Monarchy?

[Canuk Crusader]

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]

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

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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

'Ware, Roundhead!!!  ;D

 

[dapaterson]

'Ware, Roundhead!!!  ;D

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

 

[Infanteer]

'Ware, Roundhead!!!  ;D

Off with ye, Cavalier!

 

[Kirkhill]

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]

Off with ye, Cavalier!

Let's have at it knave!!!  iper:

 

[Loachman]

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]

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)

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]

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?

And the Queen answering,
I am willing,

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of [The Bible to be brought.]
all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.