# Monarchy?



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

Recently I was debating an acquaintance on the topic of the Canadian Crown. Like me he is planning on joining the Canadian forces, however he is a die hard anti-Monarchist. He laughs at any suggestion that members of the CF are actually loyal to the Queen. I was wondering how our troops actually felt about the Crown?


----------



## Infanteer (21 May 2011)

Thoughts on the monarchy will be as varied as thoughts on national politics.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 May 2011)

I have to agree with Infanteer regarding where people stand individually.

You do have to swear an oath to the crown (I, insert name, hereby forfeit my life to the crown in right of Canada  ), but this is no different than, say all the members of the civil services of Canada or most of the provinces.

You will also find that many a tradition, form of speech or expressions in use in the CF hark back to an era where they were clearly linked to the crown of (then) the Empire. However, you will find that in the current context of the CF, these are all used to refer to Canada as a country. References to the  crown are now being used by CF members as a reference to country - Canada - indistinguishably. It would not surprise me in the slightest if one day, after Canadians would have severed the ties with the monarchy and elected to become  a "republic" , the CF carried on exactly as is, minus the oath of course, and no one bothered to quit. 

Bottom line: We serve Canada and Canadians, regardless of how we are "legally organized" to do so.


----------



## Neill McKay (21 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> Recently I was debating an acquaintance on the topic of the Canadian Crown. Like me he is planning on joining the Canadian forces, however he is a die hard anti-Monarchist. He laughs at any suggestion that members of the CF are actually loyal to the Queen. I was wondering how our troops actually felt about the Crown?



I imagine the variety of opinions more or less mirrors those of Canadian society.

However he feels, he will have to swear (or affirm) his allegiance to the Queen and her lawful heirs and successors, and if he has any integrity he will uphold that oath.  Not insignificantly, it is illegal for members of the CF to use "traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty".  (This is one of many ways in which CF members must accept constraints that are not binding on civilians.)

The Queen has no day-to-day involvement in the normal workings of the government and, in practice, one's loyalty to her personally is not likely to be tested.  But we are talking about Her Majesty's armed forces (and not, for example, the Prime Minister's) so your friend may have a bit of an ethical hurdle to get over.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> However he feels, he will have to swear (or affirm) his allegiance to the Queen and her lawful heirs and successors, and if he has any integrity he will uphold that oath.  Not insignificantly, it is illegal for members of the CF to use "traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty".  (This is one of many ways in which CF members must accept constraints that are not binding on civilians.)The Queen has no day-to-day involvement in the normal workings of the government and, in practice, one's loyalty to her personally is not likely to be tested.  But we are talking about Her Majesty's armed forces (and not, for example, the Prime Minister's) so your friend may have a bit of an ethical hurdle to get over.



Wow, I think I love our military even more now!

But seriously, I have mentioned the  oath to him and he has found a "way around it." He is willing to swear the same oath while thinking solely of the Canadian people, he calls this "patriotism" but frankly I can think of a few other words for it. He also said he only considers those who fight for "Canada and Canada alone" (he thinks the Queen is only a Briton) to be great and holds those who also do so for the Queen in (very) low regard.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 May 2011)

I suggest the friend best keep his opinions to himself because many of those higher on the food chain do keep their oaths seriously.  Treating the crown disrespectful is a guaranteed way to have a bad day.  From another point of view, if the treasonous Bloc Quebecois can make an oath to the crown for a paycheque  so can he.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 May 2011)

Clearly he fails to understand the constitutional relationship between the Crown and the people. 

I suggest that if his beliefs are contrary to the oath, then the honourable thing to do is decline enrollment. Conversely, he's welcome to file a court challenge, but this issue has already been decided in the Crown's favour.



> But seriously, I have mentioned the  oath to him and he has found a "way around it." He is willing to swear the same oath while thinking solely of the Canadian people, he calls this "patriotism" but frankly I can think of a few other words for it.



As can I. Duplicitous comes to mind.



> He also said he only considers those who fight for "Canada and Canada alone" (he thinks the Queen is only a Briton) to be great and holds those who also do so for the Queen in (very) low regard.



An overly simplistic view of things. At the risk of repeating myself, he needs to actually read and understand the Constitution, particularly the preamble. He's not swearing allegiance to HM as a person, rather all that she embodies as the ultimate guardian and representative of the people.


----------



## George Wallace (21 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> Wow, I think I love our military even more now!
> 
> But seriously, I have mentioned the  oath to him and he has found a "way around it." He is willing to swear the same oath while thinking solely of the Canadian people, he calls this "patriotism" but frankly I can think of a few other words for it. He also said he only considers those who fight for "Canada and Canada alone" (he thinks the Queen is only a Briton) to be great and holds those who also do so for the Queen in (very) low regard.



You may also point out to your friend that her proper title does include "Queen of Canada _or_ of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith  (Sa Majesté Elizabeth Deux, par la grâce de Dieu Reine du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth, Défenseur de la Foi)".  She is our Queen, just as she is the "Queen of of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."  She has numerous titles which include her being the Queen of Australia, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.  Your friend is just showing his/her ignorance in their stance.


----------



## Infanteer (21 May 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> However he feels, he will have to swear (or affirm) his allegiance to the Queen and her lawful heirs and successors, and if he has any integrity he will uphold that oath.  Not insignificantly, it is illegal for members of the CF to use "traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty".  (This is one of many ways in which CF members must accept constraints that are not binding on civilians.)



Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing when the last time that section of the NDA was used and how it was applied.


----------



## Neill McKay (21 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing when the last time that section of the NDA was used and how it was applied.



So would I!



			
				Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> But seriously, I have mentioned the  oath to him and he has found a "way around it." He is willing to swear the same oath while thinking solely of the Canadian people, he calls this "patriotism" but frankly I can think of a few other words for it. He also said he only considers those who fight for "Canada and Canada alone" (he thinks the Queen is only a Briton) to be great and holds those who also do so for the Queen in (very) low regard.



I've followed many debates on the merits of the monarchy for a long time and one thing I've never seen is an informed republican.  I echo the suggestion of others above that he should better inform himself of the nature of the Canadian crown.


