Why Canada must take on Britain over the 1701 Act of Settlement

[maldon_road]

Why Canada must take on Britain over the 1701 Act of Settlement

For a Canadian monarchist, the joyous news this summer came by way of an announcement that Peter Phillips, the only son of Princess Anne, was engaged to Autumn Kelly of Montreal. The not-so-happy news came a few days later in The Daily Telegraph, which reported that Mr. Phillips will have to renounce his claim to the throne if he proceeds with the marriage.

Ms. Kelly, it turns out, is a Roman Catholic -- as are the plurality of Canadians. That marriage to any Canadian would disqualify the Queen's grandson from becoming Canada's head of state is absurd. Though renunciation in these circumstances is not without precedent in Britain, the prospect of Mr. Phillips being subjected to religious bigotry is so repugnant to Canadian values that Prime Minister Stephen Harper cannot allow it to stand....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

[geoffrey]

Why do we care about royalty? What a waste of time and money!

[Leafless]

How quickly we forget our heritage and the great country Britain gave to us.

Even Geoffrey who day after day, one way or the other, expresses great pride in his province Alberta forgets an important point.

Alberta was named directly after Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, fourth daughter of Queen Victoria.

So Geoffrey, I trust you will be first in line campaigning for an Alberta name change for one that does not reflect the monarchy.

[Rue]

Why Canada must take on Britain over the 1701 Act of Settlement

For a Canadian monarchist, the joyous news this summer came by way of an announcement that Peter Phillips, the only son of Princess Anne, was engaged to Autumn Kelly of Montreal. The not-so-happy news came a few days later in The Daily Telegraph, which reported that Mr. Phillips will have to renounce his claim to the throne if he proceeds with the marriage.

Ms. Kelly, it turns out, is a Roman Catholic -- as are the plurality of Canadians. That marriage to any Canadian would disqualify the Queen's grandson from becoming Canada's head of state is absurd. Though renunciation in these circumstances is not without precedent in Britain, the prospect of Mr. Phillips being subjected to religious bigotry is so repugnant to Canadian values that Prime Minister Stephen Harper cannot allow it to stand....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

Will this happen before of after the Catholic School Boards in Ontario are disbanded by you. Since you find religious bigotry repugnant, I am sure you agree all provinces should pass laws not allowing any one religion public school funding.

Oh wait. They are Catholics. Never mind.

as for the Grandson having to give up his right to the throne get a life. What are you planning to do, kill Chuck and his two sons and the other products of in-breeding before him?

Tell you what if they all die first, and he needs to be King, I am sure we can send Steve over to straighten things out. I mean he has a lot of clout.

[Higgly]

How quickly we forget our heritage and the great country Britain gave to us.

LOL. Good one.

[geoffrey]

How quickly we forget our heritage and the great country Britain gave to us.

What does it matter? Heritage? I'll go to a museum, thanks. Not in my day to day life. I thought Canada was supposed to be a progessive nation.

Even Geoffrey who day after day, one way or the other, expresses great pride in his province Alberta forgets an important point.

I have no pride in Alberta, I just state it's a great place to live. The actually insititute called Alberta is no greater or lesser than others... it just happens to have good living conditions, which has nothing to do with monarchy or the following:

Alberta was named directly after Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, fourth daughter of Queen Victoria.

So Geoffrey, I trust you will be first in line campaigning for an Alberta name change for one that does not reflect the monarchy.

Seems expensive. I don't think there is any need really. The rest though? Ugh. Why bother? Why do we need a hereditary ruler and all that nonsense? Royalty is the biggest joke we've got going over here.

[Leafless]

Royalty is the biggest joke we've got going over here.

I think the same way about 'Official Multiculturalism' and 'Official Languages of Canada'.

[Topaz]

One only has to look at his grAunt Margaret and how her life ended up by being told she couldn't marry the "love of her life" She would have been alot happier and probably alot healthier if she could have. Her own uncle I think was alot happier for doing what he decide to do. Besides, what chances would he have of becoming King. I think the royal family will come to an end in the future.

[Leafless]

I think the royal family will come to an end in the future.

Not a chance unless they become a republic.

The British Queen Mother has been attracting the crowds to her 100th birthday celebrations.

She has not given an interview in more than 70 years. She hardly ever leaves Britain. And yet, she has an enviable number of fans in every corner of the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/843408.stm

[geoffrey]

I think the same way about 'Official Multiculturalism' and 'Official Languages of Canada'.

Me too. No argument there.

[Melanie_]

Isn't the Queen Mother dead? Anyway...

To truly seperate church and state, Canada's head of state can't have a religious prerequisite. I think this is a perfect oppportunity to really examine why we still hold on to the monarchy in this country, and perhaps finally get rid of it.

[M.Dancer]

Isn't the Queen Mother dead? Anyway...

To truly seperate church and state, Canada's head of state can't have a religious prerequisite. I think this is a perfect oppportunity to really examine why we still hold on to the monarchy in this country, and perhaps finally get rid of it.

