British Royalty

[waynej625]

I am probably going to offend some people who think the Monarchy should be there forever, but do most really care about the British Monarchy? In today's world they have become nothing but expensive decoration, with no real powers other than to collect taxpayer's money. If Lizzy wanted Charles to be King she would have stepped aside years ago in favour of letting Charles have his day in the sun. I think that his sun faded when he chose to keep seeing ugly muggly Camilla on the side. She reminds me of a bull-dog that won't let go. At least Diana had class, which Charles was just too dumb to see, and to which Camilla just can't measure up.

Of course none of the Monarchy has any credibility after numerous public scandals, and because of those scandals, none are fit to ascend to the Throne including Charles', and Diana's sons.

Maybe it is time to abolish the Monarchy and put this outdated expensive trapping behind us? If we did that we could then get rid of our free-spending Governor General, Adrianne Clarkson, along with the whole bureaucracy surrounding that office, and along with that would go the equally expensive Provincial counterparts. Now there is a way to save taxpayer's some serious money without affecting services one bit.

[PocketRocket]

Camilla will not be queen. That has been stated and re-stated, both by herself and by Chuck. She will hold a couple traditional titles of considerably lower status. Duchess of something or other.

As for losing the Monarchy, are you kidding???

It'll never happen. Too many people, probably the majority by far, are way too enamoured with the whole royalty idea. Even in the USA where the whole idea of "God given right to rule" was long ago thrown off in favor of a democratic system, people still go ga-ga over real, old-style, European royalty.

There's something about a King or Queen that intrigues people like nothing else.

England will keep her royalty, as will most other countries that still have a royal family.

[Guest eureka]

Not in favour of democracy, PR. In favour of a plutocracy. The most democratic form of government is still that of Constitutional Monarchy. Read the thread about the Monarchy and some brilliant posts by Bambino.

[Conservative1]

I totally agree with Waynej625, by in large everyone i know (including myself) with few to no exceptions would care in the slightist to see the monarcy abolished. The monarchy serves no purpose here in Canada (and i doubt it does in GB either) so why waste taxpayers money on such ridiculous traditions as the Govenor General? Because it is tradition, and no one in our political system now has the backbone to put an end to such idiocy?

[Guest eureka]

Then perhaps you and everyone you know (including yourself) should learn something about our system of government before giving your "considered" conclusions.

[caesar]

In today's world they have become nothing but expensive decoration, with no real powers other than to collect taxpayer's money.

The queen does NOT collect taxes; in fact within the last few years; the queen has agreed to PAY taxes.

They are good will ambassadors for their country and add pomp and ceremony to government. They do much to promote many charities and causes. They are a non political tool of our government.

The royal family are the eny of the Americans who attempt to invent their own royal family (the Kennedy"s) and are in awe of any royal figure.

[caesar]

why waste taxpayers money on such ridiculous traditions as the Govenor General? Because it is tradition, and no one in our political system now has the backbone to put an end to such idiocy?

And just what would one use to replace their functions???? Another political patronage appointee.

I like the non political avenue used with the monarchy and the good will work that they accomplish. True our latest governor general has been spending much too lavishly but that is the role of the government in power to put and keep her to a budget.

[Fortunata]

I think the monarchy serves a useful purpose. But Queen Camilla? Ouch.

If I understand correctly Camilla will be the Queen by law, whether or not she has agreed to be called by something lesser. Legally she will be Queen Camilla. And, even if she agrees to a lesser title now, it is entirely possible (and foreseeable?) that she will change her mind after the <choke> marriage.

And as far as our GG is concerned, I quite like her. I think she is one of the most effective GG's in my lifetime. I quite agree with her going around the world in an official capacity that lends another side of Canada than that of our PMs going off for horse and pony trade shows that seem to garner little actual trade. Clarkson takes "artist" types, the PM takes business types. And she has way more class than any PM (or PM wannabees) since PET. OK, we won't talk about JRSaul.............. what a pompous ass he is.

[caesar]

Queen Camilla could be a bit difficult to take. Too bad, we can't just skip to handsome young William

[Conservative1]

Clarkson takes "artist" types, the PM takes business types.

Yes very useful those artist types are, what with all their money!?!

They are good will ambassadors for their country and add pomp and ceremony to government

I don't know apparently i am absurd to think there is already MORE than enough pomp and ceremony in the government as it is, why should we waste our money on such uselessness it doesn't benifit me or you.

As far as fulfilling the role of govenor general if she was to be ridden of....it wouldn't be nearly as large of a task as many in this thread appear to believe. Lets look at her major responsibilities:

Ensure there is always a Prime Minister - this is absurd, and if you insist this responsibility could easily be given to someone else, especially considering that this concern will only in the extremely rare occasion come up.

Gives Royal assent to bills passed by the commons, and senate - in this day in age the Govenor General would never reverse such a decision, these decisions represent (in essence) the will of the people as the people elected the officials who passed these bills. (also is it just me or do you balk at the mention of Royal assent! Ultimately i don't care what the royals think only what Canadians think.)

Reads the Speech from the Throne, signs State documents, summons, opens and ends sessions of Parliament, and dissolves Parliament for an election - come on.....lol

Presides over the swearing-in of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of Canada and cabinet ministers. - wow such a responsibility.

The only real contributions she gives is in her various meetings spreading good will, and Canadian Sovernity. These functions as well as the handing out of the awards could easily be given to members of parliment.

PS: i don't know any americans that drool over royalty, nor have i ever heard anything so ridiculous. It is tabloid gossip to the americans and essentially to us as well....nothing more.

[Unpolarized]

The problem with getting rid of the monarch is that we would have to figure a new government system out and revamp. That debate on how we would restructure outselves would probably tear the country apart.

