The United Empire

Winnipeg10

Nominee Member
Sep 15, 2006
78
2
8
Just wanted to remind us all that Canada, U.E. (The United Empire) is still here to stay, representing the Western Hemisphere. More Information can be found at http://www.uelac.org

Now, to my understanding The United Empire is an organization representing the Western Hemisphere as a Canadian Commonwealth just alike the United Kingdom represents the British Commonwealth.
All we need now is some more recognition and comming from Winnipeg I am proud to be a member of the United Empire of today, following those in our Heritage and Culture.

I just feel it's time for all Canadians to be part of the United Empire and not just a Loyalist of the past.
 

Winnipeg10

Nominee Member
Sep 15, 2006
78
2
8
(Back on Subject) My argument is for Canada, U.E. (The United Empire).

Now, what I was expecting was "Those are just Americans living in Canada".

What I am proposing is for the people of Canada to recognize the United Empire of today which consists of all Canadians living in the United Empire not to mention all residents of the Western Hemisphere.

Can we not bring back our own culture or do we have to succome to the American Way of life?

It's either us or them. Which way do we choose to live? Like Canadians or like Americans? The choice is oviously Canadian. So let us be Proud Canadians and support the United Empire of today.
 

Winnipeg10

Nominee Member
Sep 15, 2006
78
2
8
Here's an example you can use today. On your letters you can add "U.E." at the end of your letters for example: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, U.E.

Or add it to the end or your name, for example: Johnny Appleseed, U.E.

This is in fact reserved for the United Empire Loyalists of the Past, but we are in today therefore all of us carry the title.
 

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
Just wanted to remind us all that Canada, U.E. (The United Empire) is still here to stay, representing the Western Hemisphere. More Information can be found at http://www.uelac.org

Now, to my understanding The United Empire is an organization representing the Western Hemisphere as a Canadian Commonwealth just alike the United Kingdom represents the British Commonwealth.
All we need now is some more recognition and comming from Winnipeg I am proud to be a member of the United Empire of today, following those in our Heritage and Culture.

I just feel it's time for all Canadians to be part of the United Empire and not just a Loyalist of the past.


Personally, I just feel it is time for Canada to not have to rely on empires to define itself as a nation. We are a rich, vital and progressive nation more than capable of being apart from empires of any kind.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
I just feel it's time for all Canadians to be part of the United Empire and not just a Loyalist of the past.

Sorry... not interested. Scrap the word "empire" and replace it by something else if you want your union to include non loyalists. There are too many Canadians who have no loyalty whatsoever to the British Crown.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Sorry... not interested. Scrap the word "empire" and replace it by something else if you want your union to include non loyalists. There are too many Canadians who have no loyalty whatsoever to the British Crown.

It has always been my understanding that it is the Canadian Crown that happens to be British. No?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
How can they be parasites when you don't have to pay anything for them?

It'll be when, or if, you become a republic that you'll have to start forking out your well-earned cash.
 

darleneonfire

Electoral Member
Jan 12, 2007
203
2
18
64
Ontario
How can they be parasites when you don't have to pay anything for them?

It'll be when, or if, you become a republic that you'll have to start forking out your well-earned cash.

We pay to support their system, for the upkeep of the Govenor-General and the Lt.-Govenors. We pay to maintain the royals when they are in Canada. I agree with Mapleleafgirl that the Royal Family are un-necessary in a modern world. Emotional attachment does not make the system valid in 2007.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
We pay to support their system, for the upkeep of the Govenor-General and the Lt.-Govenors. We pay to maintain the royals when they are in Canada. I agree with Mapleleafgirl that the Royal Family are un-necessary in a modern world. Emotional attachment does not make the system valid in 2007.

But it's very cheap compared to a Republic system.

If Canada became a Republic it'll become around 10 times more expensive than what the Constitutional Monarchy is. Us Brits and Canadians pay much less to keep our Head of State than the Americans do.

And as I've explained before, Constitutional Monarchies are NOT outdated. Fot a start, aropund 50 countries in the world are lucky enough to be Constitutional Monarchies, so it's a common thing. And the Constitutional Monarchy is only around 350 years old (Britain's Constitutional Monarchy is the world's oldest, formed after the English Civil War) whereas the Republic dates all the way back to at least Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.

If anything's outdated, it's the Republic.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Benefits of the Constitutional Monarchy


Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State, while the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

As a system of government, constitutional monarchy has many strengths. One is that it separates out the ceremonial and official duties of the Head of State from party politics.

Another is that it provides stability, continuity and a national focus, since the Head of State remains the same even as governments come and go.
*********************************************

The Canadian Crown - the cost

It may surprise many Canadians to learn that under normal circumstances, the Dominion’s taxpayers do NOT spend a single cent to assist in meeting the routine expenses of their Queen. This is true because Her Majesty presides over the 15 Realms of which she is Sovereign from offices located in Buckingham Palace and with the help of her Household in London, the costs of which operation are provided through the Civil List, which is itself a return by the Westminster Parliament of a small part of the revenue of Crown Lands formally surrendered at the beginning of each Reign. Thus, the direct maintenance of Canada’s Head of State is not the responsibility of any Canadian government.