There is no official separation of church and state in Canada. The antidisestablishmentarians won the debate.

[Leafless]

Isn't the Queen Mother dead? Anyway...

To truly seperate church and state, Canada's head of state can't have a religious prerequisite. I think this is a perfect oppportunity to really examine why we still hold on to the monarchy in this country, and perhaps finally get rid of it.

Queen Elizabeth ll is her successor and this current queen enjoys support from around the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/04/21...sary/index.html

If you don't know why the Fed's are hanging on to the monarchy with Canada being both a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, then you are politically ignorant.

I would reluctantly like to see Canada a republic also, but obviously not for the same reason as you.

[Melanie_]

Hahahahaha - I love the politically ignorant comment, particularly because it follows this statement:

Queen Elizabeth ll is her successor and this current queen enjoys support from around the world.

Queen Elizabeth II is the successor of her father, King George VI. The Queen Mother was his consort, but never the monarch in her own right. Did you read your own link?

Queen Elizabeth was born in London April 21, 1926, and was crowned queen June 2, 1953, after the death of her father, King George VI..

She was proclaimed queen in February 1952 at age 25 after the death of her father, King George VI, and was crowned the following year.

I believe in freedom of (and from) religion, so in my view the head of state of Canada should be able to hold any personal religion they choose without having to give up their claim to the throne. Alternatively, lets get rid of the monarchy altogether in Canada.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Melanie_

[Leafless]

Hahahahaha - I love the politically ignorant comment, particularly because it follows this statement:

Queen Elizabeth II is the successor of her father, King George VI. The Queen Mother was his consort, but never the monarch in her own right. Did you read your own link?

What I was talking about was that Queen Elizabeth ll is the successor of the Queen Mother's POPULARITY relating to the popularity of the monarchy in general, around the world.

[Melanie_]

Sure you were.

Any comment on seperating church and state, or does popularity trump that value?

Edited September 8, 2007 by Melanie_

[Leafless]

Sure you were.

Post #9 will clearly verify I was offering support relating to the popularity of the Queen Mother and further offering the same support relating to the popularity of the monarchy and Queen Elizabeth, in which I said, "Queen Elizabeth ll is her successor and this current queen enjoys support from around the world."

To avoid confusion I should have said, to-day, Queen Elizabeth ll is just as successful as the Queen Mother in retaining world wide support for the monarchy.

Any comment on seperating church and state, or does popularity trump that value?

IMO the Royal Family is separate from church and state as the Queen simply follows the advice of her British ministers, "Thus, on all matters of State concerning the United Kingdom, the monarch is advised solely by British ministers" and "According to convention her powers are exercised upon the advice of her prime minister."

So basically what you don't like is the way the traditional pecking order is formed relating to 'who gets what' in the Royal Family.

I fail to see how this aspect of the Royal Family interferes with the operation of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy

Edited September 8, 2007 by Leafless

[Melanie_]

Clearly, you weren’t clear at all, but that is nothing new.

On another note, the Queen of Canada doesn’t follow the advice of her British ministers with regards to Canada. And this is the salient point. Restricting the head of state of Canada on the basis of religion is counter to the values we hold as a nation. The pecking order is irrelevant – if William tomorrow were to want to marry a Catholic, or a Muslim, or an athiest for that matter, and were restricted from doing so because it would interfere with the succession, that is a violation of his (and his potential spouse's) freedom of religion, and that is something most Canadians would be vehemently opposed to. Is this the standard we want our head of state held to?

As an independent nation, if we aren’t prepared to say that we reject the monarchy outright, we should be prepared to say that we don’t require Peter Phillips to renounce his claim to the throne of Canada. If he should eventually make his way to the top of the succession line, Canada will embrace him as our head of state, even if Britain will not. Let them sort out the details of their religious intolerance.

{edited for spelling - a glass of wine will do that to me!)

Edited September 9, 2007 by Melanie_

[jennie]

Clearly, you weren’t clear at all, but that is nothing new.

On another note, the Queen of Canada doesn’t follow the advice of her British ministers with regards to Canada. And this is the salient point. Restricting the head of state of Canada on the basis of religion is counter to the values we hold as a nation. The pecking order is irrelevant – if William tomorrow were to want to marry a Catholic, or a Muslim, or an athieist for that matter, and were restricted from doing so because it would interfere with the succession, that is a violation of his (and his potential spouse's) freedom of religion, and that is something most Canadians would be vehemently opposed to. Is this the standard we want our head of state held to?

As an independent nation, if we aren’t prepared to say that we reject the monarchy outright, we should be prepared to say that we don’t require Peter Phillips to renounce his claim to the throne of Canada. If he should eventually make his way to the top of the succession line, Canada will embrace him as our head of state, even if Britain will not. Let them sort out the details of their religious intolerance.

{edited for spelling - a glass of wine will do that to me!)

BRILLIANT!!!

Sign me up for that campaign!!!

Let's put out a media release !

