# Retain the Monarchy in Canada?



## Pieman (23 Sep 2004)

Well, I was out for a few beers with a few egg heads the other night and the discussion got pretty heated and interesting. This is just for fun, but I think it would be interesting to see what other people here think.

The suggestion from a friend of mine who is a Political science prof, is the following: (I think he was semi-serious too   :-\)

1) Canada gets rid of the current Governor general by inviting Prince William over to take her place. IMHO no one relates to her at all anyway.
2) We set William up with the most beautiful french Canadian girl we can find and watch sparks fly. 
3) We move them into some historical castle and let them reside there.

The idea is that because Prince William is Diana's boy, the population will eat the idea up and just love having him here and will have little problem seeing him as King of Canada.

The girl we set him up with would be a French Canadian version of Dianna, where she would be so charming and beautiful that the population of Quebec would eat it up. 

The rest would naturally take care of itself, the position of Governor General would be changed to a permanent position, and change it so that only people following Prince Williams blood line can take the position. 

IMHO, this idea is so friggen crazy it could actually work. Personally, I love the idea of having a monarchy in Canada. There is something truly appealing of having an actual person as the head role in Canada as a symbol of the country. It is something more tangable and allows a greater bonding strength than the Canadian flag or the idea of multiculturalism..whatever a Canadian is supposed to be identifying with at the time. Democracy is great, but it is kind of like a headless horseman in many respects. Because we would be Getting Prince William, who is a realy Prince with strong ties to the Queen people will accept him.

I am probably not wording this situation as well as my freind was, but you get the idea. Is it realistic? probably not, but it is in theory possible. Anyway, there were opinions from all sides on this topic, wanted to see what people here think.


----------



## ackland (23 Sep 2004)

I think it is a great idea! I don't think all the anty monarchist would go for it. What about the PM would the ego of that office allow some one to become popular witht he people since the individules filing that spot are rarely popular. Would we allow him to use tax dollars to fund is position or require him to use his own fortune? 

Do the majority of people in Cananda still want to relate to the queen? ( i do) we started out as a british colony but how much of the population is still from this back ground? 

We then could stay as part of the common wealth and perhaps the British would take more intrest in us again.


----------



## combat_medic (23 Sep 2004)

And have you bothered to consider the exorbitant costs associated with this? It's bad enough for the Canadian population to fork over millions of dollars every so the Governor General gets her own private aircraft and million dollar dinner parties. Building some castle and paying for the upkeep, maintenance and all associated costs of living, entertaining and PR from this little venture would be so huge as to make the entire idea even more costly than the current arrangement.


----------



## beach_bum (23 Sep 2004)

I would much rather my tax dollars go to support something like that, than towards some reporter and her philosopher husband!!!!!!!   :rage:


----------



## Pieman (23 Sep 2004)

We just use the Current Governor generals budjet, and not build a new castle/palace but upgrade something that already exits.  There are options. The cost of doing this would be more than the Governor General no doubt, but it does not have to be that much more. I think it would be worth it to have a real King...I am willing to bet it would make up for it by the money brought in by tourism, British citizens would stop by to visit, and the Americans would be curious about it.


----------



## Torlyn (23 Sep 2004)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> And have you bothered to consider the exorbitant costs associated with this? It's bad enough for the Canadian population to fork over millions of dollars every so the Governor General gets her own private aircraft and million dollar dinner parties. Building some castle and paying for the upkeep, maintenance and all associated costs of living, entertaining and PR from this little venture would be so huge as to make the entire idea even more costly than the current arrangement.



Keep in mind that given what Prince (sic King) William will be recieving from his own personal estates in England, he'll be able to afford his own way.  Transfer the budget we spend on the useless G.G. we have now, and I'm sure it won't cost too much more.    That, and think of the American tourism!  I mean, they love royalty almost more than the brits, and they'd be willing to spend the money to come up here.  As well, I'm sure King William would be better suited as an ambassador to the states...  Might smooth over some of the more anti-Canadian sentiments floating around the Washington area...

T


----------



## loyalcana (24 Sep 2004)

Only the reigning monarch(from the Duchy of Lancaster) and the eldest son of the monarch(the Duchy of Cornwall) actually hold any type of estate. Everyone else recieves their income from the Queen or from the government if their working on state duty, and of course from private sources of income. We'll have to be prepared to convert some prime Crown Lands, so say hello to the Duchy of Pettawawa!

But seriously Prince William is currently second in succession to the thrones of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, and nine other nations, really what points does he have in comming here. If really wan't our own King we have look much further down on the succession list. So we will be looking at the likes of Lord Fredrick Windsor(#29) or Prince Peter of Yugoslavia(#89). It's really the Status Quo or a Republic for me but thats just my opinion.


----------



## Pieman (24 Sep 2004)

Good point Will, I think you are right that Prince William may have too much going for him where he is. At our drinking session, someone else brought up the possibility that Prince Charles would step aside and let his son take the throne for the purpose of strengthening the monarchy. Or Prince William may be willing to wait out his father and just that the position when his time comes.

So maybe Prince Harry is the more logical choice where he is not really in a position where is is going to inherit anything. I kind of like that idea better now that I think of it, Prince Harry says he is going to serve in the Army when he finishes his University.

The core of this argument is that the vast majority of people will be willing to accept either of Dianna's sons as a monarch, simply because they are held in such high regard already, and we have seen these people grow up. 

The other people you mention may go over well with people who are already pro-monarchy, but to the people who are not normally for a monarchy would never be swayed by the prospect of bringing in some other royal line that no one here has ever seen. That is my take on it anyway.

So....anyone got Prince Harry's email address? Let's write and see what he thinks.   LOL   :warstory:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Sep 2004)

Pieman said:
			
		

> 1) Canada gets rid of the current Governor general by inviting Prince William over to take her place. IMHO no one relates to her at all anyway.



This Governor General is the first one in a long time to take a deep interest in the Forces, and she has sacrificed her holidays on at least one occasion to spent time with the troops.  Not to mention her eloquent speeches at such occasions as the Unknown Soldier's memorial unveiling.

So who is it that doesn't relate to her?

And just how would "we" relate to Prince William - a foreign national who is also royalty?  We have had a long line of Canadian Governors-General, this would be a major step backward.   We would "relate" even less to British royalty, but then again, who says we have to "relate" to the GG anyway?  They're SUPPOSED to travel in different circles than the average Canadian, duh.



> 2) We set William up with the most beautiful french Canadian girl we can find and watch sparks fly.



Who is "we"?  If the Parliament can't think up something better to do with it's time...



> 3) We move them into some historical castle and let them reside there.


Disneyland, perhaps?

The current Governor General has done very good things for the CF - the commendation, for one, but also just raising the profile of the Forces at critical times also.  Say what you will about her spending, she's cultured, refined and caring and has been much more of an ambassador than Jean Chretien was.



> The rest would naturally take care of itself, the position of Governor General would be changed to a permanent position, and change it so that only people following Prince Williams blood line can take the position.



To what end?



> IMHO, this idea is so friggen crazy it could actually work. Personally, I love the idea of having a monarchy in Canada. There is something truly appealing of having an actual person as the head role in Canada as a symbol of the country. It is something more tangable and allows a greater bonding strength than the Canadian flag or the idea of multiculturalism..whatever a Canadian is supposed to be identifying with at the time. Democracy is great, but it is kind of like a headless horseman in many respects. Because we would be Getting Prince William, who is a realy Prince with strong ties to the Queen people will accept him.



You really think that a foreign royalty figure with no life experience or political ambition is going to be a central figure in Canadian life just because someone parachutes him in and says it must be so?



> I am probably not wording this situation as well as my freind was, but you get the idea. Is it realistic? probably not, but it is in theory possible. Anyway, there were opinions from all sides on this topic, wanted to see what people here think.



It is not "in theory possible" - there is no mechanism in place for this to happen, certainly not the last two suggestions which are more out of a preschoolers fantasy than what I would expect a political science major to suggest (maybe my comments in the Up From The Ranks thread about Universities are more correct than I know), and the first suggestion - that we not have a Canadian Governor General, or not have one with life experience, is simply fatuous.


----------



## Pieman (24 Sep 2004)

> So who is it that doesn't relate to her?


I don't. This is the most well known  G.G. we have had to date (from what I heard. I never paid any attention to any other G.G.) and that is only because the media has attacked her position as being a waste of money. I agree with this as I don't think she is a necessary figure head for Canada, I feel that she does not have a leadership quality. But this is my opinion, I am sure others feel different.



> Who is "we"?  If the Parliament can't think up something better to do with it's time...


Whomever takes the initiative to have him installed, obviously.



> The current Governor General has done very good things for the CF - the commendation, for one, but also just raising the profile of the Forces at critical times also.  Say what you will about her spending, she's cultured, refined and caring and has been much more of an ambassador than Jean Chretien was.


That's your opinion. You may like her because she has spoken up about the forces etc, but that is not enough for me. That's my opinion.



> To what end?


That would mean that the position would work like a any other Royal seat where the children take over the position after the death of the current holder. 



> You really think that a foreign royalty figure with no life experience or political ambition is going to be a central figure in Canadian life just because someone parachutes him in and says it must be so?


Ultimately that would be up to Prince William/Harry, not like anyone would force them.



> It is not "in theory possible" - there is no mechanism in place for this to happen


Mechanisms can be changed.



> certainly not the last two suggestions which are more out of a preschoolers fantasy than what I would expect a political science major to suggest (maybe my comments in the Up From The Ranks thread about Universities are more correct than I know), and the first suggestion - that we not have a Canadian Governor General, or not have one with life experience, is simply fatuous.



Yes I have been reading your comments about University education, quite amusing. I will refrain from commenting here, University extends well beyond the undergraduate level and things become more intricate as you climb up the ladder. My friend is a doctorate in Political Science and knows his field very well and is highly regarded for his ideas on strategic political policies. 

What you are failing to see is that there is something used in any scientific field called 'imagination'. This is a very far fetched and semi- unrealistic suggestion, but in playing with the idea, one learns more about the value/uselessness of a monarchy positions. It brings into question the  value/role of the governor general, and leads to a greater understanding of what we personally values as symbols/representations of Canada. That is the essence of what this topic is about really. Do I or anyone else here really believe that this would ever happen? Probably not,  but the idea is contraversal and exciting which leads to discussion, which leads to a deeper understanding of parallel but equally important ideas. See? I thought it would be fun to mull over the idea here, but I guess it require a certain amount of vision to be able to participate.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Sep 2004)

Pieman said:
			
		

> I don't. This is the most well known   G.G. we have had to date (from what I heard. I never paid any attention to any other G.G.) and that is only because the media has attacked her position as being a waste of money. I agree with this as I don't think she is a necessary figure head for Canada, I feel that she does not have a leadership quality. But this is my opinion, I am sure others feel different.



You're not supposed to, though.   You are simply parroting what has been in the press - perhaps you can give us your own analysis of her spending habits and explain why this is detrimental.   Government does cost money, yes?   

And you never addressed the other point - would you really relate to British royalty more than a Canadian?   Talk about delusions of grandeur.

And finally, you never addressed the question - why is it necessary for Canadians to "identify" with their Governor General.   How man Canadians would truly identify no matter who it was?   If Don Cherry was G-G, there would be thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians who didn't know who he was, or disliked him personally.




> That's your opinion. You may like her because she has spoken up about the forces etc, but that is not enough for me. That's my opinion.



You have no reason to dislike her beyond a couple of articles you've read in the newspaper intimating that she spends too much.   Tell me whom she visited on her northern tour without using google.




> That would mean that the position would work like a any other Royal seat where the children take over the position after the death of the current holder.



You didn't answer the question, you ducked it.   The question is "to what end."     Why would this be an advantage over an appointed Governor General?



> Mechanisms can be changed.



You've yet to identify a single reason why we should, beyond your visceral reaction to a couple of newspaper articles.



> Yes I have been reading your comments about University education, quite amusing. I will refrain from commenting here, University extends well beyond the undergraduate level and things become more intricate as you climb up the ladder.



How would you know?

Moreover, how many people stop after their first BA?  Many, many more than go on to do MA or PhD study.  The conversation in that thread is about the value of a BA, so anything beyond that is a bit irrelevant to the point at hand.  If University only gets more "intricate as you climb up the ladder" then you prove my point that it is useless at the level the majority of students study at.



> My friend is a doctorate in Political Science and knows his field very well and is highly regarded for his ideas on strategic political policies.



How is this relevant?   Was it the university system that got him where he is, or his own hard work?   REally, since my point was that it is extremely easy to succeed in academia, what does that say about your friend?



> What you are failing to see is that there is something used in any scientific field called 'imagination'.



Some people call imagination not rooted in reality "fantasy" or "pie in the sky."     Your idea has absolutely no merit whatsoever, simply because you have yet to identify a single practical advantage to this proposal.



> I thought it would be fun to mull over the idea here, but I guess it require a certain amount of vision to be able to participate.



Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change.   You've identified neither

a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
c) a single reason to even consider these changes in the first place, beyond a visceral reaction to the current GG

If you want to couch your proposal in some form of coherent presentation, perhaps there would be something to discuss.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Sep 2004)

_The suggestion from a friend of mine who is a Political science prof_, is the following: (I think he was semi-serious too  )

1) Canada gets rid of the current Governor general by inviting Prince William over to take her place. IMHO no one relates to her at all anyway.
2) We set William up with the most beautiful french Canadian girl we can find and watch sparks fly.
3) We move them into some historical castle and let them reside there.


A political science prof and this is what he thinks about? And on his spare time he writes for Seventeen magazine?
Puet etre cette prof devrais penser de les repercussions de metre quelqun de l'Angleterre dans la position de GG?
No wait...that would require imagination on his part...maybe next idea! :


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A political science prof and this is what he thinks about? And on his spare time he writes for Seventeen magazine?
> Puet etre cette prof devrais penser de les repercussions de metre quelqun de l'Angleterre dans la position de GG?
> No wait...that would require imagination on his part...maybe next idea! :



Hmm...  Political Science prof that has worked for the Fraser Institute...  Do you really have to start attacking an idea thrown out for fun?  Grain of salt, my good man.  Imagination?  I believe you are showing a lack of it right now.  Your qualifications haven't been attacked, so why attack his?

T


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Sep 2004)

HMMMM..maybe this is why he USED to work for the Fraser institute.

..and next time I throw out a really stupid idea, feel free to ridicule it.

..and lastly, the qualifications were thrown out there with the idea, therefore they are part and parcel...imagine!


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> HMMMM..maybe this is why he USED to work for the Fraser institute.
> 
> ..and next time I throw out a really stupid idea, feel free to ridicule it.
> 
> ..and lastly, the qualifications were thrown out there with the idea, therefore they are part and parcel...imagine!



And he's not there anymore because he's teaching again...  Sigh.

If you've got nothing to add to the thread, then why don't you just leave it?  You don't like the idea, by all means, pike off.  Instead of being childish about it, trying to demean another person who isn't here to defend themselves, try and show a bit of maturity, and ignore the thread.

T


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Sep 2004)

Quote from Pieman,
Anyway, there were opinions from all sides on this topic, wanted to see what people here think.

Hey Torlyn, at least your AA buddy wanted different opinions,..I guess you do also as long as they are the same as yours, ...did you mention maturity......?


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Different opinions are one thing.  You didn't offer any, rather chose to ridicule the topic.  Do you READ what you write?  Try PMing if you have any further concerns.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Sep 2004)

Torlyn, you should have PMed about three posts ago yourself.  Pot, meet the kettle.

Oh, and Torlyn, if you are so sure Bruce is wrong about this being a dumb idea, perhaps you need to explain why it is the opposite - all you've done is complain that Bruce is being unfair to the professor.

I will give the professor credit though - I am sure Pieman has misrepresented his idea in some basically drastic ways - he as much as admits doing so in the initial post.

So, does anyone want to leap back on topic and say for the first time why we should attempt such a plan?


----------



## Pieman (24 Sep 2004)

> You're not supposed to, though.   You are simply parroting what has been in the press - perhaps you can give us your own analysis of her spending habits and explain why this is detrimental.   Government does cost money, yes?


If you read my statement again, you should see that I was saying she appears to be popular because of the media attacks on her spending. The cost of supporting her position is not the issue, the value of her position is what I am questioning. It is of my opinion that I do not relate to her or see her position as something I consider to be of value. I do not see her as a good symbol of Canada. If I cannot relate to her, and I do not see her position as a good symbol of Canada then why would I want that position there at all?



> And you never addressed the other point - would you really relate to British royalty more than a Canadian?   Talk about delusions of grandeur.


I relate to the Queen better than I relate to the current G.G. Simply out of historical value. I feel that Canadians have very little to identify themselves with. Having a representative that extends from the bloodline of the kingdom that had such a major role in the establishment of Canada is a very powerful symbol, at least to me. I suspect that many people here would disagree.



> And finally, you never addressed the question - why is it necessary for Canadians to "identify" with their Governor General.   How man Canadians would truly identify no matter who it was?   If Don Cherry was G-G, there would be thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians who didn't know who he was, or disliked him personally.


The governor general should be the main head figurehead of Canada and a symbol of it's people. If this person is supposed to represent Canada, and the people cannot relate to her, then what is the point of having that symbol?




> You have no reason to dislike her beyond a couple of articles you've read in the newspaper intimating that she spends too much.   Tell me whom she visited on her northern tour without using google.


I have no reason to like her. She went to Russia, Finland, and Iceland from what I recall. That was splattered all over the news.   Is her northern tour relevant to Canadians? Is it a requirement that I know the ins and outs of her position? or is the fact that her positions does nothing to speak to me about being a Canadian the point at hand? I think the latter question is the one that should be examined.




> You've yet to identify a single reason why we should, beyond your visceral reaction to a couple of newspaper articles.


Because I think that people in Canada do not identify with the G.G. position as it is. I think having a more powerful symbol in it's place would allow for a greater sense of what a Canadian is. Again, this is just me.



> How would you know?


Simple, my education extends beyond the undergraduate level. However, I don't have a degree in political science or any field related to it, so I am arguing these points as a layman. Do you have training in this field? If so, please explain why the idea appears to be impossible, and why it is impossible to alter the system to make it happen. I can see it being a big legal headache, but if there is a will there is a way.



> How is this relevant?   Was it the university system that got him where he is, or his own hard work?   Really, since my point was that it is extremely easy to succeed in academia, what does that say about your friend?


You attacked his credentials for bringing up this the original question, so that was my response. I don't know what University system you have experienced, but not one of the Universities I attended would someone make it through the Doctorate level without knowing what they were doing. (Well, I am sure it happens to some level, as no system is perfect.) I guess some Universities really are that different, or more likely you have some serious misconceptions. I don't know anyone coming out of a Masters/Doctorate level without working their tail off.



> Some people call imagination not rooted in reality "fantasy" or "pie in the sky."    Your idea has absolutely no merit whatsoever, simply because you have yet to identify a single practical advantage to this proposal.


It has merit as the practical advantage, for me anyway, is having a figurehead that is someone I can identify with, that is a Symbol of Canada. I simply like the idea. Like I said, it is unrealistic, and requires one to have an imagination. In your arguments you have revealed that you agree/like the G.G. Do you identify with her? Do you feel she is a necessary and important part of the Canadian system? Why? Would you rather not have someone in her place that is a stronger and more representative of what a Canadian is, if the opportunity presented itself?



> Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change.


I found it to be an interesting and entertaining idea. Sorry you can't see it that way. The original idea was to have a french Canadian in the mix so that the French population, who from what I know, are not particularly fond of the idea of a Monarchy would be more apt to accept the situation. It was said more for the entertainment value, but it does point out the problem that the French population may not agree, so it was a 'quick fix' solution to allow the discussion to continue.



> You've identified neither
> 
> a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
> b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
> ...


I cannot get into actual mechanisms, simply because the details of our legal system is not something I know about. Things in any Democratic system are supposed to be able to change given enough effort from my understanding. The practical benefit I think I explained in my posts. The single reason to go beyond the GG is like I said, it could be changed into a position that takes on more meaning to Canadians.


Again, I will reiterate that this was supposed to be a fun topic, so it requires a certain amount of open mindedness and imagination. If you take it too serious and literally, you are totally missing the point.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Torlyn, you should have PMed about three posts ago yourself.  Pot, meet the kettle.
> 
> Oh, and Torlyn, if you are so sure Bruce is wrong about this being a dumb idea, perhaps you need to explain why it is the opposite - all you've done is complain that Bruce is being unfair to the professor.
> 
> ...



Point taken.  I recind my comments.

T


----------



## Pieman (24 Sep 2004)

> will give the professor credit though - I am sure Pieman has misrepresented his idea in some basically drastic ways - he as much as admits doing so in the initial post.


In the discussion, the details of how this would happen and the legalities never came up. He would have an understanding of that, but did not express them. The basis of the entire discussion was the impact of having a monarchy and the value it would have to us. So that is why the details 'how' are not there. It is not really the point of the discussion. So I don't think I misrepresented the central idea of this topic. The idea of this topic is that through the examination of it, no matter how unrealistic, other ideas/values are exposed which are related.


----------



## Garbageman (24 Sep 2004)

Mechanically, this idea may be a fair bit more difficult to implement than it first appears.  As it's currently enshrined, the Queen's Representative in Canada (i.e. the GG) is the Head of State.  So a great deal of constitutional change would be required to change this to a new line of Sovereign entirely.  Constitutional change requires consensus from the provinces, and I can't see Quebec ever agreeing.  If the monarchy came up for debate, I'm quite certain that Quebec's stance would be to completely abolish it or nothing (even with Charest in power).

As for the logistical costs, well the GG's already got herself a nice little palace, so just put William's name on the lease instead.  That and a cheap membership for him at Lavalife (en francais) should just about do it.  Think Celine Dion would ever divorce for him?


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
> b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
> c) a single reason to even consider these changes in the first place, beyond a visceral reaction to the current GG
> 
> If you want to couch your proposal in some form of coherent presentation, perhaps there would be something to discuss.



a) Now, as Canada is a constitutional monarchy, technically all we need is the Queen to decide for us..  However, as we're looking for something a bit more practical, we would need to amend the constitution.  Monarchy Accords, anyone?  Given our historical failures at changing our constitution (by failures, I mean we have yet to institute any, whether they be good or bad) I doubt we would be able to change the constition as such.

b) PRACTICALLY speaking, we don't need a G.G...  A constitutional change to abolish the position would be practical.  (ie save money, reduce governmental bureaucracy and eliminate a figure-head position)  I mean, aren't our ambassadors supposed to be the ones representing Canada abroad?  The reigning monarch in England is still capable of stamping her seal of approval on any passed legislation, calling an election, dissolving parliament, etc.  However, I agree with Pieman that I think the Monarchy is one of the things that makes Canada what it is, so I would rather keep it than not.  Having a Canadian King/Queen could maybe allow Canadians in general to be able to better associate or define the "Canadian" character.  When the GG position was first created, it was done so because the reigning Monarch was too busy running the British Empire, and delegated the responsibilities out.  Perhaps now that the Queen isn't so busy, she'd like to (or ask her grandson to) take over that role?  Doubtful, yes, but it's an idea.

c) This one I cannot add anything...  I would like to see the change occur, but only from the standpoint that I personally like the idea.  Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson is a well educated, well spoken individual, with many merits to her name, and I applaud her for what she has achieved.  Due to personal experience however, I cannot support her position as GG.  Just my opinion, that's it.  I believe that she would be capable of serving Canada better were she to be in a different role, perhaps as an ambassador, or even an elected position.  (I think she's got the intelligence for PM, but, that isn't always a pre-requisite, is it?)

T


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> As for the logistical costs, well the GG's already got herself a nice little palace, so just put William's name on the lease instead.  That and a cheap membership for him at Lavalife (en francais) should just about do it.  Think Celine Dion would ever divorce for him?



Hmm...  Queen Celine?  I'm sure she'd be okay with it...  Hopefully King Bill can find a better catch...  Avril Lavigne?   :'(

T


----------



## Garbageman (24 Sep 2004)

Hey, whatever happened to Mitsu?  Remember "Bye bye, mon cowboy"?  I'm pretty sure she's looking for work.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Garbageman said:
			
		

> Hey, whatever happened to Mitsu?  Remember "Bye bye, mon cowboy"?  I'm pretty sure she's looking for work.



Much better choice...  Hey!  WE could change the anthem to reflect that while we're at it...  "Bonjour, mon canada" sung to that tune?  Hmm...  Catchy.  ;D

T


----------



## Infanteer (24 Sep 2004)

Why don't we broaden the powers of the Governor General and have the position become an elected executive office and then we can avoid this whole stupid conversation.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Sep 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why don't we broaden the powers of the Governor General and have the position become an elected executive office and then we can avoid this whole stupid conversation.



Elected monarchy?  Alrighty then...  How would you propose we go about it?  As Michael pointed out earlier, if you're so certain that it's a dumb idea, perhaps you should explain yourself, instead of killing bandwidth.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Sep 2004)

> Elected monarchy?  Alrighty then...  How would you propose we go about it?



I have done so on this thread a few times.  Here is an example

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17308.0.html



> As Michael pointed out earlier, if you're so certain that it's a dumb idea, perhaps you should explain yourself, instead of killing bandwidth.



I believe Michael captured the essence of the thread by stating that _"Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change."_

But thanks for the advice.


----------



## Pieman (24 Sep 2004)

Having an elected monarchy is an idea, but I feel it lacks the allure of a real monarchy. It makes the position less meaningful to me. Sorry there are those here who feel this is not an interesting or exciting way of discussing this topic, but others seem to be having fun with it. 



> If the monarchy came up for debate, I'm quite certain that Quebec's stance would be to completely abolish it or nothing (even with Charest in power).



Yes, I can certainly see that happening too. But what if further french accommodations are made to have the french population accept the idea? Having a french Canadian Queen is one thing, perhaps there are additional steps that could be made. Having the couple reside in Quebec might be another step. Any ideas? How would one alter a monarchy so that the French Canadian population would not just accept it, but embrace it? 

How old would that 'mon coyboy' girl be now anyway? She might be a tad old for either of the Princes now lol.


----------



## Garbageman (25 Sep 2004)

Come to think of it, Alberta might present just as much a problem, if not more than Quebec in convincing that there is a need for constitutional change.  Unless of course you could tack on a rider that included an elected Senate!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Sep 2004)

Now that we got rid of the Prince porking......etc.
I think we could totally disband the position of GG, not that this one hasn't FAR exceeded anything I expected from her, its just that the money [along with the greatly reduced Senate] that could be saved has a far better use.
....I'm thinking Olympic athletes[ameteur] but feel free to insert your choice here.
Will probably have more to say when I sober up! ;D
By the way Pieman, saw Mitsou on a talk show not long ago....not too old at all!


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2004)

Elected monarchy is an old idea.  The King of Scots used to be the either "last man standing" with the requisite blood line or the member or the royal family best considered suitable to lead by the Earls.  None of your poncie continental notions of primo geniture there.  That notion was introduced to Scotland by the Stewarts  - nasty folks them.

And Betty's great-great.....grandad, George I his first title was Elector of Hannover, one of a select bunch of Germans that got to elect the Holy Roman Emperor.

Kings can be elected.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Sep 2004)

I never advocated an elected Monarch, I advocated the position of the Governor-General, as the representative of the sovereign be elected.  By electing the GG, there would be a legitimate role for the position to perform its executive powers.

The Head of State would still be HRH Queen Elizabeth II; only her powers would be executed by an elected official responsible for Peace, Order and Good Government.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2004)

I second Infanteer's motion.

Excellent idea Infanteer.

Cheers.


----------



## Torlyn (27 Sep 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And Betty's great-great.....grandad, George I his first title was Elector of Hannover, one of a select bunch of Germans that got to elect the Holy Roman Emperor.
> 
> Kings can be elected.



Hmm...  Let's see...  Who had the ability to vote in those elections?  To me, an election includes all members of a country, not those who happen to be related to royalty..  (You do remember that votes in that particular situation could be refuted if the reigning monarch (or elected monarch) deemed fit..)

Mind you, seems to still be more fair that the florida elections, wot?

T


----------



## pbi (27 Sep 2004)

Being fully  mindful of my oath of service and of the source of my Commission, as well as of the genesis of my Regiment's title, and having great respect (unlike some...) for our present GG, I propose that natural political evolution, as well as the gradual change of our national demographic picture away from a plurality of WASPs, will bring us to a day upon which we will sever all formal ties with the Royal Family.

I would liken this eventual severance not to the traumatic event as experienced by our American friends to the South, but rather to the experience of a teenager who grows happily into adulthood in his parent's home, but reaches the day of reckoning and strikes out on his own. He still loves and respects his parents, and is always mindful of what they did for him, but he makes his own life under his own roof (OK-my son hasn't done this yet, but...)

The practice of having a Canadian Head of State as distinct from Head of Govt, regardless of what title we bestow upon the incumbent HOS, is a step in this evolutionary process. Inviting a non-Canadian in to do it would be, IMHO, a retrograde step.


----------



## ackland (27 Sep 2004)

What if we gave the GG the power and responsibility to hold the elected officials to the laws of our country and not allow them to arbitrarily change laws to suit them. If they Mess up the GG gets to hold them to the law.


----------



## pbi (27 Sep 2004)

TR, you said:


> What if we gave the GG the power and responsibility to hold the elected officials to the laws of our country and not allow them to arbitrarily change laws to suit them. If they Mess up the GG gets to hold them to the law.



I thought that was the role of the GG now, since bills are not law unless she signs them. Elected officials cannot really "arbitrarily change laws to suit them." Are you being facetious or am I missing something here? Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2004)

TR, I agree with PBI.  I thought that was the role of the GG.  In addition to being able to withhold approval on laws she can also dissolve parliament and demand a new election.

The reason she doesn't do this is because she lacks moral authority.  That is she lacks the proven support of the majority of Canadians to act in that fashion.  Historically, it was accepted by peoples around the world that a Monarch had authority by virtue of blood lines, conferred authority by  peers like other kings and popes and by force.  The GG was delegated that authority.

Under British practice, which we inherited, the powers of the Monarch (and by extension the GG) were constrained but the underlying premise was that the Monarch had powers, would make decisions, and that Parliament would limit the powers of the Monarch.