----------



## Infanteer (21 May 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I've followed many debates on the merits of the monarchy for a long time and one thing I've never seen is an informed republican.



What's there to be informed of in what is largely a sentimental issue?  People either want a monarch or they don't.  The mechanics of government would require little change except the formal proclamation of what are de facto conventions.  

PS:  Too add, your haughty comments indicate to me that you haven't followed the debate too closely.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2011)

Three things about the Monarchy that need changing:

(1) [Note: this item is a joke] Choice of names:  Girls get names that would have been appropriate two hundred years ago - Beatrice?  Eugenia?  The boys get very boring names - William & Charles.  Hopefully, the Dutchess of Cambridge is a secret Frank Zappa fan, so we'll someday get to meet Prince Dweezil.

(2) Primogeniture.  There is no reason for a princess to be denied the throne just because she has a younger brother.  Why should Princess Moon Unit be denied the throne merely because Prince Dweezil was born a decade later?

(3) Restrictions on Catholicism.  More than four in ten Canadians identify as Catholic - and all are unsuitable for marriage into the Royal family unless they renounce their religious beliefs.  In other words:  Sarah Ferguson was acceptable, Mother Teresa unacceptable.  As a unifying force, the Crown should not be blatantly discriminatory against a religous group.

(Edit: Typos)


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> PS:  Too add, your haughty comments indicate to me that you haven't followed the debate too closely.



'Ware, Roundhead!!!   ;D


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 'Ware, Roundhead!!!   ;D



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SXf9-Z3jwk


----------



## Infanteer (21 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 'Ware, Roundhead!!!   ;D



Off with ye, Cavalier!


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2011)

I would - but there isn't a decent Oak tree for a thousand miles.

And DAP, my father was the milkman, not a pig farmer.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Off with ye, Cavalier!



Let's have at it knave!!!  iper:


----------



## Loachman (21 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> But seriously, I have mentioned the  oath to him and he has found a "way around it."



I am wondering what other things he intends to find a "way around", or, in other words, lie about.

He should seek employment elsewhere.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Three things about the Monarchy that need changing:
> 
> (1) [Note: this item is a joke] Choice of names:  Girls get names that would have been appropriate two hundred years ago - Beatrice?  Eugenia?  The boys get very boring names - William & Charles.  Hopefully, the Dutchess of Cambridge is a secret Frank Zappa fan, so we'll someday get to meet Prince Dweezil.
> 
> ...



Really, I was hoping that they would have a girl and name the young Lady, Gaga .

As for the serious points, I could agree with changing the succession so that the eldest child always inherits the thrown regardless of gender. As a Catholic myself I am enthusiastic over the idea of removing the Act of Settlement, even if the possibility of a Catholic monarch will be very slim for at least several generations. However, this is an important constitutional issue and we need to remember that there are fifteen other nations with which we share a monarch and a succession. Any legislation to change the succession in Canada would need to be carefully worded so that it would not come into effect until all other Commonwealth realms enact the same changes to the succession.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2011)

On the subject of oaths, here is the oath that Her Majesty took on the occasion of her coronation.  Now, I have no problem with deleting the special pleading by the Archbishop of Canterbury for special privileges for his church but I wonder if a Roman Catholic can make the same undertaking and essentially foreswear the authority of the Pope.  That ultimately was the cause that divided Europeans from the time the Margrave of Brandenburg gave up the job of Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights.  Was your "king" a nationalist or a Catholic?

I ask as a cultural presbyterian (non-observant) and thus twice detested by the Canterbury's episcopalians.



> IV. The Oath
> The Queen having returned to her Chair (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the fourth day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,
> 
> Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2011)

The first bit goes back a long, long was: Cnut (King of England from 1016 to 1035) swore to uphold the Laws of Edgar (King of England from 959-975). Edgar's Laws included some very modern provisons, e.g. _"...measures common to all the nation, whether English, Danes, or Britons, in every province of my kingdom, to the end that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire..."_.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The first bit goes back a long, long was: Cnut (King of England from 1016 to 1035) swore to uphold the Laws of Edgar (King of England from 959-975). Edgar's Laws included some very modern provisons, e.g. _"...measures common to all the nation, whether English, Danes, or Britons, in every province of my kingdom, to the end that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire..."_.



How quaint and contrary that Trudeau didn't feel obliged to escond those same property rights in the Constitution that we have enjoyed, to that point in modern history, from the time of Edgar!


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How quaint and contrary that Trudeau didn't feel obliged to escond those same property rights in the Constitution that we have enjoyed, to that point in modern history, from the time of Edgar!



It was obvious 40 years ago - Trudeau was a Communist.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How quaint and contrary that Trudeau didn't feel obliged to escond those same property rights in the Constitution that we have enjoyed, to that point in modern history, from the time of Edgar!




Yes, neat isn't it? Back then, 1,000+ years ago our ancestors knew, intuitively, that property, along with life and liberty, were, and still are *fundamental*, inalienable human rights.

Additionally, back then, when the English still _elected_ their kings - well, when a very few Englishmen, _ealdomen_ and _thegns_ mostly, elected their kings - they could, and did, require the incoming king to swear an oath to uphold and enforce old, established laws.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2011)

This sort of thing pops up from time to time. I actually had the interesting experience of instructing the individual who filed and lost the challenge against raising the loyal toast to HRH Queen Elizabeth. Despite the rather insane sounding disposition claiming discrimination etc. due to his not choosing to accept HRH as Queen of Canada (or something like that, I read the brief with the sort of horrified fascination of watching a train wreak), he otherwise came across as someone who would not attract stares as he walked down Princess St. (Being somewhat sane myself, or at least having a strong survival instinct, I chose not to acknowledge that I recognized him or knew his claim to fame).

