Michaeelle Jean

[g_bambino]

Foreign born? Only if you call Britain foreign. It is entirely suitable to draw the Queen's representative from Britain.

I'd be willing to cut some slack on this point of this immigrant woman actually came from a Commonwealth country where she could claim to be born and raised under the Queen.

But Haiti? That is absurd.

Wouldn't it be ironic then if the Queen appointed a British citizen who was born in Brazil as Governor General of Canada. Oh.. but I suppose you're thinking that there are no immigrants in the UK, unlike the infestation we have here.

Jean wasn't born "under" the Queen, but she swore allegiance to the Queen when she came to Canada 40 years ago, and lived "under" the Queen ever since. I don't see how the geographic location of her birth affects her qualification to be the Canadian vice-regal. Is there some kind of special DNA the Queen's subjects have that Haitians don't? (And, btw, only 16 counties in the Commonwealth are "under" the Queen - would you be happy with a South African-born Governor General here?)

[dpwozney]

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule, which states:

"Oath of Allegiance

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.".

The Sovereign's style is set by the Royal Style and Titles Act, which sets her title as "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."

Elizabeth II claims the style and title "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not and has never been recognized by the British North America Act, 1867 which has been amended many times.

According to the British North America Act, 1867, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not the "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Also, the Queen is not sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is the Sovereign.

I'm not sure, however, how this is pertinent to the Governor General representing the Queen and Canada abroad.

Michaëlle Jean does not represent the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

[Mad_Michael]

Oh.. but I suppose you're thinking that there are no immigrants in the UK, unlike the infestation we have here.

I don't reply to insults. I hold posters of such in utter contempt.

Between the hideous appointments of Clarkson & Jean, I'm now willing to support the removal of the monarchy in Canada. It has become pathetic and a tool of patronage. High expense, no value. Lets get rid of the charade before some Rwandan refugee becomes our next GG.

[g_bambino]

The Sovereign's style is set by the Royal Style and Titles Act, which sets her title as "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."

Elizabeth II claims the style and title "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is not and has never been recognized by the British North America Act, 1867 which has been amended many times.

According to the British North America Act, 1867, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not the "Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Michaëlle Jean does not represent the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Yes, "...of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..." is part of the Queen's current British title. And yes, the BNA makes reference to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." But, again what of it?

Since 1867, much within Canada and the United Kingdom has changed - Canada is now an independent kingdom, and the UK has lost much of Ireland. But, the expired titles in old laws don't undermine the acts that have since followed, changing the monarch's style to suit the new realities.

So, you're quite right, Michaëlle Jean does not represent the Monarch of the United Kingdom, either with or without Ireland. But, I'm not sure who said she did. She represents the Monarch of Canada, styled as "...of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen." As the representative of the Queen of Canada, it is perfectly acceptable to send her on state visits to represent Canada and it's monarch.

Also, the Queen is not sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is the Sovereign.

It's my understanding that the Queen is the Crown, and hence she is sovereign - she is the personal embodiment of Canada's sovereignty.

[g_bambino]

Oh.. but I suppose you're thinking that there are no immigrants in the UK, unlike the infestation we have here.

I don't reply to insults. I hold posters of such in utter contempt.

Between the hideous appointments of Clarkson & Jean, I'm now willing to support the removal of the monarchy in Canada. It has become pathetic and a tool of patronage. High expense, no value. Lets get rid of the charade before some Rwandan refugee becomes our next GG.

Insults? Feign injury all you want, but it is you who admonishes all immigrants, regardless of how long they've lived here, save, of course, for those of pure British extraction. Perhaps my response was a bit too facetious, and I apologise, but I sense bigotry in your arguments, and I don't react well to it.

Let me ask you this, just to clarify something: do you find Norman Kwong unsuitable as the Albertan vice-regal? And Mayann Francis in Nova Scotia?

[dpwozney]

But, the expired titles in old laws don't undermine the acts that have since followed, changing the monarch's style to suit the new realities.

The British North America Act, 1867, which has been amended many times, still refers to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" eleven times.

New laws and acts are required to be in accordance with a constitution. Federal statutes do not override constitutional provisions.

According to Wikipedia, a "constitution is a system, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles whereby an organization or political entity is governed. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government".

People have the freedom to believe in a present-day existence of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" if they so choose.

Also, the Queen is not sovereign. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is the Sovereign.

It's my understanding that the Queen is the Crown, and hence she is sovereign - she is the personal embodiment of Canada's sovereignty.

The first definition for the noun "sovereign" in my dictionary states "a person who possesses sovereign authority or power".

The first definition for the adjective "sovereign" in my dictionary states "above or superior to all others; chief; greatest; supreme". The second definition for the adjective "sovereign" in my dictionary states "supreme in power, rank, or authority".

The "Constitution of Canada" is claimed to be the "supreme law of Canada" and states that "...Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...".

The Queen does not claim to be God.

[M.Dancer]

But, the expired titles in old laws don't undermine the acts that have since followed, changing the monarch's style to suit the new realities.

The British North America Act, 1867, which has been amended many times, still refers to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" eleven times.

I have a bible that reads King James of England Scotland Ireland and France.......

[g_bambino]

The British North America Act, 1867, which has been amended many times, still refers to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" eleven times.

New laws and acts are required to be in accordance with a constitution. Federal statutes do not override constitutional provisions.

So, are you trying to argue that Canada is a kingdom with no crown?

