Bear true allegiance To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Canada Her Heirs and Successors......

[Moonlight Graham]

On 11/27/2025 at 12:58 PM, cougar said:

I am not concerned with his flying as much as I am concerned by his approval of pipelines and dismantling environmental protection, rescinding oil tanker bans and all.  However he is doing it under pressure from conservatives.

And who told you I am a liberal or that Carney is my hero?    Neither of these is true.

He's doing it to keep the country from fracturing.  I'm not a big fan of the oil sands either, but whether Carney approves pipelines or Alberta becomes its own country or an American state makes no difference because the oil will flow either way.  Oil is vital to their economy and they aren't going to let Ottawa shut it down, so he doesn't have much choice.

[John Stone]

I'm beginning to believe that the majority of Canadians are ignorant of their history - such as it is.

What is somewhat troubling or should be is that it is not taught or if it is, its vetted to either not offend a diaspora or takes on the approach of vilifying those men  (mostly) who were icons in Canada's development.

With the proportional HUGE immigration into the country don't expect any real allegiance to it - Canadian history will be either disregarded, too Nationalistic, too racist, not woke enough, embarrassing, discriminatory, too NOT Canadian. 

History needs to be taught, understood  - warts and all. 

[John Stone]

11 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Someone like Andrew could easily have been first in line. Look how long it took for them to take away his titles. Apparently, he is still in the line of succession. Pathetic. We cling to a foreign monarchy to show we’re not Americans but we don’t need to do that. The Trump fiasco has shown just how different we are. 

Canadians are far less patriotic than Americans - their pride is basically their history. 

Should be said that Hollywood has a huge say in Americans understanding their history tho. 

[TreeBeard]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Do you routinely swear oaths that you have no intention of living up to? 

I’ve sworn an oath to the Queen. I didn’t really mean it as I think a monarchy is undemocratic and immoral, but I needed the job and got valuable experience.  So routinely?  No, not routinely.  
 

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Does your word and the contracts you sign mean nothing? 

Not in the case of putting loyalty to a monarch above all else.   Contracts are legally enforceable.  A silly oath isn’t. 
 

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You sound like a very dishonourable person, not to mention seditious.

To a boot-licking monarchist who hates freedom and thinks family lineage should allow someone to have power over others, I can see how that would seem to be the case.  

[cougar]

18 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

  Oil is vital to their economy and they aren't going to let Ottawa shut it down, so he doesn't have much choice.

He's a lame duck.  Should send the military to Alberta, just like Trump is sending the national guard to New York.

[Moonlight Graham]

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I’ve sworn an oath to the Queen. I didn’t really mean it as I think a monarchy is undemocratic and immoral, but I needed the job and got valuable experience.  So routinely?  No, not routinely.

So then you're a liar and a snake in the grass.  And you don't think that is undemocratic and immoral?  Another fake Canadian by convenience.  Maybe I'll call IRCC.

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Not in the case of putting loyalty to a monarch above all else.   Contracts are legally enforceable.  A silly oath isn’t.

The oath is a verbal legal contract.  Best not agree to contracts you don't understand.

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

To a boot-licking monarchist who hates freedom and thinks family lineage should allow someone to have power over others, I can see how that would seem to be the case.  

Lol. Clearly you don't know a thing about our political institutions.  Through a thousand years of uprisings since the Magna Carta the monarch defers to the people's representatives in Parliament via responsible government.  Open a book before you start ragging on something.  Nobody is taking orders from the monarch, quite the opposite.  They're the head of state and representative of the Crown.

Edited November 30, 2025 by Moonlight Graham

[John Stone]

On 11/30/2025 at 5:35 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

So then you're a liar and a snake in the grass.  And you don't think that is undemocratic and immoral?  Another fake Canadian by convenience.  Maybe I'll call IRCC.

The oath is a verbal legal contract.  Best not agree to contracts you don't understand.

Lol. Clearly you don't know a thing about our political institutions.  Through a thousand years of uprisings since the Magna Carta the monarch defers to the people's representatives in Parliament via responsible government.  Open a book before you start ragging on something.  Nobody is taking orders from the monarch, quite the opposite.  They're the head of state and representative of the Crown.

.............. let's dream in technicolor?

Canada as a Republic? 

Likely, with increased immigration,  it is inevitable .......Canada's allegiance to the 'mother country' will become more tenuous, not to mention the gaffes made by that crew are getting harder to ignore - basically they're becoming more transparent.

I guess we're back to the sacred cow  - Canada's  laughable Constitution ........ for a change at the top now definitely wouldn't be worth the squeeze.  

[PIK]

On 11/15/2025 at 8:06 PM, herbie said:

Me too. Or if they dump the notwithstanding clause, to the Constitution.

The days of For King and Country are long over. Country is all.

And that's why this country is in the gutter.

[WestCanMan]

On 11/27/2025 at 9:58 AM, cougar said:

I am not concerned with his flying as much as I am concerned by his approval of pipelines and dismantling environmental protection, rescinding oil tanker bans and all.  However he is doing it under pressure from conservatives.

And who told you I am a liberal or that Carney is my hero?    Neither of these is true.