That progressed through stages of limiting the powers, to sharing the power, to superseding the power (in the British case), to denying that any power ever existed (the current Canadian case).

The reality is that the laws have not changed as fast as public perception has changed.  Many of the laws and that allowed royal prerogative are still on the books and available to be used.

The GG still has many powers which could be, and were intended to be, used to balance the authority of Parliament and the Prime Minister.  In Canada that balance was lost during the King-Byng affair and never rediscovered.  It was lost by PM W.L MacKenzie-King declaring that this appointed foreign representative of a foreign Monarch's government had no authority in Canadian affairs, he lacked legitimacy and had no moral authority.

The GG was sidelined.  However the GG's powers were never withdrawn.  No GG has ever dared to exercise them since because they continue to lack moral authority and because they are dependent on the PM of the day, the very person they are there to limit, for their job.

The solution to today's democratic deficit is just as Infanteer and others have suggested - to effectively return to the Status Quo Ante prior to the King-Byng affair by supplying the GG with the legitimacy to make the decisions he/she is empowered by law to make.  

In our modern world this legitimacy can only be conferred through an election and the democratic transfer of authority to the GG.


----------



## ackland (27 Sep 2004)

pbi, Kirkhill:

That was what I was trying to get at. I did realize that those powers existed for the GG but I want them to exersice those powers as others have sugensted. Thank you for explainig it much more eloquently then I.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Sep 2004)

Back in the mid to late 90s we actually had a referendum on keeping the Queen or not. The majority felt that the queen should stay.

There just was too much back biting, and back stabbing within the republican movement, so until they get their shyte together, the British monarchy will be here for a while yet.

I beleive that sooner than later Australia will be a republic, its pretty much enevitable, but I hope they never change the Australian National Flag.

As for Canada, well who knows, but I am sure there is plenty of you who would like to see your kids be able to be Head of State of their own country one day, rather then some foreigner.

My 2 bob.

Wes


----------



## Bill Smy (3 Oct 2004)

Just a couple of points:-

The reserve powers of the Crown are quite important and powerful. I don't have all the details at hand, but there are instances in our history where the Governor General and one or two Lieutenant Governors exercised them. Viscount Byng for one, and I think the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. And there was a Constitutional crisis resently in Australia.

It is quite conceivable that the present Governor General may have to decide whether to disolve Parliament and call an election, or call upon the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to form a government, without having an election.

The idea of a royal taking up the position of GG is not new. In my younger days (back in the 60s, when some of you were not even a gleam in your father's eye    ) it was suggested that Charles was leading a bored and unchallenged life, and perhaps a tour of duty in Canada as GG would spice it up.

Certainly we have had lesser royals as GG.

With a regard to only the Heir to the Throne having an income based on his position in the line of succession, I recall reading that when Prince Andrew went through his divorce, his wife's lawyers were surprised to find that the only real incomes he had was as a Commander in the Royal Navy. All the rest were bestowed at Her Majesty's pleasure.

Senator Forsey once wrote an article on the cost of Monarchy in this country, and if I recall correctly, it was very small in relation to other expenditures government made, and that was many, many years ago. With the explosion in government spending nowadays, I would suspect, that notwithstanding the apparent extravagant budget of the GG, the same results from a similar study.

On another note, and I hope it will not generate a long debate off topic, I note in reply # 36, back on 27 September, that pbi used the term WASP. I recall being at a government sponsored meeting in British Columbia a little over ten years ago when the speaker used that term most negatively, and often.

My challenge to her was "What does that term mean?" She stuttered and I replied that simply put "White, Anglo Saxon Protestant."

I pointed out that there were no Black, Red, or Yellow Anglo Saxons. And degrading Protestants could be interpreted as a hate crime. I say all this with tongue in cheek  , but I really don't think people realize what they are saying when they use the term, other than believing they are relating it to being some sort of bad "British" (only the Protestant "British", not the Roman Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish "British").


----------



## pbi (4 Oct 2004)

Bill Smy:



> On another note, and I hope it will not generate a long debate off topic, I note in reply # 36, back on 27 September, that pbi used the term WASP. I recall being at a government sponsored meeting in British Columbia a little over ten years ago when the speaker used that term most negatively, and often.
> 
> My challenge to her was "What does that term mean?" She stuttered and I replied that simply put "White, Anglo Saxon Protestant."
> 
> I pointed out that there were no Black, Red, or Yellow Anglo Saxons. And degrading Protestants could be interpreted as a hate crime. I say all this with tongue in cheek  , but I really don't think people realize what they are saying when they use the term, other than believing they are relating it to being some sort of bad "British" (only the Protestant "British", not the Roman Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish "British").



Being a WASP myself (well, Anglican, which is not really Protestant _per se,_ but...) I think that it is really a term that does not bear dissection, like "hot fire" or other such redundancies in popular use. It is really best taken as a whole, and refers most accurately to the people who once  made up the majority of our population, but today are probably at  best a plurality if even that. I certainly never intended as a racial slight and I have never actually heard it used as such. At one time in this country it represented the credentials of social and political power, but not so much today. Cheers.


----------



## winchable (4 Oct 2004)

I could never picture a formal public speaker using the term WASP, I think the closest thing I've heard is "Someone who exhiibits anglican reserve." But outright saying WASP...I think I'd leave.
Not because it's terribly offensive to me...I'm only half after all, but c'mon...who uses WASP in a speech really.


----------



## McInnes (4 Oct 2004)

I really don't understand all of the fuss about the cost of the gg or of a monarchy...considering what the government spent on gun registry alone, nevermind sponsorship scandal and what not....and look what those two initiatives have done for us...

Also, the queen isn't some foriegn figurehead (Why should the Queen of England have any say in Canada?), however they can  be likened to two separate offices, as Queen Elizabeth II Queen of Canada,  is the Queen of Canada and not specifically the Queen of England. Many people I have spoken with have based their argument essentially on "There is no Queen of Canada". I really don't see why we would have to have a constitional change as the GG is a delegate of the Queen as obviosly the Queen doesnt live here. Thus, having the Queen send Prince Harry as Prince Harry Prince of Canada or however, shouldn't be that great of a legal problem in theory would it? Perhaps someone with a definative understanding of law would be able to help out?


----------



## Pencil Tech (9 Oct 2004)

Canada has been a monarchy ever since Europeans first came to these shores. I cannot imagine it any other way. For me it's the idea of the Crown and our history as Canadians more than who happens to be on the throne. If Canada ever decided to get rid of the monarchy - a constitutional near-impossibility, incidentally - we would be diminished IMHO. Also, I think the G-G's "spending" is a non-issue, it's Foreign Affairs that spends the money for those trips.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2004)

Nicely put Pencil Tech.


----------



## Torlyn (10 Oct 2004)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Also, I think the G-G's "spending" is a non-issue, it's Foreign Affairs that spends the money for those trips.



I work for foreign affairs.  Her trips come out of her GG stipend from the feds, not us.  We do send people with her (at our expense) but they don't generally get the same treatment on our budget as when GG springs for the bill.  Mainly, because they get audited as soon as they get home, and if we don't like the expense report, we don't pay out.    IT's funny how we're tighter on someone's 32 dollar dinner allowance than what the GG coughs up for coffee, but c'est la vie.  You want to see some fun numbers, the following link provides the expense reports for the upper echelons of FAC...  Pretty scary what some "invitational dinners" cost...

http://www.fac-aec.gc.ca/department/disclosure/menu-en.asp

T


----------



## Pencil Tech (10 Oct 2004)

Torlyn, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I am referring to is the big "Northern Junket" to Russia and Scandinavia, etc which caused all this controversy in the first place was a Foreign Affairs initiative. It wasn't like the G-G decided she wanted to go on a gucci holiday and soaked the taxpayers for it - the govt sent her- yet that's how the story got spun. Likewise, people complain about her flying on govt aircraft but the RCMP will not let her fly on commercial flights. Yes, I'm sure here entertaining bills might be a bit hefty, but we're talking about our de facto head of state here. Some people I'm sure think she should meet foreign dignitaries at Tim Horton's. How Canadian.


----------



## Torlyn (11 Oct 2004)

Given the current political attutide, perhaps not Tim Horton's, but at Corner Gas?  

T


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Oct 2004)

> You want to see some fun numbers, the following link provides the expense reports for the upper echelons of FAC...  Pretty scary what some "invitational dinners" cost...
> 
> http://www.fac-aec.gc.ca/department/disclosure/menu-en.asp



Yikes!  Very enlightening...


----------



## Acorn (14 Oct 2004)

Do any of you understand the purpose of hospitality (entertainment) budgets, and do you look at the break-downs or just the total cost? Do you know and understand the rules under which those funds are expended?

Are there abuses? Probably. There certainly were abuses in the past (though rules have tightened considerably). Don't go thinking that the life of an Ambassador/High Commissioner is all champaign and canapés. OK, it is to a certain extent, but consider that:

1. They don't get paid overtime, and lunches/dinners/receptions are actually work, and often not in the usual office hours.
2. Spouses are expected to entertain as well, and are not paid for their work (some sr officers/WOs can probably relate to this).

Some of you may understand how the world outside of Canada works - contacts. The Canadian (and US) concept of professional relationships is the exception in the world, not the rule. The majority of the world works on personal relationships, and sometimes that means picking up the tab for lunch.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (15 Oct 2004)

Good point Acorn.  Even when their busy jawing at the dinner table, they may be securing future information or prospects that are in our National Interests.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Oct 2004)

I doff my hat Acorn...

<dave reminds himself not to get swept up in mob rule again>


----------



## Boydfish (23 Oct 2004)

A couple of thoughts on the topic at hand:

#1 - _The GG's trips outside of the confederation._  The cost of the trips is a bit excessive, but my problem lies with the fact that such a trip is directly incompatible with the job of GG.  The GG is supposed to be the Crown's personal representative *in* the Canadian confederation.  If the GG can do thier job from outside the confederation, then we don't need one, because the Crown, resident in Buckingham Palace, could do it then.  

The original role of the GG and the LG's were put in place because the executive role of the Crown simply couldn't "execute" in a timely fashion, due to the global nature of the Empire.  Today, with modern communication and travel, the role of the GG is quite redundant in many regards.  Before it's tossed aside casually, however, it's important to note that in political terms, the Crown and by extention, the GG, is an incredibly stabilizing force.  Unlike the Americans or the French, who vest actual political involvement with executive authority, the confederation instead has an apolitical executive.  This is one of the major reasons why we don't have the same problem with political assasination that the US has had historically:  You cannot effect real political change by killing the GG, nor can you decapitate the government by killing the PM, so assasination is not useful.

#2 - _The Queen not being "Canadian"._  This one is a big myth shoved forward by pro-republic types and has, at best, a sliver of legitimacy.  Elizabeth Windsor, the person, not only has defacto citizenship, she personally owns an estate in British Columbia.  Not the Crown properties, but an actual estate that she and the other royals use when they visit British Columbia.

#3 - _Prince William assuming the role of King of Canada._  This is not a new idea.  In fact, in the discussion that lead to the Statute of Westminster, there was discussion of scrapping the confederation and having the provinces "re-branded" as the Kingdom of Canada.  In the end, the confederation of equal provinces was kept, but with it's own seperate crown, but worn by the same person.  One of the big reasons that the idea was not pursued was because the Americans threatened war over the idea:  They did not want a resident "King" anywhere in North America.  While that's a threat that the US would have surely had problems backing up, the British opted to spare the blood and treasure of both the US and the Empire.

#4 - _So Mr.Know-it-all, you have any suggestions or are you just going to spout off?_  My suggestion would be to scrap the GG position outright.  Replace it's constitutional role by "promoting" the provincial LG's to each being Governor Generals appointed by the provincial PM's.  Each provincial GG already represents the Crown, which essentially covers the entire confederation in terms of representation.  The GG's can take turns signing the acts and bills into law by Royal Assent, with my personal suggestion being that it's determined by the member that put forward the bill's province of representation(Ex. If Paul Martin puts forward a bill, the GG of Quebec signs it in, but if Chuck Cadman puts it forward, BC's GG signs it).  A simple vote among the GG's would be required to dissolve the House of Commons, rather than one person "Dropping the writ".  This would have an interesting back-door constitutional safety valve effect:  If the confederal government goes nuts, the provinces can yank the plug on it, forcing them to go back to the polls.  It also ends the silliness of "one from Ontario, one from Quebec" for the GG office by making each province's GG co-equal and giving Albertans, British Columbians and others fair representation in the confederation.  Another positive point, it further enhances the apolitical nature of the role, making it less of a risk to political violence.

Oh yeah, one more thing, it would actually cost less, since we already have the LGs, but could take the entire GG budget and apply it speeding up the recruiting process for people joining British Columbian reserve armoured regiments!


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2004)

There is one fundamental problem with any proposal re: the Canadian monarchy and its functions: any such change requires the unanimous agreement of the federal parliament and all provincial legislatures - none of the 7/50 stuff, this is big time unanimity; Québec, Alberta and PEI all have vetoes.

Getting rid of the monarchy is more complex than it was in Cromwell's day - just ask the Australians.   It appears, to me, that a fairly solid majority of Australians wanted, still want a head of government who is an Australian, not, in other words our gracious sovereign lady nor her son or grandson.   Seems reasonable enough to me ...   The status quo _monarchists_ won the referendum, though, because the other side could not agree on what form of Windsorless government should be put in place.

My idea is simple: keep the constitutional monarchy, ditch the monarch ... the next one, anyway.

The succession to the thrones of the United Kingdom of Great Britain etc, etc, etc _ad infinitum_ is governed by many Acts of Parliament, the most important being the Act of Settlement of 1701.   Some Canadian republicans have tried, unsuccessfully, to have this Act declared unconstitutional in Canada because its base (no Catholics on or even very near the throne) offends our Charter of Rights.   Our courts have decided not to deal with the issue but such an interpretation does open the way for a uniquely Canadian solution to the monarchy puzzle - one which does *not* require a constitutional amendment. 

Readers should know that the succession to the throne is not automatic; it requires a conscious action by an official of the government - representing the state.   In Britain it is the duty of the Earl Marshal of England to say, at the appropriate moment, something like "The Queen is Dead; God save the King!â ?   In Canada, I believe, the duty to _proclaim_ a new head of state (our sovereign) rests with the keeper of the Great Seal of Canada: the Registrar General of Canada who is, also, the Minister of Industry.   There is an important constitutional nicety here - the *nation chooses* its sovereign, not _vice versa_.

I propose that our functionary - the Minister of Industry - should, at the appropriate moment, say: "the Queen is dead!â ?   He (or she) should then go back about the nation's business.   The effect of this would be to _choose_ a form of constitutional monarchy known as a _*regency*_.   Regencies are neither new nor rare - there have been many in British history - they usually occur usually when the monarch is very young or quite mad.   There is nor reason, however, that one could not exist just because we don't like the monarch who is 'on offer' by the royal family.

Now to make this work smoothly, and to be polite, too, we should do a few things first:

"¢	Pass a _resolution_ in the House of Commons - not a bill, per se, no royal assent required - saying that since the Act of Settlement of 1701 is, indeed, offensive to the principles of our Charter the Parliament of Canada should consider the proper succession for the *Throne of Canada* and until that is done the existing line of succession should be held in abeyance;

"¢	Write a nice letter to the Queen, from the Prime Minister - whose [i[advice[/i] she is constitutionally *bound* to follow - advising her that her son will not, necessarily, be proclaimed as King of Canada until the Parliament of Canada has time and energy enough to wrestle with the issue of the succession; and

"¢	Figure out a better way to select governors general who will, after all, be Canadian heads of the Canadian state since, presumably, we will never get around to wrestling with the issue of succession.

_*Voila!*_ a monarchless state without a constitutional amendment!   No change to the *form* of government, just some tidying up of the 'bums in seats' issue.

Think of the advantages - we could reduce the envy which characterizes the Canadian regimental system by allowing everyone - even the second best - to wear Queen Victoria's cipher.     :


----------



## Boydfish (24 Oct 2004)

Rusty Old Joint:

I've heard similar proposals before, the problem is that they won't work.  They would work if we were a banana republic, but if done in a Westminster democracy, which, both the confederation and the ten provinces all are, it wouldn't work.

First, the "constitution" and the CCRF are all secondary things:  The convention of the supreme nature of the Crown, the Parliaments and Legislatures, Assemblies means that Trudeau's docs are pretty pieces of paper and nothing else.

Second, if the Canadian Parliament doesn't proclaim it...who gives a shit?  If the BC government proclaims it, the Crown succession is complete as it pertains to BC, Canadian resolutions be damned.  Ditto for any other province.  As you said, getting 100% agreement ain't going to happen.  What makes you think that British Columbians are going to accept whatever regent the Canadian Parliament appoints as the new "Royal Family" of the confederation?  It won't be a British Columbian, that's for damn sure and I'd likely guess that thier name would rhyme with "Turd-o".  Just what we'd want out west:  A Liberal on the throne for life.

Third, I see no evidence that there is a "majority" seeking to drop the basis of our historical system of government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2004)

I agree that it is, indeed, _convention uber alles_ and the *supreme* convention is that the monarch reigns and parliament rules.   Further, I'm not convinced there is a separate 'throne' of BC, I'm sure BC gets a voice/veto if we change the form of government but I'm not sure anyone cares even a wee tiny bit about what British Columbians may (or may not) think about *who* gets to sit on the throne of Canada.


----------



## Boydfish (24 Oct 2004)

There isn't a seperate throne for British Columbia or any of the other nine provinces, nor does there have to be:  Once British Columbia, or any other province, declares the new monarch, it's in full force and effect there.  

At best, the proposed plan would create a circumstance where you'd have some provinces under the lawful monarch King Charles, others under what we can call the Trudeau regent and maybe a few other permutations as well(Ex. Alberta opts to go for a regent option, just nobody named Trudeau.  Or Quebec appoints Bernard Landry as it's regent).

This is important because we're a confederation of ten equal provinces, not a republic or a United Kingdom:  The Lieutenant Governor-Generals are not representatives of the GG in the provinces, they are the direct representatives of the monarch in the provinces.  If you end up with one province under King Charles, another under Regent Prince Morton of Alberta, another under Regent Prince Landry of Quebec(Plus a few more likely as well) and the confederal government under Regent Prince Trudeau, you end up with some pretty wonky circumstances that would rip the confederation apart in very short order.

In short, there is no way that you'd get enough agreement from the provinces to even attempt your plan.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Oct 2004)

One question regarding the problem of BC accepting the new monarch and Parliment not.  Does that mean that BC can ignore Federal legislation that has not recieved Royal Assent?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2004)

I'm afraid you're getting a lot more serious than I intended this 'idea' to be ... but I think that  §12 and  §58 _fol_ of the BNA make it clear that the provincial lieutenant governors are appointed by and are responsible to the governor general.   They exercise the sovereign's powers with respect to the matters covered in  §92, which, unless I missed something, does not include deciding on who ought (or ought not) to be king.

All that being said: there isn't much _convention_ for establishing a regency so I'm not sure that legalisms would be much help.

Going back to the start: there are only two ways to change the *form* of the nation:

"¢	A _*unanimous*_ amendment to the constitution; or

"¢	Revolution.

I neither of those is appealing and if the idea of King Charles III is equally unappealing then something else would need to be done ...


----------



## Boydfish (25 Oct 2004)

Nah, no more serious than politics should be taken.   ;D

I think that the provinces would rightly point out that the confederal government exists because of them, not the other way around, if the confederal government sought to change the nature of the confederation like that.


----------



## Glorified Ape (29 Nov 2004)

Just curious (not sure if this topic's been done to death since I haven't been here that long) but what does everyone think about Canada, and the Force's, whole affiliation with the British monarchy? Do you think we'd be better off without it or would it just be too much trouble to change everything for what would really be a pretty minor difference?

I was just pondering it and wondered whether dropping the monarchy would alter Canada's personality and what effects its relationship with the monarchy has on the character of its people. Does our affiliation with the monarchy make our forces better, worse, or have no effect? (I don't mean insofar as skill is concerned, but more in the realm of conduct and prestige)


----------



## winchable (30 Nov 2004)

I was watching a documentary on the Royals the other day, and being quite familiar with the Royals of Englands past I had a thought.

The current Queen is a stroke of bloody luck. Shes a wonderful figurehead lends herself to causes etc and works well infront of the media (The maniacal media) she is the first head of Britain to have to do so.

Recently tapes of intereviews with Princess Di have been released and the Prince of Wales supposedly said "I will not be the first prince of wales to not have a mistress." To his wife no less. The Royals are not all as good as QE2 and this is something we will have to deal with.
Think of how the public at large would have viewed king Henry and his many wives, the fat prince George and his insane father.
Not just the nobility as it was then, but in the modern era where everyone pretty much has a good look at the Royals.

Good conduct and prestige have little to do with the Royals if their behaviour is studied carefully throughout history and even the modern ones.

I have to agree with the idea that it's just too much trouble as well as spitting in the face of the many Canadians who have died for King and Country in the past.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2004)

Thanks Che.

I am one of those that supports the Royals.   For good or ill.   Queen Elizabeth is ruddy good at her job and we may have to pass through one or two less able before we find another.

See, the thing for me, I have to admit, is as much about race, blood and kin as it is anything to do with legal authority.   That family, to people of my background, represents a physical tie to something very ancient.   That's what deBrett's peerage is about.   I am no aristocrat but that family and my families, like most families in the UK have intertwined histories.   In many ways, to me they represent a living version of Stonehenge - they probably wouldn't be thrilled by the comparison - but they are a touchstone.   For me.

To others they represent other things, much like any work of art or institution, it is in the eye of the beholder.   I can understand why many Canadians, especially recent immigrants don't find a reason for the connection.   But to about half the population there is at least some form of connection and not all of it has to do with race.  I have run across monarchists amongst many non-Brits.

As to your comment about public perception of the Royals -   "Georgie Porgie Puddin' and Pie, Kissed the girls and made them cry", an English nursery rhyme, was composed in "honour" of an arrogant, fat, rake of an individual who took advantage of his position to secure more than his fair share of good times and forgot to leave appropriate tips.   The public didn't think much of him when he was Prince of Wales, a position he held for far too long under an long-lived father.   He became George IV and was quite well liked as a King.   Edward VII was much the same.

Henry VIII and Bloody Mary had very few redeeming qualities.

Royals come and go, good and bad, but like Stonehenge, the line endures.   For some of us that is probably all that is necessary.

I would be quite happy with Canada a member of the Commonwealth of which QE is head while we have our own Elected Governor-General.   

The secret with tradition is to maintain the ties to history while at the same time adjusting to the realities of today.

Cheers.

History is personal.   They put real people into history and supply a personal tie to historical events.


----------



## winchable (30 Nov 2004)

I've been doing some research on Charlie, and I wonder if he will be as good as his mother. He seems like he'd fit in quite well with Sir Reginald Boddy Nigel Hawthorne Upon Tweed at Berwick (well daddy was a banker, and mommy was a...horse) I mean he has his causes, is dedicated to the arts, etc. etc. and he seems to be at the end of the "Old Royals" where his mother was something of anomaly for her time.

I believe that William will do quite well however, charismatic, presumably intelligent and no doubt will take up some of his mothers causes.
If the media doesn't end the monarchy when Charles takes over. I really think he's got some very interesting things that haven't been dug up yet, but when they do, watch the circus tents go up.


----------



## winchable (30 Nov 2004)

Sorry if anyone didn't catch the upper class twit reference, I only tease though, I have an uncle who is waiting for his father to die so he can stop working and spend some time in the Cotswalds so I feel it's my duty to rag on them.
Just for a laugh:



> Vivian Smith-Smythe-Smith has an
> O-level in chemo-hygiene.
> Simon-Zinc-Trumpet-Harris, married to a very attractive table lamp.
> Nigel Incubator-Jones, his best friend is a tree,
> ...


----------



## RCD (1 Dec 2004)

SORRY. SOUTH AFRICA HAS FIRST SHOT AT IT.


----------



## nULL (12 Dec 2004)

Strange, I would have assumed that you soldiers would be the most vociferous proponents of keeping the monarchy, tradition being as it were. Is the balmoral next?


----------



## Infanteer (12 Dec 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> Strange, I would have assumed that you soldiers would be the most vociferous proponents of keeping the monarchy, tradition being as it were. Is the balmoral next?



I once was.   But now I feel the that more and more, the military basing so much of it's lineage and image (Royal, colours, crowns, etc, etc) around a Monarch seems to ring more and more hollow every time I think about it.

Personally, I'm not too keen on still being a subject to the Crown.


----------



## nULL (13 Dec 2004)

From my own personal observations about Australia (I'm sure Wes could confirm) the collective sense of national identity down there is much more prevalent. While Australia may soon be a republic (when put to a second vote) I have no doubt that they seem to have a better idea of *who they are.* 

At my school down there, I remember singing "Advance Australia Fare" and "Waltzing Matilda" enthusiastically with other like minded people; back home, "Oh Canada" always seemed to be sung with a touch of....embarrassment? Awkwardness? But then again, perhaps that's what happened when they took the singing of the anthem out of schools.  :

Perhaps when Canadians decide not to base their collective self image on making themselves distinct from the Americans _(how the hell did we come so far as to discuss the decriminalization of marijuana?)_ , and have stopped fostering a national image around hockey and beer _(fun for a laugh, but seriously...)_ we'll be ready.

Personally, I don't see why we can't be a unique mix of the old world and the new, but while we're on the topic....


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2004)

Well, unlike many others, I'm not willing to base the necessity of maintaining links to the Monarchy on preserving a few "neat" heritage things in the military.  My argument stems from the political notion that we are "grown-ups" now as a sovereign state - we've repatriated our Constitution - a long process that started with the King/Byng affair and ended with Trudeau's Constitution Act, 1982 (and thus our own control over the head of government) and it will only be a matter of time before we repatriate our Head of State (and thus having _de jure_ control over our sovereignty as well).

Just because I advocate eliminating the Monarchy in Canada doesn't mean that I urge for a dramatic "severing of the chord" - a la post-Revolutionary America.  It is quite feasible to remain engaged in our traditional and long-standing relationship with our distant relatives in Britain; for example - India is a member of the Commonwealth and maintains vestiges of it's history as the _Raj_, and yet it does not maintain the monarchy.

I believe Null is 100% correct on this question though; first, Canada must get a better grasp on *who we are*.  I will give Trudeau credit for starting us down a road that, for better or for worse, has made us well capable of standing on our own as a political idea.

I look forward to the day when Canada, along with our military, can start to forge institutional image and function around our own ideas of who we are.


----------



## nULL (13 Dec 2004)

Infanteer....quick constitutional question; wasn't the repatriating of our constitition as much (if not more) a desire of the British as it was to us? 

Certainly though, were the monarch (Clarkson) to engage in anything other than her obligational parliamentary duties and engage in something at her own discretion, we're repatriate our Head of State right-quick   

Still, I can't see how it would affect the country as a whole; were we to become a republic, nULL predicts casual indifference among populace.


----------



## Franko (13 Dec 2004)

There is only one answer...

NO.

It is not only proper messing etiquette...but tradition in the CF. We've been toasting the Crown (either King or Queen) for eons. Why stop now? 

Some of us, IIRC, swore an oath to Canada and the Queen.

Sounds like Commie talk to me!  ;D

Regards


----------



## M16 (17 Dec 2004)

Why should we go back to the Monarchy in Canada if we're doing fine right now?


----------



## Inch (17 Dec 2004)

M16 said:
			
		

> Why should we go back to the Monarchy in Canada if we're doing fine right now?



Uh, have you looked at a $20 bill lately? That's the Queen. We don't have to go back to a Monarchy, we still are a Monarchy.


----------



## M16 (17 Dec 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> Uh, have you looked at a $20 bill lately?



I don't think I have.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Dec 2004)

M-16,
This is a moderator warning, STOP posting useless one-line [or less] posts all around this forum.
Please read the thread BEFORE you post.


----------



## Donaill (18 Dec 2004)

Hmmmm Guess I will stir it up some.

 I am a republican Canadian. I believe in an elected senate, and no monarchy. I dont believe that the monarchy is key to what makes us Canadian as much as our progressive social policies and the many contributions we have made to the world.

 I come from a Celtic ancestory, Irish and Scots. I do not relate to an English monarchy. Before someone jumps on me and says that they (Charles, etc.) are also monarchs of Scotland and Wales here is some info on that subject.
Scotland voted and succeeded in devolution and Wales may do the same soon as well.

 What does this have to do with this thread? Well my point is that not all Canadians come from and English(British) background. I do not believe that the monarchy is that important to Canada anymore. Not that we give them money anymore. We pay when they visit but we do that with any foreign dignatory.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Dec 2004)

Donaill,

I don't think you quite grasp what devolution in Scotland is.  Devoluition resulted in a Scottish Parliment where the Members of the Scottish Parliment (MSPs) swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen (same queen as England and Canada has).  MSPs may pass legislation on domestic issues (internal to Scotland).  If anything devolution is leading to more of a federal system than republican.


----------



## Donaill (18 Dec 2004)

Hi AmmoTech. Sorry. I guess I should have added more to my statement. I do understand what Devolution means to Scotland and even to Wales(if they vote for it, which could very well happen.)
Without going too deep into the history of the Celtic nations within the U.K. I will make a few statements. You may know much of this already anyways.
Groups such as Plaid Cymru and SNP have been supporters of independancy for decades. Much of this due to teh flow of money out compared to the lack of money into these countries. There are other reasons as well but this is not the website for a history lesson. My point about devolution in Scotland is that many see it as the first step in achieving independance.


----------



## Shec (18 Dec 2004)

Hipocrates oath, which is taken by all medical doctors, binds them to "do no harm".   The same holds for the Monarchy.   It does this country no harm, it does not interfere with our law and policy-making,  its costs little, and it is part of Canada's history and identity, an identity that we always seem to challenge - perhaps because we have nothing else to worry about compared to other countries.  It is from the Crown that we have embraced the fundamental values of peace,order, and good government.  Symbolically the Crown has offered protection and opportunity to generations of immigrants from all backgrounds  and presumably will continue to do so.  In that regard the Crown is a tie that binds us all, something that is needed to counter any threats of balkanization as society becomes increasingly diverse.  So what is the practical purpose of discarding it?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (18 Dec 2004)

The SNP may have seen it as the first step to independance but the SNP are not a majority.  Two interesting statistics from around 1997.