Republicanism is actually much more difficult than most people believe, the Executive would have to be severed from Parliament, the Upper House would need some heavy duty reform and there would probably be lots of follow on effects in the bureaucracy, Provincial legislatures and so on. This isn't an impossible task, but would be fairly messy and have lots of unintended consequences that would take decades to resolve. Edward Campbell's suggestion of allowing the monarchy to "lapse" with the passing of HRH Elizabeth II and having a sort of unfilled "Regency" in Canada is much easier to impliment, since it simply removes one person from the equation, but has the issue of defining the reserve powers of the Governor General/Regent of Canada and clarifying that role in Confederation.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> Really, I was hoping that they would have a girl and name the young Lady, Gaga .
> 
> As for the serious points, I could agree with changing the succession so that the eldest child always inherits the thrown regardless of gender. As a Catholic myself I am enthusiastic over the idea of removing the Act of Settlement, even if the possibility of a Catholic monarch will be very slim for at least several generations. However, this is an important constitutional issue and we need to remember that there are fifteen other nations with which we share a monarch and a succession. Any legislation to change the succession in Canada would need to be carefully worded so that it would not come into effect until all other Commonwealth realms enact the same changes to the succession.



To hell with the Commonwealth.  Are we to be dragged down by the lowest common denominator?  Maintaining the Act of Settlement is an affront.  If it means divorcing ourselves from the backwards discrimination of the Commonwealth to establish a seperate Candian crown, so be it.

That we are even debating gender equality and discrimination against Catholics as acceptable in modern Canada - "Well, the others in the Commonwealth do it, so we should do it too." - is absurd.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To hell with the Commonwealth.  Are we to be dragged down by the lowest common denominator?  Maintaining the Act of Settlement is an affront.  If it means divorcing ourselves from the backwards discrimination of the Commonwealth to establish a seperate Candian crown, so be it.
> 
> That we are even debating gender equality and discrimination against Catholics as acceptable in modern Canada - "Well, the others in the Commonwealth do it, so we should do it too." - is absurd.




Quite right! And it, the 1704 _Act of Settlement_, which offends against our sacred _Charter_ (1982) is what we need to refuse to recognize the existing, British, successors and to have our own _regency_ after the unfortunate but, sadly, inevitable death of Her Majesty.

As an aside: someone suggested that we would have a problem with the _reserved powers_ in a regency; I don't think so; so long as we leave the Constitution, _per se_, alone the those powers are loosely enough defined in the really important, unwritten parts, and they are what our Supreme Court says they are, now and again.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To hell with the Commonwealth.  Are we to be dragged down by the lowest common denominator?  Maintaining the Act of Settlement is an affront.  If it means divorcing ourselves from the backwards discrimination of the Commonwealth to establish a seperate Candian crown, so be it.
> 
> That we are even debating gender equality and discrimination against Catholics as acceptable in modern Canada - "Well, the others in the Commonwealth do it, so we should do it too." - is absurd.



"To hell with the Commonwealth"??? Are you serious? The problem isn't with the Commonwealth its with a specific law that needs to be repealed. The only reason it's still there is because nobody has taken the initiative to do away with it. If it is any interest to you, Prince Charles has expressed his desire to remove Church of England specifics from the titles and laws regarding the monarchy when he becomes king. 

Just to draw an (extreme) parallel here, it wasn't that long ago in certain American states that Blacks and Whites couldn't legally marry. Should people have just said "to hell with marriage" and done away with that sacred institution, or should they have gone about the process of having such laws repealed (as they actually did). I'm not in any comparing the monarchy or succession to the Jim Crow South but I'm sure you see my point. Reform the laws surrounding the institution if need be, but just don go about casting the institution to Hell without first at least trying to reform said laws.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2011)

Canada has no need to wait for a Commonwealth consensus.  Act and repeal.  There has been more than ample time for the Commonwealth to act; further dealys are unnecessary.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2011)

A constitutional expert should answer this definitively, but I believe that laws affecting the Crown need to be passed with the unanimous consent of all the nations who accept Elizabeth II as Sovereign. This issue actually came up with Edward VII seeking to marry Wallis Simpson; one of the key objections to the match was the fact tht all the then Imperial Dominions would have to agree to changes to "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

The creation of a Regency for Canada on the passing of HRH does not seem to have the same constitutional impact as trying to overturn the Act of Settlement.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

And Thucydides, I believe you are correct. One of the main points to having the Commonwealth realms in the first place is having the same monarch and succession. Also, why on earth would we want a regency in Canada instead of just accepting Charles as king? It just seems like a convenient way to jilt tradition without making any (major?) constitutional changes. And isn't it only possible to have a regency when the legitimate monarch is a minor, unable to rule or not present? How would one be lawfully created in Canada without any of those circumstances? Even then the monarch unable to "rule" would still be the King/Queen, by default the Governor General would be (acting) regent in Canada leaving us in the exact same position.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 May 2011)

I vote we take the matter to court when a Catholic is being denied the throne.  It hasn't happened for 323 years and only happened then because James II actively tried to advance Roman Catholicism to the detriment of Anglicanism and tried to rule by decree, ticking off a lot of people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> And Thucydides, I believe you are correct. One of the main points to having the Commonwealth realms in the first place is having the same monarch and succession. Also, why on earth would we want a regency in Canada instead of just accepting Charles as king? It just seems like a convenient way to jilt tradition without making any (major?) constitutional changes.




In my opinion Britain and Canada, like Britain and Australia, are drifting farther and farther apart. We share a valuable, indeed Great common history but we do not share a common future, except as equal partners in the _Anglosphere_. Charles will be, even more than his mother, a distinctly British monarch who will be used, effectively, by the UK government as e.g. a trade promotion _celebrity_ - a UK trade promotion _celebrity_; we don't want or need the King of Canada to be dashing off to the USA saying, "Buy British." Most Canadians cannot distinguish the Throne of Canada from the Throne of the United Kingdom and from the Throne of New Zealand - it is pointless to blame anyone for our constitutional ignorance, but we don't *need* to complicate the issue by sharing a monarcyh who has very, very little personal connection to and, I suspect, even less interest in Canada.

A Regency means that our Constitution remains absolutely unchanged - not a single comma needs amending. But our _sovereign_ is a Canadian, selected, as Anglo-Saxon monarchs were 1,000 years ago, by some sort of council of _elders_ - maybe our Parliament, that's a minor technical detail.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I vote we take the matter to court when a Catholic is being denied the throne.  It hasn't happened for 323 years and only happened then because James II actively tried to advance Roman Catholicism to the detriment of Anglicanism and tried to rule by decree, ticking off a lot of people.