Fabulous ... absolutely right.

We do have a reason, a right and even a responsibility to speak up on this.

King of Canada, eh?

COOL!!

[Leafless]

On another note, the Queen of Canada doesn’t follow the advice of her British ministers with regards to Canada.

No kidding.

And this is the salient point. Restricting the head of state of Canada on the basis of religion is counter to the values we hold as a nation.

You just finished stating Canada has nothing to do with British rule, so why are you so adamant with the business of another nation that has (politically) nothing to do with Canada?

The pecking order is irrelevant – if William tomorrow were to want to marry a Catholic, or a Muslim, or an athiest for that matter, and were restricted from doing so because it would interfere with the succession, that is a violation of his (and his potential spouse's) freedom of religion, and that is something most Canadians would be vehemently opposed to. Is this the standard we want our head of state held to?

Again what do you care as Canadians are not British citizens and the only reason the Fed's retain the monarchy is for the absolute power to rule like a king.

As an independent nation, if we aren’t prepared to say that we reject the monarchy outright, we should be prepared to say that we don’t require Peter Phillips to renounce his claim to the throne of Canada. If he should eventually make his way to the top of the succession line, Canada will embrace him as our head of state, even if Britain will not. Let them sort out the details of their religious intolerance.

You have it backwards, Britain politically doesn't give a damn about Canada and you have nothing to do with Britain's political system or Royal Family.

Talk about being stuffed!

[Melanie_]

Leafless, I don't think you really understand. This has nothing to do with Britain. The Queen, and her successors, are the head of state of Canada (represented by the Governor General and the various Lieutenant Generals), which means Britain's Royal Family is also Canada's Royal Family. We need Royal Assent to every bill passed by our House of Commons. Peter Phillips is 10th in line to the throne of Canada - England notwithstanding. If we truly support freedom of religion in this country we will support Peter Phillips marriage to a Roman Catholic (or any other denomination or religion) without penalizing him by denying him his standing in succession to the throne. OR (my preference), we will say that the monarchy is outdated and not relevent to Canada, and ditch the entire institution.

[Leafless]

Leafless, I don't think you really understand. This has nothing to do with Britain. The Queen, and her successors, are the head of state of Canada (represented by the Governor General and the various Lieutenant Generals), which means Britain's Royal Family is also Canada's Royal Family. We need Royal Assent to every bill passed by our House of Commons.

The British monarchy is only a symbolic figurehead in Canada and Royal Assent to bills that have already been passed by an elected majority are rubber stamped by our governor general which is only a ceremonial event.

The Royal Family in Canada are traditional figureheads from a time when Canada was a British colony and NOTHING more.

Canadians have nothing to do directly with the Royal Family as we are not British citizens.

So Melaine, the only option you now have left is (your preference) to ditch the monarchy which will never or most likely never become a reality because of the power of a king associated with the position of a Canadian PM which obviously they don't want to lose.

[Melanie_]

The PM's power is not associated with the monarchy - the GG is the representative of the Queen in Canada. My point is that, as Canadians, we should support the freedom of religion of our head of state. I don't really care if it is a ceremonial position or a true position of power - the position itself is still the highest position in Canada, and sets a standard for the rest of us. Either extend all the rights the rest of Canadians enjoy, including freedom of religion, or get rid of it entirely. Or are you saying that figureheads don't have the same rights as the rest of us?

But I do agree with you, the role of the monarchy is really nothing more than ceremonial, and serves no true purpose other than wasting huge sums of money.

[Leafless]

The PM's power is not associated with the monarchy

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy which is a system of government responsible for our Parliamentary Democracy with the elective body being the House of commons. This gives the PM unlimited powers especially with MP's who vote party line.

the GG is the representative of the Queen in Canada. My point is that, as Canadians, we should support the freedom of religion of our head of state. I don't really care if it is a ceremonial position or a true position of power - the position itself is still the highest position in Canada,

The GG in Canada is really only a figurehead, like the Queen.

Either extend all the rights the rest of Canadians enjoy, including freedom of religion, or get rid of it entirely. Or are you saying that figureheads don't have the same rights as the rest of us?

What you are saying is next to impossible to achieve, as Canada cannot simply demand the monarchy to follow the example of a single country within the commonwealth like Canada.

But I do agree with you, the role of the monarchy is really nothing more than ceremonial, and serves no true purpose other than wasting huge sums of money.

Canada has primary obligations to the monarchy but does not "waste huge sums of money".

Canada only pays for official visits or trips to Canada by members of the Royal Family.

BTW- Canada is represented overseas by the monarchy at special ceremonial events involving Canada.

[Melanie_]

The expenses of the Governor General and Liuetenants General are covered by Canada, and abolishing the monarchy in Canada would end those offices, saving Canadians the huge sums of money I am talking about.

What you are saying is next to impossible to achieve, as Canada cannot simply demand the monarchy to follow the example of a single country within the commonwealth like Canada.

A good enough reason to get rid of it.