Jump to content

The Queen kicks the bucket


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Iceni warrior said:

I'm surprised to see so much disrespect on a Canadian forum.

I'd expect it more on an American forum but actually they are being very kind.

Long live the King.

250px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_K

 

 

That's because it's in the nature of the Left to sneer at anything which represents Canada's traditions, history and values. It's in their nature to mock and ridicule everything about Western civilization and its accomplishments and institutions. Only by tearing down what was so painstakingly built up by better people can they hope to bring about their vaguely defined idea of the perfect society. Although, of course, they've no idea how to do that or what it would entail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the GG is a partisan crony of the PM

that is not a better head of state than an apolitical monarch

your anti-monarchist position is not based in reason, but based on feelings

it has nothing to do with how well they do the job or how well an alternative would do the job

There is a selection committee that vets prospective candidates. Trudeau ignored the committee when he selected that disaster, Payette. Hopefully he learned a lesson.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aristides said:

Yes classy. Everyone is born something, it's what they do with it that matters.

She was the Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. But her decades of hard work, the adept handling of multiple crisis, her unstinting sense of duty, her wit and wisdom, to say nothing of her diplomacy won her legions of admirers around the world. She made herself, in effect, the Queen of the western world. So much so that her passing has brought tributes even from the West's enemies like Putin and Xi. Every American news channel was turned to full time coverage with their anchors and reporters in black. The same with Euronews, France24, Germany's DW, and of course, the networks in Canada.

I think there's a kind of universal sense of attachment to our history we get from the royals and their pageantry and customs. Other nations wish they had such things to brighten up their secular world. Every one of the above networks, along with others like Al Jazeera covered the 96 gun salutes going off all over the UK this morning, and Charles' drive to Buckingham palace. Why? She wasn't their monarch. Why is France's president standing behind a podium in a black suit paying tribute to her? Why is Germany's president talking about how admired and revered she was in Germany?

I think she was a link with our past and has been a sense of continuity for so many people in the shifting sands of political fortunes. Presidents and prime ministers came and went but the Queen was always there.

The BBC announcement of her passing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-21927209

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

That is a sad fact. The monarchy is a waste of time and money and really in opposition to everything modern democracies stand for: virtually irrevocable power, privilege and wealth by birth, immunity from many/most laws etc. 

This is mostly incorrect. The King does have authority, but no political power. That has been the case since King George I in the early 1700's. They have wealth because Prince Albert was alarmed that Queen Victoria had almost no personal wealth. He was an astute business man who invested what little was left, in real estate. That is the source of the Kings's personal income. Privilege is a reflection of the fact that he is King, but as a constitutional Monarch, he is bound by the laws of the realm. 

If we did not have a King, we would need to replace him with something else. Under the late Queen's reign, the Royal Family cost the British taxpayer less than the British Embassy in Paris and a good deal less than having a President. It cost Canadians nothing other than the salary of the Governor General.

If Canada suddenly lost our collective mind and did abolish the monarchy, what would we replace it with? Do we want the symbol of our country to be a politician like Trump, or Biden ?  I can think of nothing worse than a bland colourless politician being the personification of Canada.

Canada has been a monarchy since the first French settlements in 1609. Before that, my knowledge of First nations is woefully lacking, but I am led to believe that some of them have had Hereditary Chiefs. I am sure some of you will correct me. But since 1609, Canada has been a monarchy. It is part of what Canada is. Losing it would have a profound negative impact on who we are.

I believe our new King will be a very good symbol of Canada. If I am wrong, in 30 years we will have a new King. We have had a few poor Kings ( maybe 6 out of 43) in the past 1000 years, though only one (and a bit) in Canada. King George IV's personal life was a mess, but his reign was generally good. Edward VIII would have been a poor King, but Mrs. Simpson fixed that. He never wanted the job in the first place and she was his escape route. The Americans can't compete with that record. 

Presidents do not have a great track record. The Russian Republic has gone pear shaped. The Israeli prsidents have had issues. Austria elected a former SS officer. The French traditionally hate their Presidents as do the Americans. Germany has finally seemed to have become the exception. But look at the top countries with a good quality of life, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, and yes, even Canada. All are Constitutional Monarchies.