Exactly, there is no need to change the laws regarding the succession immediately as the closest Catholic to the Throne would be (I believe) several hundred (perhaps thousand) places along in the sucession (when restored). Due to this, there is pleanty of time to deal with this issue and for the Realms to come to a cosensus when it is raised.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (21 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my opinion Britain and Canada, like Britain and Australia, are drifting farther and farther apart. We share a valuable, indeed Great common history but we do not share a common future, except as equal partners in the _Anglosphere_. Charles will be, even more than his mother, a distinctly British monarch who will be used, effectively, by the UK government as e.g. a trade promotion _celebrity_ - a UK trade promotion _celebrity_; we don't want or need the King of Canada to be dashing off to the USA saying, "Buy British." Most Canadians cannot distinguish the Throne of Canada from the Throne of the United Kingdom and from the Throne of New Zealand - it is pointless to blame anyone for our constitutional ignorance, but we don't *need* to complicate the issue by sharing a monarcyh who has very, very little personal connection to and, I suspect, even less interest in Canada.
> 
> A Regency means that our Constitution remains absolutely unchanged - not a single comma needs amending. But our _sovereign_ is a Canadian, selected, as Anglo-Saxon monarchs were 1,000 years ago, by some sort of council of _elders_ - maybe our Parliament, that's a minor technical detail.


Yes, this is indeed your opinion which you are entitled to. However, don't you think it would be better and more honourable to try to fix the problem of this "constitutional ignorance" instead of just brushing the reality of our government under the proverbial rug?

Perhaps an education campaign in schools or in the media (remember those Heritage Minutes that used to be on TV?) to teach Canadians (or the future generations) about our rich traditions of constitutional monarchy? Another thing which would help achieve that end is actually celebrating holidays like Commonwealth Day (which is a Commonwealth wide  celebration which originates from Canada)? 

You have to remember that all politicians who will have to enact such changes are like yourself under a solemn oath before God to be loyal to both the Queen and the succession. Institution a regency as you have suggested would violate this oath of the politicians who implement it!


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> Yes, this is indeed your opinion which you are entitled to. However, don't you think it would be better and more honourable to try to fix the problem of this "constitutional ignorance" instead of just brushing the reality of our government under the proverbial rug?
> 
> Perhaps an education campaign in schools or in the media (remember those Heritage Minutes that used to be on TV?) to teach Canadians (or the future generations) about our rich traditions of constitutional monarchy? Another thing which would help achieve that end is actually celebrating holidays like Commonwealth Day (which is a Commonwealth wide  celebration which originates from Canada)?
> 
> You have to remember that all politicians who will have to enact such changes are like yourself under a solemn oath before God to be loyal to both the Queen and the succession. Institution a regency as you have suggested would violate this oath of the politicians who implement it!




That oath says we are loyal to HM and her *lawful* heirs and successors. If we were to determine, for ourselves, that the succession system, dating back to 1704, offends *our* law, our Constitution - the written bits dating from 1982 - then the successors would no longer be lawful and no one's loyalty would be at issue. When, sadly, HM passes away, there would be no lawful heir and successor and none would or could exist until the Parliament of Canada identified him, her or it. There would be, _de facto_, a Constitutional requirement for a Regent - since we would not have become a republic. Now, it would be nice and polite for us to warn HM's British heirs and successors that we do not recognize their right to the Throne of Canada. We could and should do that by passing a resolution, rather like the Nickel Resolution of 1919, which advises the crown of the wishes of Canada and has the Constitutional effect of making those wishes into law.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2011)

Item:

This monarchist is not opposed to allowing first born Princesses to become Queens.  Lizzy 1 and 2 and Vicky turned out not too bad.  Mary not so much but the law of averages catches up with everybody.

Item:

This monarchist is not opposed to allowing Catholics to inherit the throne if they put the laws of their subjects before the laws of the Vatican.

Item:

This monarchist is not opposed to a Regency.  Question: Who do you trust with the Reserve Powers of the Monarch?  The Orange-Hanoverian-Coburg-Schleswig-Holstein etc monarchy is well caged and knows its place.  Want to try a Canadian politician as Commander-in-Chief with the power to make war, detain at their pleasure, overturn parliament, throw out governments?

Item:

This monarchist is opposed to leaving the Commonwealth on grounds of mutual cultural commonality.

Item: 

This monarchist is opposed to leaving the monarchical principle precisely because our history ties us to Edgar's laws and coupled with our legal system based on precedence gives a suitably massy inertia that protects us from the worst vagaries of modernism, revisionism and revolution.  We have rights because we had rights - and we have an unbroken trail of governance to demonstrate the validity of those laws.


The Queen.  

PS Argyll,

Given our legal tradition isn't it equally possible to argue that the 1982 Constitution is in conflict with the 1704 Act and calls for a judgement - a judgement that could just as easily find that notwithstanding 1982, 1704 has precedence and for the good of the realm should prevail?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2011)

Let's not get crazy saying that the Throne fails to recognise the RC faith. It wasn't that long ago that you had to be Catholic or convert to said religion or they would not let you marry a RC and the RC that went against the churches wishes could be excommunicated. Serious stuff if you were a devout Catholic.

There's always two sides


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's not get crazy saying that the Throne fails to recognise the RC faith. It wasn't that long ago that you had to be Catholic or convert to said religion or they would not let you marry a RC and the RC that went against the churches wishes could be excommunicated. Serious stuff if you were a devout Catholic.
> 
> There's always two sides



As I found out when I married an RC and had to sign over my kids.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As I found out when I married an RC and had to sign over my kids.......



As I. However, my daughter grew up open minded and was able to throw off the bonds and make her own decisions. 8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> PS Argyll,
> 
> Given our legal tradition isn't it equally possible to argue that the 1982 Constitution is in conflict with the 1704 Act and calls for a judgement - a judgement that could just as easily find that notwithstanding 1982, 1704 has precedence and for the good of the realm should prevail?




No, because we are, now, _de facto_, sovereign and *our* written Constitution can overrule *our* other written constitutional foundation stones. It is our very sovereignty that makes a shared monarch increasingly difficult because our British cousins will, naturally, want to use the 'power' of our monarch's person for their political and economic advantage - 'advantages' which *we* might not see as such.

