The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by Overground

The Queen/Sovereign/head of state is already Canadian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............



How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

The easy answer is that they are not failing us. No more than our dependance on our resource based economy is failing us. No more than our complete domination by the U.S. is failing us.

We own lots of really big TV's, we own dinky little houses in the middle of nowhere, we have lots of cars.. everything is groovy! Right?

Maybe though, some of us wish that we actually made things rather than pawning off our resources to other countries that do actually make things. Maybe some of us wish that we had some sort of identifiable culture, other than that of the U.S. And maybe, some of us wish that our head of state wasn't some foreign parasite (and if one more fucking monarchist insults my intelligence by telling me that the Queen is Canadian! You're not Canadian just because you decree yourself to be).

Blow me paparazzi Royals. Stick to eTalk where they appreciate you for what you really are: fashion statements du jour and 'A-lister' photo ops.

And future embarrassments.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Overground

The Queen/Sovereign/head of state is already Canadian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............



How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

First of all, I don't consider someone who was neither born in nor lived in Canada to be Canadian. You can legally declare a sofa to be a dishwasher, and even write it into a constitution, but that doesn't make it true.

As for the fundamental failing, I would think that is obvious. The British monarchy is a cultural, tourism and publicity boon, but for London and the UK. Very few people outside of Canada associate the monarchy with Canada, instead viewing it as a British institution (which of course it is). Over the years we have pumped millions of dollars into the British economy instead of our own in the form of free publicity (portraits in public buildings, faces on Money, etc) and we only benefit by getting the odd visit once or twice a decade - which we pay for.

Now you may be thinking, "If its major failings are in terms of image, that doesn't sound very serious" but considering that its whole role is merely ceremonial, to have such a complete failure in that department is pretty damming.

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we necessarily need to get rid of the Constitutional Monarchy system, just that we get a heard of state that is actually in Canada and which Canada does not share with other nations.

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

That is a very good question. Anyone care to comment?

They aren't failing us because they don't do anything. Anything that they ever may be called upon to do could be handled by an actual Canadian.

I guarantee that within the next 10 years, Australia will abandon the monarchy. New Zealand will follow suit. That will leave Canada as the head of this illustrious list of realms:

Canada
Antigua and Barbuda
The Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Grenada
Jamaica
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
St. Christopher and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Tuvalu

I'll be so proud!!

[Pimpmasterdac]

Keep the Monarchy!

The current form of government has suited Canada well for 144 years, why the need to change what is not broken!? As well any debate on changing the monarchy would open the constitutional can of worms, that no reasonable politician would want to touch. Sure it would score points with collapsing Quebec sovereignty movement and the puny Canadian-republican, but most Canadians don't give a shit either way and opening debate on it would be seen as a waste for regular Canadians.

As well what alternative do people suggest to succeed as head of state? If it was for the Governor-General to formally take over as the head of state, why even bother opening the constitutional debate. If were were to turn into an elected presidential republic, than no thanks! US is showing the world how piss poorly that form has lead their nation.

[DizzyEdge]

Oh man, this is one of my fave topics (no really).

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?

I don't think that is all that relevant...

Originally Posted by 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.

There is a thought that once the Queen dies parliament could simply not go through whatever motions are required to recognize the new monarch.
I agree, if constitutional modification is required it becomes much less palatable. Then again, this might be one thing that would pass easily.

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Ditch.

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

Me neither

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Poll thread has no poll. Hurp durp.

Any true internet geek knows the proper spelling is hurp derp.

Originally Posted by vid

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.

I don't find the legitimacy argument all that convincing.

Originally Posted by Wooster

I say ditch the British monarchy..

I will volunteer to be Canada's new monarch.

Wooster for Queen of Canada!

Originally Posted by Overground

How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

If our head of state was a giant inflatable weiner, one could also ask "how is it failing us?", as though one would need a convincing proof of failure to justify ditching it.

Originally Posted by artvandelay

Ditch 'em - but after Liz passes.

It's an embarrassment that our head of state is a foreigner.

Agree.

Originally Posted by samne

Ditch, but gradually.

For starters, Queen Elizabeth should be the last monarch on our money.

The GG. Kinda dont mind the way it works, but perhaps can be modified for more of an all Canadian direction.

I said it last time this thread came up. I dont mind some symbolic gestures to keep with history and tradition. We dont need to dis the royal family like we're revolutionary France.

This is pretty much the way I look at it.