The monarchy and the GG does play an important symbolic role. She is our best global ambassador. She travels across the County to help build unity. She recognizes our best in literature and arts, our bravest and most worthy. She is a non-partisanl voice in a too partisan environment.

I am interested to know what kind of government would we put in place if we got rid of the monarch. What process would be used to make the decision on the change. Its pretty complex and the money we would spend doing it would probably support the GG for years, not to mention the irritation of hearing the never ending debates over how our new government structure would look.

As for Camilla, , just let them get married. At this rate, his mother will govern until he is too old to ever become King or if he does, it will be for a short time.

[caesar]

The "monarchy" or governor general being non political appointees is much better than another patronage appointee. Traditions are good to hold onto.

[Conservative1]

The problem with getting rid of the monarch is that we would have to figure a new government system out and revamp. That debate on how we would restructure outselves would probably tear the country apart.

I have my doubts as most don't even know what the govenor general does! ("Oh my GOD! The govenor general is gone..wait what does she do again? )

[caesar]

I have my doubts as most don't even know what the govenor general does! ("Oh my GOD! The govenor general is gone..wait what does she do again?  )

Speak for yourself; most of us are aware of her/his duties

[Conservative1]

Speak for yourself; most of us are aware of her/his duties

I would like to see a polling done on that, i bet one would find a good percentage of canadians aren't even familiar with the govenor generals duties. And who could blame them they are largely frivolous.

[caesar]

That shows your lack of knowledge; not others. The governor general's duties are a necessary duty and not frivolous in the least

[Conservative1]

If you believe me to have no facts to back myself up, i implore you to go back and read my April 1st post. The information in that post was attained from the govenor generals official website http://www.gg.ca/governor_general/role-crown_e.asp , so i would not leave anything out.

[caesar]

this information

Clarkson takes "artist" types, the PM takes business types.

ooooh really impressive (your knowledge that is)

Do you have something against authors and artists getting recognition?????

[Conservative1]

Nope, but these awards could be given out by anyone.

P.S. - that last post didn't really make much sense.

[waynej625]

Then perhaps you and everyone you know (including yourself) should learn something about our system of government before giving your "considered" conclusions

I hope that you are trying to indicate that the government that we presently have and which is supposedly based on the British System is a very good example of good government, especially after the sponsorship, and the HRDC fiascos. If you are this country is really screwed, because it simply means that people will go right back to the polls and put a check mark beside another thief's name. I guess we get the government we deserve afterall.

[waynej625]

They are a non-political tool of our government.

Non-political? Who do you think appoints the Governor-General but the Prime Minister, the same person who appoints his friend's to the Senate, the Judiciary, and every other other appointment he can make up to reward his political compatriots. Who do you think you are kidding by saying the position is not political? Of course it's political.

[Guest eureka]

I would simply repeat myself that you should learn a little about our system of government before you make asses of yourselves.

I am not going to carry on explaining the Senate; the judiciary; and the Governor General since I have done it a few times before.

[waynej625]

Eureka: People are simply saying that what we have is not democratic, and the system needs to change so that the people are empowered. Under our system we have a Governor General who is simply a rubber stamp for government, therefore she/he serves no purpose other than to be a financial drain on we the taxpayers. The same can be said for the Senate and the Judiciary since all three are appointed and therefore not accountable nor beholden to anyone other than the person who appointed them to office.

We need a system whereby every person being paid by taxpayer's dollars is made accountable to the people who are paying those salaries. That cannot and will not happen with the system we now have in place. In fact the people we elect to office are not accountable, since once the election is over they can do as they please until another election is called. In between we have no mechanism to remove them from office if they are doing a lousy job.

In the case of either the PM or a Premier, it is not the people who either select nor vote to put this person in charge. These people are selected by their respective party's and in order to attain office they simply have to satisfy the whim's of the electorate in their individual ridings. These people are not elected by the people for the whole country in the case of the PM nor is a Premier elcted by the people of their respective Province, because neither runs in an "at-large" system. Do you really think that if Chretien was to have run "at-large," he would ever have become PM? I don't think that is very likely. Of course you already know this, but choose to ignore the fact that none of these people are actually elected democratically by a majority of people. In fact some, like the Senators, and the Judiciary do not face the electorate at all. They are simply appointed to these positions by a person who was chosen by a Party, not the people.

If Canada is to survive we need to revamp our system of government to make it accountable to the people, otherwise we are just going to contiue to have more sponsorship type frauds perpetrated on the people of this country.

[Guest eureka]

I know what people are saying and I say again; learn something about our system of government before spouting such idiocy.

We have, with Britain, the most democratic system ever devised. I have been through the Senate and the Judiciary in detail on other threads and I see no reason to repeat it all.

The Prime Minister is not elected because he is a Prime Minister not President. He is chosen by his party as the fittest to lead. The process is a little less democratic than it used to be since, now, a very large number of party members choose: most of whom have no idea of who should be in the position.

Previously, the PM was chosen by his colleagues and the best one got the job. That is representative democray at work.

You would take us a step further from democracy by having the PM chosen by a great mass of people who have no idea at all about the candidates. You would have us adopt a system where the top positions are bought and sold: where power goes to those who can get the backing of the most powerful. There is no sensible argument for the election of Senate; Judiciary, or Prime Minister.

The GG's office is more substantial than you think, too. God forbid that we should ever adopt a Presidential system. None has ever worked for the benefit of democracy.

[moderateamericain]

The royal family are the eny of the Americans who attempt to invent their own royal family (the Kennedy"s) and are in awe of any royal figure.

haahah you dont really believe that do you? most americans dont even like the kennedys! haha what nonsense.