By the way, so long as we don't muck about with Constitutional amendments, the legal, constitutional cage that contains the British monarch, the lad or lady who presides in Westminster, also _contains_ our Regent - that's another reason why unwritten constitutions are, always and everywhere, superior, in every way, to written ones.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As I. However, my daughter grew up open minded and was able to throw off the bonds and make her own decisions. 8)



Here too as well.  Both of mine are, unfortunately at times, of a highly independent nature.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, because we are, now, _de facto_, sovereign and *our* written Constitution can overrule *our* other written constitutional foundation stones. It is our very sovereignty that makes a shared monarch increasingly difficult because our British cousins will, naturally, want to use the 'power' of our monarch's person for their political and economic advantage - 'advantages' which *we* might not see as such.
> 
> By the way, so long as we don't muck about with Constitutional amendments, the legal, constitutional cage that contains the British monarch, the lad or lady who presides in Westminster, also _contains_ our Regent - that's another reason why unwritten constitutions are, always and everywhere, superior, in every way, to written ones.



I'll stipulate your first point but take exception to your second.  The Law plays second fiddle to popular support.  If the public does not support the Law then there is no Law.  Equally the public likes the idea of law in general but not necessarily the law in particular.  The Canadian (and Commonwealth) population has become accustomed to legal, popular leaders.  All that it would take for the Canadian Regent to jump the traces is for the Regent to find legal pretext to act according to the laws, and if that Regent were popularly elected there would be no restrictions on them.  As you yourself have noted in the past the single thing that restrains the Monarchy from using the Reserve Powers is the lack of democratic legitimacy.  She wasn't elected.

If a Regent were granted democratic legitimacy then the Reserve Powers (appointing Prime Minister, GG, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Privy Council, proroguing Parliament) would then become available.  

Or do you lot want to relive the Protectorate?


----------



## quadrapiper (22 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...but has the issue of defining the reserve powers of the Governor General/Regent of Canada and clarifying that role in Confederation.


And leaves the country's ultimate executive authority (however usually ceremonial) in the hands of someone technically answerable to no other, and, unlike the current setup, placed in that position by the PM. Sure, there's centuries of custom against serious abuses, but all that custom was set in place by monarchs in a formally adversarial position as far as Parliament goes: monarchs with the institutional memory of Parliamentarians chopping the head off the last of their number who tried to make the job something other than a gilded Anglo-Saxon chieftancy. A Governor-General-like Regency, the appointee owing their position to the PM and without the Lady in London to answer to, is somehow worrisome.

Would dearly love the non-hereditary checks upon, and balances against, our elected leadership, to be appointed through some means less related to the PM than is currently the case, and _not_ under any circumstances using a popular vote. For the GG, perhaps offer the gig to the House of Windsor as a spot for the second in line. What better representative for the Boss could you ask for? Might encourage a bit more humility in the elected set, especially those styled "Minister."

As for Senators, the only system potentially worse than the current one is anything where people vote for (or nominate by petition, or anything numbers-related) senators. Wouldn't object to it being an automatic perk for former holders of high office, PMs, Premiers, CDS, Speakers, and so on, and the public-minded sorts that get senior grades in the Order of Canada - the latter with some sort of five or ten year waiting period between _award_ and _office_.

Sorry... staggered rather far off topic.

As to the monarchy itself: God Save the Queen, and confusion to her enemies.


----------



## Infanteer (22 May 2011)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> and _not_ under any circumstances using a popular vote.



What's wrong with letting the populace exercise its sovereignty?  Seems like the best way of getting things done to me.

I find it somewhat disingenious that some can argue that all that lies between us and the abyss is the fact that the pandora's box of executive authority is tied up in the conventions of a figurehead monarchy.  That authority is exercised everyday by the Prime Minister.

Those powers are needed for the day to day running of the state - right now these lay by de facto with the PMO.  Edward's proposal of a vacant Regency is sound, if anything to grow up as a soveriegn people and acknowledge the fact that we don't need a family hailing from another country across the ocean to have a lock as our head of state due to birthright.  Putting the powers of the executive into an elected position as a counter to the PM is something worthy of study, although there is likely a requirement to rejig some of the distribution of powers.  I've argued before to look at a long-term elected GG restricted to a single term.  It ain't in the BNA, but the great thing about Convention is we can just make it up as we go....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'll stipulate your first point but take exception to your second.  The Law plays second fiddle to popular support.  If the public does not support the Law then there is no Law.  Equally the public likes the idea of law in general but not necessarily the law in particular.  The Canadian (and Commonwealth) population has become accustomed to legal, popular leaders.  All that it would take for the Canadian Regent to jump the traces is for the Regent to find legal pretext to act according to the laws, and if that Regent were popularly elected there would be no restrictions on them.  As you yourself have noted in the past the single thing that restrains the Monarchy from using the Reserve Powers is the lack of democratic legitimacy.  She wasn't elected.
> 
> If a Regent were granted democratic legitimacy then the Reserve Powers (appointing Prime Minister, GG, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Privy Council, proroguing Parliament) would then become available.
> 
> Or do you lot want to relive the Protectorate?




While I accept your points, it seems to me that we, in liberal democracies, have learned to moderate the "will of the people," which we understand to be an ephemeral thing. Yes a popularly elected Regent could jump the traces; so could an appointed GG or or an anointed monarch. The fact is that we have hemmed in the monarch and her henchmen with laws and (more powerful) customs.

I grant you that it could happen, especially if we were to popularly elect the Regent, but as the old saying goes: "if wishes were horses then poor men would ride." I checked, yesterday, (whilst out looking for signs of the rapture   ) and the poor are still safely afoot. Thus, I conclude that wishes and fears are equally safe at bay.


----------



## Canuk Crusader (22 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What's wrong with letting the populace exercise its sovereignty?  Seems like the best way of getting things done to me.
> 
> I find it somewhat disingenious that some can argue that all that lies between us and the abyss is the fact that the pandora's box of executive authority is tied up in the conventions of a figurehead monarchy.  That authority is exercised everyday by the Prime Minister.