Prior to devolution more residents of Scotland considered themselves both Scottish and British than just Scottish.

After devolution support for the SNP dropped.  This tells me people supported them because they were the only party that advocated even any sort of independance and when your the only show in town you'll get business.  I know a lot of scots who supported the SNP but didn't really want full blown separation but it was the only way to get a message across.  A cynic could say that the support for the SNP dropped because the trecherous English gave us just enough bread and circus' to make us happy (and the Holyrood parliment building is a bit of a circus).


----------



## Donaill (18 Dec 2004)

Hi Shec. I also agree with what you say... Shocking isn't it. It doesnt cost us much money, I would say no more than when Bush comes to visit. For me Canada is more than some (a few) former colony(ies). Canada is social medicine. Canada is Vimy Ridge and Cyprus. Canada is having   Pakistani and Muslim neighbours that don't want to kill each other. Canada is some skinny Canadian of Irish ancestory going to a Chinese New Year. 

   Canada is a few pilots(and ground crews) sitting in old Sea King heli's and still keeping them in the air. 

Canada ROCKS.


----------



## Steel Badger (20 Dec 2004)

Why change it if it aint broke....


removing the monarchy would only leave room for all those loonies and kooks who revel in dreaming up pointless changes to our customs and traditions and call it Canadianising...
Just look at the tomfoolery surrounding Integration....
Further...the yanks decided to go republican in 1778 and look at em.......they are so desperate for royalty they treat POLITICIANS and actors as nobility...

King Jean Chretien??? Shudder

And speaking as a member of a Scots / Irish / Norse family who were kicked out of the Highlands by the Campbells and their english masters following the 45......WHO CARES? My family has served the Crown since before the 45, stayed home during the rising and burned Campbell Farms and houses, and thence to Canada....

Seriously though, The Monarchy does serve, I believe, an important function.
As to the spending of $, our GOvts would spend our tax dollars just as poorly AFTER becoming a republic.....
Hmmm there's a thought....."STOP GOVERNMENT WASTE, SAVE THE MONARCHY"

It makes us unique


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2004)

Shec

The last act of an independent Scots parliament was "The Darien Colony" which busted the treasury in the 1690s and lead the way to the end of the Scots Parliament and the Union of the Flags.

The first act of the new Scots parliament was Holyrood, a monstrosity which leaks and is well over budget and set to bust the treasury.

Given the reputation our countrymen have developed for parsimony and skill in managing others money (That Scot Gordon Brown's doing much better with England's money than any of the Scots are doing with theirs) the track record is confusing to say the least but doesn't give much confidence.

Scots generally are happy enough to have an open road to London.

It'll be interesting to see how long the multi-party parliament takes to organize itself into one or two viable parties rather than the stramash of radicals it is just now.  

What most folks have to remember that it was a Scot that took over the English monarchy, not the other way about.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Dec 2004)

No.  I don't think we should retain the monarchy in Canada; it's not relevant to Canadain society.

And while we're at it, let's gid rid of hockey, Tim Hortons, maple syrup, touques, the CBC, etc. . . 

Now that I think of it, we've already pretty much lost hockey and perhaps getting rid of the CBC wouldn't be so bad!  :dontpanic:


----------



## Canuck_25 (29 Dec 2004)

Welll, lets not forget Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, same with Britain. Our legal system (criminal code, charter of rights and Freedoms, Courts) has something mentioning the queen. Many veterans, who fought for this country, desire to retain our British roots. Look at the upheaval over the Flag debate in the 60's. Veterans still resent the goverment for the changes. 

 At the currrent moment, 33% of Canadians are of British heritage, 33% french, and 33% multicultural. The main point is, Canada is changing fast.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> At the currrent moment, 33% of Canadians are of British heritage, 33% french, and 33% multicultural. The main point is, Canada is changing fast.



Source?

I am a full-bred Ukrainian Canadian (3 of 4 grandparents were born in Canada, but all my greats came from Ukraine).  Nothing "multi" cultural about me.

33% sounds extremly high as far as "British" heritage goes.  I wouldn't try to hard to make your point if I were you.

My grandmother considers HM Queen Elizabeth II a "parasite".  I think she makes a pretty good Colonel in Chief, but your beating the drum for British "traditions" is getting rather olllllllllllddddddddddddd...................


----------



## Spr.Earl (30 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Source?
> 
> I am a full-bred Ukrainian Canadian (3 of 4 grandparents were born in Canada, but all my greats came from Ukraine).   Nothing "multi" cultural about me.
> 
> ...



So I repeat "Erase our History"?
In the Ukrain they are riviving thier History which was erased under the Russians.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Dec 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> So I repeat "Erase our History"?
> In the Ukrain they are riviving thier History which was erased under the Russians.



I rather doubt that the point being made was to "Erase our History". History and tradition have their own worth when they continue to support current activities and organizations. Claiming that the connection to the Crown remains principally dependent upon the assumption that the Canadian population is, or was, predominantly British in origin has become a specious argument, and cannot be supported by the current demographics of our nation. This does not infer we need to reconstruct our history or our Governmental origins, only that we should remain aware of the changing times and circumstances in which we continue to maintain our democracy.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Dec 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> So I repeat "Erase our History"?
> In the Ukrain they are riviving thier History which was erased under the Russians.



You're kidding, right?   You really feel the history of the RCE has been erased?  The Russians commited genocide on the Ukrainians in the 1930s, and then during Stalin's reign after the war did exactly what you say.

If you honestly think Unification compares in the least bit to Stalin's murders, tortures, and lies, there is something seriously wrong.

All the history books I've had access to still have the RCE mentioned in them.  Friends in Engineer units, both Regular and Reserve, send me their newsletters which still have historical articles and references to veterans with the RCE mentioned.  I corresponded with the CME Museum during the research for my first book, and got lots of good photographs of guys in RCE badges.

Let's not go overboard in making our point.  The history of the RCE has not in any way, shape or form been suppressed, buried or erased.  It's still there for anyone to take pride in.  I even daresay my own website helps do that in some small way.

As someone else said on this board, if you really need to have your cap badge tell you about your history, there are bigger problems than a simple name change can fix.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Dec 2004)

Retaining the monarchy saves us from replacing it.  Rest assured the day we cut our ties to the British sovereign, there will be a class/caste in Canada seeking to occupy the vacuum.  The Americans, poor souls, wound up with popular celebrities as surrogate royalty.  I do not care to risk treading that path.


----------



## Big Foot (31 Dec 2004)

the monarchy has always been, and i hope, will always be a part of Canada. they are a part of our history. besides, if we ditched the queen, who are we left with? politicians? and one other thing, with no monarchy, what would go on the top of our cap badges? a beaver? the crown looks good up there so i feel it should be left alone. tradition is tradition for a reason. lets keep the monarchy


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2004)

> Quote from: Canuck_25 on December 29, 2004, 12:35:09
> 
> At the currrent moment, 33% of Canadians are of British heritage, 33% french, and 33% multicultural. The main point is, Canada is changing fast.
> 
> ...




Actually Michael Canuck25 under-estimates the British Quotient in Canada.


According to the 2001 census 14.5 million Canadians identified themselves as being wholly or partially some sort of Brit, or about 45% of the population.

15% of the population identified themselves as being French, Quebecois or Acadian.

32% identified themselves as coming from some other European origin,
(9% Germanics or Belgian, 9% Central or Eastern Europeans(including Czech, Balts, Poles, and Slavs of all sorts), 6% Scandinavian or Dutch, 6% Southern Europeans, 2% Balkans or Greeks)

13% identified themselves as being from Asian, African, Latin American or Caribbean countries with about 1.7% stipulating origins in Islamic countries.

1% of the population described themselves as Jewish.

36% described themselves as either wholly or partly Canadian.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/ETO/Table1.cfm?Lang=E&T=501&GV=1&GID=0

Given that a such a large number of Canadians identify themselves with Britain, I think it is fair to assume that a large proportion would be unhappy at dissolving ties with Britain.  

And while I recognize many Brit origin Canadians may be republicans I am equally sure that many Commonwealth citizens as well as many Scandinavians and other Europeans are monarchists. I have met quite a few.

Your grandmother notwithstanding.....

You may find our support of the Monarchy as getting old, some of the rest of us view the constant assault on our (and your) history in the same light.  Canada's government, and our freedoms, are a direct result of having had the great good fortune to have been part of the British Empire, as opposed to the Spanish, French, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German, Persian, Moghul, Chinese or Ottoman empires.  Empires may not be great (although some argue that they are natural and necessary)--------------- but it could have been worse.

Cheers Michael.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Dec 2004)

Yeah, but how many of those "Brits" are really bloody _Welshmen_...

Thanks for the info.  Ten more years of our immigration policies should swing the balance, methinks.... ;D


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2004)

As I said before, does removing the Monarchy necessarily mean severing ties with Britain?


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Retaining the monarchy saves us from replacing it.   Rest assured the day we cut our ties to the British sovereign, there will be a class/caste in Canada seeking to occupy the vacuum.   The Americans, poor souls, wound up with popular celebrities as surrogate royalty.   I do not care to risk treading that path.



Considering the fact that most average Canadians "worship" the same flaky celebrities (that was an issue of People at the checkout isle), I don't think the monarchy would be "replaced" by thespians.

Anyways, judging from the tabloids, I'd figure that "the monarchy" and "celebrities" are two of the exact same thing.


----------



## Garbageman (1 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually Michael Canuck25 under-estimates the British Quotient in Canada.
> 
> 
> According to the 2001 census 14.5 million Canadians identified themselves as being wholly or partially some sort of Brit, or about 45% of the population.
> ...



Something's wrong with these numbers.  45+15+32+13=105%.  Unless of course you can declare yourself to be of more than one ethnic background.


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jan 2005)

When we had the referendum vote for the Queen here in Australia, large bill boards advertised along roads and buildings, etc, would say "God save The Queen" or "Off with Her Head - You decide". That was sure wierd to see.

Australia decided to keep the monachy for now. It is invitable that Australia will become a republic sooner than later, but until the republican movement stop the infighting and back biting, mainstream Aussies will keep things the way they are. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jan 2005)

> Something's wrong with these numbers.  45+15+32+13=105%.  Unless of course you can declare yourself to be of more than one ethnic background.



That's exactly the case garbageman.  Scots-Irish-Acadian-Canadian anyone?

By the way I forgot the 4% that classify themselves as Native, Metis or Inuit.

As to the point of the thread, I am on record as favouring the monarchy and retaining the Governor-General in the role described by the Constitution but electing him/her for one longish term.  (Election by popular vote, by Parliament, by Council of First Ministers all are good with me).  The Queen as head of the Commonwealth, Canada as an independent country within the Commonwealth, just as the Provinces should be independent entities within Canada.


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Jan 2005)

You also have to realise that if the federal goverment tries to rid the monarchy from Canada, some provinces my block the decision.

 Im not sure why people want to abolish the monarchy. The Monarchy is part of Canada's history and heritage. Some members on this forum seem to adore american foreign policy, culture, and goverment. I have one thing to say to these people. If you dont like they way our country governs itself, its traditions, and its policies, immigrate south and dont come back!


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (1 Jan 2005)

Let's keep the monarchy.   Although the GG's taste have been lavish lately, she has down an outstanding job for the military.  We must keep our roots and do not have to cut ties with Britain.  Although the Canadian demographic has changed since 1940, this should not be the reason why we want to throw away such an important and defining part of our history.  If Canada's population was suddenly 55% of Mongolian origin would we replace the Queen with Genghis Khan. I think not.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2005)

It's interesting to watch some "cavaliers" come here and defend the monarchy with passionate pleas of "tradition" and nothing much else for rational argument on how the monarchy supports our democracy.

I see calls for tradition based upon the lines that "we've done it that way before" - this seems to be indicating that there is no real understanding of what important traditions we continue to (and should) exercise today.   I bet if you were British you'd be arguing on the importance of Peerage and the House of Lords for no other reason then the fact that "we've always done it that way".   Kinda dogmatic and a little unoriginal.

Our British heritage has given us Common Law (_sans Quebec_), the Rule of Law, the theory of Responsible Government, a Parliamentary democracy, and a notion of individual rights (which is buried in all of these principles and evolved through millenia of history).

The British Monarchy has been out of our hair domestically (the King-Byng affair) and internationally (the Statute of Westminster) for quite some time now.   Trudeau ensured that Canadian sovereignty rested, _de facto_ and _de jure_ in a wholly Canadian context.   As such, as citizens of a democracy where sovereignty ultimately lies with the people, keeping some pseudo-authoritarian figurehead that represents the "rule of one" (monarkhia) rather then the "rule of the people" (demokratia) is an idea that's past its expiry date (we seem to actually exist in a benevolent oligarchy, but that's a topic for another debate). 

Does this mean we have to severe all heritage to the British Iles?   Of course not.   As a mature and stable democracy, we're more then capable of determining who our head of government *and* our head of state are, in the process making them both fully functional and accountable offices, while at the same time maintaining links to our roots (through continued membership to the Commonwealth) and maintaining and practicing the traditions that really matter (mentioned above).

As it stands, the most likely and easiest way to go about things is the gradual abrogation of The Crown in our political dialogue until the day that nobody really notices it's gone.   Supportive of this course, I would recommend against any actions in the other direction (renaming the CME the Royal Canadian Engineers comes to mind) which will only make the eventual separation more of a logistical drag (line up for new capbrass, everyone....)

Cheers,
Roundhead Infanteer, Lord Protector of Canada....


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (1 Jan 2005)

IMHO Canada is not ready to go away from the monarchy without major growing pains.I would liken it to the possible problems that would face Quebec (or Alberta) should a seperation occur there.I think it wouldn't be worth the heartache to leave the monarchy, just to say we are on our own.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2005)

Hogwash.

If we decided to eliminate the Monarchy tomorrow, could you really identify any real impact on the day-to-day affairs of Canadians?  A bit of a logistical burden (name changing, new seals and emblems, etc, etc) but hardly something as divisive as a Province leaving the Confederation.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (1 Jan 2005)

So INFANTEER, in your opinion what are the reasons we dont leave the monarchy?


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hogwash.
> 
> If we decided to eliminate the Monarchy tomorrow, could you really identify any real impact on the day-to-day affairs of Canadians?   A bit of a logistical burden (name changing, new seals and emblems, etc, etc) but hardly something as divisive as a Province leaving the Confederation.


 

 Your wrong there. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and British Columbia would block any legislation of abolishing the monarchy. The "notwithstanding clause" would be used 
Vigorously to destroy any legislation in parliment.

 Alberta and Quebec are probably the strongest supporters of the abolishment of the monarchy

 I would also like to ask, does anyone know the oppinon of the conservative party on the issue of the Monarchy?


----------



## Art Johnson (2 Jan 2005)

Come on Michael, you live out in the Boondocks of the wild west (you lucky dog). Our current GG is a pure bitch through and through. She is still using her first husbands name, why? They have been divorced for years, she is even estranged from her children, what a great role model. While in Toronto she got into a bitter law suite with one of her neighbors, the mother of a well known hockey player. As head of the group that was responsible for the Canadian War Museum she publicly humiliated the Head of the CWM because he wore his Naval Uniform to a meeting.
It has always stuck in my craw that the Poi family was evacuated from Hong Kong after the surrender but Canadian personnel had to stay.

Personally for me after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne I will not take an oath of allegiance to her successor.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Your wrong there. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and British Columbia would block any legislation of abolishing the monarchy. The "notwithstanding clause" would be used Vigorously to destroy any legislation in parliment.


You have no idea what you are talking about.  So lets set a few things out for you:

1) Provinces cannot block federal legislation.

2) Eliminating the monarchy would require a change in the constitution (this is something more than just legislation and provinces could oppose it).

3) The notwithstanding clause applies to the charter and it is used to pass legislation that otherwise would violate the charter.  Unless the clause is being amended, it would not be relevant to a constitutional amendment.  It does not allow any level of government to invalidate any other level's legislation.


----------



## LF(CMO) (2 Jan 2005)

"Our current GG is a pure ***** through and through. "  Absolutely accurate, her disdain for her 'subjects' was proven by her reckless spending habits to aggrandize herself and entertain her half witted cohorts.  Why not eliminate the GG?  I have tremendous respect for HM QE II.  I have no problem with Charles III or Harry??  
 Their mother, grand parents and great-grand parents have stood by us through perilous times.  ("Poi family was evacuated from Hong Kong")  As we say out west, they 'didn't cut and run'!!

personally for me after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne I will not take an oath of allegiance to her successor."  Just curious on this one Art?  I'm French-Can/Irish-Catholic and I've 'taken the Oath'.  (Much to the chagrin of some of the rest of my family)

'Queen by the Grace of God'....GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> "Our current GG is a pure ***** through and through. "   Absolutely accurate, her disdain for her 'subjects' was proven by her reckless spending habits to aggrandize herself and entertain her half witted cohorts.   Why not eliminate the GG?   I have tremendous respect for HM QE II.   I have no problem with Charles III or Harry??
> Their mother, grand parents and great-grand parents have stood by us through perilous times.   ("Poi family was evacuated from Hong Kong")  As we say out west, they 'didn't cut and run'!!



Although I abhor her politics and think her husband is an overrated, puffed-up, provincial ninny, I think Mme. Clarkson is the best GG since Georges Vanier.   We have had a couple of half decent GGs since 1967 â â€œ Michener and Hnatyshyn tried but they were too _political_ to break the traces â â€œ but most have been superannuated, dim political hacks, flacks and bagmen and, by and large, were disgraceful â â€œ especially Sauvé and LeBlanc.   I have no doubt that the next one will be a return to the tried and true form.

I'm not much of a monarchist but I do prefer the _Westminster_ form of _*responsible*_ government so we need a (largely ceremonial) head of state and, I repeat, Mme. Clarkson and General Vanier were the only two â â€œ since Canadians took the job over 50 years ago â â€œ worthy of the country they represent.

Her spending habits are modest, and if you want to know about over-priced circumpolar trips as DFAIT â â€œ they're the ones who decide where she goes, who goes with her, etc.

The GG has limited discretion â â€œ even her trips to visit the fleet and the troops required considerable arm twisting â â€œ by her staff â â€œ in the PMO.



> Clarkson shows soldiers how to party
> Governor General's visit energizes Afghan troops
> Jim Farrell
> The Edmonton Journal (From the Ottawa Citizen: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3e7636f1-9183-46ec-aa29-5022e756ce32 )
> ...


----------



## Canuck_25 (2 Jan 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> You have no idea what you are talking about.   So lets set a few things out for you:
> 
> 1) Provinces cannot block federal legislation.
> 
> ...



 My bad on the "notwithstanding clause"

 but dosnt the country require 2/3rds of the provinces and 50%+ of the populations to make any changes to the charter?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jan 2005)

You are right on the formula Canuck25.

And Squarehead Infanteer - you might want to review the history of the last Lord Protector, and learn from the example.  He was the reason we have a constitutional monarchy. As Churchill said - the least worst of all systems.

Cheers ;D 

Proud "Cavalier"


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> My bad on the "notwithstanding clause"
> 
> but dosnt the country require 2/3rds of the provinces and 50%+ of the populations to make any changes to the charter?


The Charter is a part of the Constitution Act 1982 (it is not the entire constitution or even the entire portion passed in 1982).  You can amend it all you want and it will not affect the monarchy.

There are several ways to amend the constitution, however the removal of the monarchy would require approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least 2/3 of the provincial legislatures (and those legislatures representing at least 50% of the population).


----------



## Canuck_25 (2 Jan 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Charter is a part of the Constitution Act 1982 (it is not the entire constitution or even the entire portion passed in 1982).   You can amend it all you want and it will not affect the monarchy.
> 
> There are several ways to amend the constitution, however the removal of the monarchy would require approval of the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least 2/3 of the provincial legislatures (and those legislatures representing at least 50% of the population).



 The chances of the provinces approving of the abolishment is pretty small. Also, you must consider that Ottawa has always had every province on side before it amends the constitution. Im not sure why, mostly because the rest of the country had to please Quebec before it would agree.


----------



## Torlyn (2 Jan 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> The chances of the provinces approving of the abolishment is pretty small. Also, you must consider that Ottawa has always had every province on side before it amends the constitution. Im not sure why, mostly because the rest of the country had to please Quebec before it would agree.



Hmmm...  I'm trying to remember social 30, but I don't believe Quebec ever ratified the constitution act...  How is that pleasing Quebec?  As for the referendums you're talking about, the Meech Lake accord was shot down by Newfoundland and Manitoba, and the Charlottetown Accords didn't have enough popular support, so they died...

T


----------



## Canuck_25 (2 Jan 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Hmmm...   I'm trying to remember social 30, but I don't believe Quebec ever ratified the constitution act...   How is that pleasing Quebec?   As for the referendums you're talking about, the Meech Lake accord was shot down by Newfoundland and Manitoba, and the Charlottetown Accords didn't have enough popular support, so they died...
> 
> T



 Actually, i will quote a passage from my Law 12 book.

 "In 1990, the ratification proces came to an abrupt end when Elijah Harper, a Cree, and a member of the Manitoba legislator, blocked debate of the accord by using the parliamentary process."


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And Squarehead Infanteer - you might want to review the history of the last Lord Protector, and learn from the example.   He was the reason we have a constitutional monarchy. As Churchill said - the least worst of all systems.



Squarehead!!!   Why you....   :threat:, at least Cromwell was posthumously executed  >.

I think Churchill was referring to _democracy_ in general, not the _constitutional monarchy_ flavour.

As well, if Canada was to hold a general referendum (like Australia) and it passed, I am unsure if any provincial government would want to buck the trend and ignore the _vox populi_.

Regardless, there are more important things to worry about than an obsolete and hollow institution - things that _really_ need our attention.   I could care less what the GG does for the Forces considering her dining budget could be used to send Canadian Soldiers to the range more then once a year (something we really need).

But here are some, if anything, humerous sites to check out (I just googled them up), apparently there is actually a solid movement in Canada to do so:

http://www.freedomcanada.net/
http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/home.html

As well, the ANZAC's:
http://www.republic.org.au/homepagehtml.htm
http://www.republic.org.nz/

And (GASP) even in Albion herself:
http://www.republic.org.uk/

Enjoy....


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2005)

Did I say something to offend?

Surely the difference in the geometry of blocks is trifling enough it can be treated cavalierly?

And where do you find all these nasty republican sites?

All this railing against tradition Infanteer, and next thing you know you will be promoting a single capbadge army with numbered battalions.  A VERY unCanadian, possibly even American notion.

Vive la difference.....


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2005)

lol....


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2005)

Cheers mate.


----------



## gunner56 (3 Jan 2005)

NO,NO,NO...DID I SAY NO? IMEANT TO SAY NO EFFING WAY DO WE RETAIN WASTES OF MONEY LIKE THE QUEEN &FAMILY,OR GOVGEN JUST BECAUSE OF TRADITION! THEY SERVE NO VISIBLY USEFUL PURPOSE OTHER THAN OVERSPENDING OUR MONEY...KINDA LIKE LIBERALS.LOSE EM' ASAP!!!


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2005)

And I say Yes, Yes, Yes.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2005)

gunner56 said:
			
		

> NO,NO,NO...DID I SAY NO? IMEANT TO SAY NO EFFING WAY DO WE RETAIN WASTES OF MONEY LIKE THE QUEEN &FAMILY,OR GOVGEN JUST BECAUSE OF TRADITION! THEY SERVE NO VISIBLY USEFUL PURPOSE OTHER THAN OVERSPENDING OUR MONEY...KINDA LIKE LIBERALS.LOSE EM' ASAP!!!



Wow, when you put it that eloquently, I'm sure people will just line up to agree with you.


----------



## gunner56 (3 Jan 2005)

O.K. Infanteer,Ididn't say that you had to agree.I'm just stating my opinion.Ain't democracy wonderful? I can agree to disagree any time I want.


----------



## Torlyn (3 Jan 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Actually, i will quote a passage from my Law 12 book.
> 
> "In 1990, the ratification proces came to an abrupt end when Elijah Harper, a Cree, and a member of the Manitoba legislator, blocked debate of the accord by using the parliamentary process."



That was part of it, yes, but Newfoundland had that one killed regardless.  Cheers.

T


----------



## ctjj.stevenson (5 Jan 2005)

I did not read the whole thread yet... however, I do support the Cdn Monarchy. I believe that it does make us distinct to the Yanks, and it shows that the highest office in the land is not held by a politican. Also, it is a link to history because Canada has always been a monarchy. 

As for HRH Prince William of Wales  as GG, it could be a good idea that one day, the future King of Canada should act as our Governor General. Even though it is important that the role of GG be given to Canadians, the members of the Royal Family are Canadian too. The only problem having HRH the Prince William as GG could be that we have a lot of British tabliods in Canada, around Rideau Hall. 

Have a nice day!


----------



## 043 (30 Jan 2005)

Anyone know how to set up a poll on this subject?


----------



## Torlyn (31 Jan 2005)

Um, you responded to a poll on the question...  About three weeks after the last post.  

T


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Um, you responded to a poll on the question... About three weeks after the last post.
> 
> T


There was no poll in this thread until about 20 min after he posted.


----------



## Zipper (31 Jan 2005)

Yes we should remain a Monarchy. Not only because it is traditional, and thus keeps us in touch with our roots. But also because the idea of becoming a republic is just to darn scary (Not to mention the costs of transitioning over to such). As the Americans have proved, a republic is no better then our system, and in many ways is worse. Yes, representation can be better. But the amount of corruption in comparison to our method, and the strength of special interst groups down there is enough to scare the pants off me.

Thanks

Not to mention the fact that I swore my oath to the Queen, and I stand firmly behind that oath.


----------



## gunner56 (31 Jan 2005)

Oh,well then.I guess you think our gov't isn't corrupt,eh? What about our illustrious PM registering his ships offshore to avoid paying taxes to the country he supposedly serves?What about our GovGen's spending habits?Oh,Did I mention Chretien's business dealings?


----------



## onecat (1 Feb 2005)

"Yes we should remain a Monarchy. Not only because it is traditional, and thus keeps us in touch with our roots. But also because the idea of becoming a republic is just to darn scary (Not to mention the costs of transitioning over to such). As the Americans have proved, a republic is no better then our system, and in many ways is worse. Yes, representation can be better. But the amount of corruption in comparison to our method, and the strength of special interst groups down there is enough to scare the pants off me."

Corruption, I think we the Americans beat on that.  This current gov't is more corrupte then any I can think in recent history.  Moving a republian style of representation would be a step forward and step in the right direction. The first past the post system of voting is outdated and leds to the type of corruption.  It's nice to keep tradations, but the Queen is something we don't need anymore.  Surely after 135 years we can up with our own system.  There is no reason to remove the crown from our history, but it is time to update our system for the better.


----------



## Torlyn (1 Feb 2005)

gunner56 said:
			
		

> Oh,well then.I guess you think our gov't isn't corrupt,eh? What about our illustrious PM registering his ships offshore to avoid paying taxes to the country he supposedly serves?What about our GovGen's spending habits?Oh,Did I mention Chretien's business dealings?



PM PM was not directly involved in the registration of the ships of his family's companies offshore...  He had distanced himself from that aspect for many years now, in order to reduce the chances for any ethical considerations.  Unless of course you have any more pertinent information that would add to your position (and the CBC exposé you watched several months ago)

The GG's spending habits have been well debated here, on many occations.  Which particular expendatures are you having a problem with?

As for Chretien's business dealings, again, which ones in particular are you concerned with?  I'm assuming only those that were undertaken while he was PM, which I'm certain you'll discuss.

Lastly, what other alternatives to the Monarchy in Canada do you suggest?

T


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Feb 2005)

It really scares me on how some people on this forum, who are current members of our forces, are bashing our current system, the constitutional monarchy. It also is disturbing that these members think the current system is   not Canadian. I suggest you pack your bags and move down south. Im sure you support global warming too, whatever more makes it America


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2005)

This was one of the funniest threads in a long time. All I could think of in the back of my mind was the "Monty Python" skit from "Holy Grail":

ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the
behind you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an
inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to our outdated imperialist
dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our
society! If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how
d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the
Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an
autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We
take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the
week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal
affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: *I am your king!*
WOMAN: *Well, I didn't vote for you.*
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels sing] her arm clad in the
purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of
the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to
carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing
swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive
power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here
that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing
me, you saw it didn't you?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

Cor swipe me yer Majesty,  you DO have to get a life..... ;D

Till the nonce King Arthur.


----------



## Sailing Instructor (1 Feb 2005)

Although it is not the current definition of 'republican' the system does not traditionally exclude monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy.   E.g. Rome had several emporers at once. That the people form the sovereign does not prevent them from choosing 1 magistrate (i.e. the king or queen) to head the government.   (This is mostly taken from the language used by Jean-Jaques Rousseau.)

If any of you monarchists want to do an about-turn on this issue (even if only for a while), read Thomas Paine's _Common sense_ in which he likens the monarch to a prostitute.   Good revolutionary writing, now I'm a flip-flopper on this issue.

Re: that aforeposted scene from _Monty Python and the holy grail_: that was one of the 1st things my intro politics class watched.


----------



## onecat (1 Feb 2005)

" It really scares me on how some people on this forum, who are current members of our forces, are bashing our current system, the constitutional monarchy. It also is disturbing that these members think the current system is   not Canadian. I suggest you pack your bags and move down south. Im sure you support global warming too, whatever more makes it America"

so serving members don't have a say how their country should be run.   The current system we have is not Canadian its British.   Just like the monarchy is British and NOT CANADIAN.

We as canadians have to serious look at our system of gov't and work to get it changed.   Its old and out dated and hasn't worked right in years.   And dude I shouldn't have to move down south just because I think our old dated British system sucks.   It remminds of the Family of compact days when Canadians were pushing for changing and Our colonial leader were very happy with the system they had at the time.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (1 Feb 2005)

gunner56 said:
			
		

> Oh,well then.I guess you think our gov't isn't corrupt,eh? What about our illustrious PM registering his ships offshore to avoid paying taxes to the country he supposedly serves?What about our GovGen's spending habits?Oh,Did I mention Chretien's business dealings?


