The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022
 

In 1982 Canada got a new Canadianized Constitution.

However we still seem to have links to the Royal family of England.

Since some have said that the Royal family have been the cause of some of the Wars, Plagues of the past or current.

Isn't it time that we just ditch the Royal connection already and become a Republic (in Canada) instead?

I can't take most of your posts seriously, so i'll ignore everything except the question.

I say Keep it, because really its fine and give Canada a unique flavour, otherwise we'll be miniUSA even more.

Plus it doesnt really damage Canada. So why waste money on things like a referendum.

Your mom - keep or ditch?

You've already moved out, got married, and had kids. You're the master of your house. Your mom has no effective control over your life. She sometimes comes over for tea though, wants to do your dishes, and you end up paying for her occasional visit.

Some say that your mom nags a lot and that she can sometimes be embarrassing in public.

Isn't it time you ditch your mom already and become a happy family... without your mom?

Well, if your mom was as old as the Monarchy, maybe it would be time to bury her. Keeping a corpse in your house for old time sake isn't healthy...

So, where is the poll?

It costs us $50 million a year for the monarchy, we pay more per person then Britain, I think the costs of having a referendum and an eleected Head of State would be much cheaper.

I thought so too.

As I was reading your post, I told myself ' this guy is probably from NS'

Then I looked at your profile.

Your mom actually loves you.
Your mom doesn't require you to spend millions on useless things like Governor and such.
Your mom is not a relic of medieval times.
Your mom doesn't run a declining and pretentious country.
Your mom probably knows about internet and facebook; the queen doesn't.

Your mom is your mom. The monarchy is not your mom ??!

Speaking of the US, they ditched their ' mom' 300 years ago, and now they are 10 times more populous and powerful than us. Maybe ditching our ''' mom ''' would be a good idea ?!

What a weird and almost deficient comparison...

I'm from Alberta, but thanks for playing the game.

- irrelevant
- you'd be spending millions on a secretary of state instead
- "history is bad, mmkay?"
- the queen doesn't "run" anything
- irrelevant

If you have a dictionary on hand, look up this word: analogy

Because getting rid of the monarchy would make us more powerful and populous! :rolleyes:

What weird and deficient logic...

Keep.

If only because I would rather sodomize myself with a soldering iron than hear another word of constitutional debate as long as I live.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ" target="_blank">Video Link

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yh...eature=related" target="_blank">Video Link

The UK doesn't have 11 vice-regals.

If we had a president and 10 provincial governors we'd probably be spending $100M a year on that part of the executive branch. It costs $300M to hold a national election. You want to do this twice? (Three times if we have an elected senate.) And then again for each of the provinces? And for what gain?

What republicans like you often forget is that if we abandon the monarchy, we still have to have someone in the role as head of state, and they'll still cost money.

I personally don't see any real benefits to counter the cost of a massive government restructuring project to replace the monarchy with a republic system. Other than "they live far away" and "we don't get to vote for them", what are the real problems with the monarchy?

Are you saying the Queen and the Governor General don't love Québec?

If you didn't have a monarch and vice-regals, you'd be paying at least the same amount of money, but probably more, on an elected head of state.

Lots of things are relics of medieval times. Of those that still exist, the monarchy is one of the more beneficial ones.

The Queen doesn't "run" any countries, she is simply a symbol of authority and stability in 16 nations equally and since she has only one body, she lives in the country her ancestors have lived in for 1,000 years.

I'm quite sure the Queen is aware of the internet and Facebook, considering she had to give her permission to allow a personal Facebook page to be created. I don't think she uses it personally though.

The US is more populous because they started aggressive immigration campaigns long before we did. At this point, however, I would hardly point to the US government structure as an "efficient" system. If you think the monarchy is expensive, you should check out the bill for the executive branch of the US, and of each of its states. Not to mention how well it does (or rather, doesn't) work most of the time.

You do realize why it costs us more, right (note that we pay for the governor general and lieutenant governors, and not the royalty, unless they're here)? It's because we have 11 monarchies....and we'd have to have 11 elected heads of state. Oh, and the cost to bring that about would be in the billions.

Ditch. But I fear for this thread.


And I wish the media would stop trying to make Pippa Middleton *happen*.

I think we could easily manage to have 11 heads of state for less the $50 million a year. Elections could be held during general elections so the cost would be virtually nothing extra and there is no reason for them to live the lifestyles they do now. We'd need to spend roughly $5 million a year for each head of state to equal the cost of what we pay for the monarchy. They also don't need to be elected.

Personally I don't care if we keep the monarchy or not but we could find cost savings in doing so.

Ditch.

Because I don't want to look at Charles' stupid face on our money after the queen dies.

$50M a year is a small price to pay to avoid a constitutional debate

Ah yes, the medieval genetic engineering program of the 12th century sure reaped rewards for the royal family once they managed to wipe out one quarter of their serfs with their newly created plague bacteria.

Poll thread has no poll. Hurp durp.

Most of the costs for the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors is in their offices, which have a staff of dozens of people and perform a variety of functions. Even if we elected governors during general elections, we'd still have that staff, and so the cost wouldn't be much different. If we didn't elect them, then who would appoint them? At least the Monarch has some legitimacy when she appoints someone.

Viceregals currently don't live lifestyles that are any more lavish than American heads of state. The governor of Texas works about 5 days a year and lives in a mansion. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario's official residence is practically a yurt by comparison to it.

We can't find cost savings in abolishing the monarchy. Procedures would have to be changed, laws would have to be updated, a system for appointing or electing heads of state would have to be developed, money would have to be redesigned, coats of arms might have to be changed, a lot of things with "royal" in their name might have to be re-branded, the constitution would have to be amended unilaterally meaning over 1,000 people in 11 legislatures would all have to vote the same way. The sheer number of alterations suggests that the cost would easily reach into the billions if we were to abolish the monarchy and become a republic, and it would likely take years to accomplish.

Canada simply can't afford republicanism right now. There are far more important things to debate and spend our money on.