You make it seem as if having a Queen of Canada somehow impedes upon our sovereignty. It seems to me that we have managed to function as our own country all these years "despite" having a Queen.

And I don't think anybody is arguing that we would fall into the abyss by getting rid of the monarchy as much as we would be cutting of an important part of our Canadian identity, while at the same time causing constitutional troubles.

For what it's worth we already have a regent (even if a different title is used), and he is most certainly a Canadian. He is the Governor General.


----------



## Franko (22 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> But seriously, I have mentioned the  oath to him and he has found a "way around it." He is willing to swear the same oath while thinking solely of the Canadian people, he calls this "patriotism" but frankly I can think of a few other words for it. He also said he only considers those who fight for "Canada and Canada alone" (he thinks the Queen is only a Briton) to be great and holds those who also do so for the Queen in (very) low regard.



Your friend will be corrected immediately by the Officer conducting the swearing in ceremony if he tries anything but the proper oath.

Regards


----------



## Infanteer (22 May 2011)

Newfie Civ. said:
			
		

> You make it seem as if having a Queen of Canada somehow impedes upon our sovereignty. It seems to me that we have managed to function as our own country all these years "despite" having a Queen.



You're right, which is why this is purely a sentimental issue - the issue of the monarchy isn't one of how to run the government, it is one of who do we want as our ceremonial figurehead.  Since it's a sentimental issue, the responses are likely to be opinions, and we know what those smell like.  It is largely a question of ""Canadian Identity", pitting "traditional identity" vs "modern, democratic identity".

As Edward's proposal highlights, the functional issue (those powers of the executive) are another issue; but since convention has moved those powers, for all intents and purposes, to the Lower House the role of the monarchy is immaterial as to how we want these powers distributed and executed.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're right, which is why this is purely a sentimental issue - the issue of the monarchy isn't one of how to run the government, it is one of who do we want as our ceremonial figurehead.  Since it's a sentimental issue, the responses are likely to be opinions, and we know what those smell like.  It is largely a question of ""Canadian Identity", pitting "traditional identity" vs "modern, democratic identity".
> 
> As Edward's proposal highlights, the functional issue (those powers of the executive) are another issue; but since convention has moved those powers, for all intents and purposes, to the Lower House the role of the monarchy is immaterial as to how we want these powers distributed and executed.



Powers moved by custom and lodged there until contested by a popular figure.  History is full of barracks-room lawyers generating a following based on their personal interpretations of the law.

Leave well enuff alone, sez I.


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2011)

Looking at the experience of our American cousins, their initial thoughts on the elections of the houses *might* hold some useful lessons in this debate (even if it never comes to fruition in the real world).

Each level of the Federal Government was legitimized through very different systems of election.

The House, being the people's body and designed to deal with the day to day business of the people, was elected by direct vote of the citizens.

The Senate, being a deliberative body to provide a check on the popular passions, represented the States and Senators were elected by the State Legislature and reported back to the Statehouse. The American conception of Statehood is actually much closer to what is considered nationhood elsewhere (America was correctly referred to as "These United States" up to the time of the Civil War. Reading the American Creed* also makes this idea of States as Nations clear as well). To prevent larger States for dominating smaler ones, each State has an equal number of Senators regardless of size or population.

The Executive is elected by the Electoral College, which is also designed to prevent small States from being crowded out by larger ones.

Now I know Infanteer objects to indirectly elected Senates and I would guess that he might not like an indirectly elected Head of State (Edward's Regent, in this case), but one of the key reasons for indirect elections is to reduce or eliminate the influence of demagogues and prevent the imposition of sweeping changes based on current popular passions. The American founding fathers knew Roman history, and rightly feared mob rule. (My own namesake also had a lot to say about demagogues in The History of the Peloponnesian War, and most Greek philosophers who considered the question were also not keen on democracy). Three separate systems of election also make "gaming" the system more difficult for would be demagogues and tyrants, and certainly much harder to crack open. 

* "I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”

— William Tyler Page, The American's Creed


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (America was correctly referred to as "These United States" up to the time of the Civil War.



Not entirely true.  Read the first line of the U.S. Constitution.  "These" United States was more of a populist sentiment than a legal one.  That being said, you are correct in pointing out that the U.S. Constitution was meant to act as a contract between 13 sovereign states; it was built with strong states and a weak federal government.  Our Constitution was written just after the U.S. Civil War with the opposite in mind.  Curiously, since then, the two have juxtaposed in terms of federal relationships.



> Now I know Infanteer objects to indirectly elected Senates and I would guess that he might not like an indirectly elected Head of State (Edward's Regent, in this case), but one of the key reasons for indirect elections is to reduce or eliminate the influence of demagogues and prevent the imposition of sweeping changes based on current popular passions.



American's use of elector colleges and indirect votes probably had as much to do with the logistics of running a country in the 18th century as it did with fear of demagoguery; although I'd have to read more into it to know for certain.

I fail to see the logic that indirect elections protect the state from demagoguery.  The folks who indirectly elect officials are just as likely to fall pray to a demagogue as the populace in general; if anything, it's easier since there are fewer of them.  As well, there are some pretty big differences in our system - ranging from the media to party caucuses to the public's perception of government - that kind of separate us from the clag that got Alcibiades.


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I fail to see the logic that indirect elections protect the state from demagoguery.  The folks who indirectly elect officials are just as likely to fall pray to a demagogue as the populace in general; if anything, it's easier since there are fewer of them.  As well, there are some pretty big differences in our system - ranging from the media to party caucuses to the public's perception of government - that kind of separate us from the clag that got Alcibiades.



Demagogues have to pitch their demagoguery to the particular audience they are playing for. Giving them several different audiences and multiple venues reduces the speed at which they can work, provides "cooling off" periods as they move between audiences and offers more opportunities to muster opposition or let them trip themselves up. Since it is unlikely they will be able to address the indirect electors directly (having to speak to them through the media, for example), their ability to sway all the governing bodies quickly is highly constrained.

