The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by habfanman

...
If being a constitutional monarchy is such a nirvana, why have countries been ditching the system en masse over the last 60 or so years?

If having a king or queen as head of state is so effective, why have all remaining constitutional monarchies been systematically limiting the powers of their monarchs over the years, most to the point of completely neutering them?

If being a constitutional monarchy is really the be-all and end-all of systems of government, why aren't nations establishing/re-establishing them?

Countries were also moving to communism en masse in the first half of last century... didn't mean it was the right answer in the end either.

This is possibly a result of history as well as how some presidential republics have shifted toward authoritarianism when one person is given too much power. Having one person with so much power in their hands can be a dangerous thing. Not saying we would head there if one day we became a republic, but on the other hand, I'm comfortable with our current set-up.

Spain re-established theirs.

There is always some flux in the world for what political systems are prevalent, so if ours is working for us, why change it? Just seems like an unnecessary change for the sake of change; it won't change who we are as a nation.

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by vid

Then you stipulate that proposed amendments must deal with only one issue at a time

The crown has certainly served First Nations people well haven't they? Respected all the treaties they signed, settled them in a timely manner.. Keep 'em down under the crown!

12 parliaments actually. Let's not forget our useless senate. Prior to repatriation in 1982, this fell under the 7/50 rule. monarchists successfully lobbied to have it bumped up to unanimous status. Must've seen the handwriting on the wall even then.

Huh? Under FTP we have a system where 20% of the electorate can provide a party with 40% of the popular vote, 80% of the seats, 100% of the power. This is our so-called democratically elected dictatorship that no GG can interfere with because, you know, it was democratically arrived at!

One wonders how other countries manage to exist without this wonderful monarchy system. They must all be clamouring to establish constitutional monarchies. The queen must have an entire office devoted to fielding 'How can we switch to your wonderful system' calls from other nations!

...................

[habfanman]

[QUOTE=Nathan;5335930]

Countries were also moving to communism en masse in the first half of last century... didn't mean it was the right answer in the end either.

China and Russia. No other country voluntarily moved to communism.

This is possibly a result of history as well as how some presidential republics have shifted toward authoritarianism when one person is given too much power. Having one person with so much power in their hands can be a dangerous thing. Not saying we would head there if one day we became a republic, but on the other hand, I'm comfortable with our current set-up.

Only, we're not talking about placing all the power in one person's hands. We're talking about replacing the queen with a democratically elected/appointed Canadian.

Spain re-established theirs.

Spain was responding to a very special circumstance: they were under a dictatorship for 40 years and they needed a unifying force. They chose a Spaniard, not a foreigner, and they turned him into a figurehead.

There is always some flux in the world for what political systems are prevalent, so if ours is working for us, why change it? Just seems like an unnecessary change for the sake of change; it won't change who we are as a nation.

I imagine these same words were spoken during the flag debate in the early 60's "Too costly" "Why change it" "Lose our heritage" "Old one works fine"

I wonder why we went ahead and changed it? I wonder how many people regret that we did change it?

[rbt]

I don't see any gain to be had by re-opening the constitution for this. The amendments battle would take years to resolve.

Removing the Crown from Canada would require modifications to several parts of the Canadian Constitution; pretty significant. Since modifications require approval of the provinces, you can be certain that all parts of Canada would want additional modifications. Quebec and Alberta both have lists ready and I would assume others (Ontario/BC) do as well.

Now, if we decide to spend half a decade re-debating the constitution again for another matter then by all means slip in removal of the crown at the same time.

[DizzyEdge]

The thing that sort of bewilders me is reading some of the comment sections (I know I know) in the globe and comments on this forum, how many people are making comments like:

- British is what makes Canada great
- If we didn't have the monarchy we'd be no different than the states
- we should have our own born in Canada monarchy!

Really? REALLY?
We must be the only country in the world where a portion (and I bet sizable) of the population wishes we could create a monarchy in our own country.
And what's with the big inferiority complex? The monarchy is the only thing that makes us interesting/valuable? It's the only thing that makes us different than the big bad USA? It's like we're a country that's a child.

This also somewhat relates to the comments about a Globe poll regarding flying the flag.

The vast majority of commenters were against flying the flag even on Canada Day, because:
- TOO AMERICAN (flying a maple leaf on Canada Day would make us americans...)
- Fascist
- being that we're in places like Afghanistan we shouldn't be proud
- being proud in of itself is too American

and my favorite: "there shouldn't even be countries"
(of course anyone who proclaims there shouldn't even be countries, just assumes that if all borders were erased we'd all have the same freedoms we enjoy in Canada.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

The thing that sort of bewilders me is reading some of the comment sections (I know I know) in the globe and comments on this forum, how many people are making comments like:

- British is what makes Canada great
- If we didn't have the monarchy we'd be no different than the states
- we should have our own born in Canada monarchy!

Really? REALLY?
We must be the only country in the world where a portion (and I bet sizable) of the population wishes we could create a monarchy in our own country.
And what's with the big inferiority complex? The monarchy is the only thing that makes us interesting/valuable? It's the only thing that makes us different than the big bad USA? It's like we're a country that's a child.

This also somewhat relates to the comments about a Globe poll regarding flying the flag.