Gunner, might I point out that Adrienne Clarkson is the only head of state who had the decency and guts as Commander in Chief of any Armed Forces to spend the last several New Years with the troops in the FRY and Afghanistan?  Her husband John Ralston Saul has spent the last two New Year's Eves on patrol with the troops around Kabul, which is more than many of us in the CF, reg and reserve, likely did.  Compared to the politicos, our GG and her husband actually give a fuck about the troops those same politicos send out into harm's way with crappy gear on borrowed airplanes.  I'd rather have as CinC of the CF someone of her calibre than any political hack appointed or elected as President of this great nation of ours.  As to her supposed spendthrift ways, might I point at several past GGs (political hacks) who got away with a lot more crap and a lot less publicity.  I would much rather render the Vice-Regal salute to her than to any politician you'd care to name.  'Nuff said.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

Actually, to be perfectly blunt, serving members DON'T have a say in how their country should be run.   They can vote but as I remember QR&Os opinions of a political nature are for politicians, not soldiers.

That was sorted out in the 1600's.

Cheers 

And nicely said Horse Soldier.


----------



## Zipper (1 Feb 2005)

Well lets restate that a bit. Soldier's have no say as far as policy is concerned. We can still voice our opinions through the ballot box and by speaking, letter writing respectively to our representative in our area.

And yes, the current form of monarchy is very much like a prostitute. They get paid by our government to bend over and take duty up the ass. And they don't get to quit until their dead. I'll still respect HRH for it.

Yes our system is very much based on the British model. Some things are different (no house of lords. Its called a senate) however. As well, it has worked (In Britain) to some small degree for some few hundred years longer then our friends to the south. Yes it has its faults and frailties, but until someone comes up with an entirely ground breaking form of government, I think it is the one we are happily stuck with.

Corruption in our Gov? You bet. Pretty much in every ministry. There isn't one form of Government that doesn't have it. However, the amount and scale of corruption to the south makes us look like angels. The Government isn't run by the people down there. Its run by the power brokers in the various special interest groups. Its all a matter of scale.

As for Rome being a republic. Yes it was at times. However it was NOT when the various emperors were in power. Although if enough people were pissed off at said emperor, he usually ended up dead.

Our system is not perfect. But it is Canadian, Queen and all. Myself personally would say "Thank you Britain for giving us our Mum." because it could be alot worse.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

Cheers Zipper  ;D

Although the image you have left me of Lizzy is a bit daunting..... Wonder what Phillip does with himself?

Nasty thoughts, must purify mind.


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Feb 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> " It really scares me on how some people on this forum, who are current members of our forces, are bashing our current system, the constitutional monarchy. It also is disturbing that these members think the current system is   not Canadian. I suggest you pack your bags and move down south. Im sure you support global warming too, whatever more makes it America"
> 
> so serving members don't have a say how their country should be run.   The current system we have is not Canadian its British.   Just like the monarchy is British and NOT CANADIAN.
> 
> We as canadians have to serious look at our system of gov't and work to get it changed.   Its old and out dated and hasn't worked right in years.   And dude I shouldn't have to move down south just because I think our old dated British system sucks.   It remminds of the Family of compact days when Canadians were pushing for changing and Our colonial leader were very happy with the system they had at the time.



 Yes, and you prefer an American system of goverment. The monarchy is one of the few symbols that distinguish Canada from the U.S. Take that away, then we would have to create a new legal system. The only things remaining would be our love for hockey, Maple syrup, and the names of cities, mountains, lakes, rivers, and provinces.


----------



## Pikache (1 Feb 2005)

To me, the Queen represents good government and protection of her subjects. Once she no longer means those things, then my support along with it.

I think I'd prefer to swear an oath to someone living that I can consider a leader and an authority figure rather than some political hack or a piece of paper. It's more personal; I'm responsible to be obedient to the Queen and the Queen is responsible for taking care of me as her subject.

That's all in traditional sense really, but tradition is what binds a society together. Symbols are more powerful than what most people realize.

Is the monarchy in Canada broken? I don't think so.
Don't try to fix what is not broken.


----------



## Pencil Tech (1 Feb 2005)

Royal Highland Fusilier,I agree with you 100 per cent. Those that think we should replace the monarchy are unable to come up with anything inspiring to replace it with. We would end up with some washed-up politician or other patronage appointment as "president" and lose a large part of our history and a beautiful symbolic relationship that works perfectly well.


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Feb 2005)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Royal Highland Fusilier,I agree with you 100 per cent. Those that think we should replace the monarchy are unable to come up with anything inspiring to replace it with. We would end up with some washed-up politician or other patronage appointment as "president" and lose a large part of our history and a beautiful symbolic relationship that works perfectly well.



 Yes, I agree with you there, what is wrong with the Monarchy? Doesnt cost us much and its OUR heritage. I can imagine how many veterans would turn in their graves if we abolished the monarchy. Look how angry they were over the new flag!


----------



## Steel Badger (1 Feb 2005)

The Raccoon hunter has the right of it....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (1 Feb 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree with you there, what is wrong with the Monarchy? Doesnt cost us much and its OUR heritage. I can imagine how many veterans would turn in their graves if we abolished the monarchy. Look how angry they were over the new flag!



Being a war veteran doesn't mean you know what is good for the country.   The new flag was necessary and is a great idea.   Some"veterans" have also been against banning smoking in public places, against women in Highland regiments wearing the same uniforms as their male counterparts, and other things that the majority of Canadians have felt differntly about (and indeed, "veterans" never speak with a unanimous voice but express their own opinions on things).

I do respect the views of veterans, but not 100 percent of the time solely because they are veterans.


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Being a war veteran doesn't mean you know what is good for the country.   The new flag was necessary and is a great idea.   Some"veterans" have also been against banning smoking in public places, against women in Highland regiments wearing the same uniforms as their male counterparts, and other things that the majority of Canadians have felt differntly about (and indeed, "veterans" never speak with a unanimous voice but express their own opinions on things).
> 
> I do respect the views of veterans, but not 100 percent of the time solely because they are veterans.



 Yes, but you have to respect for what they fought for, our way of life. Of course, many veterans are conservative, mainly because they hold values they lived under.

 As one famous man said (this is from memory) "When your young, your liberal. When your old, your conservative."

 Also, a famous speech i would like to show.

 "Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world. Canada, with those relations of friendly, affectionate intimacy with the United States on the one hand and with her unswerving fidelity to the British Commonwealth and the Motherland on the other, is the link which joins together these great branches of the human family, a link which, spanning the oceans, brings the continents into their true relation and will prevent in future generations any growth of division between the proud and the happy nations of Europe and the great countries which have come into existence in the New World." Speech given at a luncheon in honour of Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, Mansion House, London, September 4, 1941.


----------



## Torlyn (1 Feb 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Yes, but you have to respect for what they fought for, our way of life. Of course, many veterans are conservative, mainly because they hold values they lived under.



Ah. Dorosh said he does respect the veterans, as I'm sure everyone on this ARMY.CA website does.  I believe he was stating that just because a veteran says it's so, doesn't mean it is.

I'm a little lost how a speech given 63 years ago has any relevance to this particular topic.  Canada's status on the world stage has changed drastically since that time, and the speech didn't really do much for the whole Monarchy debate that this thread is about...

T


----------



## RCA (1 Feb 2005)

And again this looks to be a generational thing. The younger set "seems" to think that if it doesn't have relevance to them personally, then why have it. There are no sacred cows unless it involves them directly (and yes I know this is a generalization).

 Sometimes tradition is good for traditions sake. It acts like an anchor, a known quantity in changing times. This includes the Regimental system. A soldier always remembers his oath and his Regiment (Branch).

The process of abolishing the monarchy would be more divisive then would be worth keeping the status quo. And what of the Army.. The RCR becomes the Canadian Regiment, the KOCR becomes the Calgary Regiment (gunner56), The RCA becomes the Canadian Artillery. All hatbadges would have the crown removed. And the Navy- HMCS to ?. Farfetched sure, but I think we lose quite a bit of our identify.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2005)

Torlyn is right, lets focus on "here" and "now".   The political landscape of the 1040's is not really relevent to what the Citizens of Canada need (and deserve) today.
Canuck 25, all you've offered is to the argument is to tell people who do not want a monarchy to go to the United States - maybe I should say that if you want a Monarchy, pack up and go to the United Kingdom where it resides.   If you do not want to take part in a critical debate, then go somewhere else before I have to put a muzzle on you.

Anyways, here is a new look at the argument which may be a suitable (and uniquely Canadian) approach to satisfying the issue.

I have two chief problems with the maintenance of the Monarchy as the institution responsible as our Head-of-State:

1)   It is an unelected position, meaning that the actions of those who inherit it are unaccountable to the citizenry who hold the sovereign estate in a liberal democracy (witness the gaffe of members of the Royal Family in the press).   As well, since it is inherited, none may rise to take on the duties and responsabilities of such an important office.

2)   Since it is an unelected institution that flies in the face of the liberal democratic order, it has been reduced to a mere figurehead having no *de facto* political power in our system, despite having the constitutional right to do so.

However, I still wish to maintain the advantages that the Parliamentary Democracy affords us, the central one being that the Chief Executive is above the political partisanship of Parliament and that loyalty goes to the Crown first and foremost instead of two some body of political hacks.   A good example of this is the fact that the Governor-General, as representative of the Queen, is the *de jure* Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces.   As the nations top military officer, the CDS has the right (enshrined in law) to go through his Chain-of-Command, above Parliament, and appeal/complain directly to the Chief Executive.   This principle is to keep the military loyal to the people (whos will is embodied in the Crown) rather then to the partisan political group of the day.   However, the fact is that since the King-Byng affair our Chief Executive, the GG, has basically been "de-clawed" of their constitutional duties.   The result, the Office of the Prime Minster is the most centralized chief executive postion in the Western World.   The Prime Minister literally has more power then the US President with regards to what he can legally do in executing his duties.   This means that there is limited "checks-and-balances", central to democracy since its inception under Cleisthenes in Athens, on an office which basically rules by fiat after being elected (something the original monarchy/Parliament arrangement was meant to curtail).

Here is my solution which may be able to satisfy both requirements - I'll call it 21st Century Parliamentary Democracy.

All States need a symbol.   In the US, the symbol is the Constitution of the United States of America (which sprung from the principles of the Declaration of Independence) for which the Government is charged to uphold and maintain.   In Canada, our enduring symbol has been the Crown, where all loyalty is focused.   The problem is that the Crown is held by a monarchy which has managed to stick around despite going out of style over a century ago.

When Queen Elizabeth II passes on, Canada should refuse to accept her heir as the new Head of State.   Rather, we will request (buy?) a Crown from the British; the Tower of London has a bunch, so I'm sure they won't mind losing one.

This Crown shall become the Crown of Canada.   It will be the embodiment of the Sovereign State of Canada and the resting place of the Sovereign Estate of the People (like Hobbes's Leviathan).   It, like our Constitution, will rest in Canada.   The Crown will still be the "symbol" of Canadian sovereignty - loyalty will be sworn to the Crown, public land will still remain "Crown Land", and the Rule of Law will still be executed by "The Crown".   This ensures that sovereignty is focused on an apolitical object rather then a partisan body.

The Governor-General shall become our Head of State and be given the title of *"Holder of the Crown"* (They will not wear it).   The office of the Governor-General will be one that is open to any Canadian citizen and one that is elected and responsible to the Citizens of Canada.

However, in order to maintain the notion that the Chief Executive is above partisan politics, the Governor-General will be a largely reactive institution.   I would like it to a position for which the holder is elected for a long period of time, say 10 years (with certain recall conditions), in order to give the Office a sense of an enduring presence in politics.   Lacking any sort of Constitutional proactiveness, the goal of setting up the Governor-General as the Chief Executive is to institute the "Elder Statesman" position within our government; a figure that is reserved and observant, but influential (and supplied with the Constitutional powers to do so) if the situation requires it.

The day-to-day running of the Government will reside with Parliament and the Prime Minister (although I'd like to see an expanded role for the Senate).   All the skulduggery and muckraking can stay in Parliament where it belongs.   Parliament shall remain charged with delivering "Peace, Order, and Good Government" while the Governor-General shall be charged with overseeing the figurative and physical protection of the Crown (our sovereign embodiment) by making sure Parliament does its job.   They will largely be responsible for representing Canada abroad, overseeing the organization of new Governments in Parliament, be charged with (in full or shared responsibility) for certain important Government appointments, and shall act as the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces.   

This shouldn't require much of a shift from the present Constitutional arrangement, rather it is more of a realignment of political power structures to the way they were intended.   Other states function with Executive Duties being split between two equally important figures (France has a President and a Prime Minister) so I'm sure we can function like this and look to others to learn from their experiences.   I am sure that, now that the office would be elected, we could transfer some of the powers of the Prime Minister to the Governor-General.   However, as I said above, I'd want to be careful to avoid making the GG a proactive political office, as this will bring the GG, as Holder of the Crown, inappropriately down to the level of partisan politics.   Sure, we will never eliminate bias or political outlook in those who occupy the office, but constitutionally we can limit the effect this has on the execution of their duties.

There you go, this proposal may be the best route to take because it satisfies the following problems:
1) It upholds our heritage of Parliamentary Democracy which is subordinated to The Crown (it will now be our Crown)
2) It maintains our tradition of having our Head-of-State being above partisan politics and overseeing the Government.
3) It satisfies the liberal democratic principle of the Head-of-State being accountable to the will of the Sovereign estate (The citizenry of Canada).
4) It satisfies the liberal democratic principle which sees the position of Head-of-State being one of a meritocracy (those who merit the popular vote of their fellow citizens) rather then one of a inherited estate (those who happen to be the offspring of Royalty).
[I should add 5) The military gets to maintain its traditional link as a servent of The Crown, with all the regalia (Crown Colours), titles (Royal shall be a Crown designation given by the Governor-General on behalf of the Crown), and traditions ("To The Crown and the Governor-General!").]

Roundheads and Cavaliers unite in comments and criticism (Kirkhill, I'm looking at you   )

Infanteer


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill's nodding cautiously  

Don't want to nod too vigorously in case my head comes detached from my shoulders.

I generally like the concept I think.  Timeline might be in debate and some other details but I think I could buy in.

Not bad young'un.


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Feb 2005)

Infanteer, your proposal is one of many. Also, stating you will put a muzzle on me for arguing with those who have no loyalty at all, that is plainly the abuse of your position. Those you post critical post, calling the monarchy "uncanadian" and propose a republic, you dont shove the muzzle on them, nor do you warn them of their actions. Suggesting they move down south and enjoy a republic certainly is a suggestion at best. Acting as a responsible moderator, sitting on the fence, is your job. Dont let your oppinion abuse your position. A moderator should referee disputes that are "on fire" and should watch for language and unnecessary "bashing."

  If anyone on this forum can disagree with me on this fact; the monarchy distinguishes us from the americans, please, post a a credible arguement.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Infanteer, your proposal is one of many. Also, stating you will put a muzzle on me for arguing with those who have no loyalty at all, that is plainly the abuse of your position.



No it is not.   Rather then offer up a critical defence of the Monarchy, you've repeatedly lobbed out posts that center around "disloyalty to tradition".   We ignored it as a empty rant the first time, but you've insisted on spelling it out again and again - I would send the same warning along to someone who insisted on repeatedly pounding on the opposite point (much to all our dismay).   Now I'm telling you to substantiate your claims with a relevent political argument or to keep it zipped and quit spamming this thread with zero-content, inflammatory posts.   (I don't consider myself disloyal, thank you).



> If anyone on this forum can disagree with me on this fact; the monarchy distinguishes us from the americans, please, post a a credible arguement.



How does it distinguish us from Americans?   We work in Information Age economies, take part in representative democracies, live under the Rule of Law, and are protected by Constitutional arrangements which enshrine the rights of the Individual.   Sure, history has made the window-dressing a bit different, but the core remains the same.   I've argued on maintaining Parliamentary Democracy's relevance in the modern liberal democratic order by enshrining its best qualities (of which a monarchy is clearly not) in a renewed constitutional framework.

You, on the other hand, seem to be promoting a defence of monarchy based solely upon distinguishing us from our neighbours to South (of which no two people share more commonalities) with whom 250 years has lead to stronger ties, both cultural and political, then those that exist with our British cousins (where our *de jure* Head-of-State resides).   Sounds like you need to put down the Mel Hurtig books and start thinking about the issues you are discussing.


----------



## youravatar (1 Feb 2005)

Greetings!
it is in my humble opinion that the monarchy is apart of Canada and who we are so we shuld definatley keep that 
but that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement.
thats just my $0.02
-Tony


----------



## gunner56 (1 Feb 2005)

Just so y'all know,I haven't been a serving member since 1987.That was with 604 RCAIRCC(Cadet instructor list). That said...
President(elected separately from party)
Elected Senate(equal representation)
Elected House(equal representation)
Elected Judges
All responsible under the law to those who hired them,and subject to term limits,and legislative recall if they screw-up(which some will)

As for Chretien...let us not forget the infamous golf resort scandal.I believe that he used Prime Ministerial influence to help a friend(please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) And,don't forget GG's expensive,and wastful Great Northern Tour(with sycophants aboard)and her exhorbitant funding increase.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2005)

Essentially, a republic then.  As I tried to highlight in my proposal, you're getting rid of some problems by adopting an entirely new set, especially with the elected judiciary.


----------



## gunner56 (1 Feb 2005)

Perhaps so.However,there would still have to be laws to deal with the ones who turn into undesireables...wouldn't there?


----------



## 043 (1 Feb 2005)

Hmm the poll is getting a bit closer...............so the people that vote yes, but with changes?? Hmmmmmmmmm what exactly does that mean?


----------



## Torlyn (1 Feb 2005)

CHIMO!!!!! said:
			
		

> Hmm the poll is getting a bit closer...............so the people that vote yes, but with changes?? Hmmmmmmmmm what exactly does that mean?



  Have you read the 11 pages?  There is a veritable plethora of suggested changes...

T


----------



## Canuck_25 (1 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How does it distinguish us from Americans?   We work in Information Age economies, take part in representative democracies, live under the Rule of Law, and are protected by Constitutional arrangements which enshrine the rights of the Individual.   Sure, history has made the window-dressing a bit different, but the core remains the same.   I've argued on maintaining Parliamentary Democracy's relevance in the modern liberal democratic order by enshrining its best qualities (of which a monarchy is clearly not) in a renewed constitutional framework.



 The Constitutional Monarchy clearly is a different from of goverment from the Americans. Now, you say we live in the information age (which i clearly agree), why do we have to sacrifice tradition and heritage because of this? In my oppinion, we dont. My suggestion is wait. There is no immediate need to remove the sovereign, it is something we should consider if:

- Britain abolishes the monarchy
- Australia and New Zealand abolish the Monarchy

 It would be a shame to see a polititian become the head icon of this country.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2005)

We all need to watch Infanteer more closely, so we will be able to take appropriate action when he launches his coup and remodels Canadian society after "Infanteer's Republic"   

I do like the idea of the GG having an elective office, but perhaps there should be more conditions attached to the selection process. Here are a few suggestions:

Nominees should have already demonstrated some exceptional merit. Limit the "Merit List" to Officers of the Order of Canada and Nobel Prize winners.

Since the role of head of state is supposed to be above partisen politics, perhaps the office does not need to be decided by a general election. Canadian senators, for example, might be asked to vote on candidates from the "Merit List".

One other thought. The GG should be "re-fanged", with clearly delimited powers to act as the final arbitrator for certain situations. The "King Byng" affair is unfairly cast as a reason to strip the GG of power, Byng was in fact correct to ask the leader of the opposition to form a new government after King's minorety bungled. ( Her Excelency should be reading up on her history about now...).


----------



## Mick (2 Feb 2005)

To support Canuck_25, the monarchy distinguishes us from the Americans in an important way regardless of the fact that we 

"work in Information Age economies, take part in representative democracies, live under the Rule of Law, and are protected by Constitutional arrangements which enshrine the rights of the Individual".

The Canadian monarchy is representative of all Canadians regardless of their particular beliefs, ideologies, or political affiliations.   Compare that with the elected US President who as head of state really only represents those Americans that voted for him.

On another note, can anyone imagine the legal complexities involved with abolishing the monarchy?   Look at the the disastrous outcomes of the previous attempts at major constitutional reforms (Meech Lake and Charlottetown)!

-Mick


----------



## Mick (2 Feb 2005)

IMHO, the Governor-General's considerable power is already adequately curbed by existing precedent and tradition.  Has the GG's office been embroiled in any major power-struggles since King-Byng?

Out of curiosity, other than Order of Canada and Nobel winners, what merits and qualifications should an elected, or indirectly-elected GG posses?

For the record, I'm all-for the status quo...

Cheers!

-Mick


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2005)

I don't care. As long as she continues to support the CF, and lets the public know what we're doing, on a regular basis, she can fly to Kathmandu daily for all I care.

As to the Monarchy, I fully expect this thread to continue until it becomes a King and then carry on in the same vein.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2005)

I seem to recall that Governor General Ed Schryer was quietly preparing to assert vice regal power during the controversies surrounding the patriation of the constitution, which was beginning to paralize the government of the day.

GG Clarkson should certainly be prepared to dissolve parliament should unambiguous evidence of corruption be turned up in the Adscam inquiry. (Imagine, the president of the Quebec Caucus and serving Minister of Finance completely unaware of the flow of federal funds to Liberal friendly ad agencies for little or no work....If he really WAS that clueless, why should he be PM?)

As for how the Merit list should be created, feel free to choose some sort of parameters which avoid or minimize politics (maybe a random draw: the GG lottery!)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2005)

We could pick a new GG, if needed, by country wide poll. Much faster and more efficiently than the CBC picked the most famous Canadian!


----------



## S McKee (3 Feb 2005)

I cannot for the life of me fathom why we as a sovereign nation swear allegiance to a foreign monarchy, which, by the way, deeply offends one quarter of our fellow citizens (French). Why this woman's picture is still on our money, why we will one day, swear allegiance to a foreign king who once likened himself to a tampon and his idiot son who recently wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party on the eve of the Auschwitz memorial. Surely to God at this point in time we have outgrown this pact of misfits and do nothings. We have more in common with our neighbors to the south than the Brits. My two cents.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2005)

Why?

Why, because we are members of a larger organization of states called the British Commonwealth, of which she is the head!

GW


----------



## dutchie (3 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I cannot for the life of me fathom why we as a sovereign nation swear allegiance to a foreign monarchy, which, by the way, deeply offends one quarter of our fellow citizens (French). Why this woman's picture is still on our money, why we will one day, swear allegiance to a foreign king who once likened himself to a tampon and his idiot son who recently wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party on the eve of the Auschwitz memorial. Surely to God at this point in time we have outgrown this pact of misfits and do nothings. We have more in common with our neighbors to the south than the Brits. My two cents.



1-If the French had defeated the British, we would be swearing allegiance to Mitirand, so count yourself lucky! (Yes, I know, he's not a monarch). That would likely offend 90% of us.
2-That 'idiot son' will never be King...unless he knocks off William, that is.
3-We haven't outgrown the pack of misfits and do-nothings in Ottawa that wear red lapel pins, and they have way more impact on our lives than some blue-bloods in England.
4-We have more in common with the US in regards to contemporary culture, but certainly not in traditions. 
MY 2 cents


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

I think Jumper has illustrated the point that many who are dissatisfied with the monarchy are sore with (which I illustrated in my proposal).  Again, I feel it is time to repatriate our Head-of-State in the traditional form of The Crown, only now it will be our Crown.


----------



## S McKee (3 Feb 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Why, because we are members of a larger organization of states called the British Commonwealth, of which she is the head!
> 
> GW



Just because!?!...still doesn't answer my question. Don't you think we've matured enough to strike out on our own, cut the apron strings? Nice to remember where we came from but..... And by the way what has the British Commonweath done for us lately?


----------



## S McKee (3 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think Jumper has illustrated the point that many who are dissatisfied with the monarchy are sore with (which I illustrated in my proposal).   Again, I feel it is time to repatriate our Head-of-State in the traditional form of The Crown, only now it will be our Crown.



Should have read your proposal first Infanteer..I like it

J


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Just because!?!...still doesn't answer my question. Don't you think we've matured enough to strike out on our own, cut the apron strings? Nice to remember where we came from but..... And by the way what has the British Commonweath done for us lately?



I could ask what the Organization des Francophonie has done for us too?   Or for that fact the UN?   

Why should we have our own Queen/King here in Canada?   Why should that be an elected position?   We have an elected Parliament, with an Upper House of "Appointed Lords" in the Senate (Perhaps soon to become elected too).   We have 'Appointed' Lt Governors and the Governor General, all approved by the Monarch as their representative.

If you compare our hierarchy with that of other nations, it is unique.   "The Buck Stops Here!" type of problem doesn't arise here, in that Parliament is responsible to a Monarch for the governance of Canada.   All Acts of Parliament have to be passed again by the Senate to become law, after they have received Royal Assent.   Now, Royal Assent is just a formality in most cases, but I suppose in an extreme case it could be withheld.   

When one wants to lay blame for the failings of our government, where does the buck really stop?

Infanteer, I find it unusual that you want to get rid of the Monarchy, and then replace it with our own 'elected' monarchy, as opposed to simply doing away with it altogether.   That would remove the top tier of all our Federal and Provincial Governments, and lay the blame for any screwups firmly on our own laps.

Gw


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2005)

Absolutely....before he declares a "Benevolent Dictatorship"!    ;D

GW


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I could ask what the Organization des Francophonie has done for us too?   Or for that fact the UN?



Not much.   None of these organizations based off some sort of heritage or tradition are really effective for the reason that the more removed from current realities they become, the less utility they offer.   We are better off being served by more informal groupings with states that have the same background and same goals (The ABCA comes to mind).   One should always be careful to ensure that Dogma doesn't replace Tradition.



> Why should we have our own Queen/King here in Canada?



Why should we have a King/Queen period?   You are a citizen within a representative democracy - the thought of being a subject to some "greater" being and their offspring should conflict with that notion.



> Why should that be an elected position?



Don't you want some sort of say in who you want to represent you as your Head-of-State?   Or are you going to be content with King Charles III merely because of who his mother is?



> We have an elected Parliament, with an Upper House of "Appointed Lords" in the Senate (Perhaps soon to become elected too).   We have 'Appointed' Lt Governors and the Governor General, all approved by the Monarch as their representative.



Yes.   So we're almost there with regards to fully maturing as a completely democratic entity.



> If you compare our hierarchy with that of other nations, it is unique.   "The Buck Stops Here!" type of problem doesn't arise here, in that Parliament is responsible to a Monarch for the governance of Canada.   All Acts of Parliament have to be passed again by the Senate to become law, after they have received Royal Assent.   Now, Royal Assent is just a formality in most cases, but I suppose in an extreme case it could be withheld.



Not really, *de facto* power lies within our Legislative body because they are the only ones that are truly accountable to the _body politic_ - most others lie somewhere between cushy patronage and political shills.   Lets bring the other half of our Executive Branch back into political utility.



> When one wants to lay blame for the failings of our government, where does the buck really stop?



Us.   So lets have a Constitutional arrangement that reflects that.   We don't need a foreign King to "wear" our sovereignty, we're more then capable of appointing someone to watch over it on our behalf.



> Infanteer, I find it unusual that you want to get rid of the Monarchy, and then replace it with our own 'elected' monarchy, as opposed to simply doing away with it altogether.   That would remove the top tier of all our Federal and Provincial Governments, and lay the blame for any screwups firmly on our own laps.



I don't know how it reduce the top tier of all our Federal and Provincial governments?

I am not proposing to merely replace the monarchy with one of our own.   Parliamentary Democracy is much more complicated then you make it out to be.   It supposes that sovereignty is embodied in the Crown that the Monarch wears and that the sovereign is responsible for preserving and protecting our sovereignty.   This is why I put the famous Leviathan image up in my proposal.   The loyalty to this body is supposed to supercede partisan political games that exist in Parliament.

However, the modern liberal democratic order means that having our sovereignty in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable, inherited monarchical body (let alone a foreign one) is unacceptable.   The outcome: the monarchy really means nothing in a political, constitutional sense.   The Queen looks nice on the 20 dollar bill and the Governor-General can wave and do a bang-up job representing us in Finland but in reality, the constitutional arrangement of our inherited tradition of Parliamentary Democracy has gone askew, leaving a system in which the checks-and-balances to curb abuse of power by one branch of the Government have been left at the wayside.  The result; the Prime Minister rules by fiat and the "Loyal Opposition" serves no real role at all execept to act as a bunch of howling monkies in Parliament (I guess you could almost stick the rest of the House of Commons there as well - nothing really goes beyond Cabinet).

The options to fix this are three-fold:

1) Maintain the current set-up, which only means that our constitutional arrangement becomes more and more obscure every year.

2) Get rid of the monarchy and move to a Republican model.   Such a radical transformation in Constitutional tradition does not sit well with many who reflect on the 300 years of British legal, cultural, and constitutional heritage that Canada has.

3) In the great effort of compromise, move to a system that repatriates our Head-of-State as an acceptable and effective agent of Constitutional duties and responsibilities while at the same time seeking to preserve our tradition of Parliamentary Democracy which advocates loyalty to something above the political body.

Read my proposal carefully, you'll see that my general purpose is not to repatriate the monarchy, but rather the realign our constitutional arrangement into something that should satisfy both the Parliamentary traditionalists and the liberal democrats.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Canuck_25 (3 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 3) In the great effort of compromise, move to a system that repatriates our Head-of-State as an acceptable and effective agent of Constitutional duties and responsibilities while at the same time seeking to preserve our tradition of Parliamentary Democracy which advocates loyalty to something above the political body.



 I would choose this option over a republic. I also think many Canadian will choose this option if lets say:

- King Charles acts like his son Harry (which he has done a bit in the past)
- A growing resentment in Canada over the Monarchy
- Britain abolishes the Monarchy
- Australia and New Zealand abolish the Monarchy

 As we all know, when her majesty dies, much debate will arise over our current system. Many Canadians, (from my knowledge) are a bit anti American, and wouldnt except a republic. Also, organizations with "Royal" in their title wouldnt be pleased to see change. I think Infanteers choice of number three is inevitable, and only a matter of time.