🤮

It's kinda weird to see your sense of bliss shattered, it seemed to be impervious to facts, but I can't help but wonder, why do you acknowledge that there are pipelines being built? Why don't you just pretend that there is no such thing as a pipeline? 

You're able to believe so many other things in the face of all facts and logic, why not just do the same thing here, so that you can be happier?

When someone says "Pipelines are being built", just say "NO THEY AREN'T!", like you do every other time someone confronts you with a fact that you dislike. 

[cougar]

On 11/30/2025 at 1:35 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

The oath is a verbal legal contract.  Best not agree to contracts you don't understand.

On the face of it, and based on my interpretation of the word "allegiance" , we are asked to blindly put our faith and serve the monarch, in my case QE2, their heirs and successors.

The monarch is supposed to uphold the values of the institution they represent to the highest standard for which they are paid by the taxpayer.  

At this stage we can conclude that the monarch knowingly and deliberately failed to deliver on the mandate they had.  They allowed , at least one, of their heirs and successors to commit not just unethical and immoral acts, but also criminal acts with impunity.

There is a good argument that in this case the oath to the monarch no longer stands - they failed their part of the contract first!

[John Stone]

Canada's head of state, King Charles and Queen Camilla

 

[John Stone]

2018. 

[suds]

The role of monarchy in most modern western democracies is strictly ceremonial and it being apolitical. If we were to get rid of the monarchy, how would we choose our head of state and have the position remain politically neutral which carries some significance with our parliamentary system of government? 

Edited December 5, 2025 by suds

[Moonlight Graham]

On 11/29/2025 at 7:47 AM, John Stone said:

I'm beginning to believe that the majority of Canadians are ignorant of their history - such as it is.

What is somewhat troubling or should be is that it is not taught or if it is, its vetted to either not offend a diaspora or takes on the approach of vilifying those men  (mostly) who were icons in Canada's development.

With the proportional HUGE immigration into the country don't expect any real allegiance to it - Canadian history will be either disregarded, too Nationalistic, too racist, not woke enough, embarrassing, discriminatory, too NOT Canadian. 

History needs to be taught, understood  - warts and all. 

Absolutely.  I guess Canadian history isn't *inclusive enough*.  An absurd assertion.  We're all Canadians, whatever race or language of the participants of our history is irrelevant to that fact.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/4/2025 at 4:35 PM, cougar said:

On the face of it, and based on my interpretation of the word "allegiance" , we are asked to blindly put our faith and serve the monarch, in my case QE2, their heirs and successors.

The monarch is supposed to uphold the values of the institution they represent to the highest standard for which they are paid by the taxpayer.  

At this stage we can conclude that the monarch knowingly and deliberately failed to deliver on the mandate they had.  They allowed , at least one, of their heirs and successors to commit not just unethical and immoral acts, but also criminal acts with impunity.

There is a good argument that in this case the oath to the monarch no longer stands - they failed their part of the contract first!

This is absurd.  You obviously don't know the slightest thing about how our system of government and its institutions work, nor what the Crown and Monarch represent.  Nor what your oath of allegiance entails.  You're even making things up that don't exist.  Which just goes to prove that the Canadian citizenship test is a joke.  Don't feel too bad, most Canada-born people aren't taught much of this in school either.

"Your interpretation" of the oath is irrelevant.  If you feel the oath no longer stands then go ahead and renounce your citizenship and therefore can't vote in upcoming elections.  We live in a constitutional monarchy.  If you don't agree with our system of governance then GTFO.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Moonlight Graham

[Venandi]

On 12/4/2025 at 5:35 PM, cougar said:

There is a good argument that in this case the oath to the monarch no longer stands - they failed their part of the contract first!

RCMP Officers swear a similar oath (as military members) and also carry it around on the first page of their issued note books as a reminder of the duty, responsibility, and trust inherent in the position they've accepted and agreed to. 

Based on their conduct over the last few years your assertion (above) seems to have already been adopted and I don't think that it has served them well.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Venandi

[cougar]

On 12/5/2025 at 10:09 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

"Your interpretation" of the oath is irrelevant.  If you feel the oath no longer stands then go ahead and renounce your citizenship and therefore can't vote in upcoming elections.  We live in a constitutional monarchy.  If you don't agree with our system of governance then GTFO.

You can be unhappy with what I write all you want. It changes nothing

Of course my interpretation of the oath is very relevant, to me at least but it should be relevant to everyone.

As for renouncing it formally; no need to do that. Not that I care to vote.

You can go and vote for me with all other small guys who still believe this is how thing will improve while being screwed by the party in power harder and harder each time.

[SpankyMcFarland]

We should choose our own head of state and not be mixed up in the politics of another country more than we have to be. It’s an anachronism and I think most people know that, not very important but still rather silly and potentially troublesome as the scandal involving one Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should illustrate. Incredibly, he’s still in the line of succession.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1384314-andrew-still-being-in-line-of-succession-is-embarrassing-at-best

Being a republic doesn’t necessarily mean we’re more like America either - we can elect a ceremonial president (through a vote in parliament or a national vote) and remain distinct from them. The substantial political difference lies in our British parliamentary system which is a better way of governing. We’ll sort this out some time. It’s not urgent. 

