The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[LilZebra]

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?

[SpikePhanta]

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.

[Boris2k7]

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?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

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...

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

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?

So, where is the poll?

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by SpikePhanta

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.

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.

[goodthings]

Originally Posted by Bdog

So, where is the poll?

I thought so too.

[graupner]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

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?

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...

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by graupner

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

Then I looked at your profile.

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

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.

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

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

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

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 ?!

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

What a weird and almost deficient comparison...

What weird and deficient logic...

[Policy Wonk]

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.

[SJTOKO]

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

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

[vid]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

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.

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?

Originally Posted by graupner

Your mom actually loves you.

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

Originally Posted by graupner

Your mom doesn't require you to spend millions on useless things like Governor and such.

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.

Originally Posted by graupner

Your mom is not a relic of medieval times.

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

Originally Posted by graupner

Your mom doesn't run a declining and pretentious country.

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.

Originally Posted by graupner

Your mom probably knows about internet and facebook; the queen doesn't.

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.

Originally Posted by graupner

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 ?!

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.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

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.

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.

[Gerrard]

Ditch. But I fear for this thread.


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

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

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.

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.

[MrOilers]

Ditch.

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

[Doug]

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

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by jimj_wpg

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

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.

[Bigtime]

Poll thread has no poll. Hurp durp.

[vid]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

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.

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.