Two fine examples of how demagoguery can cause problems are found in the History of the Peloponnesian War:

Cleon and Diodotus: The Revolt of Mytilene (428-427 BC), and;
The Sicilian expedition


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Powers moved by custom and lodged there until contested by a popular figure.  History is full of barracks-room lawyers generating a following based on their personal interpretations of the law.
> 
> Leave well enuff alone, sez I.




History is, indeed, dotted with popular figures who, however temporarily, revolutionize things. But for every Cromwell there are a hundred Cecils - keeping the ship of state on course. One of the reasons I like old King Edgar is that his idea _"that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire"_ wasn't new over 1,000 years ago and it could not be stamped out even by as good a _barracks-room lawyer_ as William of Normandy nor, even, by those awful, inbred Stuarts. One of the great advantages to real liberalism (one it shares with Confucianism) is that it seems not to allow the suppression of really good ideas.

If we lived in France or Greece or, for that matter, in 190 of the UN's 200 or so members states I would share more of your concerns.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> History is, indeed, dotted with popular figures who, however temporarily, revolutionize things. But for every Cromwell there are a hundred Cecils - keeping the ship of state on course. One of the reasons I like old King Edgar is that his idea _"that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire"_ wasn't new over 1,000 years ago and it could not be stamped out even by as good a _barracks-room lawyer_ as William of Normandy nor, even, by those awful, inbred Stuarts. One of the great advantages to real liberalism (one it shares with Confucianism) is that it seems not to allow the suppression of really good ideas.
> 
> If we lived in France or Greece or, for that matter, in 190 of the UN's 200 or so members states I would share more of your concerns.



One thing we seem to always be in agreement on is the role of the Stuarts (Stewarts).  An other area of agreement is on the role of _culture_ broadly writ.  Which brings me to try to walk on eggshells.

We may not live "in 190 of the UN's 200 or so members states" but increasingly Canadians are found from those self-same states.  How does that influence our "culture", liberal or otherwise?  On the one hand we are at "risk" of becoming more like those states because of the origins of Canadians but on the other hand, through a process of governmental screening and self-selection (and probably more of the latter than the former), we may tend to import people that share our values.  The recent election certainly seemed to indicate that as a possibility.

Either way our culture is in flux.   I don't know if the relative proportions of "native (ie settler)" culture and "immigrant" culture are the same as, or different to those seen during the Huguenot influxes (1550 to 1715) or at the time William's Franco-Danes descended on The Confessor's Saxon-Danes.  I don't know if the "native" culture is as strongly rooted as it was in Britain (keep in mind the Cheddar school teacher that was found to share DNA with the 8000 year old Cheddar man of the same village).  I don't believe it is a safe bet that our culture, now and going forward, is enough to insulate us from outcomes similar to those other 190 states.

When Edward the Confessor died in 1066 it was 300 years, 1362, before the English parliament was again addressed in English (as opposed to the Norman version of French).  And even that language, spoken by Angevin Edward Plantagenet III would have been incomprehensible to Edward the Confessor.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2011)

I tend to regard the _browning_ of Canada as a long term good thing. We need to be careful in the immediate and medium terms - we must not be too _tolerant_ of some, maybe even many practices that are inimical with the culture into which we want our to evolve. I welcome immigration - especially from certain, select, regions because some advanced, sophisticated cultures will enrich ours.

We should always _tolerate_ religious beliefs but that does not mean that we should ever tolerate illiberal practices - even when they are based on some religious belief.


----------



## FoverF (23 May 2011)

> Monarchy?



Yes, please. 



I would be quite pleased to see a number of minor reforms to the institution of the crown, namely those which have been brought up here (primogeniture and religious prerequisites). But the monarchy is the foundation upon which the Canadian government is based. And despite all the impressions they try to cultivate to the contrary, the Canadian government is extremely effective, not just in comparison to 3rd world juntas but even when compared to our peers. Before we go breaking an arm patting ourselves on the back, I think we should recognize that a large portion of this is the fact that we have social and political institutions that are set up for success. I think that this success can be continued even with changing demographics and culture in Canada, because these institutions are proven and successful. But we introduce significant changes to them at our peril. 

Quick case study: I am currently living a country (guess!!) which spent hundreds of years killing and dying to get away from the crown, and subsequently ran itself into the ground. They recently managed to briefly borrow their way back into the 1st world, but due to government incompetence and corruption are further into debt than ever before in their history, needing IMF and EU approval of government expenditures. Now, despite previously being the poster children of rebellion against the crown, there is a growing body of popular opinion here that suggests handing the keys back to Buckingham Palace with a note apologising for the state of the place. A visit by HM The Queen last week (the first since Home Rule began) was widely considered the most important state visit in the history of the republic, and was not met by violence (as one might be forgiven for expecting), but rather by glowing newspaper headlines and _the Union Jack flying at the top of the mast in downtown Dublin_. Make what you will of that.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I tend to regard the _browning_ of Canada as a long term good thing. We need to be careful in the immediate and medium terms - we must not be too _tolerant_ of some, maybe even many practices that are inimical with the culture into which we want our to evolve. I welcome immigration - especially from certain, select, regions because some advanced, sophisticated cultures will enrich ours.
> 
> We should always _tolerate_ religious beliefs but that does not mean that we should ever tolerate illiberal practices - even when they are based on some religious belief.



A quibble, before someone else picks us up on it:  I have met many "darkly brown" "Englishmen" both in England before I left and from many other countries since.  Many of them had never set foot in England (or any place else in the UK for that matter).  Equally I know Scots with Italian names, Indians that support Rangers and West Indians with accents found in earshot of the Bow Bells.  So I think we might be better to leave that particular aspect of the discussion aside.   It is strictly the cultural aspects of immigration that concerns me - and even there it is not so much the fact of change that bothers me as the potential pace of change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2011)

Fair enough; I was using a term that I thought had entered general use 20+ years ago when _the browning of America_ was used to describe the impacts, plural - some good, some not so good, of non-European immigration on North America.


----------



## Mudshuvel (29 May 2011)

I'm not exactly going to jump on the bandwagon with my own opinions of being a monarchist or an abolishionist (spelling?).