However, because Her Majesty cannot be present in Canada all the time, she appoints representatives who act in her name to perform the constitutional and social responsibilities of the Crown, the principal one of which is to provide oversight of the constitutional operation of this nation’s 11 sovereign governments. On the advice of her Prime Minister, the Queen – in respect of the Governor General – and her Governor General – in respect of the Lieutenant Governors – appoints representatives who exercise the powers of the Crown on a day-to-day basis in the name of the Sovereign.

The Governor General is appointed for a time in office customarily no less than five years. At the federal level, Her Excellency’s responsibilities are similar to those of the Monarch. She kindles pride in the accomplishments and bravery of Canadians, civilians and military alike, by presenting Awards, Decorations and other recognition on behalf of the Queen, the fount of honour. She acts also as guardian of the national conscience – “to encourage the spirit of nationhood and warn against its neglect” – as the late Rt Hon Vincent Massey put it. She performs ceremonial functions, oversees the constitutional functioning of the federal government, summons and dissolves Parliament, selects a Prime Minister, offers advice, encouragement and warning to the government, and exercises the Queen’s reserve powers if need arises. The Governor General in council appoints, in the Queen’s name, a Lieutenant Governor for each of the nation’s provinces. These Lieutenant Governors represent the Queen in the right of each province.

The cost of the Monarchy to Canada, then, is not a salary or expense which benefits or supports the Sovereign or the Royal Family. Rather the costs are incurred on behalf of an institution, the structure of government called “constitutional monarchy,” and to all those officers who execute the necessary functions of such a system of government. What follows is the cost of maintaining these officers, their households, offices, and staff. In short, this is the surprisingly-limited cost of what constitutes the bedrock element of the Canadian system of government.



Survey Highlights
  • Canada’s vice-regal representatives undertake over 5000 engagements a year.
  • A visibly-expanded and enhanced Governor Generalcy that recalls Canada’s history, reflects Canada’s present
  • and affirms Canada’s distinct identity into the future served Canada’s 2001 population of 31,081,900 at a cost of 51 cents per person.
  • Lieutenant Governors’s offices were assisted in their service to the Crown and so to Canada’s 2001 population of 31,081,900 at a cost to the federal government of 7.2 cents per person.
  • The Lieutenant Governors were assisted in their service by the Provinces at a cost of 17.5 cents per person.
  • In the first edition of this Study, undertaken in 1999, based on the official government Estimates, we reported that the cost of The Canadian Crown for 1998-99 totaled $22,415,222. Based on a July 31, 1998 population of 30,301,200, we calculated that the cost of the Crown was 74 cents per Canadian. Since actual spending proved lower by about $500,000, the cost in reality was 72 cents per Canadian.

    This second edition of The Cost of Canada’s Constitutional Monarchy, based on the same official government Estimates, now calculates that the cost of The Canadian Crown for 2001-02 totaled $34,127,653. Based on StatsCan population estimate of 31,081,900 as of July 1, 2001, the cost of the Crown is $1.10 per Canadian.

    The increase is almost entirely due to the vastly reinvigorated programme undertaken by the Governor General, so returning Rideau Hall’s real-dollar budget to be only slightly greater than that of 13 years ago, and to the NCC’s capital works program of refurbishment of the infra-structure of the historic buildings and grounds of Rideau Hall itself.
  • By way of comparison, the Canadian Monarchy costs less than the American Senate, one-half the budget of The Canadian Museum of Civilization or of the Canadian Tourism Commission, about the same as the cost of operating the National Library of Canada or the cost of providing security for the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City or the operation of the Federal Court of Canada.
  • Overseas, the ceremonial Italian Presidency costs citizens of the Republic $2.40 per head.
  • $1.31 is the cost per head of the Monarchy to Britons, in return for which The Queen gives back the equivalent of $5.46 to each subject in revenue from the Crown Estate which The Queen surrendered to the Treasury at the beginning of her Reign.
http://www.monarchist.ca/new/docs/costofcrown.html


Become a Republic and pay more.

Each Brit gives the Monarchy just $1.31 whereas each Brit gets back $5.46 from the Queen.
The Italians, on the other hand, must pay $2.40 for their Republic but probably get nothing back.
************************************************************************************

And read this -

I am a monarchist. I believe that loyalty to a person is more real & wholesome than an inanimate object like a flag. I believe that the monarch can symbolize a nation's aspirations and pride better than a money grabbing, manipulating politician (such as Bush?). The world has become much less romantic and much less humane. Government is less personal and power so much more remote since monarchy was marginalized or destroyed. I am not in favour of an absolute monarchy. I am in favour of a constitutional monarchy.