 Do not mistake me for being a anti monarchist. I am one of the many British descendants on this country who enjoys seeing our decorative traditions (RCMP, Regiments, Legion, ect.) We cannot ignore our history and heritage, because it sustains our identity.


----------



## 043 (3 Feb 2005)

So you're saying that without a Monarchy we would not have an identity????? I don't think it matters one iota. When we go anywhere in the world, when people say, look, those are Canadian soldiers......I am pretty sure that a light doesn't click on and they automatically think of the Royal Family.   I think what the they think is that, whoa, there is a professional soldier who comes from a top notch country that is better than this s**thole that I am living in. They are over here helping us, that have to be good.

My 2 cents!


----------



## Canuck_25 (3 Feb 2005)

CHIMO!!!!! said:
			
		

> So you're saying that without a Monarchy we would not have an identity????? I don't think it matters one iota. When we go anywhere in the world, when people say, look, those are Canadian soldiers......I am pretty sure that a light doesn't click on and they automatically think of the Royal Family.     I think what the they think is that, whoa, there is a professional soldier who comes from a top notch country that is better than this s**thole that I am living in. They are over here helping us, that have to be good.
> 
> My 2 cents!



 I mean the symbols (uniforms, flags, mottos, history, traditions, ect)

 As for the men, im not sure. Judging by the responses on this thread, it seems quite divided.


----------



## Zipper (3 Feb 2005)

Well I won't argue with infanteer's presentation as it was very well thought out and written.

As for any of the above choices...maybe 3 is inevitable. Definitely not in Queen Elizabeth's life time (long may she reign). I'm not even going to suggest it may happen in Charles or Williams time. 

But it will probably happen. All things must come to an end.

So I'll just sit back and enjoy the way things work right now. Because quite honestly, if it ain't broke? Why fix it. 

I'm really not into any kind of reveloution right now, and I enjoy the pomp and circumstance. Although I must say that considering how well most of our forces marches, its embarrassing to watch.

And besides? If we got rid of it, who would we have to look up to? Who would be march for, and wear pretty regimental uniforms for? Martin? Any PM? Chaaa...   ...right. We're to cynical a people to fall mindlessly into the American form of blind patriotism.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2005)

The key thing about the Head of State, or a Symbol of State, is that it does not symbolize the current government or petty politics of the day, but all of us. The crown on many capbadges, the Royal Cypher E*II*R (or the Imperial Cypher *VRI* for my regiment) are ways of telling people that we are not merely tools of the current govenment but that we stand and are willing to die for the nation (NOT the government). In the United States, although the President is both the head of government and Head of State, the abiding symbol is the Constitution, and everyone from the President on down swear to uphold the Constitution.

This is actually one of the oldest traditions there is, in ancient times oaths were sworn directly to the gods, or to the various Kings and Emporors who embodies the gods authority here on Earth. Even in ancient democracies, oaths were to the gods, not the assemblies, and various religious symbols served as standards in battle.

In some future Canada, we may have ditched the monarchy, but people will still look for an enduring symbol which represents them and their conception of themselves or their ideals. What symbol is chosen will speak volumes of what sort of people Canadians have become.


----------



## Zipper (4 Feb 2005)

I know! The Beaver!


Moose?


A Hockey Stick?


Clean water?


Snowflake?


This could go on...         ...anyway.

Dam it Majoor, your far to eloquent at these things. And I find I am agreeing with your statements on far to many threads.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The key thing about the Head of State, or a Symbol of State, is that it does not symbolize the current government or petty politics of the day, but all of us. The crown on many capbadges, the Royal Cypher E*II*R (or the Imperial Cypher *VRI* for my regiment) are ways of telling people that we are not merely tools of the current govenment but that we stand and are willing to die for the nation (NOT the government). In the United States, although the President is both the head of government and Head of State, the abiding symbol is the Constitution, and everyone from the President on down swear to uphold the Constitution.
> 
> This is actually one of the oldest traditions there is, in ancient times oaths were sworn directly to the gods, or to the various Kings and Emporors who embodies the gods authority here on Earth. Even in ancient democracies, oaths were to the gods, not the assemblies, and various religious symbols served as standards in battle.
> 
> In some future Canada, we may have ditched the monarchy, but people will still look for an enduring symbol which represents them and their conception of themselves or their ideals. What symbol is chosen will speak volumes of what sort of people Canadians have become.



Which is why I said....



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> All States need a symbol.   In the US, the symbol is the Constitution of the United States of America (which sprung from the principles of the Declaration of Independence) for which the Government is charged to uphold and maintain.   In Canada, our enduring symbol has been the Crown, where all loyalty is focused.   The problem is that the Crown is held by a monarchy which has managed to stick around despite going out of style over a century ago.





I believe that "the Crown" can be equally or more effective as a symbol if it is held by a Canadian "Elder Statesmen" rather then worn by some European who lucked out and happens to have the last name of Windsor....


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2005)

> I believe that "the Crown" can be equally or more effective as a symbol if it is held by a Canadian "Elder Statesmen" rather then worn by some European who lucked out and happens to have the last name of Windsor....



OK Infanteer, let's chill out a little on this one.

I support your general premise, as I said earlier its a good idea.   I also said that I was not quite sure that I agreed with the timeline.   I think it is a desireable end-state once Canada becomes a different Canada than it is today, the Canada the you wish it to become and the Canada that I, grudgingly, expect it to become. One that is less British.

One of the basic rules of leadership is never issue a command you don't expect to be followed.   You may be right to issue the command but there is a considerable loss of authority and credibility if your "followers" laugh in your face, or worse look for the nearest explosive device.     

The problem exists not only when all your "followers" disagree with you but even when a sizeable minority disagrees with you.   That results in conflict.   When the split is 50:50 on the national level then that is when civil wars occur. (No I am not predicting the Revolt of the Cavaliers, The Sequel).   

In this I believe Trudeau had something of it right when asked what he would do about the Governor-General he responded "Nothing.   Let it fade away to irrelevance".   Unfortunately he was right and it has been a winning strategy for the Republicans.   But he was right to recognize that without active support it would become irrelevant and naturally disappear from the Canadian consciousness.   The alternative was to rile a very large portion of the population.   You are too young to remember it, and I was too late to see it but folks like ROJ remember the Flag Debate well and its successor debate over removing the Royal Cipher from mail boxes and the prefix Her Majesty's.....from Government Departments and correspondence.   Those moves, as much as any, poisoned the attitude of many Anglo-Canadians of those days to Trudeau and Quebec.   Many of them were veterans that had proudly served Her Majesty's father as Canadians.   

Many of those veterans and their offspring still feel strongly about the Monarchy and the numbers suggest that anything from 25 to 50% of the population stil have some attachment to the Monarchy.   Forcing the issue at this time is not likely to play to the advantage of any political party, or IMHO the country at large.

That is why I suggest that while your end-state is an acceptable end-state for this tradition-loving Britophile Monarchist, I don't think that it is a desireable state at this time.   Now in 25 years or so it may be a different matter - my kids certainly have not strong attachment to Britain, that could have something to do with the fact that my Franco-Canuck wife keeps bringing up the ruddy Acadians ( ;D "Don't mention the war.....").     So in your lifetime you will probably find a move towards your point of view.   

I am glad to see that you value symbols as reminders of history and what has brought us to this point.   If those that forget history are doomed to repeat it then we should constantly strive to remind ourselves of the conficts that have been resolved on the route to the present.   Those resolved conflicts, power struggles, have resulted in our modern institutions and thus have given us the tools to resolve and defuse modern conflicts.

As to the Royals as being "lucky Europeans" you are missing the point about the Royals entirely here.

The Royals are a symbol.   Their power devolves not from legislation, force or even luck.   Their power devolves from something much more fundamental.   Blood. 

They are a symbol of racial connectivity.   They work hard to be able to trace their genealogy and maintain, not their purity, but their genetic connectivity. 

You and I have had a discussion about "Blood and Belief". Some would argue that one is irrational and the other is rational.   That one appeals to the heart the other the mind.   That an attachment to blood-lines, to race, to tribe, to clan, to family is irrational.   But it exists, just ask the Quebecers.   And time does not prevent people remembering.

The entire history of the modern world and western liberalism, the rise of Prebyterianism, through the Enlightenment has been a struggle on the part of the rationalists to over-ride those heart-felt blood-ties with rational appeals to something greater.   A common belief.   Common beliefs have been common in the past and have been used to bring disparate bloodlines together.   Generally these are beliefs in a God or a form of worship.   The common belief that the rationalists have tried to proclaim, and it has found many adherents, especially amongst the academics of the world is rationalism itself.   The belief that forswears belief and believes itself to be without beliefs and thus "pure".

The French, believing themselves to be the ultimate expositors of the "Enlightenment", largely in reaction to all the nastiness associated with the European wars of religious belief where the populace was whipped up to support power-seeking individuals by appealing to their religious beliefs, believe that they have no beliefs. That they are rational individuals that eschew any belief at all.   Thus they believe in the state religion of "laicete", or no god-centred religion. 

The Americans and the modern British state however spring from the Scottish Enlightenment.   An enlightenment that sought to find the role for man in God's world and ended up promoting the individual,   individual responsibility, charity begins at home, the acceptability of earning a profit, the desire to use science to find God's plan but the need to accede to God's good graces and look after the disadvantaged.   If only in enlightened self-interest. It accepted the individual, blood and God as necessary ingredients to make their society work. 

While the Scottish Enlightenment led to America, the French Enlightenment led to Marx.   These two Enlightened views are at the heart of the modern conflicts between Progressives and Conservatives.

Now these days, while many Brits, both in Canada and in Britain have turned more towards a French world view likewise many non-Brits both in Canada and around the world have converted to more of a Scottish view.   I would argue that the Poles, for example, clearly fall into that category.

These two camps will rally around their symbols.   In the past Brits that shared the Scottish view, a majority of Canadian Brits, found those symbols in the Crown and the living symbol of the Royals.   These days those types of Canadians constitute a diminishing population but as noted many non-Brits share a similar view.   These people, although finding no attachment to the British blood lines, do find themselves attached to British philosophy.   For them perhaps the Crown, as a symbol of the well-spring of their beliefs could be considered acceptable.

Another way to bridge the divide historically has been through inter-marriage, to incorporate other relevant blood-lines into the living symbol.   Using traditional logic one solution for Canada would be for one of the Royals to take up permanent residence in Canada and become part of the fabric of Canadian society, not necessarily in an authority position like the GG but just as a private citizen who takes part in public life like any other notable private citizen.   That person's heir would then marry a suitable Canadian of well recognized blood lines in the community - it could be a pure laine Quebecoise or a Native woman or a Hindu or Muslim or Chinese woman.   Other heirs would confirm the web of blood and tie the families together in one family and create a Nation in the sense that the Unenlightened world understands it.

The Quebecers have that right.   Country, Nation and State are three different things.   Canada has the geography that defines it as a country.   It has a government that defines it as a state.   But it does not have the unity of bloodlines that define it, in the traditional sense as a Nation.

Our ruling classes are trying to get us beyond that sense of Nation and create something different, in that sense they are trying to accomplish the same as the Americans, a Nation that defines itself not by blood but by belief.

Perhaps they will succeed.   Canadians more and more are defining themselves by belief and not by blood.   But they are not united in those beliefs.

In the meantime Lord Durham's words of 1837 are still valid. Canada is still  "two Nations warring within the bosom of a single State".   Although in those days those Nations defined themselves by blood.   These days there are many more bloodlines capable of defining themselves as Nations.   These days we see not just divisions amongst Nations that define themselves by blood but also between Nations that define themselves by belief.

To remove the monarchs at this time, rather than letting them fade gracefully, or even potentially enjoy a natural resurgence, would only exacerbate divisions in a State that already has too many fault lines.

Sermon ends. 

Cheers. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2005)

I stand in awe of Kirkhills eloquence.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill taking bow,

And that's with no beer.... ;D


----------



## Agamemnon (4 Feb 2005)

I don't know about being patriotic for the queen ...but when she came it cost us MILLIONS...the governor general burns our money...and she has no real power...the prime minister can change her whenever he wants...

In WW1 we sent 600 000 men for england...and in return they said " maybe you will get your independence"

besides the fancy face on the money... "rubbish !"


then again its my opinion..as a Quebecois and as a Canadian...


----------



## Zipper (4 Feb 2005)

Holy cow...




...wow.

How long did it take you to not only write? But to gather your thoughts? Sheesh.

As for Agamemnon. Its ironic that you choose to disrespect the Monarchy and yet choose that alias. Ah well.

Wow again.

I find it strange while reading your post Kirkhill, that I agreed with both sides of the coin. I still very much identify with the British (Scottish) way of thinking and the monarchy. But in many ways, especially socially thinking, I identify very much with the philosophies of the French way of thinking.

I still respect tradition when it comes to symbols and our history, but I believe our way of government is following the right track when it comes to its social democratic views. Could it be that Canadians define themselves by this? And may be very much lost in the quagmire between the two?

I would also add a third nation in that mix. That of the Natives who very much identify themselves by blood lines.


----------



## Agamemnon (4 Feb 2005)

Zipper i chose Agamemnon because Vandooze was taken  ;D

and your right i am  DISRESPECTING the monarchy but let me send that question right back to you...when has the MONARCHY respected US?!?

In 1899-1902 if i remember we waged war for them. :threat:
In WW1 we sent 600 000 men...out of what 10 million people?? India at the time had 350 million people and only sent 1 million men... 


so wheres the respect? ???


----------



## Canuck_25 (4 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> I don't know about being patriotic for the queen ...but when she came it cost us MILLIONS...the governor general burns our money...and she has no real power...the prime minister can change her whenever he wants...
> 
> In WW1 we sent 600 000 men for england...and in return they said " maybe you will get your independence"
> 
> ...


 Please, study history

 Canada became almost fullly independant in 1931, after WW1. We became fully independant in 1982, with our own constitution. As for the Queen visiting, it didnt cost as much as Mr Bush visiting Ottawa in the past months. Where ever Mr Bush travels, it cost millions. As for being a Quebecois, you seem to wish to have a special status in Canada, and i dont respect that.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2005)

Make sure you guys define what you mean by fully independent.  1867, 1931, and 1982 all have various meanings.

PS: Kirkhill, I'm still digesting your post (and preparing counter-battery fire  >).  It seem to remember it, but it made more sense over Guinness and animated gestures....


----------



## Canuck_25 (4 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Zipper i chose Agamemnon because Vandooze was taken   ;D
> 
> and your right i am   DISRESPECTING the monarchy but let me send that question right back to you...when has the MONARCHY respected US?!?
> 
> ...



 Please, in 1899 to 1902 we assisted the British Army with as much material and men as they requested against the Boers in South Africa. Again another example of our poor education system, teaching the ignorant blasphemy.

 Yes, your right on our WW1 numbers, but wrong on India's. India contributed 3 million men, and suffered a higher causulty rate than the Canadians. Also, you must consider this, 350 million being ruled by 100,000; not popular.

 In World War one, Canadians enlisted for King and Empire. As for French Canadians, they didnt contribute as much as English Canadians, they were against the War, and against conscription. Although, Borden got his way by allowing women whos sons were on the front the right to vote, winning an election and passing through conscription, he destroyed Quebecs trust in the Conservative Party. Short term gain, for long term pain. 

 I am shocked how little some know of Canadian history. How can any person who dosnt know the facts, critisise the British. Christ being in the British Empire secured us from the Americans for over 100 years


----------



## Big Bad John (4 Feb 2005)

Infanteer, did you say Guiness!!!!!! Where and when?

lol


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2005)

Ask Kirkhill, he stocks those funny cans with the plastic balls inside....


----------



## Big Bad John (4 Feb 2005)

Hey we all have to make sacrifices for the good of the service, ect..  No Murphy's...I'm crushed.  I'm going to have to go out and find a pub here in Ottawa tonight.


----------



## Zipper (5 Feb 2005)

Oh man, Ottawa? Pick up a beaver tail for me on the way to the local. Ottawa has some very decent pubs I must say. At least as compared to Edmonton.

I'm in agreement Canuck. The reason we went to war with (not for) England was because we were still very much a colony in many respects. So it was our duty to do so. Also, the King and Country thing was a major part of the equation.

As for the reasons above and beyond that. They are our friends and allies, and thus if our national policy meshes with their's, then your damned straight we went. And I'm sure we would again if called upon in similar circumstances.

Makes you wonder by the fact that we managed to send 600 000 out of 10 million, and we can't even afford 50 000 out of 32 million today. Sheesh.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2005)

John, civilisation is to be found in the colonies.   There are not only the "tinnies" with which Infanteer and I had to make do but you can actually find pubs that can pull you a proper Guiness. Murphy's has been sighted as well.   Some of those Ottawa types on this board should be able to point you in the right direction.

Zipper, the answer to where does it all come from ... see John's query.   The black stuff seems to lubricate the thought process.   Then the ideas just seem to spew forth.

Infanteer, balls in your court, expecting reply ....... sometime.

Agamemnon, I have no intention of getting into an Anglo-Franco dispute.   They are not good for my marriage.

And back to Zipper on a serious note:

Your comment about leaning towards the social democrat or French view as opposed to the more libertarian Scots view.   That is about par for the course.   Many Scots living on the Clydeside would agree with your position.   It is important to remember that both in Scotland and in France the same people were debating the same ideas and in many cases adopted the same beliefs.   But they also divided on certain other beliefs.   So while they could all agree on the need for social justice and equity they came to different positions on God, the Law and Democracy.

Just as the Wars of Religion influenced the European tendency to walk away from God, ending ultimately with Nietzsche and Sartre, so the French Revolution also impacted the track they took.

In the 1600's Britain and France were on parallel courses.   The Stuarts and the Louis' were monarchs that were supported by the Catholic church and collectively they supported the concept of a hierarchical power structure that said that authority came from on high and that God was the ultimate source of power and that power was purveyed on Earth by the Catholic Church and the Pope.

Throughout Europe that notion was challenged by the Protestants.   But the Protestants were split.   There were those of the type like Luther and the Tudors in England that liked the hierarchy well enough but believed that someone other than the Pope should be wielding it.   In Britain these Church of England protestants were known as Episcopalians and they supporte rule by the Bishops.   The Bishops would appoint ministers to the parishes at the request of the King and they would instruct their flock to support the King.   This system appealed to the Stuarts as well as the Tudors.   

It also appealed to Louis, who decided to stay Catholic but to ignore the Pope and appoint his own priests.

The other bunch of protestants were the Presbyterians.   This group followed Calvin, and Knox, and Zwingli   and they found followers in Italy, Switzerland, France, Holland, Scotland and England.

This group were the real threat to Louis and the Stewarts.   For they wanted the right to hire and fire their own ministers and found no need to bend the knee to God, much less the Pope or a King.  They believed that authority was theirs to give and were quite capable of talking to God on their own.  Give them the book and they would find the answer themselves.  This wasn't a pleasant prospect for an authoritarian regime.

Charles I had his biggest threat from a group of my ancestors in the Ayrshire, Dumfries, Galloway area.   Louis had his from the St-Malo, La Rochelle, Poitou area.   In Scotland they were Covenanters, in France they were Huguenots.   In France Louis copied one of Charles' big ideas and visited a bunch of Royal troops on the area and had the locals turn over their houses and their daughters to the service of the troops.   In Scotland Charles did it on the cheap.   He didn't bother to raise troops he couldn't afford.   He just invited some "loyal" Highlanders to take up residence in Ayrshire towns and help themselves to the spoils.   In Scotland this was known as the Highland Hosting.   In France, 40 years later it was the Dragonnades.

The difference between Scotland and France was that in Scotland the Presbyterians won. In France Louis won.   He also took on the Dutch, the Swiss and the Savoyards with mixed results.

In Britain, we lopped off Charlie's head and replaced him with a Commoner name of Cromwell.   After a few years we discovered that Commoner or Royal a tyrant was a tyrant.   Putting a Commoner on the throne was no guarantee of a just society and a peaceful life.   Consequently we invited the Royals back and then limited their arbitrary power by tying them to the wishes of the mob.   Just the same as we limited the power of the judges.   In the case of the judges their powers were limited by the representatives of the mob sitting in the jury, the peers of the accused.   In the case of the Crown the representatives of the mob sat in Parliament.   The King didn't have any authority without money to raise an army so Parliament kept a tight rein on the purse strings to limit the power of Government.   A typically parsimonious Scots solution.   Cheap.   We then set about making money by setting up trading companies all over the world, like the HBC and the East India Company as well as many in the States.

In France Louis his son and his grandson kept the lid on for a century or so more.   Maintaining their divinely authorized right to rule.   Eventually they ran out of money and their mob ran out of patience.   Off comes a Louis head.   And many relatives besides. And many associates. And people that disagreed. And people that had houses that others wanted. And people that didn't look right.   Heads off the lot of them.   Much blood. Much disorder.   All the result of a mob prodded by a bunch of "Enlightened" radicals.

Into this mess steps Napoleon. He brings order but he also brings a control to the arbitrary power of Kings, himself included.   He brings the Code Civile, the Napoleonic Code.   He determines the Right answer to every situation and appoints tribunals of learned men to adjudicate.   

So in Britain we ended up with a system where the power of Government is fettered by the will of the mob, as represented by their Members of Parliament while in Europe generally, where there was a distrust of the mob at all levels of society Power was deemed to be better controlled by constitutions and learned men.   

The British system is a system of Democracy.   Rule of the people.   In particular it is a parliamentary democracy.   Rule by the representatives of the people in consultation with the Government.

The European system is a Constitutional Government, and it may or may not be democratic.   The judges don't have to listen to the people.   They are free to decide according to their own arbitrary discretion on the rights of the case.

Canada under Trudeau became a hybrid child, a constitutional democracy.   Trying to be both democratic and just.

That isn't always possible.

The strength of the mob is stability. If the mob all asserts a common position and the Government follows their advice then the Government survives to fight another day.   The Government is the people.   They are us.   The British parliamentary democracy has stood as an institution now for over 300 years.   In that time the institution has changed course and form but it has never broken.   Britain has prospered.

The Constitutional system has the advantage of being "Right" and "Just".   Learned people knowing the right answers act in the best interests of the populace.   But unfortunately "to Govern is to decide" as is Judging.   And every time you make a decision you upset at least one party, often it is many parties, sometimes in an effort to find a compromise it is all parties.   After a while the Judges and the Government are found to be out of step with the mob.   Everybody has their own pet reason for hating the arbiters, not all of them are rational   But the mob is of one opinion on this fact alone. They, the judges and government, are NOT us.   In the last 200 years, in contrast to over 300 years of relative stability in the UK, France has gone through a number of revolutions, republics and monarchies.

Back to the concept of leadership.   It serves nothing to give an order, no matter how right it is, if nobody is going to obey you.

The system of parliamentary democracy can be abused both by the mob and by demagogues.   It relies on firm rational leadership.   Not command but leadership.   It is up to the leaders to convince the mob that their leaders are right.   But it is a durable government that never separates the mob, us, from our leaders, for any of us can be a leader if his or her neighbours agree.

Constitutional government relies on learned individuals.   A separate class of individuals.   Individuals that are separated, cloistered and educated with special knowledge.   They are, already, not us.   When they start making pronouncements they have to overcome a degree of scepticism at least, in some cases hostility.

Parliamentary democracy is the triumph of the Commoner.   He or she sits in the House of Commons and applies Common Sense to the problems of the Nation (or State), just as they do when sitting on a jury, judging their peers.

I prefer to live in a land where I am judged by my peers and my peers debate my issues, often coming to an expedient pragmatic solution, than a land where experts come to the Right decision for me.

This, to me is the ultimate outcome of the debates started in Edinburgh and Paris.   Do we choose to be governed by experts so that the Right thing is always done, or do we choose to govern in our own name making mistakes along the way.   Nobody has yet convinced me that the Experts are less fallible that the experts are less fallible than the mob.

For me the Royals are a living symbol of the society that waded its way through much blood and many compromises to produce the parliamentary democracy that allows me a say in my country's life.   They are also a racial, genetic link to my past.

I can understand why others in my new country would not feel the same link of blood ties but I would find it regrettable in the extreme if connection to that history that created our government were lost.   Symbols help preserve that connection.   At very least I would like to see the Crown maintained as such a symbol. That is why I accept infanteer's proposal as an inevitable minimum.

Cheers again guys, 

And I promise to try and limit these rants to once in a rarity.


----------



## Agamemnon (5 Feb 2005)

Ok first off Quebecois ARE diffrent face it we have diffrent cultures.

Your write it was 2.8 million men that was my bad i mixedn umbers up...its funny how you say 100 000 over 350 million not popular what about the 20 000 english canadians ruling over the french HERE?? i was never so patriotic about being Quebecois ive always considered myself Canadian but since ive read this board...wow..

you have no right in saying we aren't educated...come study international law in french and then tell me i'm uneducated.And at least most Quebecois's can speak both official languages  :


no wonder the quebec members are so hostile on the french board... :


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2005)

> Ok first off Quebecois are diffrent face it we have diffrent cultures.



Agreed.  Stipulated.

I want to just ignore the rest of your questions but I apparently have a demon at work inside me.

It was volunteers that went to South Africa.  The Lord Strathcona's were raised with private money.  The Brits paid the expenses in South Africa.  This was all precisely because of the concern that it was an Imperial war and wasn't supported by Quebecers.

As to World War I, I am fairly sure that the 60,000 Canadians that died in that war were buried on French and Belgian soil, not British.

The Americans attacked and seized Louisbourg before the Brits gained control of New France. 1748.  You can argue that they were all Maudits Anglais and I won't argue with you but the American's interest in Canada wasn't caused by Canada being a part of the British Empire.  If it hadn't been secured by Britain and governed by a couple of sympathetic catholic Scots (Murray and Carleton) then the likelihood is that after 1776  this whole country would have been part of America.

Your 4th question is a question with no answer for I doubt there is any answer that you would accept as adequate.

As to your 5th point - at least on that we agree and that is probably as good a point as any for me to shut up.

Cheers Agamemnon,


----------



## Agamemnon (5 Feb 2005)

lol i had modified my post same time as you posted so i don't remember my 5 points lol


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2005)

No worries at all.  

Though unfortunately it now appears as if I was hyperventilating.

Oh well. Worse things have happened at sea.


----------



## Canuck_25 (5 Feb 2005)

Agamemnon said:
			
		

> Ok first off Quebecois ARE diffrent face it we have diffrent cultures.
> 
> Your write it was 2.8 million men that was my bad i mixedn umbers up...its funny how you say 100 000 over 350 million not popular what about the 20 000 english canadians ruling over the french HERE?? i was never so patriotic about being Quebecois ive always considered myself Canadian but since ive read this board...wow..
> 
> ...



 I mentioned that you knowledge in Canadian history is questionable. As for your linguistic skills, i ddint question those. Only 10% of english canadians speak french you know.


  As for your number of 20,000 over a unknown stated number of french, what time period are you refering to?

  The French are a minority in this country and have been for a century now. Although, they are a large minority that play a major role in this countries history, heritage and goverment.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill,

Good stuff and interesting - I'll retain the ball in my court, but it's going to take a while to catch up.

As well, we are now even.   You have now expounded on the linkage of your Caledonian heritage in equal doses to my constant reversion to my Teutonic roots.   Debt is paid, now prepare for some more Scharnhorst in the near future!     ;D

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Agamemnon (5 Feb 2005)

;D i'm waiting for the next hot subject  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2005)

Standing by Infanteer.  I am prepared to see your Scharnhorst and raise you an Adam Smith.

Agamemnon, don't wait too long.

Cheers all.


----------



## S McKee (6 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As to the Royals as being "lucky Europeans" you are missing the point about the Royals entirely here.
> 
> The Royals are a symbol.   Their power devolves not from legislation, force or even luck.   Their power devolves from something much more fundamental.   Blood.
> 
> They are a symbol of racial connectivity.   They work hard to be able to trace their genealogy and maintain, not their purity, but their genetic connectivity.



Kirkhill wow! I just read your post, nice sermon/history lesson. However as one of the "great unwashed masses" a couple of comments and this is just my opinion (plse correct me  if I'm in error as I'm not quite the student of history you are). If it weren't for the European Monarchies with all their treaties and pacts, I don't think there would have been a world war in 1914. And secondly; wasn't power to rule by the "Royals" initially based upon the use and  maintenance of force over their respective populations? I know you stated that the royals trace their roots not for "purity" but this idea of "racial connectivity" and "genetic connectivity" sounds a lot like the stuff that the other guy we went to war with in 1939 used to spout off. Anyway still not conviced that we need them, and we will eventually be like our American friends who we have a lot more in common with. J


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Feb 2005)

Jumper you are probably right on our similarities to our American friends.   There is a book called "The Cousins' Wars" by Kevin Phillips that looks at the Anglo-Scots Civil War of the 1640's, the American Revolution and the American Civil War.   It notes that the disputes that created Roundheads and Cavaliers, Puritans and Rednecks (a British word for Border Scots-English ruffians) are traceable through the other two wars.   House styles, language, dress, marriage customs, even modern voting patterns and red/blue states.   All tie people of the same surnames in the US and England.     

What he, and another book "Albion's Seed: Four British Folk Ways in America" are saying is that the same philosophical divides can be found on both sides of the Atlantic and that there has always been communication between the two sides.   So British ideas influence America and American ideas influence Britain.     There are Americans that like the notion of a Royal President and there are Republican Brits.

So the prospect that we and they might all some day end up looking like each other, even as three republics, isn't impossible.   Not my preference but not impossible.

As to your point about treaties and pacts forming the backdrop to WW1 you are right again.   But Monarchies or not, all government make treaties and pacts and if they want to get help when they need it then they will honour those obligations and help out their allies.   Something that our current Government seems to have trouble with.....but I digress.

As far as control of the population by force, that wasn't always the case.   Prior to the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 the Kingship was always in dispute as Kings had to rely on people of their own tribe or nation to support them and try to bring enough other kings with their tribes on side, so as to create a large enough mass to impose their will on the rest of the country side.   So while some tribes would see a foreign King imposing their will on them other tribes would see a relative standing up for them.