I think the Royal Family represents the core of some Canadians and to others, another thing that divides us from being American. My wife is from Milwaukee, WI, US. She never really studied the Royals other than through the eyes of Independance. She never quite understood why we have the 'Queen of Britain' on our 20$ or our coins. Least of all, she doesn't understand why we pledge allegiance to her. She even went as far to say 'Canada isn't even its own country really then' when she first moved up here.

Now that she's here, I think shes a bit monarchist. From her persepective, having a third party (ie the Governor General) as an intermediatary during political squabbles has its advantages. She put into example the rule of King George Bush the 2nd. The people didn't want him elected the second time around, they were afraid to impeach him over fears of Martial Law. Of course, its not the same for all Americans, but in the more Liberal North, that was the overall feeling for some. Recently, my wife watched with interest when the GG allowed for Her Royal Opposition to try and take Harper out of power. It wasn't because shes of this party or that, its because she's never really seen something apart from Clinton's almost impeachment happen. She read up on how the GG works and why they're there. 

That was going a little off topic, however what would really separate us from the Americans if we did leave the Commonwealth, and I'm not saying the US is satan or anything. For a lot of people in Canada, the Royal Family is an institution upon itself. You see pictures of Charles with the Native Americans in Saskatchewan, you see the Queen with her corgies at Rideau Hall. There is no doubt in my mind that they love Canada not just because she 'rules us'. 

To slighty correct one of the previous posts concerning the Royal Family being Britains envoy to America. In _most_ cases, when the Queen visits the US, she is going as Queen _and_ representative _of_ Canada.

I believe that both sides, republican and monarchist have their bonuses. My personal belief is regardless of how some of us feel about it, the Crown is part of our identity whether we like it or not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2011)

Mudshuvel said:
			
		

> ...
> To slighty correct one of the previous posts concerning the Royal Family being Britains envoy to America. In _most_ cases, when the Queen visits the US, she is going as Queen _and_ representative _of_ Canada.
> ...




I do not claim to be a Royal watcher but I cannot recall seeing many maple leaf flags on display when HM or one of her children visit the USA. One normally, I think sees the union jack which is that _national_ flag of the UK. Normally, when HM visits _foreign_, non-commonwealth, countries, she does so as t5he official representative of the UK. Australia and Canada are not asked to help pay the freight and she does not stand in front of an array of _old commonwealth_ flags.


















Looks a whole lot like the Queen of Canada wasn't visiting Washington - either that our our Yank neighbours are, suddenly and shockingly, poor at protocol.


----------



## Old Sweat (29 May 2011)

The status of the Monarch, as the King of Canada, as opposed to the United Kingdom et al, caused a bit of a constitutional flap in September 1939. As you are aware, Canada delayed declaring war against Germany until Parliament could debate and vote on the matter. Thus, while we had mobilized on 1 September 1939, we did not declare war until 10 September. In the meantime the UK had declared war on 3 September, and Australia and New Zealand, along with the Empire, automatically went to war on that date because neither Dominion had implemented the 1931 Statutes of Westminster, unlike Canada and South Africa. Thus, when Canada declared war, there were those who found constitutional hurdles as HM had already declared war, and they argued he could not do so again. Most of these, of course, were not in the Great White North.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 May 2011)

Mudshuvel said:
			
		

> She put into example the rule of King George Bush the 2nd. The people didn't want him elected the second time around, they were afraid to impeach him over fears of Martial Law.



50.7% wanted him.  Give me a break.  I don't know that we could offer Americans useful democracy lessons.  They figured it out all by themselves.


----------



## Mudshuvel (29 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I do not claim to be a Royal watcher but I cannot recall seeing many maple leaf flags on display when HM or one of her children visit the USA. One normally, I think sees the union jack which is that _national_ flag of the UK. Normally, when HM visits _foreign_, non-commonwealth, countries, she does so as t5he official representative of the UK. Australia and Canada are not asked to help pay the freight and she does not stand in front of an array of _old commonwealth_ flags.
> 
> 
> Looks a whole lot like the Queen of Canada wasn't visiting Washington - either that our our Yank neighbours are, suddenly and shockingly, poor at protocol.



Sorry E.R., I had actually misread something that stated that. What I had read was "in various trips to the US, she often is recieved as Queen of Canada if coming directly from Canada, or Queen of the UK if coming directly from the UK."

I'll take the flak for that one.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2011)

Mudshuvel raises an interesting point though - 

Has HM ever been received in the United States as Head of the Commonwealth?

Corollaries:

Would the US ever receive her as such?
What would be the flag protocol?  The Commowealth Flag, Her personal banner or the collected national flags of the Commonwealth?

The reason I ask if the US would ever receive her as such is that it might be a bit of a surprise to some Americans that there remains a collective entity associated with the Crown that:

 can claim to represent some 2 Billion people, or 1/3 of the planet;
 all of the Anglosphere except the Americans and the Irish (and the Irish may want to revisit that after HM's recent visit);
 a good chunk of the OECD;
 much of the G22;
 and 1/4 of the G8.  

Not to mention many of the allies they find amongst their "Coalitions of the Willing" and supporters at the UN.

And besides Massachussetts is and always has been a Commonwealth.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2011)

It is a long established principle that when Canada's _de facto_ head of state goes to Washington the person is the GG; that began with Lord Tweedsmuir in 1937.

Our Governor General is the _appropriate_ person to represent Canada, on state visit abroad and to greet heads of state who are making _state visits_ to Canada.





The GG, The Earl of Athlone, not Prime Minister King, welcomed FDR and Churchill (the UK's head of government) to Canada





The former GG greets the US President





The former GG on a state visit to Ukraine.


We've only been doing this stuff since the 1930s - we ought to understand it by now.

HM the Queen is our head of state, _de jure_, but, _de facto_ and for most practical purposes we, Canada, want a Canadian face, our GG, to be our official 'face' to the world.


----------



## Neill McKay (29 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I do not claim to be a Royal watcher but I cannot recall seeing many maple leaf flags on display when HM or one of her children visit the USA. One normally, I think sees the union jack which is that _national_ flag of the UK.



It's been done once that I know of, quite a while ago (ca. the silver jubilee, I think).  It seems to me that there was a fairly recent event (not the whole trip) in the US that she attended in her Canadian capacity as well, but I'm not sure about that.


----------