I think you should familiarise yourself with the fact that not all of Canada's constitution is written. Though the words "Canadian Crown," or "divided crown," or "Imperial Crown," or some such thing, never appears in the documents, since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 and the Canada Act, 1982 (both also part of our Constitution), Canada has been considered as an autonomous nation under a crown legally separate from that of the United Kingdom (and the 14 other Commonwealth Realms). Thus, though we 16 countries share one person as monarch, she is, for Canada, distinctly Queen of Canada, and is titled accordingly.

People have the freedom to believe in a present-day existence of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" if they so choose.

I suppose they do, but who here is?

The first definition for the noun "sovereign" in my dictionary states "a person who possesses sovereign authority or power".

The first definition for the adjective "sovereign" in my dictionary states "above or superior to all others; chief; greatest; supreme". The second definition for the adjective "sovereign" in my dictionary states "supreme in power, rank, or authority".

The "Constitution of Canada" is claimed to be the "supreme law of Canada" and states that "...Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...".

The Queen does not claim to be God.

For someone who enjoys quoting the BNA, you missed one key clause: III.9 "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." That means all laws are her laws - including the Constitution, to which no alteration can be made without her, or her direct representative's, signature. The Queen gives the constitution its authority, not the other way around.

[M.Dancer]

Thus, though we 16 countries share one person as monarch, she is, for Canada, distinctly Queen of Canada, and is titled accordingly.

Hmmmm...in Scotland, nationalists like to erase the II on the post boxes because there was no Elizabeth the first of Scotland.....

...Is it The Queen of Canada, Elizabeth the First?

[g_bambino]

Thus, though we 16 countries share one person as monarch, she is, for Canada, distinctly Queen of Canada, and is titled accordingly.

Hmmmm...in Scotland, nationalists like to erase the II on the post boxes because there was no Elizabeth the first of Scotland.....

...Is it The Queen of Canada, Elizabeth the First?

Well, I said she's titled accordingly (ie. as Queen of Canada), not accurately. But, the reginal number need not actually be "correct" - she could be Elizabeth the Fortieth if her ministers so advised her to call herself. So, technically, it's irrelevant whether there was an Elizabeth I who once reigned over Canada or not - PM Mackenzie King advised the current Queen to be Elizabeth II of Canada, and Elizabeth II she is. Though, it has been argued that Newfoundland did actually lie within the territories of Elizabeth I of England, whereas Scotland did not.

As for future "problems" around the issue of numbering, the Brits came up with a policy to avoid future conflict. It doesn't necessarily extend to the other Realms, but it may be adopted by them anyway should an issue arise. It's somewhat complex to describe, so I'll link to the Wikipedia article on the subject here

[dpwozney]

The British North America Act, 1867, which has been amended many times, still refers to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" eleven times.

New laws and acts are required to be in accordance with a constitution. Federal statutes do not override constitutional provisions.

So, are you trying to argue that Canada is a kingdom with no crown?

No.

..., since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 ...

The Statute of Westminster, 1931 states: "Now, therefore, be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--".

In 1931, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen”.

In 1931, Section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”.

In 1931, Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.

George V was not a Queen. George V was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1931.

[g_bambino]

..., since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 ...

The Statute of Westminster, 1931 states: "Now, therefore, be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--".

In 1931, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen”.

In 1931, Section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”.

In 1931, Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.

George V was not a Queen. George V was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1931.

The Crown, no matter its name, or the gender of the monarch, is continuous. So, exactly what is your point?

[dpwozney]

The Crown, no matter its name, or the gender of the monarch, is continuous. So, exactly what is your point?

In 1931, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to have executive government and authority of and over Canada.

In 1931, Section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to be part of the Parliament for Canada.

In 1931, Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

[g_bambino]

The Crown, no matter its name, or the gender of the monarch, is continuous. So, exactly what is your point?

In 1931, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to have executive government and authority of and over Canada.

In 1931, Section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to be part of the Parliament for Canada.

In 1931, Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

So what? It's a constitutional convention that the Crown is continuous, regardless of its name, or the gender of the monarch holding it; thus acts enacted in the name of, and Letters Patent issued by, George VI still hold validity under Elizabeth II. This convention was partially codified in the BNA, where, in the 5th schedule, it says: "The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto." From 1867 to present the proper terms of reference have replaced the name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

This synonymy has been further codified in the 1985 Interpretation Act, which defines "Her Majesty," "His Majesty," "the Queen," "the King" or "the Crown" as "the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth."

[dpwozney]

So what? It's a constitutional convention that the Crown is continuous, regardless of its name, or the gender of the monarch holding it; thus acts enacted in the name of, and Letters Patent issued by, George VI still hold validity under Elizabeth II.

George VI was not a Queen. George VI was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1947.

This synonymy has been further codified in the 1985 Interpretation Act, which defines "Her Majesty," "His Majesty," "the Queen," "the King" or "the Crown" as "the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth."

Members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate, who voted for the "Interpretation Act" in 1985, had an obligation, before taking their seats, to take and subscribe an oath swearing allegiance to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Instead, they swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Elizabeth the Second.

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule of the British North America Act, 1867.

[g_bambino]

So what? It's a constitutional convention that the Crown is continuous, regardless of its name, or the gender of the monarch holding it; thus acts enacted in the name of, and Letters Patent issued by, George VI still hold validity under Elizabeth II.

George VI was not a Queen. George VI was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1947.

This synonymy has been further codified in the 1985 Interpretation Act, which defines "Her Majesty," "His Majesty," "the Queen," "the King" or "the Crown" as "the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth."

Members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate, who voted for the "Interpretation Act" in 1985, had an obligation, before taking their seats, to take and subscribe an oath swearing allegiance to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Instead, they swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Elizabeth the Second.

Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule of the British North America Act, 1867.

I have no idea what the hell you're babbling about.