When the Normans arrived they delivered the ultimate "head shot", established themselves in fortified bases all over the country, patrolled the highways and extorted taxes.   It took until the time of Henry the VIIIs father some 400 years later for England south of the Borders to be subdued.   By that time the King was an Anglo-Norman (Actually a Welsh-Norman) hybrid that was related by blood to many of the main native families who in turn were related much of the commonality, on both sides of the blankets.   It took another 300 years before the whole of the main island was subdued. Again by a mixture of force and intermarriage.   The tribal lines can still be seen in the UK and that chap Phillips I mentioned is probably keying in on some of those ancient lines.

In a village in the Cheddar Gorge in England a teacher was discovered to have the same maternal DNA as a skeleton found in some nearby caves.   The skeleton was 5-8000 years old.   I can't remember which.   In that time the area had been infested by two waves of Celts, Romans, Angles and Saxons as well as Normans, and probably some Irish as well.   And yet that teacher's maternal line had existed in that town for over 5000 years.   That is the kind of blood tie I am talking about.

As to Herr Schickelgruber, he did spout the racial purity card, he was trying to appeal to that blood tie that meshes families together and tie that together with a common belief system so as to unite all Germans into one group.   The problem that he faced was that Germany in 1933 was only about 62 years old and while Infanteers buddy Scharnhorst had won a couple of wars, the country had lost, and lost big when it was only 43 years old.   The Bavarians and Rhinelanders, as well as the Hanoverians and Hessians cordially detested the Berliners and the Prussians.   They didn't really have a common mythology or belief and they didn't feel that they shared common blood.  They didn't even share a common religion.  The Bavarians and Austrians were staunch Catholic while the northerners were Lutheran protestants and in between they had pacifist Mennonites.  Not to mention atheistic Communists.  Our man Adolf tried to convince them that they were one people, destined for one country, with one leader.   So he had Himmler and Goebels create a tale and sell it.   He did it for his own distorted purposes and he was wrong.

However he was right in identifying blood and belief as the two things that tie people together and the blood of family generally proves to be thicker that the baptismal water of belief.

I am not arguing the case for racial purity, far from it.   What I am saying is that the Royals could not stay in power without allies, and the best allies are family.   So to secure their place in society they had many children and married them off, or not.   Sometimes they just had many children.   The net effect is that most Brits will be able to run through their family tree and find somebody that is related by blood to the Royals some place in the past.   Even if they are just bastards.   And those that don't have direct blood relations have worked for the Royals or have family that have.   

The Royals are woven right into the fabric of the Nation.

But even over there there are Republicans, have been for over 350 years.   In fact as far as I know the first attempt to throw the King off his throne and establish a rule by commoners was Wat Tyler's revolt in about 1350 if memory serves ( I probably have the date a bit wrong).

So despite tying itself into the blood of the Nation there are still dissenters that don't see the connection. 

So it is far from surprising to me that non-British Canadians don't see the attraction.

Coupled with some of the nastiness visited on peoples in Europe by various Monarchs I don't blame them for having a negative view of Royals generally.   What most non-Brits fail to grasp, I feel, is that for 300 years our Monarchs have been hobbled and have been subservient to the wishes of Parliament.   American propaganda to the contrary, George III was not so much a tyrant as the figurehead for a Government of the day that represented commercial interests.   He had input, and more input than the modern Royals,   but he was far from being able to dictate actions.   That was his Prime Minister that did that, acting on behalf of the people he represented - a relatively narrow electorate with land and money.   George III had nothing like the powers of Louis XVI who lost his head or the Czars or Kaisers.
So in some sense any comparison between the constitutional Monarchy of Britain and the absolute Monarchy of France and Russia is like comparing apples and oranges.   But still perception is everything.

And most folks perceive Monarchs to have been distasteful and they also perceive the British Monarchs as being unrelated to them.   I understand that.   And while recognizing I am fighting a rear-guard action I am not yet ready to give up the fight. 

But as I said, while I expect some day, hopefully after they've scattered my ashes, that the Royals will no longer be part of the fabric of Canadian society I think it is critical that this country understand where its institutions come from.   And remember that history.   And be constantly reminded of that history by relevant symbols.   If not the Royals then at least, as Infanteer suggested, the Crown itself.

Infanteer chuckles at my constant harping on at my Caledonian roots and British history.   At the same time he and others will pour over ancient Greek and Roman histories looking for clues to their modern society.   I contend that the clues are not to be found there.   The clues are to be found in the tales of slaughter and bastardy, blood and politics and compromise that make up British history.   Because that is what created our first constitutions - the Quebec Act, responsible government, the British North America Act, the Statutes of Westminster, even Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, the 1982 Constitution and Charter of Rights, Common law and trial by jury.   

All bear the stain of battles fought in Britain.   You can't really understand the institutions, IMHO, unless you understand that.   And if we don't remember and understand that then we just may have to go over the same ground again and fight our own battles and learn by experience.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Infanteer chuckles at my constant harping on at my Caledonian roots and British history.   At the same time he and others will pour over ancient Greek and Roman histories looking for clues to their modern society.   I contend that the clues are not to be found there.   The clues are to be found in the tales of slaughter and bastardy, blood and politics and compromise that make up British history.   Because that is what created our first constitutions - the Quebec Act, responsible government, the British North America Act, the Statutes of Westminster, even Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, the 1982 Constitution and Charter of Rights, Common law and trial by jury.



This is starting to sound like reading one of those "How the Scots Saved Civilization" books.... 

All kidding aside, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the infusion of outside cultural inputs on the evolution of society on the British Iles.   Remember, one of the most preeminent political philosophers of the English language, Thomas Hobbes, was educated in the Classics and cut his literary teeth with Thucydides.   For hundreds of years, to be educated in Europe was to learn Greek and Latin and to read Polybius and Herodotus.   Heck, the *Magna Carta*, that ever important document to our politicial heritage, is a Latin word.   If there was one thing I took from my four years of studying political thought in university, it was that there are links throughout the _corpus_ of Western thought.

However, as David Gress points out in From Plato to NATO, Classical Greek and Roman civilization didn't pass through the Dark Ages waiting to be rediscovered in its complete form during the Renaissance - this was a popular, but incorrect, belief propagated in 18th century German Romanticism.   Gress goes on to point out that "Modern" Western thought is influenced not by some monolithic Classical antecedent, but rather an evolved confluence of Classical Philosophy, Christian Church dominance (the only remaining institution after the fall of Rome), and German/Slavic/etc tribal influence (The new Big Men in Europe).

The West drew its evolutionary trends from many sources, of which Classical thought provides is an important foundational structure - this is what authors like John Keegan and Victor Davis Hanson have picked up on when they explore these roots and their relation to our "way of war".   Britannia did not evolve in some sort of vacuum, and all the strains of European thought have common roots and shared heritage.

As for the importance of the Monarchy in the Revolutionary War, you're right, a closer reading shows that Lord North and Pitt the Elder were the political figures, not William.   As far as I am concerned, these notions of "Blood and Belonging" are ways to fancy up the fact that Anglo-Saxon and Norman warlords gradually lost (along with the rest of the European feudal and dynast powers) their "top-dog" place in a society that their ancestors had seized following the retreat of Rome (and, for a brief time, my Scandinavian ancestors) from the Iles.   

As you've said before, there is no point to enacting a law that won't be obeyed, so you should understand the legitimate claim of eliminating hollow oaths and meaningless figureheads that have no Blood and No Belonging in a nation(s) of immigrants from the four corners of the globe, Canada.


----------



## winchable (6 Feb 2005)

> When the Normans arrived they delivered the ultimate "head shot",



Tell me you did that on purpose, because that's as subtle and obscure as they come.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2005)

No kidding, I didn't pick that up at first.

That's Bayeuxtiful...

Bu-da-bup... :dontpanic:

PS: Kirkhill:



> So despite tying itself into the blood of the Nation there are still dissenters that don't see the connection.



I guess I am in this camp, because although I am 3/4 Scandinavian and Teuton, the other 1/4 is Caledonian.  The "Blood" thing isn't working for me, maybe it's the Norse mutt acting out? ;D


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

I will wade in to ankel depht here WRT the ancient Greek and Romans. Although they mostly observed it in the breech, the Greeks of the "Classical" period and the Res Publica Roma were forms of constitutional democracies which were, in theory, subservient to the rule of Law. The arbitrary power of Kings and Tyrants was replaced by the "will of the demos", as expressed by the _eklassia_, or the senate. 

These first experiments were imperfect, since there were no checks and balances in the way we understand the idea. The ancients did try ideas like property requirments to qualify voters and members of the assembly, and strict term limits (random selection by lot for one year terms in Athens), but the assembly could often be swayed by clever oration, and stampede into voting for anything which was sufficiently well argued. The "History of the Pelleponessian Wars" is full of events like this, with the decision to commit to the disasterous "Sicilian Expedition" being perhaps the most clear cut (and having the worst outcome).

The idea of a nation tied by "blood" is a very ancient one, and the idea is still in full force today in most of the world, although the results are mostly horrific (Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Sudan....the blood soaked list can go on and on). Even the United States, which is the nation where the idea and ideal of "Civic Nationality" is the strongest, is still fighting that battle, with pockets of large and partially assimilated minorities looking for a "hyphenated American" identity.

Canada has embraced the "multi-cultural" model, which dilutes the "civic nationality" model, but does not create a "blood" identity for Canadians. The worst of both worlds in my opinion.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Feb 2005)

I am not arguing that Britain grew up in splendid isolation.  Very far from it.  There has never been a time when Britain wasn't involved in the life of the rest of the world.  From dominating the tea trade going back to selling wool to the Poles in the Middle Ages when the last bought of Global Warming started to reverse itself, to supplying tin from Cornwall so that the Greeks could make Bronze.  One of my other pet bug-bears is just as most teen-agers tend to believe they invented sex and coarse language we, the modern world, tend to believe that nobody communicated before us.  So we look at peoples and their philosophies as being distinct and locked in place by geography and time.

The Brits that created the institutions with which they governed their lives were fully informed of the goings on in the rest of the world, were fully informed of other streams of philosophical thought and were greatly informed by studies of the classics which were aided by travelling to Greece and Rome and the Middle East in later years.

I don't dispute that the Brits found their inspirations and models in many places.  Nor did they come to a uniform understanding of the prescription for their society.

My point is it was Brits that combed through various models, applied various philosophies, debated their validity, created the compromises - all in response to their particular problems - that resulted in the generation of the institutions that they transplanted to Canada.  And from 1759, arguably up until Pearson's years, or perhaps the King-Byng affair it was largely Brits, or at least Canadians of Brit heritage (like yon wee loon St. Tommy Douglas) that were major drivers in Canadian thought.

Yes there has been a French element, folks like Lafontaine, in the debate and they have influence much of Canada as well.  But one of the major causes of stress in Canadian society has been the desire of French Canadians to have their voices heard and not to be subsumed by the dominance of the Anglo-Scots.  MacKenzie-King, St-Laurent, Pearson and Trudeau, and Mulroney, all reflect the continuing attempts to heal the schism.  Chretien represents the obvious incompleteness of the success.

But to reinforce, it was Brits, victims of their own history and their own experiences that sought models for solutions in many places and that ultimately found their own compromises that most of the folk, most of the time could agree with.

France, Italy, Germany, Russia.....they had their own problems and found their own solutions.

In Canada we have our problems and are going to find our solutions.  And those solutions will be compromises influenced by many things, including the Ancients, and the French and our history and the existence of our largely British supplied institutions.

I agree entirely with the silliness of empty symbols.  That is why I, grudgingly as I said, fully expect the Royals to become a non-issue in Canada within the next generation.  I on the other hand would like to preserve them because of a sentimental attachment based on my blood and my belief by convincing others that regardless of their blood the Royals can be a symbol of their beliefs.  As constant living reminders of history.

I saw an article in yesterday's paper where in the Congo the government is putting back the statues of Belgian King Leopold that were torn down in the 1960s when they got their independence.  I am not convinced that they necessarily see Leopold in any more favourable light, or perhaps they do.  I think it likely that they are going back up to remind folks of their history and perhaps to remind them of how bad things were before they got their independence.  On the other hand they will also be reminders of roads and railways and towns that worked - things arrogated to the white colonizers true enough but also concrete reminders that if it can be done once it can be done again.

Symbols need to be retained as reminders, of both the good and the bad.

Infanteer you seem to be suggesting that I am a racial purist focused on maintaining British supremacy.  NO.

I am a mongrel like yourself.  Although I was born in the UK of two Brit parents, I am Scots, and English, I have Presbyterian and Episcopalian roots, I have got Norman-French blood and probably Danish, Viking, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic blood.  I am like most other Brits.  Racial purity isn't in the game, I am looking forward to the day when I can find the common ancestry that links my families with my wife's Franco - Belgian - Occidentale families.

You talk about your Scandinavian roots and look to Greece for your models on how to control authority.  The Greeks may have written their debates down and thus are easiest to study.  But it was your Scandinavian ancestors  that arguably had the greater influence on modern British and Canadian society. In addition to being the source of the Normans, Rollo extorting a bit of land in France from that Teuton Charles the Simple over the objections of the locals, they were also the source of the Thing in Iceland and the Althing in Denmark.  Two parliaments that preceded all others including the Mother of Parliaments.  

King Canute, the Danish king that ruled over Britain before he left behind all the dynastic nastiness that resulted in the Willy and the Normans showing up on the beaches,  he was required to consult with his version of a parliament and take into account the wishes of his subjects.  No ruler, no matter how much force he has available, can do otherwise indefinitely.

I do not take the position that British is better.  I do take the position that British IS.  That during the formative period of Canada as we currently know it Britain was in the ascendancy, British thought dominated and Brits created our institutions.

From here on out none of those statements are true.  We will find our own Canadian compromises.  All good stuff. And we should re-examine ancient systems, as we should examine alternate systems that emanate from different cultures, nations, societies.  But unless we intend to chuck everything out and do the revolutionary thing - a violent and undesirable occupation from my point of view - then I think we need to be clear about what we have and how it got here.

I will say this ... While being very proud to be a Canadian, I am equally proud of the compromises that many of my fellow Brits have made that created these institutions.

I look forward to seeing what comes but I prefer not to forget the past.

And Arthur, you are dead right that much of this ground is well-ploughed. The blood-belief conundrum is as ancient as it gets. History shows God-Kings, blood and belief in one person. It shows Priest-Kings, a variant on a theme with the advantage that the King isn't expected to perform miracles and can always still blame God when disasters happen.  It shows Kings and Priests as Brothers, as in Moses and Aaron leading the Jews, a risky proposition when the family jewels need to be divided.  It shows Kings and Priests as entirely separate but complementary with Kings supporting Priests or Priests supporting Kings but then you get into politics and 1000 years of European history.  It also shows Kings and Priests trying to survive without each other.

And it shows people with no blood claim on loyalties trying to create their own belief system and attract followers to the cause and create their own authority.

Then at bottom you have the people, from whom authority ultimately springs.  If they won't follow then you are no leader.  And sometimes the mob will not follow where the leaders want to lead, they go their own way.  At that point you get to Ralph Klein's dictum "find out which way the parade is going then get in front of it".  It may be expedient and the leader may give up some credibility but the maintain some authority so that they can still influence direction.  To be right and not to be followed serves nobody well.

Which brings us to Churchill.  "Democracy is the worst of all possible systems.  Except for all others."

But then Churchill was a Monarchist.


----------



## McG (6 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> ... the idea of becoming a republic is just to darn scary (Not to mention the costs of transitioning over to such). As the Americans have proved, a republic is no better then our system, and in many ways is worse. Yes, representation can be better. But the amount of corruption in comparison to our method, and the strength of special interst groups down there is enough to scare the pants off me.


This comparison ignores the majority of differences between the parliamentary form of government and the presidential form of government (notably the fusion of the legislative and executive functions vs the separation of legislative and executive functions).

In Canada the head of state and the head of government are also separated (in the GG and the PM) while the US President fills both these roles.  I am happy the separation of head of state from head of government, and I am happy with the fusion of the executive and the legislative.  I do like the idea of a democratically selected GG (either by direct election or vote in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures).  This GG would represent the Queen in Canada & would represent Canada & Canadians to the Queen and to the world.


----------



## RCA (6 Feb 2005)

Just a correction, in the US the President is the Head of State and the Speaker of the House is the Head of Government (Legislative Branch). The President can not initiate legislation, only suggest it.

   As the US system being more swayed by special interests groups or more corrupt then ours, I suggest you take off the rose colour glasses. Both systems are swayed to where the money/votes are but neither are inherently corrupt. It is the individuals within twisting the intent to their own purposes and distorting the way system should act.

The main difference is the our Head of State is above the fray of ordinary politics and therefore we can have the Monarchy (through the GG) represent us. Making the postion political (through elections etc) would be a mistake. Bringing "a" Crown here is an interesting concept, Retain the monarchy without the Monarch  (I admit, I didn't read Infanteer's proposal in detail, so I stand corrected if I've got it wrong or misinterpreted it, We are also assuming that England would let us have a "Crown"). I would prefer to swear allegiance to a symbol as opposed to an object which a crown would be. We could just as easily swear allegiance to the flag as that is a more viable symbol. Crown without a wearer is just gold and glitter reprenting nothing. Therefore you need to find a wearer as opposed to holder, and then the partisan bun fights start. The status quo forgoes that as it is already pre-set for us.


----------



## Zipper (6 Feb 2005)

Ga...

I say again, Ga!

Go away for a day and you have to sit and read for an hour plus.

But I must say that the education that I am getting from Kirkhill and all those concerned is quite nice.

To answer RCA and MCG. I never did say that we do not have courruption. Just that the scale of it is quite a bit less then down south. However, it is there in all its unfortunate glory.

To Agememnon. I don't believe anyone called you uneducated? Far from it I hope. 

I'm looking forward to Infanteer's reply. If it is ever forthcoming considering the history lesson we're getting from Professor Kirk. I'll be damed if this wouldn't make a great time around pints in the pub. (probably with a few fist'a'cuffs thrown in for good measure ;D).


----------



## Canuck_25 (6 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> To Agememnon. I don't believe anyone called you uneducated? Far from it I hope.



 OO, i did. He made a few mistakes in his steam blowing post. I would also like to add this. Between the 1950's and 1960's, 500,000 Brits immigrated to Canada. Now, in my small pathetic town alone, many of these British immigrants are present. In my small school of just 17 teachers, 3 were born in Britain. 

 Again, has anyone been to Victoria, christ it looks like a British city, and many have the accent. My step fathers parents, who have residence in the city and are dutch,  respect the monarchy. They see the monarchs as a mixed blood of europe, as Canada is (85% of canadians european decendants.)  This is British Columbia though, we pot smokers dont know anything  

 Although, Nova Scotia an Newfounland (for sure) would be strongly opposed to abolishing the monarchy. We dont want to break Canada up over this do we?


----------



## McG (6 Feb 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> Just a correction, in the US the President is the Head of State and the Speaker of the House is the Head of Government (Legislative Branch). The President can not initiate legislation, only suggest it.


The title "head of government" is normally applied to the head of the executive, but I see what you are saying.


----------



## McG (6 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> To answer RCA and MCG. I never did say that we do not have courruption. Just that the scale of it is quite a bit less then down south. However, it is there in all its unfortunate glory.


True or not, this is not relevant to the monarchy.


----------



## S McKee (6 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Ga...
> 
> 
> 
> But I must say that the education that I am getting from Kirkhill and all those concerned is quite nice.



Yes I have to agree with Zipper.... I enjoy reading your insights Kirkhill. J.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2005)

Thanks Jumper and Zipper.

But I have to confess to an error. In the interest of historical accuracy the Dragonnades started 2 years after the Highland Host not 40 and it was Charles II that set the Host upon the lowlanders but it was Charles I that lost his head.

Regardless, the thread of the story is correct.  In both Scotland and France the Catholic Monarchy was at odds with a sizeable portion of the population that were Calvinist Presbyterians.  In Scotland the Protestants won, in France Louis won.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2005)

If Chuck does indeed become King (personally I hope it goes to Willie), whatever the changes there will be, it will no doubt be expensive to say the least, and whether you pay taxes in Canada or here in 'the lucky country', we'll be footing the bill for an outdated and hoplessly incompetant and inbread regime. When the Queen dies or steps down, it may be the end of the whole Royal farce.

Sorry if I offended any monarchists out there, but that just how I feel, and besides I'd rather have my own son or daughter to be able to have the right be head of state in my own bloody country, rather than some foreigner. 

My 2 cents,

Wes


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Apr 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> If Chuck does indeed become King (personally I hope it goes to Willie), whatever the changes there will be, it will no doubt be expensive to say the least, and whether you pay taxes in Canada or here in 'the lucky country', we'll be footing the bill for an outdated and hoplessly incompetant and inbread regime. When the Queen dies or steps down, it may be the end of the whole Royal farce.



If you're still in the Service, you can expect a charge for saying things like that.  If you're not, then I'm afraid all I can do is say that was a boorish display of ill manners.

FYI, the Crown costs less than a dollar per Canadian per year, certainly no more than a presidency would cost.

Nor is the Queen incompetent.  Do you have an example to show otherwise?

Also, please back up your "inbred" comment.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Sorry if I offended any monarchists out there, but that just how I feel, and besides I'd rather have my own son or daughter to be able to have the right be head of state in my own bloody country, rather than some foreigner.



The chances of your son of daughter being the president aren't significantly different from those of their being King or Queen.  It's like lottery: the chances of winning are about the same whether you play or not.

Anyway, when you put a politician into your highest office you get a Clinton, Bush, or Cretien running your country, and surely to God you don't want that.  Better to keep politicians in their place as servants of the Crown, not wearers of it.


----------



## thorbahn (9 Apr 2005)

An entirely new discussion could be spawned from this one, regarding what would change if, for lack of a better explanation, we became "unroyal".


----------



## Infanteer (9 Apr 2005)

MacKay, drop the Moral Indignation act - it's not treason to hold an opinion on the monarchy in a liberal democratic state.   Wes is sharing an opinion that many of us hold here.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> "If you're still in the Service, you can expect a charge for saying things like that.   If you're not, then I'm afraid all I can do is say that was a boorish display of ill manners""
> 
> Neil, I got almost 30 yrs service in TWO Commonwealth Armies, and I'll express my opinion anyway I see fit, thankyou!
> 
> ...



Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Apr 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> If Chuck does indeed become King (personally I hope it goes to Willie),





> Sorry if I offended any monarchists out there,



It's a little odd to use openly disrespectful terms guaranteed to offend, and then apologize for being offensive in the next paragraph.  Your opinions are fine, I don't think you needed to refer to Prince Charles or Prince William in an openly disrespectful manner to get the point across.  You automatically dragged down the level of your post with the second word in the first sentence.   You could have said that just as well by referring to them respectfully.

No different than me saying "Well, Wessy-Boy, I think the monarchy still serves a real purpose, but we will probably disagree on that and should properly discuss it in the other thread in any event."  The second word would be designed to inflame and only goes draws attention away from the rest of the statement.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Apr 2005)

Oh waah - does calling the guy Chuck immediately drag him off the throne of veneration that some people still think is vitally important to the survival of our nation?


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2005)

Come on Mike, they are just shortened names and are almost 'pet names' (even used in the papers here)here in Australia, secondly if you believe in the monarchy, thats cool, thats you opinion and your right. I am even a former member of the League back in Canada, but my opinions have changed in the past 15 yrs, especially with the new generation of Royals, and now with yesterday's joke of a 'Royal wedding'. King Charles and his "Queen", crickey, I'd rather have Mr Bean!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh waah - does calling the guy Chuck immediately drag him off the throne of veneration that some people still think is vitally important to the survival of our nation?



No, it just derails any attempt at serious conversation.   It's no different than all the Papa Doc Crouton stuff that used to go on here; it reveals a bias and indicates hard-headedness.   You're creating a strawman.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Apr 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Come on Mike, they are just shortened names and are almost 'pet names' (even used in the papers here)here in Australia, secondly if you believe in the monarchy, thats cool, thats you opinion and your right. I am even a former member of the League back in Canada, but my opinions have changed in the past 15 yrs, especially with the new generation of Royals, and now with yesterday's joke of a 'Royal wedding'.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



I have no problem with your opinions, and may even share them - I just think you shut out any chance of seriously discussing them by using terms like that.  

Tell me, honestly, why did you use them, if not to indicate your disdain for the Royal Family?


----------



## Infanteer (9 Apr 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> No, it just derails any attempt at serious conversation.     It's no different than all the Papa Doc Crouton stuff that used to go on here; it reveals a bias and indicates hard-headedness.     You're creating a strawman.



Well, we should all make a note to adopt the tea-room approach to arguing a point - it certainly was more effective then saying "I hold contempt for the monarchy!".   Judging form the events of the last few weeks, Papa Doc Crouton doesn't seem too far off....


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2005)

I guess for the same reason I refer to the Aussie PM as "Jackboot Johnnie", and I voted for him and I like him   ;D I also remember Cdn PMs "Joe Who" and "Lie'n Brian" too. Oh, we can't forget "Randy Andy" either.

Offically my Ex-Wife No.1 (BTW, I only have one ex-wife) is referred to as the Ex-Dragon too   ;D

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## McInnes (9 Apr 2005)

Whether you are a monarchist or not, you still have sworn allegiance to the Queen and her heirs, regardless of personal opinion. Any sort of slanderous statement made in public or on public forums are not my idea of holding to your oath of loyalty and 'devoted support'.

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, some people believe very strongly in their King or their Queen, and there is really very little point in calling them "incompetant and inbread", much akin to slamming one's religion. It is uneeded, offensive, and entirely different than expressing your opionion on something in a calm and respectful mannner.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Apr 2005)

Aquilus said:
			
		

> Whether you are a monarchist or not, you still have sworn allegiance to the Queen and her heirs, regardless of personal opinion. Any sort of slanderous statement made in public or on public forums are not my idea of holding to your oath of loyalty and 'devoted support'.



Oh, piss off - if you are challenging the integrity of my service because I think the Monarchy is an anachronism and that the current batch of of heirs are not my ideal of a head of state, then you can cram it up your ass.   Find me a soldier today who is willing to take on the responsibility of unlimited liability for the sake of the Windsor family.

Just because we have some archaic oath to swear to doesn't mean that it takes precedence over the ideas of a liberal democratic nation that we all really serve.



> Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, some people believe very strongly in their King or their Queen, and there is really very little point in calling them "incompetant and inbread", much akin to slamming one's religion. It is uneeded, offensive, and entirely different than expressing your opionion on something in a calm and respectful mannner.



Well, they are inbred - just take a look at the family trees of European royalty - Wes has a point.   Thankfully this is changing now that "blood" isn't as crucial to standing anymore.

People need to grow some thicker skin around here - for some reason we snicker at the movies making fun of George W Bush but when we poke fun at the royalty some act like their Grandmother's grave was desecrated....


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Apr 2005)

Considering they way British papers treat the royal family, any Brits reading this thread must be laughing their asses off at the poor little colonials.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2005)

How bloody true!


----------



## scm77 (10 Apr 2005)

Canadians support breaking with monarchy: poll

CTV.ca News Staff

While Canadians generally approve of Prince Charles' marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, a narrow majority in a new poll would like to see Canada's ties to the monarchy severed.

Fifty-five per cent agreed with the following statement asked in an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail: "when Queen Elizabeth's reign ends, Canada should end its formal ties to the British Monarchy."

This is up seven percentage points from the 48 per cent who agreed with that statement in October 2002.

"We'd like to see Prince Charles and Camilla have a very happy life together, but we are not looking forward to Prince Charles as King of Canada," said Tom Freda of Citizens for a Canadian Republic.

His group wants a Canadian republic with a Canadian head of state after Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends.

The monarchy's supporters say Canada's traditions help distinguish it from the United States.

"The monarchy is a given about Canada, along with the Maple Leaf and hockey when it's played and the Rockies and our bilingual and multicultural nature," said John Aimers of the Monarchist League of Canada.

His fellow monarchists argue that every province would have to approve such a change, which means it isn't likely to happen any time soon.

As a sign that life goes on -- along with the eternal debate about the monarchy's role -- it was announced that Prince Charles will become colonel-in-chief for several Canadian military units. It was a role held by the late Queen Mother.

Canadians and the marriage

As Prince Charles and Parker Bowles begin their married life, the poll suggests that a majority of Canadians approve of the nuptials.

Although the couple has long struggled to earn the approval of the British public and media, 56 per cent of Canadians surveyed by pollster Ipsos-Reid say they accept the marriage of Prince Charles and his long-time love, while 24 per cent say they disapprove.

There are some regional disparities, with acceptance highest among British Columbians at 64 per cent, and apathy highest among Quebecers at 29 per cent who say they "do not care."

While a majority of Canadians nationwide are accepting of the wedding, 65 per cent believe Parker Bowles should decline the title of Queen if Prince Charles were to become king. Parker Bowles has indicated she wants to be known as the Princess Consort if Charles becomes king.

Other points of interest:

    * Canadians aged 18-34 are more likely to believe Parker Bowles should take the title of Queen at 31 per cent, than those aged 35 and over. Among that group, support for the idea falls to 24 per cent.
       
      Men are more likely than women to believe Parker Bowles should be called Queen Camilla by 30 per cent to 22 per cent.
    * 51 per cent of Canadians believe Prince Charles should give up his place in line for the throne and pass the reign to his son Prince William.

The results are based on the telephone interviews of a randomly selected representative sample of 1,000 adult Canadians from April 5 to 7.

The aggregate results are considered accurate to within  ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, the same as they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled.

With a report from CTV's Denelle Balfour

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113095476456_56/?hub=TopStories


----------



## Canuck_25 (11 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh, piss off - if you are challenging the integrity of my service because I think the Monarchy is an anachronism and that the current batch of of heirs are not my ideal of a head of state, then you can cram it up your ***.   Find me a soldier today who is willing to take on the responsibility of unlimited liability for the sake of the Windsor family.
> 
> Just because we have some archaic oath to swear to doesn't mean that it takes precedence over the ideas of a liberal democratic nation that we all really serve.
> 
> ...




 Mod Vs Mod, this will be a neat show.