Edited December 10, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[John Stone]

On 12/5/2025 at 3:13 PM, suds said:

The role of monarchy in most modern western democracies is strictly ceremonial and it being apolitical. If we were to get rid of the monarchy, how would we choose our head of state and have the position remain politically neutral which carries some significance with our parliamentary system of government? 

Canada would become a Constitutional Republic? 

Relax - the irony is Canada's Constitution is in the way. 

Ponder this - if Canada was truly united, becoming a Republic would be a slam dunk. How ironic that politically the franco faction benefit from Canada having the Monarchy as Head of State - arguably the  Separatists wouldn't want a Republic and remain p/o Canada - it's politically useful to them in their quest to form a State........... that is their GOAL - a STATE  - not unity.  

[TreeBeard]

On 12/5/2025 at 11:13 AM, suds said:

The role of monarchy in most modern western democracies is strictly ceremonial and it being apolitical. If we were to get rid of the monarchy, how would we choose our head of state and have the position remain politically neutral which carries some significance with our parliamentary system of government? 

Why would a head of state need to be neutral?  

[Moonlight Graham]

On 12/10/2025 at 9:02 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

We should choose our own head of state and not be mixed up in the politics of another country more than we have to be.

The King and Queen of Canada are separate legal titles from the UK. They barely even really do anything anyways, we choose the GG to do virtually all the ceremonial aspects of a has of state, plus the paperwork of signing off on every law parliament passes.

The problem is that it means reopening the constitution, and the last couple of times that was done it almost disintegrated the country.

On 12/10/2025 at 9:02 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

It’s an anachronism and I think most people know that, not very important but still rather silly and potentially troublesome as the scandal involving one Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should illustrate. Incredibly, he’s still in the line of succession.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1384314-andrew-still-being-in-line-of-succession-is-embarrassing-at-best

Very safe to say that Andrew would never sit on the throne.

On 12/10/2025 at 9:02 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Being a republic doesn’t necessarily mean we’re more like America either - we can elect a ceremonial president (through a vote in parliament or a national vote) and remain distinct from them. The substantial political difference lies in our British parliamentary system which is a better way of governing. We’ll sort this out some time. It’s not urgent. 

The only really compelling reason to get rid of the monarchy is for more unity with Quebec, where many obviously still feel like a colonized people under the British monarchy.

If it did happen the easiest thing to do would be to just replace the monarchy position with the GG as our head of state and keep it appointed.  Anything more is very complex and a constituency mess.

[suds]

23 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Why would a head of state need to be neutral?  

What would Canada as a republic look like? Just simply say goodbye to Charles and replace him with an elected head of state? What powers would an elected head of state have if any? What about any terminology referring to the  'crown'? Would it no longer exist? Would there be any changes for the Governor General and all the provincial Lieutenant Governors who as of now still represent the crown?  Or would they retain the same duties and be representatives of the newly elected head of state?

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, suds said:

What would Canada as a republic look like?

Like many countries do.  Germany…. Finland…. You name one. 
 

1 hour ago, suds said:

Just simply say goodbye to Charles and replace him with an elected head of state?

No.  We tell him to p!ss off, not just goodbye.

 

1 hour ago, suds said:

What powers would an elected head of state have if any?

  Whatever powers we want to give them. 

 

1 hour ago, suds said:

What about any terminology referring to the  'crown'?

We use the delete button. 
 

1 hour ago, suds said:

Would there be any changes for the Governor General and all the provincial Lieutenant Governors who as of now still represent the crown?  Or would they retain the same duties and be representatives of the newly elected head of state?

Get rid of them.  We won’t need them if there’s no crown.  Plus, they’re ceremonial in function anyway.  They’re a waste of money. 

[suds]

21 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Get rid of them.  We won’t need them if there’s no crown.  Plus, they’re ceremonial in function anyway.  They’re a waste of money. 

 

Reserve Powers: The Prerogative Right of Viceregals to make Independent Political Decisions

As the name suggests, the reserve powers of the Crown are prerogatives held in reserve, to be used only in times of constitutional uncertainty or crisis when the monarch or her or his viceregal representatives may be required to make governmental and constitutional decisions of the highest order contrary to the advice of a first minister.

In a parliamentary system, these extraordinary circumstances have tended to arise during times of minority governments, when no one political party has won a majority of parliamentary seats in the most recent election. While most minority governments in Canadian history have functioned relatively well, problems can and have arisen in rare instances, resulting in constitutional impasses. In circumstances such as these, the viceregal possesses the individual constitutional prerogative to exercise one of more of the reserve powers independently from the advice of the first minister. In so acting, a viceregal will be exercising these powers so as to uphold the principles and practices of responsible government.

 

https://iscc-iecc.ca/backgrounder/reserve-powers-of-the-crown/

https://firstfreedoms.ca/a-broken-system-the-mackinnon-decision-and-the-urgent-need-for-parliamentary-reform/

Edited December 17, 2025 by suds

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, suds said:

the reserve powers

On paper, they’re very powerful.  Still useless.  
 

Plus, should we put this kind of power in an undemocratic institution?