- I do relate to the sentiment that having a foreign (yes foreign) head of state is a symbol of not having fully 'grown up' as a nation.
- I do not want new sovereigns faces on our money
- I do respect Elizabeth and have no issue with retaining the monarchy until her death
- I support simply keeping all of the current processes in place, the Governor General will remain as it always has, doing the same job they always have, they will simply just be the Canadian head of state, rather than representing the Queen.
- The argument that the monarchy is all that separates us from the States is an incredibly sad commentary, and one that I don't believe to be true. In a sense that's using the monarchy as a crutch to prove Canadian 'differentness'. If the loss of the monarchy makes some think we're now just the same as the Americans, perhaps the push to actually differentiate ourselves vs relying on the monarchy is a good thing.
- This might be overstated, but I think ditching might help the French/English tensions in the country, although I think due to those tensions being pretty low at the moment it may not have any effect. It might though have an effect in the future should tensions flare up.

As for the argument about ditching the Queen being like ditching your mother, I feel it's more like deciding, once you've already moved out, that you are now the head of your household, and not her.

[MolsonExport]

Habsfanman: you guarantee it? how can you guarantee it? What sort of warranty are you proposing?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by habfanman

How do you respond to that?

Well you could just bring up WWII...

[caltrane74]

I say keep it, all the British Overseas Lands are Rich! Rich! Rich!

I like Bermuda and Cayman Islands Best!

And of course, the Anglo-Saxon trading tradition is the best, it's money in the bank. - The heritage of Free Enterprise!

[floobie]

I don't really care one way or the other. If the Monarchy is costing us more than any reasonably foreseeable alternative is, then I think it's worth getting rid of. If not... whatever.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Where do you guys keep getting some of these ideas from?!

First, becoming a republic is not going to make us Mini-America. The Canadian identity and fear of being "swallowed up" by our southern neighbour will probably stir some kind of forced culture creation in Canada anyway.

Second, if we were to get rid of the monarchy, all we'd have to do is replace the Office of Governor-General with President, Secretary-General, Grand Poohbah, whatever. They'd still have the same powers the Governor-General/Queen currently have and could live in Rideau Hall. Where do these magical "it'll be more expensive as a Republic" costs come from? How much money does it really cost to wake up one day and say: "We're ditching the monarchy. Mr. Johnson, you're now the President of Canada and elections will be held in 2015 for your replacement"?



As for my personal beliefs, the monarchy in England actually creates substantial tourism dollars. I will accept a monarchy in Canada on the following conditions:

- Some members of the British Royal Family move to Canada and live in Rideau Hall.
- Their children are born in Canada and raised as Canadians.
- This "Canadian Monarchy" actually bases themselves in Canada and serves as the nation's regency. Essentially, they make their homes here and come to represent the country.

Unless these rather reasonable conditions are met, I will support Canada becoming a republic. I can't bring myself to support a Head of State that was born in another country, raised there, rarely visits, and keeps residences here. It's ridiculous.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

If we lose the British monarch we should create a Canadian monarch. If we ditch the monarch completely then I'm moving. My loyalty is to the crowd first, country second.

If anything, my loyalty belongs to my fellow citizens who make up this country. Land is just land; it's the people who make the country.

Originally Posted by Overground

The Queen/Sovereign/head of state is already Canadian.

About as Canadian as those 45,000+ Lebanese a few years back who needed to be rescued from Lebanon where they had been living most of their lives but possessed a Canadian passport.

So I'll ask what I always do in these silly monarchy discussions over the years and never get a reply back.............

How is Canada's constitutional monarchy system fundamentally failing Canada?

Wait for it...

(By the way, it's no much failing us as being the final obstacle to true nationhood.)

Originally Posted by manny_santos

That is a very good question. Anyone care to comment?

Wait for it...

Originally Posted by habfanman

The easy answer is that they are not failing us. No more than our dependance on our resource based economy is failing us. No more than our complete domination by the U.S. is failing us.

We own lots of really big TV's, we own dinky little houses in the middle of nowhere, we have lots of cars.. everything is groovy! Right?

Maybe though, some of us wish that we actually made things rather than pawning off our resources to other countries that do actually make things. Maybe some of us wish that we had some sort of identifiable culture, other than that of the U.S. And maybe, some of us wish that our head of state wasn't some foreign parasite (and if one more fucking monarchist insults my intelligence by telling me that the Queen is Canadian! You're not Canadian just because you decree yourself to be).

Blow me paparazzi Royals. Stick to eTalk where they appreciate you for what you really are: fashion statements du jour and 'A-lister' photo ops.

And future embarrassments.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

First of all, I don't consider someone who was neither born in nor lived in Canada to be Canadian. You can legally declare a sofa to be a dishwasher, and even write it into a constitution, but that doesn't make it true.

As for the fundamental failing, I would think that is obvious. The British monarchy is a cultural, tourism and publicity boon, but for London and the UK. Very few people outside of Canada associate the monarchy with Canada, instead viewing it as a British institution (which of course it is). Over the years we have pumped millions of dollars into the British economy instead of our own in the form of free publicity (portraits in public buildings, faces on Money, etc) and we only benefit by getting the odd visit once or twice a decade - which we pay for.