 You know, he does have a point. Im sure during "god save the queen" you arent singing, even though it's Canada's national anthem.

 Along with O Canada


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> MacKay, drop the Moral Indignation act - it's not treason to hold an opinion on the monarchy in a liberal democratic state.  Wes is sharing an opinion that many of us hold here.



It's certainly not treason, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but it is a service offence (in Canada) to use "traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty", so one's expression of this opinion ought to be tempered with a healthy dose of civility.  My experience with the monarchy/republic debate, as confirmed in this thread, is that the republican side tends to rely on impolite and inaccurate arguments.  I've invited Mr. Allen to back up his words, something that I understand is encouraged on Army.ca, but so far it's just been more of the same from him and others.

Anyway, I've never met a republican who could tell me how anyone's life would improve, in any real and meaningful way, if we were to enact this massive and divisive change to our constitution.  Nor am I holding my breath.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2005)

Emphasis added



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Anyway, I've never met a republican who could tell me how anyone's life would improve, in any real and meaningful way, if we were to enact this massive and divisive change to our constitution.  Nor am I holding my breath.



I wonder is it is real and meaningful to have, here at home - for all Canadians, and on the international stage - for all the world to see, all the trappings of a fully *independent* state which ought to include, in my not at all humble opinion, a head of state chosen by the people.

I agree with Neill McKay that the constitutional changes needed to change to republic would be *â ?massive and divisiveâ ?* and, based  on the Australian experience might be fruitless.  Changing the _nature_ of our state requires the unanimous approval of 11 legislatures: ten provinces and the national parliament in Ottawa.  Anyone interested in swapping _fish for rights_ could stall the process.

There is a better way: Pass a resolution in the House of Commons â â€œ not an Act, just a resolution, like the Nickle Resolution (1919) which, effectively, did away with _honours_ for Canadians.  This resolution needs to 'Resolve that this House does not accept that Charles, Prince of Wales, or his heirs and successors are the lawful successors to the throne of Canada â â€œ including the throne in any Canadian province.  The Parliament of Canada will decide, in due course and for itself and for all Canadians, who might be the lawful heirs and successors to Our Most Gracious Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth II.'

Even in 1919, before the Statutes of Westminster, the _constitutional convention_ which *requires* the sovereign to accept the _advice_ of her (his) privy council (in Canada) was firmly entrenched.  This *constitutional requirement* for the sovereign to respect the wishes â â€œ even if expressed 'only' by a Resolution â â€œ of the national government â â€œ the one in Ottawa â â€œ is even stronger today.

At one stroke we would â â€œ and we can â â€œ settle the head of state issue, effective the day Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth dies.  We would remain a constitutional monarchy on the British model â â€œ as our constitution specifies; we just would not have a reigning monarch on our throne of Canada, pending a decision by parliament, in due course.  We, our elected politicians, would have to find some way (not too hard) to convert the office of the Governor General to that of Regent.

Lieutenant Governors may also need a title change.  They are appointed by the Governor General (in Council) (i.e. by the government of the day but they, the Lieutenant Governors, are not subordinate to the Governor general on any matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.  Provinces do not have authority over their own forms of government; if Ottawa decides to become a regency then the provinces become provinces within that regency; they do not have the power to select their own sovereign.

More important we might, must, in my view, find a better way to select our Regent.  Maybe the German model â â€œ imposed by the British (with considerable Canadian advice re: federalism) after World War II â â€œ would serve.  See: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/wahlen/146/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBundesversammlung%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-29,GGLD:en 

This, remaining a monarchy but having, simply, not quite gotten around to the business of appointing a monarch, seems like a good _Canadian compromise_, to me.

For some of us, of course, little will change: my blazer crest says VRI and will always do so, regardless of which johnny sits on the British throne.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Apr 2005)

That particular method of sidestepping the Constitution has been debunked elsewhere.  It's not that easy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2005)

Actually, I think it is much, much easier than opponents believe.

Charles will not even try to be king where he is not wanted.

A simple parliamentary resolution will suffice; it is all the _guidance_ the sovereign needs.  All our government needs to do, on the sad occasion of the death of HM Queen Elizabeth, is to avoid issuing a _proclamation_ declaring anyone to be king.  No proclamation; no monarch; no pressure from Charles; no business of any other government â â€œ not Britain, not the provinces; no problem â â€œ except that there are a few harmless constitutional _loose ends_ most of which can be â â€œ partially - tidied up by declaring the GG to be Regent, etc.

There are legal and bureaucratic impediments to what I propose but, I believe, all fall into that wonderful category of _technicalities_ and none are _show stoppers_.

If a solid majority of Canadians do not want a monarch or, at least, not a specific monarch â â€œ and I have no idea about the state of those numbers, then you can depend upon the fact that the government of the day will find its way through the thicket of _technicalities_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2005)

I copied this from a Monarchist blog at http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/ (17 Feb 05):



> In a book to be titled The Governor General and the Prime Ministers, Mr. McWhinney, a retired political scientist in Vancouver and former president of the prestigious Geneva-based Institute of International Law, lays out the surprisingly simple legal procedure for phasing out the monarchy in Canada.
> He asserts the Constitution, being a living tree -- as it was recently described by the Supreme Court -- evolves not merely through use of the amending formula.
> 
> Those up on matters constitutional will know that amending Canada's Constitution is a virtual impossibility because the Senate, Commons and all provincial and territorial legislatures would have to sing in unison on the topic. That is very unlikely to happen.
> ...



(See: http://www.ronsdalepress.com/catalogue/chretien.html for a review of McWhinney's last book.)

I am assured, by a constitutional lawyer, that Mr. Aimers' views on the status of the provinces in this particular matter, are 100% wrong.  The provinces have no voice unless there is to be a change in the Constitution; failing to proclaim a sovereign does not change the Constitution; it is bureaucratic housekeeping â â€œ the provinces will have a sovereign when the national government gets around to proclaiming one, no sooner and no later.  The 'office' of the Queen does not change, it does not disappear; it is vacant, temporarily, until we, Canadians, decide who should fill it, as it is our _*natural right*_ to do.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It's certainly not treason, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but it is a service offence (in Canada) to use "traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty", so one's expression of this opinion ought to be tempered with a healthy dose of civility.



Try getting that charge to stick.



> Anyway, I've never met a republican who could tell me how anyone's life would improve, in any real and meaningful way, if we were to enact this massive and divisive change to our constitution.   Nor am I holding my breath.



How come it is assumed that the only alternative is full-blown, American-style Republicanism?

I had to dig 5 pages back, but I found my proposal here:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Anyways, here is a new look at the argument which may be a suitable (and uniquely Canadian) approach to satisfying the issue.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Try getting that charge to stick.



I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to break the law as long as you can slide out of any sanction for it.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> How come it is assumed that the only alternative is full-blown, American-style Republicanism?
> 
> I had to dig 5 pages back, but I found my proposal here:



Your proposal sounds to me like a president with a different name.  How do you see it as being better than a presidency?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to break the law as long as you can slide out of any sanction for it.



No, what I'm saying is that there are plenty of laws on the books that aren't applicable anymore, and this would be one of them.

Kind of like the by-law in Calgary which demands that all businesses have a place to tie up horses.

http://www.main.com/~anns/other/humor/sillylaws.html



> Your proposal sounds to me like a president with a different name.   How do you see it as being better than a presidency?



It all really depends on what you are going to do with the Head of State if you changed the system.   The real concern with getting rid of the Monarchy is how will it pan out for our Parliament and the office of the PMO (which isn't firmly defined in the Constitution) - the Governor General still has (on the books) important powers which may be of use to the Government if the office was legitimized.

I would see this setup more akin to the dual system of France or Germany then the strong officer of the President in the U.S.

Anyways, I argued to moderately change the Governor General (in order to not rock the boat politically) and to have a Canadian "Crown" that is held, not worn (in order to not rock the boat traditionally or administratively).   An interesting compromise, I figured.

In the end, arguing for the Monarchy is like arguing to keep an antique around the house.   Neither side is going to rock the boat with a real good arguement on why change or no change would be better because the antique isn't really functional in the house (and thus neither arguement is compelling) - Wes and I just happen to hate Grandma's lamp that sits on the mantle while others still like it.

My only claim is that Canada, as an liberal democracy with a (politically) egalitartian society, shouldn't close off the office of the Head of State to a single family of Brits that are rapidly becoming less and less relevent to Canadian society.


----------



## McInnes (12 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh, piss off - if you are challenging the integrity of my service because I think the Monarchy is an anachronism and that the current batch of of heirs are not my ideal of a head of state, then you can cram it up your ass.   Find me a soldier today who is willing to take on the responsibility of unlimited liability for the sake of the Windsor family.
> 
> Just because we have some archaic oath to swear to doesn't mean that it takes precedence over the ideas of a liberal democratic nation that we all really serve.
> 
> Well, they are inbred - just take a look at the family trees of European royalty - Wes has a point.   Thankfully this is changing now that "blood" isn't as crucial to standing anymore.



No where in my post do I recall challenging the integrity of your military service. I did say however, that slanderous statements made in public against HM are not in accordance with keeping your oath to the Queen, which I know you have sworn. We are in actuality the Queen's army. Not the Queen of England, but the Queen of Canada's who is representative of our nation as a figurehead. I fail to see how there needs to be any conflict or precedence on service to our Country, or to our Queen, as they are intertwined and can be thought of as fighting for the same thing (For King and country). 

Anyway, just because the current batch of heirs is not your idea of a head of state, you think that an elected politician will be more to your liking? Maybe, maybe not. There will always be brilliant leaders and absolute crap hats elected at one time or another, just look at our line of Prime Minister's. The monarchy and it's representative the GG never really exercise their powers to begin with, the last time I believe being the King/Byng affair in 1926. So I fail to see how at least showing proper allegiance to your Queen, in public anyway, is hampering you as a person or us as a nation. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> People need to grow some thicker skin around


Speaking of growing thicker skin, I would recommend it to you. No personal offence intended, as this isn't personal to begin with, but telling me to "piss offâ ? and to "cram it up my assâ ?, simply because I have seemingly offended your sensibilities and lashing out at me because of it, is not my idea of having thick skin. Regardless, telling me to cram it up my ass seems to make it a bit more personal. If I have misread the tone of your post, or accidentally offended you in my original post, then I apologise.


Finally, in regard to your old antique analogy, I don't associate the Monarchy as some sort of vase that does nothing but decorate our house. I would imagine the monarchy to be more like the 'grandma' is this situation. She owns the house, but is too old to manage it and thus bed ridden and essentially useless in the mundane sense of the word. It doesn't mean we should necessarily get rid of grandma and attempt to put the house in our name. And you never know, the old bat may still have her uses, like having a quiet chat with father when he gets out of line.   :


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Apr 2005)

I'm partial to the fire extinguisher analogy.  You've never used it, and you hope you never have to, but you should really keep it around anyway because if you ever do need it there's nothing else that will do.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I'm partial to the fire extinguisher analogy.   You've never used it, and you hope you never have to, but you should really keep it around anyway because if you ever do need it there's nothing else that will do.



I agree with Neil McKay re: the fire extinguisher.

I do not see that need translating into a monarch; I don't see why a _Constitutional Regent_ â â€œ a Canadian _selected_ somehow or other, by Canadians *or their representatives*, will not suffice.

I prefer the more modern, somewhat more revolutionary Westminster style of _responsible_ parliamentary democracy to the finely tuned, carefully balanced American style of _representative_ republican democracy, rooted, as it is, in the 18th century.  I like the idea that the government of the day must be able to command the support of the people's elected representatives for their major projects; I like the idea that a policy or a budget can force a general election.  (There are a number of things I like, also, about the American implementation of democratic government, including, e.g.: strong committees with _some_ real power to amend or, at least, delay legislation, an open budget process and elected legislators â â€œ all of 'em.  Those things are, however, _American_ rather than _republican_ and they could (and should) exist in Canada in a parliamentary democracy.)

One essential attribute of a Westminster style parliamentary democracy is a separate, _*largely*_ ceremonial head of state who, _inter alia_ and acting on behalf of the nation as a whole, _appoints a government_ from elected members and, eventually, dissolves parliament when new elections are necessary â â€œ the 'fire extinguisher' in other words.  A monarch, a British monarch, known by and in touch with the country, serves Britain well in that capacity.  We Canadians need a Canadian head of state, a person known by and in touch with the country, who can represent our virtues back to us â â€œ being a symbol of all Canadians and their control over their government.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been an excellent head of state; she has never lost her strong connections to a generation of Canadians who watched her grow and who served, in war, with her.  She established new links with younger Canadians but the data seems clear: Canadians are less and less interested in or respectful of their sovereign.  We do not, I suggest, want a sovereign who is _out of touch_ with our country â â€œ that might deepen the growing distrust and disconnect between the people and the government.  I do not believe that Charles of William are in touch with Canada and Canadians â â€œ not as much as they need to be in order to be respected and, therefore, effective monarchs.

We need a head of state who represents all of us and that means we need a Canadian head of state.  Amending the constitution to change the nature of our country is too hard and it is unnecessary.  We can remain a _constitutional monarchy_ on the Westminster model by, simply, refusing to _*offer*_* our* throne to anyone and, _de facto_, becoming a regency â â€œ a well established form of monarchy.


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I do not see that need translating into a monarch; I don't see why a _Constitutional Regent_ â â€œ a Canadian _selected_ somehow or other, by Canadians *or their representatives*, will not suffice.



As soon as the position becomes elected it will be politicized.  One of the essential virtues of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen doesn't owe anyone any favours, is immune to political pressure, and is above the divisiveness of politics.  The minute you start choosing the person for the office, which really means electing him or her at some level, then you've got yourself another politician.  And we have plenty of those already.



> Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been an excellent head of state; she has never lost her strong connections to a generation of Canadians who watched her grow and who served, in war, with her.   She established new links with younger Canadians but the data seems clear: Canadians are less and less interested in or respectful of their sovereign.



I would challenge that.  Popular support for the monarchy fluctuates with the news (and the question asked, which is sometimes very badly worded), but in general the monarchy has continued to enjoy the support of a majority of Canadians, including young ones.

As to being in tough with Canadians that has only increased and will continue to increase as the wealth of communication technologies makes the world smaller and smaller.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Aquilus said:
			
		

> No where in my post do I recall challenging the integrity of your military service.



You implied that those critical of the Monarchy were coming up short with regards to professionalism by somehow failing to live up to our Oath.   If that isn't a challenge, I don't know what is.

Wes said it best somewhere - 30 years in two Armies under the same Oath - are you telling me that he has failed to live up to his profession because of his opinions on the Monarchy?



> We are in actuality the Queen's army. Not the Queen of England, but the Queen of Canada's who is representative of our nation as a figurehead. I fail to see how there needs to be any conflict or precedence on service to our Country, or to our Queen, as they are intertwined and can be thought of as fighting for the same thing (For King and country).



You need to learn the difference between _de facto_ and _de jure_.   We are not a Queen's Army.   We take our marching orders from the democratically elected government which represents the people.   The Monarchy, although it is written into this relationship (shall I say wedged), has no say on what we do.

As I said, find a soldier today who joined for the express purpose of serving the British Royals.



> Anyway, just because the current batch of heirs is not your idea of a head of state, you think that an elected politician will be more to your liking? Maybe, maybe not. There will always be brilliant leaders and absolute crap hats elected at one time or another, just look at our line of Prime Minister's.



At least:

1) PM's (and Parliament) are Canadian.

2) We (in terms of the Canadian public) put them there.

3) If we really wanted, we could go there ourselves.



> Speaking of growing thicker skin, I would recommend it to you. No personal offence intended, as this isn't personal to begin with, but telling me to â Å“piss offâ ? and to â Å“cram it up my assâ ?, simply because I have seemingly offended your sensibilities and lashing out at me because of it, is not my idea of having thick skin. Regardless, telling me to cram it up my ass seems to make it a bit more personal. If I have misread the tone of your post, or accidentally offended you in my original post, then I apologise.



You've decided to make it personal by telling us we fail to live up to our oaths.   You took the "moral indignation" act with Wes and I (among others) and I told you where to take it.   If you're upset because my words were mean, that's your problem.



> Finally, in regard to your old antique analogy, I don't associate the Monarchy as some sort of vase that does nothing but decorate our house. I would imagine the monarchy to be more like the 'grandma' is this situation. She owns the house, but is too old to manage it and thus bed ridden and essentially useless in the mundane sense of the word. It doesn't mean we should necessarily get rid of grandma and attempt to put the house in our name. And you never know, the old bat may still have her uses, like having a quiet chat with father when he gets out of line.     :



Nope, she ain't Grandma.   She doesn't own the house (remember _de facto_ and _de jure_), I can't see it having any use what-so-ever (other then coming for some pagentry), and I doubt the Queen (or King) will come to Canada to have a chat with the Prime Minister or Parliament about how they do their jobs.   In fact, "she" is a useless definition because the "Crown" is inanimate.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I'm partial to the fire extinguisher analogy.   You've never used it, and you hope you never have to, but you should really keep it around anyway because if you ever do need it there's nothing else that will do.



I'm not sure how this fits.   How will the Monarchy that rests in Britain ever come to pull us out of the fire?

If you are implying the Governor General, then yes, I agree - but until you open that office to some sort of public accountability, it won't be politically feasible to rely on it (the King/Byng affair was mentioned).

As well, we are assuming that the Governor General must to represent the British Royals?

No - I can't see the Monarchy being a fire extinguisher; the antique seems to fit better.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> As soon as the position becomes elected it will be politicized.   One of the essential virtues of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen doesn't owe anyone any favours, is immune to political pressure, and is above the divisiveness of politics.   The minute you start choosing the person for the office, which really means electing him or her at some level, then you've got yourself another politician.   And we have plenty of those already.



No, once you empower a position, it becomes politicized.   Kings and Queens of any nation, when they've had their hands in the pie, have proved just as capable of providing favours, being swayed by pressure, and taking a bias on national affairs.   There is no immutable law that states that Monarchs are above partisan politics.

As Edward mentioned:


			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Is the German president overly political?   How about the Indian president or the Israeli president?   There are several Westminster style parliamentary republics, with _selected_ presidents.   I refuse to accept that Canadians are so venal as to be unable to manage.



There are many examples of how we can structurally limit the divisiveness of partisan politics on the head of state.   I'm all for having a popularly elected Governor General who takes on the "Elder Statesman" role - essentially filling out your fire-extinguisher analogy.


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Apr 2005)

It's odd the Germany has been held up as an example.  Do you remember what happened to them when they lost their monarchy?


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It's odd the Germany has been held up as an example.   Do you remember what happened to them when they lost their monarchy?



They became an elected republic?

You're reaching now - and the analogy is really poor.      

1) The role of Germany's Monarchy up to the end of WWI within German politics is far different then the role of the Monarchy in Canadian politics now.

2) What happened to the American's when they lost their Monarchy?

3) As well, I fail to see how losing the Kaiser was the reason the Nazi's came to power - I don't recall the glory of the Hohenzollern's being a biggie in Hitler's speeches.

Anyways, you've just enacted Godwin's Law on the Monarchy thread - good going....


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Anyways, you've just enacted Godwin's Law on the Monarchy thread - good going....



Yes, realised that myself almost immediately!


----------



## McInnes (12 Apr 2005)

The oath: I, undersigned _____ do solemnly affirm/swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law.  

Quote me where I implied that you have failed in your duty in regard to military service, as I implied no such thing. Perhaps you like to see challenges where there are none. And also if you please, tell me how someone saying slanderous things in public, lives up to this oath. All questions of morality aside. 

Wes or anyone for that matter can have whatever opinion they please on our monarchy. I have no issue with it, this is Canada after all. However, I do have issue with derogatory statements issued towards our monarchy made in public. One is not necessary to promote the other.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> You've decided to make it personal by telling us we fail to live up to our oaths.  You took the "moral indignation" act with Wes and I (among others) and I told you where to take it.  If you're upset because my words were mean, that's your problem.



Perhaps you have. That is your thing. It does not have any sort of personal impact on me so it's not exactly terribly upsetting.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I said, find a soldier today who joined for the express purpose of serving the British Royals.


I must admit, I would be hardpressed to do so, as that is not even why I joined. However, the British Royals...I guess it's how you view it. I could care less about the 'Queen of England' so to speak, however I am obligated to show allegiance to the 'Queen of Canada'. Two separate offices filled by the same person. Times have changed and people feel differently. I do admit to being somewhat swayed in my thinking, listening to various members of my family speak before they passed away, of their time in the forces from the days of WWII. To me the Queen of Canada represents Canada, much like Jesus to many, gives human face to Christianity and all that it stands for and all of its ideals. Not to mix religion with politics  :-X

I believe there was an idea put forward awhile ago, about simply having one of the Queen's line marry some suitable Quebecois girl and moving to Canada, replacing the GG and having an actual Canadian born monarchy. It seems that that might solve some problems people seem to have with having a British born Queen.


----------



## Canuck_25 (12 Apr 2005)

Im going to post my oppinon, so here it goes.

 I would be willing to accept the govornor general becoming head of state as a LAST option. As a young person, raised in a small town atmosphere, I believe, like some of my peers, that the way our goverment runs is a Canadian form. We have a senate, a house of commons, supreme court, and a privy council. Our goverment is based off the two strongest influences in our history, Britain and the U.S. The main question is, why fix something that already works? Who cares if it's a old "antique" way of goverment. The British people still approve of the house of lords, even though it's history is over 500 years old.  

 I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment. If anyone in Canada wants to promote a revolution towards american style of goverment, pack your bags and head south. This country is Canada, we have created our own history, our own goverment, and our own heritage. As Don Cherry once said, "if you dont approve of it, get out!"


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

The "love it or leave it" approach is touching, but only really represents a lack of ability to debate the issue.  I've told you before, if you don't have anything constructive to add and feel that any talk about government reform (yes, believe it or not, things change), then stay off this thread.

WRT to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it it" statement, some would argue that there is a problem in that the Prime Minister has too much power concentrated in his office and the "checks and balances" that do exist in the Head of State (the Crown represented by the GG) are rendered irrelevant due to the fact that the GG is largely seen to be a figurehead.  Legitimizing the GG by making it a public office may reverse this and bring an important check to Cabinet.  Nowhere in this argument is there the idea that we should move to an "American system".

The argument for electing a Governor General to represent the Queen in Canada is an easy one to make, but this is a debate that has real political consequences.  The argument to keep the antique, the Monarchy, is completely different and (except for the costs of keeping or eliminating it) is largely sentimental.


----------



## Canuck_25 (12 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The "love it or leave it" approach is touching, but only really represents a lack of ability to debate the issue.   I've told you before, if you don't have anything constructive to add and feel that any talk about government reform (yes, believe it or not, things change), then stay off this thread.
> 
> WRT to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it it" statement, some would argue that there is a problem in that the Prime Minister has too much power concentrated in his office and the "checks and balances" that do exist in the Head of State (the Crown represented by the GG) are rendered irrelevant due to the fact that the GG is largely seen to be a figurehead.   Legitimizing the GG by making it a public office may reverse this and bring an important check to Cabinet.   Nowhere in this argument is there the idea that we should move to an "American system".
> 
> The argument for electing a Governor General to represent the Queen in Canada is an easy one to make, but this is a debate that has real political consequences.   The argument to keep the antique, the Monarchy, is completely different and (except for the costs of keeping or eliminating it) is largely sentimental.



 What's to point out? This has been covered enough times to make me bash this computer. Still though, people continue to argue over it. You continue to repeat yourself, as do others. Calling the Queen a "imbread" is hardly constructive. Im sorry, but your a hypocrite


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

New members have brought new perspectives to the debate - I very much enjoy reading what Mr McKay and Mr Campbell have to contribute to the thread.

If you don't like it, then don't read it or bash your computer - don't come on here and tell people that they are Un-Canadian for daring to broach the subject.   This is you're final warning - your on the ramp without a chute, kiddo.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Aquilus said:
			
		

> Quote me where I implied that you have failed in your duty in regard to military service, as I implied no such thing. Perhaps you like to see challenges where there are none. And also if you please, tell me how someone saying slanderous things in public, lives up to this oath. All questions of morality aside.
> 
> Wes or anyone for that matter can have whatever opinion they please on our monarchy. I have no issue with it, this is Canada after all. However, I do have issue with derogatory statements issued towards our monarchy made in public. One is not necessary to promote the other.



Let's just put it this way and let the matter rest.

You interpret the Oath one way and others (such as Wes and I) see it another way; both of which are dependent on how one sees the relationship between the Monarchy and Canada.   If you choose to feel that we are failing to live up to the Oath (and thus our obligation to Canada) in the way we feel about the current setup, then go ahead, but don't bother trying to lecture us on how we need to go about meeting our obligations.

An American soldier is fully capable of capable of thinking Clinton is a lying SOB or that Bush is a redneck cracker (yes, the President is in their Oath) without having to worry about somehow failing to live up to their duty to defend the United States of America - the same applies to us that serve Canada; with or without a monarch.


----------



## onecat (13 Apr 2005)

" I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment"

You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.  Our system is broken.  The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.  Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.    The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.  People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.  Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.   But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.  Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.  An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.


----------



## Acorn (13 Apr 2005)

I'm now on the horns of a dilemna: I'm not a fan of the monarchy, though I respect QEII for her bearing. If I discard the monarchy, I'm left with the Liberals (for the moment, and they'll come back in a few years even as this current scandal blows over).

Maybe I should emigrate? 

Incidentally, Infanteer, the charge WOULD stick if it were brought, _de jure_ of course. It's still on the books, and in a service context is not as archaic as providing a horse-hitch to saloon-goers. If one can disrespect the office of the Commander-in Chief of the CF because it's _archaic_ how does one defend the _archaic_ offices of NCOs, WOs and commissioned officers? Yeah, I know: "it's different." Sorry mate, it ain't.

Acorn


----------



## McInnes (13 Apr 2005)

Infanteer, I asked fairly straight forward questions which you have again averted. And as for the oath, I think it's fairly straight forward. But I agree, we will obviously get no where like this, if there was anywhere to go with to begin with. 
And did Wes tell you to speak for him? Gah. 



			
				radiohead said:
			
		

> You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.  Our system is broken.  The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.  Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.    The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.  People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.  Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.   But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.  Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.  An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.


Wouldn't simply recognising the powers the GG already has and making it clear that we would not revolt if she actually used them be a lot easier? It dpes seem like a bit of a problem that the PM basically has the major say in who the Queen appoints as GG though. However, having an open public vote on the next GG, I fear, would simply create another political office filled with a politician, not the impartial "I am above politics" position that we really need.


----------



## Canuck_25 (13 Apr 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> " I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment"
> 
> You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.   Our system is broken.   The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.   Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.      The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.   People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.   Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.     But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.   Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.   An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.



 Well, the system is not really out of date, over 20 years old, but still, brand new compared to Britain and the U.S.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> An American soldier is fully capable of capable of thinking Clinton is a lying SOB or that Bush is a redneck cracker (yes, the President is in their Oath) without having to worry about somehow failing to live up to their duty to defend the United States of America



Certainly, but it's pretty bad form for him to get onto the Internet and say it to the world.  I occasionally have cause to gripe about my CO, but you won't read about it here -- it's limited to quiet conversations with my messmates and my wife.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Apr 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> " I consider it un Canadian to desire a American form of goverment"
> 
> You don't have to look down south for ideas on how our system can be improved.   Our system is broken.   The Governor General, should be an elected positions as should all senate seats.   Their is no reason these important positions in gov't should be left to the PM to pick.      The GG should represent Canada not the Queen and the Royal family.   People have too take their heads out if sand and look at how we can make government better.   Look at the corruption that is filling the Liberal party, if had an a elected effective senate there night of been a way to stop this corruption.     But with our outdate system the PM has all the power.   Having more choice in who elect is one way to do that, also bring real power in those positions to counter the PM is another.   An effect elected senate and an GG elected by Canadians can do that.



Why would an elected GG be any less vulnerable to corruption than an elected PM?

Also, do you think we should elect judges and Crown prosecutors?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Apr 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I'm now on the horns of a dilemna: I'm not a fan of the monarchy, though I respect QEII for her bearing. If I discard the monarchy, I'm left with the Liberals (for the moment, and they'll come back in a few years even as this current scandal blows over).



Not necessarily, we are assuming that if we discard the monarchy we will not assume a new head of state.   Even if we don't, and your stuck with the Liberals, at least you and your fellow citizens put Parliament there (regardless of who you voted for), whereas you have no say in who your next Head of State is.



> Incidentally, Infanteer, the charge WOULD stick if it were brought, _de jure_ of course. It's still on the books, and in a service context is not as archaic as providing a horse-hitch to saloon-goers. If one can disrespect the office of the Commander-in Chief of the CF because it's _archaic_ how does one defend the _archaic_ offices of NCOs, WOs and commissioned officers? Yeah, I know: "it's different." Sorry mate, it ain't.



It may stick or it may not stick (if it leaves the military) - I think this issue was broached before on this forum and we figured if someone was nailed with this, it would probably draw the Charter lawyers into the fray regarding the "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression".

When was the last time someone was charged in the Military for this?   You say it would stick, but who would really be petty enough to bring forward a charge like this (short of the accused being a complete knob and just looking for a charge)?

The offices of NCO's WO's and commissioned Officers are not archaic, they have a _de facto_ importance in the day to day affairs of the CF.



			
				Aquilus said:
			
		

> Infanteer, I asked fairly straight forward questions which you have again averted. And as for the oath, I think it's fairly straight forward. But I agree, we will obviously get no where like this, if there was anywhere to go with to begin with.



I answered you question, if you didn't understand it, I'll put it in simpler terms.   I put much more stock in the contract one signs rendering one legally obligated to the profession then I do in an Oath to Kings and Queens in a far off land.   It doesn't bother me at all because I don't see how one has to be loyal to the idea of a Monarch to be loyal to democracy and Canada.   I never got into the Forces in the interests of personal servitude.   If Canada (like Australia nearly did) voted to do away with the Monarchy tommorrow, would this suddenly free every soldier in the CF of their professional obligation?

