts put before you.

I should have repeated that, the monarchy is as useless as anyone else when it comes to preventing the more egregious effects of elitism.

Sure: acceptance without meek fawning.

But acceptance all the same? No thanks.

[g_bambino]

You seemed to think I was appealing earlier to The People, apparently mocking the notion by referring to it as a nebulous, ill-defined concept.

You have an odd definition of "mocking". The concept is nebulous: Can you define "The People"?

I should have repeated that, the monarchy is as useless as anyone else when it comes to preventing the more egregious effects of elitism.

Depends on the elitism in question.

No thanks.

Best of luck with that.

[Topaz]

some of you aren't going to like this but I wouldn't put it pass this Harper government to make a big fuss over the Royal Family and Canada while slowly, quitely bringing the NAU into play. No tinfoils please just watch and read everything that happens in the months to come under the perimeter security. Now you tell me how wrong I am.