Wow, what a blow hard. I just had to get it off my chest.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Its hard to argue that just because the same reason inbred family has sat on the throne for 1200 years we owe all our relatively recent successes to them. There were plenty of bloody civil wars horrible massacres,  famines persecutions etc during those 1200 years BTW. 

Britains success relative to other countries only occurs in recent centuries, not since medieval times,  and much of it is largely due to advances in the private sector after the onset of capitalism and government policy decisions that are increasingly decisions of parliament not the crown. And is it really so much more successful than other western European non-monarchies today? At best it is simply “as good as”

You have a lot to learn about the history of democracy.  Alfred, who is often regarded as the first King of England, made peace with the Vikings and unified the English, providing a form of representative government.  The Magna Carta established the necessity to consult with representatives in 1215.  After that we see a succession of increasingly democratic moves in Britain that are only rivaled in liberty by some Italian cities that had their own charters.  What’s especially remarkable is that in modern history of the last few hundred years, Britain avoided a painful domestic revolution, civil war, invasion, and has stood up against oppressive foreign powers.  It’s a great legacy.  It’s at the foundation of Canada as a bicultural bilingual country with freedoms that were paralleled only by the US and some smaller European states.  Slavery was outlawed in the British Empire in 1832 though it persisted in the US.

It may not mean much to you, but Elizabeth 2 has been an honourable face for this legacy.  She put duty above personal inclination through many challenging times and worked with 15 PM’s over 70 years in Britain alone.  She has had rotten food thrown at her on parade in New Zealand and talked down someone with a weapon who had broken into her residence.  She never wavered.  Charles 3 may have more weaknesses, but he also has many strengths and I’m sure will take the role seriously.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

Presidents do not have a great track record. The Russian Republic has gone pear shaped. The Israeli prsidents have had issues. Austria elected a former SS officer. The French traditionally hate their Presidents as do the Americans. Germany has finally seemed to have become the exception. But look at the top countries with a good quality of life, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, and yes, even Canada. All are Constitutional Monarchies.

 

 

 

You forgot, Australia, Denmark and Belgium. Spain also returned to a constitutional monarchy after experimenting with fascism under Franco.

Edited by Aristides
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is sad is the Canadians that have become ignorant, selfish,lazy and so hateful. And disrespect everything that has built this country up to the best in the world. But yet enjoy what it gives us. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PIK said:

What is sad is the Canadians that have become ignorant, selfish,lazy and so hateful. And disrespect everything that has built this country up to the best in the world. But yet enjoy what it gives us. 

This is what happens when you divide people into hundreds of groups, and then pit all of them against each other. And then show preface for some groups over others, What this country needs is strong leadership that unites us, under one flag, one purpose, until then Canadians will do what is best for themselves and their small groups.. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

This is what happens when you divide people into hundreds of groups, and then pit all of them against each other. And then show preface for some groups over others, What this country needs is strong leadership that unites us, under one flag, one purpose, until then Canadians will do what is best for themselves and their small groups.. 

Might be a great theory, but until Quebec agrees to become  part of Canada . . . . . it stays a great theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

That's because it's in the nature of the Left to sneer at anything which represents Canada's traditions, history and values. It's in their nature to mock and ridicule everything about Western civilization and its accomplishments and institutions. Only by tearing down what was so painstakingly built up by better people can they hope to bring about their vaguely defined idea of the perfect society. Although, of course, they've no idea how to do that or what it would entail.

I'm seeing it from both sides of the aisle. 

The new King has attracted plenty of vitriol from the right.

The disrespectful OP is hardly a lefty.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

I'm seeing it from both sides of the aisle. 

The new King has attracted plenty of vitriol from the right.

The disrespectful OP is hardly a lefty.

 

 

King Charles will catch heat for his climate change views.  He may be seen as too left.  However, his new role is supposed to be non-partisan.  We’ll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware the arrangement whereby the British monarch is the head of state of other otherwise independent countries stems from a time when the vast majority of the populations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand consisted of people who really didn't consider the British as foreigners or Britain as a foreign country. 

In the following decades things have changed and demographics have changed. Large proportions of those countries include people who have no ties to Britain therefore no affinity but also the descendants of those who didn't consider Britain as a foreign country they do consider it as a foreign country. 

The current arrangement would be unacceptable if there had to be a decision on it today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

As far as I'm aware the arrangement whereby the British monarch is the head of state of other otherwise independent countries stems from a time when the vast majority of the populations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand consisted of people who really didn't consider the British as foreigners or Britain as a foreign country. 

