Prince Harry

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, the key word...as in, by many metrics, it works better than the theoretically better system.

So we should implement all sorts of exclusions in our government positions - as long as it "works better" in some people's eyes. You agree, right?

[Wilber]

And the fact that you don't....speaks volumes. As I said, if it were the U.S. prohibiting one religion from being POTUS, y'all would be all over us - and rightfully so, IMO. But since it's 'tolerant Canada,' no big deal, eh?

While there are a variety of pro and con posts on this topic, you are the only one who has raised the issue of religion. As a matter of fact, whenever the subject of the monarchy comes up, you are the only one who ever raises the issue of religion.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Wilber

[Smallc]

So we should implement all sorts of exclusions in our government positions - as long as it "works better" in some people's eyes. You agree, right?

All kinds of exclusions? There are all kinds of exclusions? Really? There are some exclusions for sure, but, our democratic process is alive and healthy.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest American Woman]

While there are a variety of pro and con posts on this topic, you are the only one who has raised the issue of religion. As a matter of fact, whenever the subject of the monarchy comes up, you are the only one who ever raises the issue of religion.

No, I'm not. Which has nothing to do with the reality of the issue anyway. Fact is, religion is a factor; an exclusion factor.

[Guest American Woman]

All kinds of exclusions? There are all kinds of exclusions? Really? There are some exclusions for sure, but, our democratic process is alive and healthy.

So you'd be ok with the constitution being amended to say that our head of state has to be the first born son of the Bush family, a girl will do if there is no male, and he/she must not become Catholic or marry a Catholic? You would think that's an "alive and healthy democratic process" to determine our head of state?

[bleeding heart]

Far be it from me to agree with American Woman on two different subjects in only two days...... but she's got a point.

Look: like many of the posters here, I don't have a big problem with the Canadian system--and I agree it's worked reasonably well. (Although even that view might underline a...certain lack of imagination? Is that point not worth considering? Not just for our system, but for all of them?)

I'm not an Abolish-the-Monarchy type.

And, for reasons well-stated by others, a Parliamentary system with an (almost inherently) partisan President instead of a Monarch is seriously problematic. (Can everyone say: "permanenet Conservative Government"? Shudder.) So, there we are.

But the inheritance/religious/gender issue raised is real. It's not a phantom of the imagination, and it's not trivial. We can say "meh," all we like...but we should at least be able to concede that this is an issue, considering contemporary notions and ideals about exactly these matters.

Consider it this way: for all those who believe the Inheritance/Religious/Gender matter is trivial; and simultaneously considering our contemporary feelings about all three of these aspects in every other realm of society...I think the onus is on them to explain why it's trivial....not the other way 'round.

Edited September 2, 2012 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

That would be partisan interference. That's not what a monarchy is supposed to be about, especially a constitutional monarchy.

Partisanship is not what's diddling with our democracy, it's lobbying that's doing that, mostly corporate.

[Wilber]

No, I'm not. Which has nothing to do with the reality of the issue anyway. Fact is, religion is a factor; an exclusion factor.

Actually you are. I have never read a post from anyone else that raised the Queen's religion as an issue.

As head of the Church of England the Monarch is required to be Anglican otherwise it would be like saying it is OK for the Pope to be a Baptist. That is a function of her being Queen of England so take it up with the Brits. The Canadian Constitution puts no religious restrictions on the Queen of Canada.

There are sixteen autonomous countries that recognize Elizabeth II as head of state. It seems to work for them.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually you are. I have never read a post from anyone else that raised the Queen's religion as an issue.

Then you are either very selective of the posts you read - or saying that all Canadians are quite hypocritical, since they have no problem at all bringing up religion in regards to our head of state.

As head of the Church of England the Monarch is required to be Anglican otherwise it would be like saying it is OK for the Pope to be a Baptist.

So is Canada a religious state? Is that what you are saying - as you claim that religion isn't part of Canadian politics? Because that's one huge contradiction.

That is a function of her being Queen of England so take it up with the Brits. The Canadian Constitution puts no religious restrictions on the Queen of Canada.

Sure it does, since it states that the queen of Canada is Queen Elizabeth and her descendants.

