Monarchy?

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)