Now you may be thinking, "If its major failings are in terms of image, that doesn't sound very serious" but considering that its whole role is merely ceremonial, to have such a complete failure in that department is pretty damming.

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we necessarily need to get rid of the Constitutional Monarchy system, just that we get a heard of state that is actually in Canada and which Canada does not share with other nations.

... And there you go. You've got your answers which say it better than I could have.

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Keep the Monarchy!

The current form of government has suited Canada well for 144 years, why the need to change what is not broken!?

Did we stop after the first trains, planes and automobiles were created? No. They weren't broken, but we saw ways to improve upon them and advance them. Currently, because of the monarchy, we have stagnated. It's not progress, it's not regression; it's stagnation.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

The argument that the monarchy is all that separates us from the States is an incredibly sad commentary

It is a nonsensical argument with a questionable premise. Even if Canada were identical to the US, why would it be necessary to invent a distinction like the monarchy? How would that make Canada more legitimate? Why should we even care about this supposedly self-evident horror?

[Acajack]

Once the dust settled, ditching the monarchy for something truly Canadian (or perceived as such by everyone - I know the Queen is "Canadian" but not everyone sees her as such) and meaningful that would be a true uniting force could be a real plus for the country.

In this sense, keeping the current system is something of a missed opportunity on this front.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Second, if we were to get rid of the monarchy, all we'd have to do is replace the Office of Governor-General with President, Secretary-General, Grand Poohbah, whatever. They'd still have the same powers the Governor-General/Queen currently have and could live in Rideau Hall. Where do these magical "it'll be more expensive as a Republic" costs come from? How much money does it really cost to wake up one day and say: "We're ditching the monarchy. Mr. Johnson, you're now the President of Canada and elections will be held in 2015 for your replacement"?

Even that much effort is unnecessary. All that needs to be done is "Mr Johnson, you know how you technically represent the Queen in Canada? Now you don't and are simply the head of state of Canada. No need to call him president, no need even for elections right away, can still be appointed (although possibly should be elected at some point).

[DizzyEdge]

timely:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...133/story.html

Harry as King of Canada? No way, says Monarchist League
By Shannon Proudfoot, Postmedia News June 28, 2011

A news story from the Telegraph in Britain suggested on Monday that Canada's leading monarchist organization wants to relocate Prince Harry to Ottawa and install him as "king of Canada" -a notion the chairman of the Monarchist League calls "absurd."

[DizzyEdge]

also, to elaborate on my point about "although possibly should be elected at some point", I said that because the most critical role he or she would play would be interpretation of constitutional law, so I look at the position more like that of a judge, than a politician, and wonder if a public election is the best route. What about a council of former GG's who vote in a new GG?

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

timely:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...133/story.html

Harry as King of Canada? No way, says Monarchist League
By Shannon Proudfoot, Postmedia News June 28, 2011

I'm content with that. Harry spent a good bit of time in Alberta when he was training with the Army. He's stated many times that he loves Canada, and some of his best friends are Canadians he met while he stayed here.

[someone123]

And we know he can pull off wearing an armband!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Architype

So, what does Harper think of this question?

Well, he might like to be Queen, but John Baird has called dibs.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Once the dust settled, ditching the monarchy for something truly Canadian (or perceived as such by everyone - I know the Queen is "Canadian" but not everyone sees her as such) and meaningful that would be a true uniting force could be a real plus for the country.

In this sense, keeping the current system is something of a missed opportunity on this front.

Indeed. This is how I've often felt about such a scenario. Furthermore, if they were to live in La Citadelle in Quebec City and learn French, it could help to potentially bridge the divide between French and English Canada.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Even that much effort is unnecessary. All that needs to be done is "Mr Johnson, you know how you technically represent the Queen in Canada? Now you don't and are simply the head of state of Canada. No need to call him president, no need even for elections right away, can still be appointed (although possibly should be elected at some point).

True, but we should TRY to make the Westminster style of Parliament a touch more democratic, don't you think?

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

timely:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...133/story.html

Harry as King of Canada? No way, says Monarchist League
By Shannon Proudfoot, Postmedia News June 28, 2011

I wouldn't mind. He'd be a slightly controversial and hilariously rowdy King who could help shake Canada's undeserved reputation as being a "boring" country.

Originally Posted by NISH89

I'm content with that. Harry spent a good bit of time in Alberta when he was training with the Army. He's stated many times that he loves Canada, and some of his best friends are Canadians he met while he stayed here.

I actually had no idea about that. Learn something new every day I suppose. He or any of the actually Canadian members of the Royal Family would get my support for Regent provided they meet the three criteria I listed earlier.