This is probably the crux of the matter - _de facto_ and _de jure_ - do we need to update the Oath we give our soldiers?   American soldiers swear a very real oath, stating they will defend the Constitution (which governs them) against enemies, foreign and domestic, and serve their President (their very real C-in-C):

_"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."_

We swear allegiance to the monarch and his/her descendants - how does this tie us to military service in Canada at all?   It mentions nothing of defence of the realm and nothing of the true service we give to the Canadian People and the true fact that our lawful command authority lies within Parliament.   Sure, there is a lot of fuzzy convention tied up in the Oath, but you don't want fuzzy convention when you are making citizens swear an obligation that includes unlimited liability.



> And did Wes tell you to speak for him? Gah.



No, but he seems to be away and since he is a friend and you've charged us both as oath-breakers, I figured I would include him in the _apologia._



> Wouldn't simply recognising the powers the GG already has and making it clear that we would not revolt if she actually used them be a lot easier? It dpes seem like a bit of a problem that the PM basically has the major say in who the Queen appoints as GG though. However, having an open public vote on the next GG, I fear, would simply create another political office filled with a politician, not the impartial "I am above politics" position that we really need.



This is one measure that I support in the current climate that we could probably accomplish it without any change to the Constitution.   The Governor General possesses many important powers that could be "re-invigorated" if the position was held accountable to an electorate.   One such is as the lawful Commander-in-Chief; the CDS is the only government figure who legally possess the ability to go directly to his superior - could this be a useful "check and balance" if properly implemented?

I am unsure of why people assume that once a person gets in with a vote, they automatically become a political double-dealer.   Having political bias is part of being human.   How does the appointment magically make them impartial?   It wouldn't be the choice of electing or appointing a GG that would make the office impartial, it would be empowering the office to perform its Constitutional duties that would, because then the GG is forced to make political decisions relying upon their own judgement.   I can settle for that because I have faith (generally) in democracy.

As Mr Campbell pointed out, other states have elected offices that are the "heads of state" and they don't succumb to instability.   If the system is setup right (with long terms and limited powers of intervention), I believe the office can maintain a certain degree of aloofness from the day-to-day drudgery of Parliament - thus achieving Mr McKay's "Fire-extinguisher" affect.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Certainly, but it's pretty bad form for him to get onto the Internet and say it to the world.   I occasionally have cause to gripe about my CO, but you won't read about it here -- it's limited to quiet conversations with my messmates and my wife.



Well, I guess it is a matter of opinion.   People come on here and slag the Government (who is the real command authority) everyday and we don't bat an eye.   And doing this doesn't make anyone less of a soldier (which I've been trying to get at in the face of the "oath-breaker" charge).

Certainly, some of the comments made earlier lacked tact (although I think people overreacted to "Chuck"), but welcome to a free society, where people are free to hold their own opinions.   If this is how some choose to express their thoughts on the matter, then so be it.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Why would an elected GG be any less vulnerable to corruption than an elected PM?



The Senate is appointed - is it impartial and invulnerable to corruption?

As I stated above, its not the election that counts, its the powers that are given to the office.   A GG empowered by the public vote would do wonders in your "fire-extinguisher" analogy (now that they are elected, they have the moral authority to do so).

I guess the real gist of the arguement is whether we want a Head of State that is politically neutered (and thus impartial because nothing they say or think matters anyways) or one that is politically empowered to perform their duties (and thus liable to be partial to some opinion on the matter).



> Also, do you think we should elect judges and Crown prosecutors?



No, because they are not representatives of the _vox populi_, they are members of the Judicial branch which has its own requirements.

Incidentally are you trying to tell me that judges are truly impartial in the way they deliberate because they are appointed?   Look at the contention of Supreme Court selection (both in Canada and in the US) - any office that has _de facto_ legal power is going to have issues with personal opinion and bias; elected or appointed.


----------



## Neill McKay (13 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We swear allegiance to the monarch and his/her descendants - how does this tie us to military service in Canada at all?   It mentions nothing of defence of the realm and nothing of the true service we give to the Canadian People and the true fact that our lawful command authority lies within Parliament.



Ultimately, Parliament acts in the name of the Queen (federal legislation starts with "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, enacts as follows:".  One of the Queen's responsibilities is to defend the country, and being unable to do this all by herself she has raised armed forces for that purpose.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I stated above, its not the election that counts, its the powers that are given to the office.   A GG empowered by the public vote would do wonders in your "fire-extinguisher" analogy (now that they are elected, they have the moral authority to do so).
> 
> [...]
> 
> Incidentally are you trying to tell me that judges are truly impartial in the way they deliberate because they are appointed?   Look at the contention of Supreme Court selection (both in Canada and in the US) - any office that has _de facto_ legal power is going to have issues with personal opinion and bias; elected or appointed.



There will always be personal bias, but the ethical waters get an awful lot muddier when an office-holder (a) owes a pile of favours to those that helped him get elected, and (b) wants to get elected again.  It introduces another influence that shouldn't be there.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Ultimately, Parliament acts in the name of the Queen (federal legislation starts with "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, enacts as follows:".   One of the Queen's responsibilities is to defend the country, and being unable to do this all by herself she has raised armed forces for that purpose.



That sounds all nice and pretty, but ultimately, Parliament acts on behalf of the the Canadian people that elected them and is accountable to them and not the Queen - it is the true command authority of the CF, it writes the rules, pays the bills, and sets the policies.   If the Queen came to Canada today and said "Parliament is disbanded", "You can't enact this legislation or that policy", or "As C-in-C of the CF, I order X", it quite simply would not fly - a King/Byng affair in this day in age would most likely result in Canada moving to do away with the Monarchy.

Again, let's not confuse "how it is written" with "how it is done" - the convention of a liberal democratic order is stronger then any _de jure_ proclamation of the powers of the Monarch.



> There will always be personal bias, but the ethical waters get an awful lot muddier when an office-holder (a) owes a pile of favours to those that helped him get elected, and (b) wants to get elected again.   It introduces another influence that shouldn't be there.



As I said earlier, the system can be designed structurally to limit this.   Give the GG a long term (10 years?) and no ability to be re-elected.   Make it a benign, largely reactive political office (basically how it is legally layed out now); the "Elder Statesman".   Include some sort of formula for recall.

In the end, I guess it comes down to political philosophy - I believe Canadians are more then capable of choosing their Head of State and that a Canadian citizen is more then capable of sitting in this office without being a complete and utter political hack (sure, the opportunity is there, but _ce la vie_ in Democracy).


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I've invited Mr. Allen to back up his words, something that I understand is encouraged on Army.ca, but so far it's just been more of the same from him and others.



Well, sorry I can't respond as much as I want, as we have just moved, no PC til after 20 Apr, and I am here at a local INet Lounge based out of Gaythorne for a few brief minutes.....

I stared an OPINION, and its a democracy, so I can say pretty much how I feel about the totally embarrassing new royals, Now if I had somehow threatened them, ya then sure have a go at me, and I would agree, but there is no way that I can be condemmed for my opinion in Canada or here in Australia, where the crown has always had a bad taste in our mouths. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one, and I got mine too.  

I don't need to be 'orally spanked' by a jr officer over such trivial comments. I did briefly respond in an earlier post (No. 231) about 'backing up' my words, but no long and drawn out paragraphs, just a few words.

Anyways, lunch is almost over, and I gotta get back to reality for a few more hours. 


Cheers from a warm sunny typical Queensland day,

Wes


----------



## Gunner (13 Apr 2005)

My 2 cents goes for the formation of a Canadian republic as it is high time to move on from the British monarchy and go our own way.  We could still remain members of the commonwealth as this is part of our heritage.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> My 2 cents goes for the formation of a Canadian republic as it is high time to move on from the British monarchy and go our own way.  We could still remain members of the commonwealth as this is part of our heritage.



Exactly!

Time to let our OWN citizens become our OWN head of state.


Now I must go,


Cheers,

Wes

PS By the way Neill, your own kids could never be King or Queen anyways.


----------



## Canuck_25 (14 Apr 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> My 2 cents goes for the formation of a Canadian republic as it is high time to move on from the British monarchy and go our own way.   We could still remain members of the commonwealth as this is part of our heritage.



 The constitutional Monarchy is part of our heritage.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

So was the Absolute Monarchy.  I'm sure if we were having this discussion a few hundred years ago, you'd be arguing against giving Parliament too much say.  Things change.

Do you think Canada will fall apart at the seams if we have someone new on the 20 Dollar bill?


----------



## Neill McKay (14 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you think Canada will fall apart at the seams if we have someone new on the 20 Dollar bill?



It's not exactly falling apart at the seams now, is it?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It's not exactly falling apart at the seams now, is it?



No, and that is why I've argued that the debate is largely sentimental (the antique argument).  I was just highlighting the fact as Canuck25 seems to imply that it is *un-Canadian* to not support the system and would lead us down the road to some Mel Hurtig-inspired Yankee Hell if we were to move away from the idea of a Canadian Monarch.


----------



## Canuck_25 (14 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So was the Absolute Monarchy.   I'm sure if we were having this discussion a few hundred years ago, you'd be arguing against giving Parliament too much say.   Things change.
> 
> Do you think Canada will fall apart at the seams if we have someone new on the 20 Dollar bill?



 Good one, but im sure many will be dissatisfied if the decision will go through. May I ask you Infanteer, on a personal matter? Do you have care for Canadian Heritage? Surely, the Queen has done more positively then negativly, has she not?

 Also, a question directed towards the members on this board. What is the conservative party's stance on the monarchy? I know there is a rift in the party on the issue, but no common agreement, as is in the Liberal party.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> May I ask you Infanteer, on a personal matter? Do you have care for Canadian Heritage? Surely, the Queen has done more positively then negativly, has she not?



Sure I have a care for Canadian heritage.   I care about parliamentary democracy, the rule of law, and the sovereign will of the people.   I also care about the real heritage of Canada; the Mohawk or Haida ways, the stalewart traditions of the _Habitants_, the strong civil society of the British, the hardy customs of Prairie immigrants (my roots), the vibrant cultures of Asia, etc, etc.   The Monarchy is not the lynchpin to any of this and we will not abdicate it or see it diminished by moving away from Kings and Queens.

In all honesty regarding the Queen, she is certainly a very dignified lady and has done much to preserve the integrity of the Royal Family and the image of Britain's Monarchy (which we have tacked on to our state).   She is respected by most as an excellent figurehead.   But for Canada in particular, I don't think there is much on the plate - you can count on your hands and feet how many times she has been on our soil.   I don't see any real connection between what she does and how it represents Canada on the world stage.   Sure, the GG "acts on her behalf", but the GG is not the Queen.

I feel that Canada can do better with our own Head of State, one that fits in with our liberal democratic framework and is a daily fixture in the political life of Canada (essentially, making the GG the Head of State).   It can be, like the current office, a politically inert one that serves a figurehead role or an office that is empowered with some sort of role in the political process that can perhaps become part of the solution for the "democratic deficit" that we see today (as the GG was originally intended for).

The GG can be empowered with or without the monarchy, so it is not really part of this thread but more relevent to the other thread on political reform.

The Monarchy in Canada on its own, as I've said before, is largely a sentimental argument, and you've seen my sentiments above.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Gunner (14 Apr 2005)

> The constitutional Monarchy is part of our heritage.




Which is why we would remain part of the commonwealth.  The British monarchy doesn't mean anything to me as a Canadian and it is time to move on.


----------



## Canuck_25 (14 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I feel that Canada can do better with our own Head of State, one that fits in with our liberal democratic framework and is a daily fixture in the political life of Canada (essentially, making the GG the Head of State).   It can be, like the current office, a politically inert one that serves a figurehead role or an office that is empowered with some sort of role in the political process that can perhaps become part of the solution for the "democratic deficit" that we see today (as the GG was originally intended for).
> 
> The GG can be empowered with or without the monarchy, so it is not really part of this thread but more relevent to the other thread on political reform.
> 
> ...



 Ok then, I could come to agreement on the Governor General becoming head of state, but still, not elected in a federal way. Why not have the provinces appoint the Governor General? I hate to see canditates from each party having a member running forthe position. The idea of the governor general being above politics is far more appealing. Even though everyone has a political view, it far less symbolic having a neutral governor general, then lets say a NDP one.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

Define "elect the governor general in a federal way" - I'm not sure what your getting at.

Appointment or election doesn't necessarily mean neutral - look at the Senate; members are appointed and they belong to a party.   If the provinces appointed the GG, people would still gripe, as the provincial government was one that they didn't vote for and didn't "represent them".

Basically, if the position is empowered (as opposed to benign), there will be some "politicking" around an election - but isn't that at the heart of democracy?   I may not particularly like the Liberal government in power right now but I respect the fact that they were put there by me and my fellow Canadian voters; as I citizen in a democracy I can respect that.

Sure, there may be partisanship in a politically empowered Governor General who is elected by the popular vote - so what.   Accepting this is part of being a responsible democrat (small d, please).   Will it be bad for the country - probably not; the US has had an elected Head of State for over 200 years and they are still fully capable of serving the United States and its Constitution.   We are just as capable of doing the same.

I find it funny how most reasonable people are so keen to defend democracy as the best form of government (or the worst, but better then all the others) are also quick to attack the idea of the Head of State being elected in order to preserve it from the horrible effects of democracy, cronyism and demagoguery - which is it, people?


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Define "elect the governor general in a federal way" - I'm not sure what your getting at.
> 
> Appointment or election doesn't necessarily mean neutral - look at the Senate; members are appointed and they belong to a party.   If the provinces appointed the GG, people would still gripe, as the provincial government was one that they didn't vote for and didn't "represent them".
> 
> ...



What people are objecting to is the realization there are few effective checks and balances the way our parliparliamentaryem works. An elected Head of State in Canada could end up being a Jean Chretien on steroids...hardly the outcome we expect. The American system works to the extent it does due to the interlocking system of checks and balances, neither the Legislature, the Executive or the Judiciary can run amok.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Apr 2005)

Well, the Governor General doesn't have the legislative or fiduciary powers to be a "Jean Cretin on Steroids" - I do not support sweeping reform and an American style Head of State.   However, if designed right (with a few tweaks on how the system works now), the "Elder Statesman" GG could act as a check and a balance on a future Jean Cretin.   I believe (as discussed by Jeffrey Simpson in The Friendly Dictatorship) that in Canada, the Legislative system has run amok due to the fact that convention has allowed it (and the PM in particular) to assume all the constitutional responsibilities of the Head of State (one only has to look at the last 5 years of scandal to see this) and this is why the checks and balances are required.

I believe that, alongside an accountable and empowered Head of State, Senate reform is necessary to balance our System.   Commons will still be the primary motive force of government and produce the Head of Government, but a Senate (based upon regional represention) and a GG (the "Elder Statesman") are empowered with both legally and morally (_de facto_ and _de jure_) to step in if the situation warrants it.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I find it funny how most reasonable people are so keen to defend democracy as the best form of government (or the worst, but better then all the others) are also quick to attack the idea of the Head of State being elected in order to preserve it from the horrible effects of democracy, cronyism and demagoguery - which is it, people?



I guess for me electing public officials is almost an necessary evil: we need to have the people represented, and having them choose their own representatives is obviously a fair and sensible thing to do, but unfortunately it brings with it quite a lot of undesirable baggage.  I like the system we have now, wherein we have an elected body and an appointed body to balance one another, and a third body in the position by accident of birth, and keeping it as a matter of duty, above the politics of it all to ensure the continuity of legitimate government.  If we elected everyone, including the head of state, we'd just have more politics.  (In saying this, I fully acknowledge the deficiencies in having the PM select the senators.)

When we talk about checks and balances, the thought that always comes into my mind is that the US system, checked and balanced as it is, seems to have been designed on the premise that everyone is trying to screw everyone else somehow.  Ours, with the Crown as the check, is based on trust.  We trust the Queen to do the right thing, and in fact I would argue that she has been for over half a century.  Call me touchy-feely if you like, but I'd rather have a government that's based on trust than one based on expected corruption.


----------



## Marauder (15 Apr 2005)

Being a vassal of the Liberal Party of Canada isn't enough subjagated servitude for you?

The Queen has been an inoffensible enough figure head, and I suppose the status quo of her not giving a damn and doing nothing to reverse the folly of the public's will (good or bad) in one of her plantations (frozen though it be) here is acceptable. But where's the impulse to keep her then? And when the Queen passes, are you really that hard up for a monarch that you'd kiss Charles' ring? The guy can't get choosing a wife right without a second pass, and he's gonna run the Empire? C'mon. And Harry's a druggie, once you hit the next gen. William I could live with without feeling that much irony or revulsion, but that's about it.


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Apr 2005)

Marauder said:
			
		

> The Queen has been an inoffensible enough figure head, and I suppose the status quo of her not giving a darn and doing nothing to reverse the folly of the public's will (good or bad) in one of her plantations (frozen though it be) here is acceptable. But where's the impulse to keep her then?



it lies in the relatively good functionning of the canadian system of government, coupled with an absence of any compelling reason to turn the Constitution inside-out.



> And when the Queen passes, are you really that hard up for a monarch that you'd kiss Charles' ring? The guy can't get choosing a wife right without a second pass, and he's gonna run the Empire?



Divorce and subsequent re-marriage is fairly common now, actually...

And there's no Empire anymore, and if there were the King wouldn't be running it any more than the Queen runs the Commonwealth now.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2005)

Marauder said:
			
		

> The Queen has been an inoffensible enough figure head, and I suppose the status quo of her not giving a damn and doing nothing to reverse the folly of the public's will (good or bad) in one of her plantations (frozen though it be) here is acceptable. But where's the impulse to keep her then? And when the Queen passes, are you really that hard up for a monarch that you'd kiss Charles' ring? The guy can't get choosing a wife right without a second pass, and he's gonna run the Empire? C'mon. And Harry's a druggie, once you hit the next gen. William I could live with without feeling that much irony or revulsion, but that's about it.



Another dissatisfied customer.

Dirty Kuffar....


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2005)

I wish the moderators would merge the â Å“What would change if (when) we had a King?â ? thread, up in The Canadian Army, with this one.

There are some other considerations re: the royals.

Consider, for example, _The Royals_: The Royal Canadian Regiment.  The Regiment has had only two Colonels-in-Chief in its long, glorious history:

1.	FM HRH Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert, 1st Duke of Connaught and Strathearn KG, KT, GCB, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE, GCVO, GBE, VD, TD (a real, professional soldier, a legitimate Field Marshal and, by the way, the father of Princess Patricia (Lady Patricia Ramsey) from whom the PPCLI are named) and Governor General of Canada from 1911-1916.  He became Honorary Colonel in 1914 and Colonel-in-Chief in 1929.  He died in 1942; and

2.	HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh KG, KT, OM, GBE, AC, QSO â â€œ also a Field Marshal but, unlike the Duke of Connaught, an honorary one.  He accepted the appointment in 1953.

Prince Philip is an elderly, albeit fit and active man but, like most of his _great generation_ of WWII veterans (he saw active service during World War II and served until 1952, rising to the rank of commander) he cannot be too long for this world.  Who will take his place?

(I am sure the Colonel of the Regiment (MGen (ret'd) de Faye) has considered/is considering this issue.  He has not shared his views or those of the _inner circle_ of the REC with the likes of me and I certainly haven't asked.)

Consider if you will: are we The _Royal_ Canadian Regiment or The Royal _Canadian_ Regiment?  If we are the former then we might wish to retain our close association with the senior ranks of the British royals.  If, on the other hand, the proper emphasis is on _Canadian_ then, perhaps, we should consider that the Duke of Connaught was, also, Governor General of Canada when he accepted the appointment.  Perhaps we should revive that tradition and seek a serving or retired _Canadian_ governor general.


----------



## Yrys (18 Mar 2008)

slight hijack



			
				Will said:
			
		

> But seriously Prince William is currently second in succession to the thrones of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, and nine other nations, really what points does he have in comming here.



Speaking of the throne of Canada, I was finding it "funy" that Elizabeth II didn't have a home in Canada, as "Queen of Canada".
Well,  I'm not sure if the statue of Rideau Hall has change since then, but if Wikipedia is right, I had my "facts" wrong...

(a little gem found in a unrelated lecture)


> Louise became the first royal to take up residence in Rideau Hall, officially the Queen's royal residence in Ottawa.



Speaking of that wiki page, did anyone in Alberta knew that :

The province of Alberta in Canada is named after Louise. Although the name 
“Louise” was originally planned, the Princess wished to honour her dead father, so her last name was chosen. Lake Louise in Alberta is also named after her.

or anyone in Montréal :


Louise was the most artistically talented of Queen Victoria's daughters. As well
 as being an able actor, pianist and dancer, she was a prolific artist and sculptress. A memorial to her brother-in-law, Prince Henry of Battenberg, and a memorial 
to the Colonial soldiers who fell during the Boer War, reside at Whippingham Church on the Isle of Wight, and_ another statue of Queen Victoria remains at 
McGill University in Montreal, Canada_.[3]


----------



## Swingline1984 (3 Jan 2012)

I apologize for resurrecting the dead, but, I thought this a fitting place for the following (posted with the usual caveats):



> Liberals To Ponder Severing Canada's Ties To The Monarchy
> 
> Susan Delacourt - Tue Jan 03 2012
> 
> ...



More at link:

http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/648671--liberals-to-ponder-severing-canada-s-ties-to-the-monarchy 

Is this truly something that resonates with young Canadians and the wider Liberal Party, or is it an attempt by the youth wing of the party to be in opposition of the Conservatives attempt to resurrect everything Royal?  I would hazard to guess that the latter holds more weight, although I would be interested to see a poll that reflected the former.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Jan 2012)

They need to re-read the constitution:



> 41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:
> 
> (a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;




How likely is it that there will be unanimous consent? Not bloody likely!


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jan 2012)

> is among 30 policy ideas deemed “priority” items



Well, if that is a priority for the LPC, we really don't have to worry about them making a comeback anytime soon. They are still out of ideas.


----------



## Swingline1984 (3 Jan 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> They need to re-read the constitution:
> 
> How likely is it that there will be unanimous consent? Not bloody likely!



Which is why I'm leaning more towards the direction that this was only raised as an issue because it is in opposition to the current Conservative Governments thinking, and is again why I'd like to see numbers that support their argument.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, if that is a priority for the LPC, we really don't have to worry about them making a comeback anytime soon. They are still out of ideas.



Really?



> Other ideas up for debate at the convention include calls for a national child-care program...


----------



## GAP (3 Jan 2012)

If the best they can come up with is stuff that's been roundly rejected as uneconomical patter, I don't hold out much hope for their "rebirth".....


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How likely is it that there will be unanimous consent? Not bloody likely!



Although it would be interesting to see how the constitutional mechanisms would work if the question was put to a national referendum and a "republican" vote won a majority (say 60% or higher).

But I think Swingline has the right of it - Liberal Party spitballing ideas to contest to the Conservatives on.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jan 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Really?





> national child-care program



Yup, like i said, still out of ideas.


----------



## GAP (3 Jan 2012)

You just wait until they trot out Paul Martin's napkin with his aboriginal saviour plan....that was only 5 Billion, the daycare was 10 billion, and I'm sure there must be a bargin somewhere, maybe China, for suitable kites to replace those F35's.......


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jan 2012)

I just find it ironic for a party that seems from time to time to embrace a sort of knee-jerk anti-Americanism to push for an amendment that would bring our system of government closer to that of the United States.


----------



## Pusser (3 Jan 2012)

What I find interesting is the outcry in the popular press that consistently laments the loss of many aspects of "Liberal" Canada (i.e. many of the things that the Liberal Party instituted and has long supported).  Yet the Conservatives haven't really done anything they didn't promise to do.  It would seem to me that the people have spoken.  Canadians elected a Conservative government and gave them a majority.  Contrary to what the vocal liberal element claims that Canadians want, Canadians actually seem to want a more conservative nation.  

I read an article (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-01/01/c_131337801.htm) earlier today that said:

_Harper sent out a clear message that he wanted to *undo* some of the Canadian nationalism that the Liberals had fostered during their lock on power in the 20th century.

He announced the country's navy would be re-named the Royal Canadian Navy, and the air force would now be called the Royal Canadian Air Force._

Canadian nationalism fostered by the Liberals?  I would argue that the Conservatives have done more for Canadian nationalism in the last decade than the Liberals did in the entire 20th Century.  Restoring the proper names of proud institutions undoes nothing and only serves to right an historic wrong.


----------



## Remius (3 Jan 2012)

I find that in most cases, people are in favour of severing ties with the monarchy are generally anti-monarchists not necessarily people that propose something better or more effective.  It seems to be more about getting rid of the royals then creating something else.  Our system may have it's faults but it is one of the best in the world.  You just need to look south of the border and see the gong show going on there.  Our problems pale in comparison.  The monarchy, though more symbolic now, still serves to legitimise our system.  There is something comforting in seeing someone above our elected politicians, impartial, embodying our country and values.  Something to respect.  Politicians and appointed senators don`t normally get that.  And I doubt an elected head of state would either.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jan 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And I doubt an elected head of state would either.


Agreed.  An elected head of state would probably have to become the executive branch of government, complete with a cabinet, probably approved by the legislative branch (House of Commons, which we should rename the House of Representatives, because "commons" implies "commoner", which is of course a reference to social status, and we can't have that...).  Then we'll have an elected senate, and then apply for 51st State status, because heaven knows, our form of government hasn't worked!

(By "hasn't worked", I mean, it's actually allowed the baby-eating Harper get his claws into power in Ottawa).

In short, our system is like any other system in the world in that it is imperfect.  But it works fairly well, I would offer.


----------



## Swingline1984 (3 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (By "hasn't worked", I mean, it's actually allowed the baby-eating Harper get his claws into power in Ottawa).



Been reading the Toronto Star I see  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2012)

It is possible to have elected Presidents as Heads of State who do not wield political power, in these nations the Prime Minister is the head of government and wields political power.

Is this a good thing or not? I have no opinion, since the example that I know most about (Israel) also has issues due to the PR electoral system and constant deal brokering that the Prime Minister (or PM presumptive in a close election) has to do. In that particular case you could argue for either a more politically powerful President or to eliminate the office entirely.

Having our own "King" or Regent at least makes the issue entirely home grown, given we haven't needed to appeal to Westminster or even have the GG openly use his/her reserve powers since the 1930's (Byng-King affair, although it was rumored His Excelency Edward Schreyer was prepared to use the reserved powers during the various kerfuffles around the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982), in this regard I fully support Edward Campbells ideas on the matter as posted on this board.


----------



## Pusser (4 Jan 2012)

It's worth noting that the majority of the countries usually listed as the "best" in the world (in a variety of indexes based on GDP, social programs, education, basic freedoms, etc) are monarchies.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that the majority of the countries usually listed as the "best" in the world (in a variety of indexes based on GDP, social programs, education, basic freedoms, etc) are monarchies.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.



Germany?

France?

USA?


...a certain lack of Royalty in those countries, I think...


----------



## Pusser (4 Jan 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Germany?
> 
> France?
> 
> ...



I said the majority, not all of them.  Seven of the top ten in the 2011 Human Development Index are monarchies:

*Norway
Australia
Netherlands*
USA
*New Zealand
Canada*
Ireland
*Liechtenstein*
Germany
*Sweden*

Japan, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, the UK and the UAE all fall into the top 30


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that the majority of the countries usually listed as the "best" in the world (in a variety of indexes based on GDP, social programs, education, basic freedoms, etc) are monarchies.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.



That's a logical fallacy.  Circumstances far beyond a neutered monarchy go into making these countries the "best".  We can start with uninterrupted rule of law, lack of open warfare within the country, and prospering under the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War.


----------



## quadrapiper (4 Jan 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's a logical fallacy.  Circumstances far beyond a neutered monarchy go into making these countries the "best".  We can start with uninterrupted rule of law, lack of open warfare within the country, and prospering under the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War.


And all but the latter could be, in one way or another, linked to an apolitical and inherited head of state position. 

There's certainly other ways to keep a country in decent shape; long-established usage and custom, diffusion of control over the major organs of state, and Politburo-style committee rule; but an established monarchy is certainly one of the more common ways to maintain stability in a country.

Monarchs are, generally, creatures of stability: the idea is to hand the job and the country down to the kids, complete with palace, treasury, jewels, and so on. There's certainly outliers: North Korea's Communist dynasty comes to mind; but, generally, the crown has a need for real good government, if only to keep things sweet for the royal family. 

It also seems as if it'd be harder (not impossibly, but harder) for an upstart political movement to seize absolute power or start a civil war when a nation's military owes its loyalty to King and Country, rather than either more easily re-defined symbols, like a constitution, or to one elected office or another. I'll offer Mussolini as an example where this _didn't_ work, and Thailand as a contemporary extreme, outlier example of this in action.


----------



## Pusser (6 Jan 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's a logical fallacy.  Circumstances far beyond a neutered monarchy go into making these countries the "best".  We can start with uninterrupted rule of law, lack of open warfare within the country, and prospering under the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War.



And you don't feel that a stable political system had something to do with this?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> And you don't feel that a stable political system had something to do with this?



Or, further to this, that perhaps the retention of a monarch in a diminished role demonstrates a useful cultural characteristic of accomodation, toleration, adaptation and incrementalism?  As opposed, perhaps, to cultures that seem to have developed a pattern of discarding babies with bathwater?


----------



## Remius (6 Jan 2012)

1. Barbados
2. St.Kits and Nevis
3. Bahamas
4. Trinidad and Tobago
5. Antigua & Barbuda
6. Grenada
7. Dominica
8. St. Lucia
10 . St. Vincent and the Grenadines

This is the list of top caribean countries.  All but one have Queen Elizabeth as head of state.  But all have westminster style of governments (one is a parliamentary republic).  Is it maybe that a westminster style of parliament and not necessarily who the head of state is, that is better off in most cases than a Presidential style republic?


----------



## GR66 (6 Jan 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> 1. Barbados
> 2. St.Kits and Nevis
> 3. Bahamas
> 4. Trinidad and Tobago
> ...



Perhaps we should create a Canadian monarchy (I'm available btw...) and graciously agree to take on the above into OUR commonwealth.  They will benefit from our strong Canadian dollar and generally wonderful society as well as the influx of Canadian tourists able to travel there domestically during the winter.  I will personally commit to extended Royal visits annually (November to March) so they don't feel neglected by their monarch!

 ;D


----------