In the following decades things have changed and demographics have changed. Large proportions of those countries include people who have no ties to Britain therefore no affinity but also the descendants of those who didn't consider Britain as a foreign country they do consider it as a foreign country. 

The current arrangement would be unacceptable if there had to be a decision on it today. 

I think many Canadians, including many recent immigrants, like the ties to Britain, the first country to declare war on Hitler. It’s an honourable nation that has achieved incredible things.  Our PM-appointed GG hasn’t demonstrated the same authority as ER 2.  Canada’s government and GG don’t seem as resolute in protecting Canadians’ interests.  Trudeau’s government has sold out to the UN and WEF.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

As far as I'm aware the arrangement whereby the British monarch is the head of state of other otherwise independent countries stems from a time when the vast majority of the populations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand consisted of people who really didn't consider the British as foreigners or Britain as a foreign country. 

In the following decades things have changed and demographics have changed. Large proportions of those countries include people who have no ties to Britain therefore no affinity but also the descendants of those who didn't consider Britain as a foreign country they do consider it as a foreign country. 

The current arrangement would be unacceptable if there had to be a decision on it today. 

nonsense

British isn't a race

and it isn't a place

it's a system of governance

and those people have an affinity for that system that cuts across demographic lines

those who don't are foolish and ignorant and should be ignored

y'all speak of treason as the if it's the reasonable position

but it's not

the current arrangement is vastly superior to any arrangement that is likely to replace it

there has been one exception in history and yet some people want to roll the dice anyway

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

That's because it's in the nature of the Left to sneer at anything which represents Canada's traditions, history and values. It's in their nature to mock and ridicule everything about Western civilization and its accomplishments and institutions. Only by tearing down what was so painstakingly built up by better people can they hope to bring about their vaguely defined idea of the perfect society. Although, of course, they've no idea how to do that or what it would entail.

It's not just the left. 

I'm a conservative and I oppose the monarchy because I'm not about making a family a charity case and don't believe you should get a job because of your mommy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its odd...I will miss The Queen. She was a class act. And I have mountains of respect for the sacrifices she made for her domain. But...her powers have always been rather...tributary. We consent to The Crown and its interesting power and financial arrangement.

I was willing to make a show of acquiescence to Lizzy's throne. I'm not too sure about Chuck though.

And the money thing? Don't do it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

The residential school system was the product of a Canadian government, elected by Canadians. Not the Monarchy.

And the Canadian Government had no Governor General at the time , no ties to Buckingham and the Monarchy had zero idea what was going on in Canada, or Australia, or any other commonwealth country for that matter?   Very hard to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 years ago in the Australian referendum the republic lost because they were offered a republic whereby the GG would just become President but that's all. 

People wanted a republic where the President is the real political leader like in the USA. 

Does anybody think the US-system is something to go for? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cougar said:

And the Canadian Government had no Governor General at the time , no ties to Buckingham and the Monarchy had zero idea what was going on in Canada, or Australia, or any other commonwealth country for that matter?   Very hard to believe.

You would’ve been a cheerleader for residential schools in the 19th and early to mid-20th century.  Educating illiterate people for free was considered a tremendous social good at the time by almost everyone.  Since it was impossible to build thousands of schools in remote locations with few people, the students took up residence for an education away from home.  People pay a lot to send their kids to boarding school.  Yes bad apples committed abuse and there was abuse at all schools.  I’m sure without parents nearby it was worse, and the cultural/linguistic suppression was wrong by our standards but considered civilizing by most people at the time.

What value is there in trying to pin residential schools on one person, especially since those generations are long gone?  It was a much harsher world for all.  It’s your simplistic moralizing lack of perspective that leads to misjudgement and things like residential schools.   

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

This is what happens when you divide people into hundreds of groups, and then pit all of them against each other. And then show preface for some groups over others, What this country needs is strong leadership that unites us, under one flag, one purpose, until then Canadians will do what is best for themselves and their small groups.. 

Canada is five or six nations pretending to be one. When I look at a world map or globe from my school years, one has to be incredibly naive to think this train wreck is a completed work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Does anybody think the US-system is something to go for? 

Britain still has an elected premier, from a political party, in effect running the country.

The monarchy is more or less decoration; artifacts from the museum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...