The vast majority of commenters were against flying the flag even on Canada Day, because:
- TOO AMERICAN (flying a maple leaf on Canada Day would make us americans...)
- Fascist
- being that we're in places like Afghanistan we shouldn't be proud
- being proud in of itself is too American

and my favorite: "there shouldn't even be countries"
(of course anyone who proclaims there shouldn't even be countries, just assumes that if all borders were erased we'd all have the same freedoms we enjoy in Canada.

There's absolutely nothing to base that on and my position on a Canadian monarchy is only if Republicanism never takes hold and gets a lot of support. In other words, "settling" for a truly Canadian monarchy, but I'd ideally prefer a Republic.

[MTLskyline]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

When are people going to ditch the idea of Quebec being majority separatist and full of monarchy haters? Most Quebecers, like most Canadians, are relatively indifferent to the monarchy.

I was just surprised because the RRQ protests which were supposed to make things "as unpleasant as possible", turned out to be nothing more than a minor nuisance in Montreal, and off the radar entirely in Quebec City.

A year and a half ago, when Charles and Camilla visited, they threw eggs at the soldiers standing guard at the Black Watch Armoury and forced the royals to enter through a back entrance. With that kind of precedent (as well as the kinds of protests that happened in the past), I was expecting much worse.

[earl69]

Trust Quebec to protest against William and Kate

[MolsonExport]

^the RRQ is not Quebec. The RRQ is not even one-thousandth of one percent of Quebec. The RRQ are a militant fringe group who represent only themselves.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by earl69

Trust Quebec to protest against William and Kate

Yes, because three dozen protesters represent all 7.9 million Quebecers.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

The child of Peter and Autumn Phillips is the most likely since she holds dual British and Canadian citizenship. She's also (I believe) the 12th in line to the throne. Peter Phillips would probably be okay in his own right, but he doesn't hold Canadian citizenship like his daughter.

But why her more than me? Or you? Or Vid?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by habfanman

So I guess all of you pro monarchists are OK with this:

The head of state of Canada must also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, therefore: Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, non Church of England Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. need not apply. And females can forget about if they have an older male sibling.

CANADIANS NEED NOT APPLY! Canadians themselves can never aspire to be the head of state of their own nation. Our head of state can only ever be an Anglican Protestant Brit, preferably male.

Is this something that we should supporting in 21st century Canada?

I'd really like to see a monarchist defend the hereditary selection process.

In French, this is known as an "argument-massue" (sledgehammer argument).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

If you think it's that simply, you're fooling yourself. Every law in every province and at the federal level would have to be changed. The Constitutions of Canada and Quebec (I don't think there are other provinces with written constitutions) would have to be changed. The aboriginal treaty rights, negotiated with the federal government and the provinces would need modifications. The justice system would need to be reworked. A situation that maintains provincial sovereignty within Canada as it exists now would have to be developed. That's just the things I can think of in a couple of minutes. This isn't even close to a simple thing....and that's assuming that everyone agrees.

Though it has been talked about many times, Quebec doesn't really have its "own" Constitution. But it does have its own Charter of Rights (which does not supercede the Canadian one, though.)

[VANRIDERFAN]

I do have a bit of a dog in this hunt because I have taken an oath to the QUEEN of Canada as an officer in Her Majesty's Navy.
This is the oath I gave so many years ago;
, _________, do swear (solemnly declare) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD (delete if declaration)
(If you are one of them damn heretics you can insert this (solemnly declare) and not say So Help Me God if you so wish)

United States Armed Forces oat:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

Anyway all this aside, we are a constitutional monarchy but we can become a republic if we want to. But do you really think that a nation who can barely get 50% of its population to even vote would want to attempt the massive turmoil that this would involve? Unless the Queen herself orders me to become Stasi-like to my fellow Canadians I highly doubt that most Canadians could be bothered.

Have a great Navy day!

[freeweed]

I like how the US has the oath towards the law, and not some random person (or their heirs). I'd never swear unwavering allegiance to any one person. What if they go nuts and turn into Hitler?

Of course, I find the concept of a formal oath pretty silly anyway. My actions, not my words indicate my character.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I like how the US has the oath towards the law, and not some random person (or their heirs). I'd never swear unwavering allegiance to any one person. What if they go nuts and turn into Hitler?

Of course, I find the concept of a formal oath pretty silly anyway. My actions, not my words indicate my character.

Did you not see the part in the Canadian oath "according to law".

As for the oath, it re-enforces the seriousnes of the position that you are assuming and that you are entering into a contract with the people of Canada of "unlimited liability". In other words, you maybe asked to give your life in the service of your country. I think that a person's word in concert with their actions indicate their strength of character.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I like how the US has the oath towards the law, and not some random person (or their heirs). I'd never swear unwavering allegiance to any one person. What if they go nuts and turn into Hitler?.

what you're actually swearing an oath to is the Crown. The Queen is simply a personification.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But why her more than me? Or you? Or Vid?

Because, as I've tried to state SEVERAL times now, if the movement for being a republic never truly goes anywhere, then I would SETTLE for a Canadian Monarchy. She has dual-citizenship and is twelfth in line to the throne, making her the most likely candidate for an independent Canadian Throne. I know of no others in the Royal Family who share dual citizenship between Canada and the United Kingdom.

If we had to settle for a monarchical institution, she would receive my support. However, I'd rather us become an independent republic than continue to rely on an increasingly outdated institution.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Rick Mercer makes an unfortunately true mockery of our Parliamentary System.

• Video Link

[vid]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But why her more than me? Or you? Or Vid?

Because she is the great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grand-daughter of Æthelred II.