There are sixteen autonomous countries that recognize Elizabeth II as head of state. It seems to work for them.

And fundamental Islamic law seems to "work" for Islamic nations, so nothing to be critical of there, eh?

But you, and others, keep ignoring my question - if the U.S. were to amend the Constitution to say that our head of state must be the first born son of the Bush family, a girl will do if no males, and he/she (if one must resort to a "she") must not become Catholic or marry a Catholic, you wouldn't be critical of that? You would, indeed, be supportive?

[Guest American Woman]

Consider it this way: for all those who believe the Inheritance/Religious/Gender matter is trivial; and simultaneously considering our contemporary feelings about all three of these aspects in every other realm of society...I think the onus is on them to explain why it's trivial....not the other way 'round.

Exactly; and I'd be willing to wager big bucks that they wouldn't support the scenario I presented re: changing the Constitution to make the head of state the firstborn son of Bush et al - but would be as critical of it as it deserves. Furthermore, they are quite hypocritical speaking of what a secular nation Canada is as they defend the religious exclusions because the head of state is the head of the Anglican Church - as they criticize religion in American politics.

[cybercoma]

So is Canada a religious state? Is that what you are saying - as you claim that religion isn't part of Canadian politics? Because that's one huge contradiction.

The Queen of England is not the Queen of Canada.

[msj]

But you, and others, keep ignoring my question - if the U.S. were to amend the Constitution to say that our head of state must be the first born son of the Bush family, a girl will do if no males, and he/she (if one must resort to a "she") must not become Catholic or marry a Catholic, you wouldn't be critical of that? You would, indeed, be supportive?

I think it is being ignored because you have created a false equivalency.

The monarch who is theoretically our head of state is not the same type of head of state as your Presidency.

In practice I consider the Prime Minister to be our head of state although I know that technically this is wrong.

I will then note that our head of state is, in practice, our GG who has been a Catholic many times in the past (as some of our PM's have been for that matter).

[Guest American Woman]

The Queen of England is not the Queen of Canada.

Really? So Queen Elizabeth isn't the Queen of England - or isn't the Queen of Canada?

From Canada's Royal Style and Titles Act:

The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

So she most definitely is the Queen of England - and by the Grace of God ... the Defender of Faith.

Edited to add: I noticed you (again) passed on the Constitutional Amendment that I mentioned .....

Edited September 2, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Really? So Queen Elizabeth isn't the Queen of England - or isn't the Queen of Canada?

From Canada's Royal Style and Titles Act:

The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

So she most definitely is the Queen of England - and by the Grace of God ... the Defender of Faith.

Edited to add: I noticed you (again) passed on the Constitutional Amendment that I mentioned .....

So, we accept her titles, we didn't impose them. The Church of England is not a national religion in Canada. What's your point?

I don't see why you are so hung up on this. In your country a person who wasn't born an American citizen cannot be the head of state or hold the top political job. This has not been true of the Monarchy, their representative or head of government. Moving away from Catholics for a moment. Britain has had a Jewish Prime Minister. How many Jewish Presidents have you had?

Before you ask us to throw a system in the bin that has been evolving for nearly 800 years since Magna Carta because of your religious sensibilities, lets see how long yours lasts.

[Wilber]

BTW, the system is still evolving. LINK

[bleeding heart]

BTW, the system is still evolving. LINK

Very interesting, and very timely given our discussion here.

[Guest American Woman]

So, we accept her titles, we didn't impose them. The Church of England is not a national religion in Canada. What's your point?

My point is - and I can't believe you are unable to comprehend it - is that your head of state is bound by the exclusions I've mentioned many times now; the fact that the Church of England is not a national religion in Canada doesn't change that. In fact, it makes it more difficult for me to understand why you have such a head of state - and why you apparently have no problem with the exclusions.

I don't see why you are so hung up on this. In your country a person who wasn't born an American citizen cannot be the head of state or hold the top political job. This has not been true of the Monarchy,

No, but his/her offspring can. But why would you even bring this up, in light of the fact that a person who wasn't born into one specific family cannot be your head of state - nor can their offspring - and you are supportive of that.

Moving away from Catholics for a moment. Britain has had a Jewish Prime Minister. How many Jewish Presidents have you had?

