British Royalty

[g_bambino]

Sorry it took me so long to throw my bit into this one—it’s been ages since I checked in here last.

The posts by waynej625 and Conservative1 are no surprise to me-- most Canadians these days know nothing about the system of constitutional monarchy we have. Most aren't even aware Canada is a kingdom, let alone how the whole thing works, who does what, and why.

Personally, I think this is because 40 years of mostly Liberal governments (ie. those since Trudeau) have purposely left Canadians, especially new arrivals, ignorant and uneducated about not only their Constitution and government, but also Canadian history and culture. Trudeau, for all his brilliance, was also an uber-socialist, and detested the monarchy. He wanted rid of it when the Constitution was patriated in '82, but fortunately a good number of the provincial premiers wouldn't allow it. Though, I've read that Trudeau eventually came around to recognise the Crown's importance to the country, every Liberal government that has followed him has continued the slow erosion of the Crown in Canada. So, children are no longer taught proper civics in school, immigrants are not told why they are swearing allegiance to the Queen of Canada, the symbols of the Canadian Crown are removed whenever they can be, the Queen's portraits in airports are replaced with those of the PM. Political correctness is prime, and more and more the PM is made to look like the president of Canada-- the Queen and GG left to look like useless anachronisms.

And why not? Why wouldn't a PMO, and a Cabinet want Canadians to be unaware that the Queen and her representative are constitutionally more important and more powerful than the PM? Why wouldn't a government want to push those more important bodies aside and hijack every bit of power for themselves? An ignorant populace is so much easier to manipulate.

Frankly, I think Martin has been doing an excellent job at this. Witness his constant references to himself as the representative of Canadians (sorry, you don't even represent a simple majority of them), the inferences that he is the protector of all things “Canadian” (after, of course, telling us all what it really means to be Canadian), his covering himself in the Canadian flag as though it is part and parcel with him, his stripping of the Queen's name from the Letters of Credence and Recall presented by Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the GG, his position on and equal level with the GG or Queen at ceremonies, reference to G-8 heads of state as his equals, etc., etc.

So, while waynej625 and Conservative1 are very obviously ignorant of Canada's constitutional monarchy, they certainly are not alone, and I can't exactly blame them fully for their own lack of knowledge. In fact, their posts share a common trend I've seen many places elsewhere-- namely, Canadians have lost faith in their government, and, totally ignorant of the purpose of the Queen and GG, immediately call for their abolition as some sort of way to make government more accountable to them. Of course, we all know decisions based on ignorance are dangerous indeed.

The Queen is a central figure in our democracy-- though it may not look that way (because of the twisting and machinations of politicians), because she is in the position that she is, she keeps politicians out of it. That is, she keeps ultimate power out of the hands of the PM and his government. It's better that this sits with an apolitical figure like Her Majesty, as opposed to an elected political president. Though some countries do vest executive power in their president, I think there are enough examples around the world, and throughout history, which show that system to be far more unreliable than what is usually more stable constitutional monarchy. The euphemisms I always like to use are: the Queen is like a fire-extinguisher; something you hope you’ll never have to use, but always want there anyway. And: to have a politician as head of state would be like having a hockey game refereed by one of the players.

Getting rid of the Crown would in no way improve the workings of parliament, or address the "democratic deficit." In fact, I would argue that such a move would only make things worse.

By the way, thanks eureka for your kind words about my previous posts.

[Sir Chauncy]

Was always UEL for over half a century. If Charles becomes King and that ugly cow he married becomes queen I would quit being UEL so fast.

He should never be King and he should not have been allowed to marry a devorcee and such an ugly one to boot.

Having a monarchy is fine with me, but having a retarded idiot as King does not sit well with me at all.

Diana's son should take the throne when Elizabeth steps down or dies.

Sir Chauncy

[Sir Chauncy]

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.

_________________

What, you dont concider the masses voting a PM into power is democratic.

I fail to see what is undemocratic about that.

We need a two vote system in Canada, one for our local rep and another for who we think is best PM material.

Far too oftem my vote has be changed away from a local rep because I disliked the potential PM that would come about by voting that rep, and vice versa.

There is no logical reason that says the PM must be part of the party holding the majority of seats. Anyone could be PM, but they would need to work with all paties to get what they wanted if they are not part of the ruling elite party of the day.

As for the Senate, that house of senile half dead, comatose elders, it desperately needs changing or abolishing.

It should be an elected position and equal representation should be it's future.

Those patronage seats where oldsters sleep all day or never show up yet collect huge dollars should be done away with. The rulling party appointing Senators and gaining the senate vote needs to be done away with.

The senate though,"could" present that safety measure against any Government bent on self interests if it were an elected position.

Sir Chauncy