Spain's democracy would be gone without the dedication to democracy by their King in the 1980's. Politicians who serve rather than take from their people are few and far between. Someone who has committed their lives to serve a nation is an excellent example to their people. Presidents become the embodiment of a nation in the absense of a monarch, yet they are temporary and their motivations are more divided. They need to pursue re-election; that costs money and often unholy alliences with unseen interests, not answerable to the electorate. I believe that those who support a republic over a constitutional monarchy are not championing greater freedom for their countrymen. They encourage more inhumane domination by the backroom industrialists, who control the campaigns of their politicians.

A constitutional monarchy can balance and protect against power hungry, dishonest politcians and against a majority that pursecutes or ignores pursecution of minorities. All the power belongs to the monarch but that power can only be used by those elected by the people. When a politcian knows that the power is not his/her's and the monarch knows he/she can only exercise power through the people there can be balance. When a monarch is not facing re-election they can represent ALL the people and not just the group who put them in power (as it is in a republic). A monarch can bring stability to a society that cannot decide between powerful groups in their country. A monarch can bring consistancy to foreign relationships when governments change. A monarch can be a trained, experienced, confidential advisor to politicians new in office. All these benefits exist with a Constitutional Monarchy.

I am convinced that nations who have been accustomed to having a dictator at the head of the nation would be most confortable with a constitutiuonal monarchy form of democracy rather than an american style republic. I think this is especially true of countries in the middle east and purhaps in eastern europe as well. Russia for instance has never had a democratic tradition and now seems to be inviting a return to authoritarian rule rather than face the uncertainty of "democracy". Iraq is in a similiar situation. Instituting constitutional monarchy in the countries would reassure the population that someone was in charge and democratization could be more gradual. Constitutional monarchies where created in europe from authoritarian regimes gradually. They are by their very nature more flexible a system than republics.

It is much better to have a constitutional monarch in charge of a society accustomed to the cult of personality than for another military, ideological or theological dictator to fill the void.

It should also be noted that most of the countries of the middle east & eastern europe had monarchies that played an essential role in their histories and in many cases are a part of their national identity. If we ignore the history of a nation when trying to put it back together after chaos then we invite more chaos.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=104&threadID=46721&messageID=84827
 
Last edited:

mapleleafgirl

Electoral Member
Dec 13, 2006
864
12
18
34
windsor,ontario
But it's very cheap compared to a Republic system.

If Canada became a Republic it'll become around 10 times more expensive than what the Constitutional Monarchy is. Us Brits and Canadians pay much less to keep our Head of State than the Americans do.

And as I've explained before, Constitutional Monarchies are NOT outdated. Fot a start, aropund 50 countries in the world are lucky enough to be Constitutional Monarchies, so it's a common thing. And the Constitutional Monarchy is only around 350 years old (Britain's Constitutional Monarchy is the world's oldest, formed after the English Civil War) whereas the Republic dates all the way back to at least Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.

If anything's outdated, it's the Republic.

maybe for you english people, but what exactly has the queen ever done for canada? i still think even one penny to pay for anything to do with them is one penny too much. why dosent she pay for the gov-general and the lt govs if they supposedly work for her?shes not hurting for cash.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
maybe for you english people, but what exactly has the queen ever done for canada? i still think even one penny to pay for anything to do with them is one penny too much. why dosent she pay for the gov-general and the lt govs if they supposedly work for her?shes not hurting for cash.

She has done for Canada the same things she has done for Britain. Whereas each American, French and German Head of State changes with a change of Government each British and Canadian Head of State stays the same all the time through different Governments. It's stability and continuity. And whereas each American, French and German Head of State represents, in a way, only the people who elected them into power the British and Canadian Head of State represents EVERYONE, whereas the people who actually rule this country is the ELECTED Prime Minister. It's INGENIOUS.

And she works a lot harder than most people in Britain and Canada do and she's 80. What Head of State of Republic will still be working as hard as the Queen is at age 80? By the time Bush is 80 he'll be in a retirement home playing a banjo on the front porch.

And remember that she has visited Canada more times than any other country.
 
Last edited:

mapleleafgirl

Electoral Member
Dec 13, 2006
864
12
18
34
windsor,ontario
She has done for Canada the same things she has done for Britain. And she works a lot harder than most people in Britain and Canada do and she's 80.

And remember that she has visited Canada more times than any other country.


waving and getting flowers is not working for canada. what exactly has she done in our parliament? what actual one thing has she done for the people of canada? i dont care about england, im not english so i dont care what shes does for them or if they keep her forever. im talking about canada. i think we need to get rid of the monarchy here. its embaressing for me personally to still have this old fashioned royal family around here.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
I feel weird defending the Queen [being of French Canadian descent], but gladly swore the oath of allegiance to her when joining the civil service. She's the one person in the political arena who has never done anything to harm this nation. Can you name one of our own who has not?
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
Me thinks MLG needs to become a US citizen as our system doesn't work for her.
BTW How much did you pay at the doctors last time you went?:wave:
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
what exactly has she done in our parliament?

Nothing much, as the Monarch has NO say in politics, only our elected Prime Ministers do. The Monarch can't even vote in elections unlike her people. That's what makes the Constitutional monarchy so democratic.

The American Head of State can vote in elections. Ours can't.