How many have you had? - and what does that have to do with the legal restrictions/exclusions regarding your head of state? Our laws don't prohibit a Jew from becoming head of state. There is no such restriction. Do you understand the difference between 'not having been elected at this point in time' and 'impossible to ever be??'

Before you ask us to throw a system in the bin that has been evolving for nearly 800 years since Magna Carta because of your religious sensibilities, lets see how long yours lasts.

YOU are the one with "religious sensibilities;" I'm not singling out religion. I have repeatedly taken issue with the birth, gender, and religious aspects. Furthermore, you don't think that believing everyone from every religion should have the same opportunity is an equal rights issue rather than "my religious sensibilities?" Good God.

Again, you ignore the Constitution Amendment to make the firstborn son of Bush our head of state [...] scenario .... and it's sooooo obvious why you will not address it - because obviously you wouldn't support it and would criticize it to high heaven. Yet this is what you are supporting and defending within your nation, criticizing me for pointing out the exclusions that one would never support in the situation I described - which would be no different from yours.

Edited September 2, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

BTW, the system is still evolving. LINK

Ha. Very interesting - since I've been saying exactly the same things and criticized for it by you, smallc, etc. as you defended the very things that were changed.

Equal rights for women in the British Monarchy? It's quite a change. But that was no big deal to you; you defended it because "it worked all these years."

The other modification, allowing future monarchs to marry Catholics, is just as radical, removing an anti-Catholic bias at the heart of the monarchy. Look at that. "An anti-Catholic bias," just as I've said. But that was no big deal to you; you defended it because "it worked all these years" as you attributed my criticism to "my religious sensibilities."

And this summary is exactly what I've been saying - and getting criticized for:

"The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic - this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become."

Good changes, these - but I agree with this:

... the campaign group Republic - which wants an elected head of state in Britain - said "nothing of substance" had been changed.

One is still born into the position, so the biggest exclusion/restriction is still there, and this sums it up: "The monarchy discriminates against every man, woman and child who isn't born into the Windsor family. To suggest that this has anything to do with equality is utterly absurd," spokesman Graham Smith said.

Edited September 2, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

How many have you had? - and what does that have to do with the legal restrictions/exclusions regarding your head of state? Our laws don't prohibit a Jew from becoming head of state. There is no such restriction. Do you understand the difference between 'not having been elected at this point in time' and 'impossible to ever be??'

No. it prevents someone not born a US citizen from becoming head of state. But you chose to ignore that. I now chose to ignore you. I certainly don't have to justify my system of government to you.

[Guest American Woman]

No. it prevents someone not born a US citizen from becoming head of state. But you chose to ignore that. I now chose to ignore you. I certainly don't have to justify my system of government to you.

I don't blame you for choosing to ignore me - it gives you an out so you don't have to address the issues I've raised. Furthermore, it's what you've chosen to do about the inequities within your system regarding your head of state - simply ignore them - so I really wouldn't expect anything more.

[Guest American Woman]

Very interesting, and very timely given our discussion here.

It is interesting - and a step in the right direction. I have to wonder if we will see the end of the British monarchy in our lifetime. (Or perhaps Canada - or Australia et al - will choose to do away with it first.)

[bleeding heart]

It is interesting - and a step in the right direction. I have to wonder if we will see the end of the British monarchy in our lifetime. (Or perhaps Canada - or Australia et al - will choose to do away with it first.)

I wonder too, but have no idea. Time will tell. If I had to guess...I would say it is slowly on its way out.

[Guest American Woman]

I wonder too, but have no idea. Time will tell. If I had to guess...I would say it is slowly on its way out.

And I would have to agree with you; I would guess that it's on it's way out, too.

[cybercoma]

Really? So Queen Elizabeth isn't the Queen of England - or isn't the Queen of Canada?

Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of England and the Queen of Canada. Regardless, the Queen of England is not the Queen of Canada. Edited September 2, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of England and the Queen of Canada. Regardless, the Queen of England is not the Queen of Canada.

Huh? Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of England and the Queen of Canada but the Queen of England isn't the Queen of Canada? Does that mean that I'm me but I'm not me?