The Queen is not Canadian


captain morgan
#31
Ocular, and quite blood shot at that.
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
JLM
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Are you being obverse or perverse?

Which is the most fun?
 
Spade
#33
I don't know.. Let's flip a coin. Heads or tails?
 
CDNBear
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You sure it's grey or does it matter?

It's mind over matter. He don't have a mind, so he don't matter.
 
Spade
#35
BBC News - 'Are the Republican candidates all crazy?' (external - login to view)
 
Blackleaf
#36
Quote:

The Queen is not Canadian



What difference does that make? She's not even English or British either.






 
Spade
#37
Really, it is not her nationality at issue; it is a matter of democracy and independence. It England wishes to retain the monarchy, that is her prerogative. Will Scotland share the monarch when it leaves the Union?
 
darkbeaver
#38
The crown rules, it aint British either it's international. Down the crown!
 
selin
#39
as a person around the world, i think the term of "dominion of Canada", the country's proper name before, seems too colonial, very bothersome when thought of Canada's position in the world, being indenpendent under the British Crown with the title of "Commonwealth Realm" is also not so satisfiying because she stands as a developed and powerful country before us in terms of welfare and finance- deserves to be independent in every aspects like USA, i know there aren't any sanctions from The kingdom, maybe, there are, you know better, this situation doesn't touch the political nature of Canada but the ties with the monarchy show her dependent, somehow.
 
Spade
#40
It is a symbol of dependence.
 
lone wolf
#41
I think the monarchy is one of the few traditions Canadians are allowed
 
JLM
+1
#42
I have no problem with the Queen per se. The only thing I have a problem with is when the G.G.s go on a spending rampage.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#43
The first mistake is that most of us believe we are living in a democracy.
We are not really, we are in fact a constitutional Monarchy. The Queen
may not be Canadian but we Canada is part of the commonwealth and
indeed the Queen is therefore head of state. She in that circumstance
until we change the definition of our government, should be on the currency.
Can you imagine anyone with a grain of sense wanting to open the debate
on the constitution. Once the document is opened there are a hundred
different issues to discuss and we will be mired in the mess for two decades.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The first mistake is that most of us believe we are living in a democracy.
We are not really, we are in fact a constitutional Monarchy. The Queen
may not be Canadian but we Canada is part of the commonwealth and
indeed the Queen is therefore head of state. She in that circumstance
until we change the definition of our government, should be on the currency.
Can you imagine anyone with a grain of sense wanting to open the debate
on the constitution. Once the document is opened there are a hundred
different issues to discuss and we will be mired in the mess for two decades.

Canada is many things, but it's not a jackbooted democracy like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were, or authroritarian regimes like Communist China or Putin's oligarchic Russia.

Constitutional monarchy is the legal term to describe our govt, which does not accurately describe the broader democracy we live in. We should call ourselves a parliamentary democracy. European monarchs did not make us a democracy, it took several centuries of work by many people in the western world to push aside the divine right of monarchs, and replace it with rule by the people.

The concept of the crown is like UFOs, everyone talks about them, but no one's ever seen one.
 
s_lone
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The first mistake is that most of us believe we are living in a democracy.
We are not really, we are in fact a constitutional Monarchy. The Queen
may not be Canadian but we Canada is part of the commonwealth and
indeed the Queen is therefore head of state. She in that circumstance
until we change the definition of our government, should be on the currency.
Can you imagine anyone with a grain of sense wanting to open the debate
on the constitution. Once the document is opened there are a hundred
different issues to discuss and we will be mired in the mess for two decades.

Hmmm.... An adult national discussion on the country we want to be.... Scary!!!

There are more than one way to look at our constitutional problem. Like you said, we can see it as a can of worms we fear opening. Or we can see it as an unresolved issue that risks tearing the country apart in a time of crisis and volatility. At that point we'll perhaps regret not having settled the issue once and for all.
 
Blackleaf
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Will Scotland share the monarch when it leaves the Union?

Scotland won't leave the Union. But if it did, the SNP have stated their desire for Scotland to retain the monarchy. And why shouldn't they? After all, the UK is reigned over by the Scottish Monarchy, and has been since King James VI of Scotland came down to England and put himself on the English Throne as King James I of England in 1603.

It was also James VI of Scotland/I of England who came up with the idea of the Union Jack.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#47
We change our money every few years, like new plastic notes recently. Putting a new picture on notes is no big expensive hairy deal.

The queen was not born in Canada nor were her parents, so she is not a Canadian. In the UK, the royal family are treated as commoners at law. We should use the same system here. And we need a passport to enter her country, the UK.
 
Spade
+1
#48
My neighbour Henry says he's willing to have his face placed on our currency. Besides, he claims, King Henry has a nice ring to it. But, he fears, he doesn't qualify as he's only been married once.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

My neighbour Henry says he's willing to have his face placed on our currency. Besides, he claims, King Henry has a nice ring to it. But, he fears, he doesn't qualify as he's only been married once.

That's no reason for your neighbour Henry not to start a web page and lobby to have his mug on our money. He might get more support than he thinks from the grassroots. He could make up some scandals instead for his missing wives (they all "died" say).

King Henry of Flin Flon sounds good to me.
 
L Gilbert
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

We change our money every few years, like new plastic notes recently. Putting a new picture on notes is no big expensive hairy deal.

You think. Just about every time I turn around there's a new quarter out. It used to cost between $1 million and $2m for the mint to make each new type of coin. They stamped an average of over twenty coins, both circulation and collection type, per year. Not sure how many it creates per year now. Not sure about how much it costs to produce new notes. Yeah, just a couple million per new issue; not a big deal.
 
Spade
#51
Or, Henry. Rex Reginae.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Or, Henry. Rex Reginae.

Sounds plausibly rude. He should do it.
 
TenPenny
#53
What amazes me reading this thread is that someone is blaming TRUDEAU for enshrining the Queen in our institution. Doesn't anyone know basic history?
 
dumpthemonarchy
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

What amazes me reading this thread is that someone is blaming TRUDEAU for enshrining the Queen in our institution. Doesn't anyone know basic history?

When P E Trendeau amended the 1982 Constitution it requires now all provinces to agree, unanimous consent. Thanks to prime mover Richard Hadfield I read.

Entrenching rights is anti-democratic, but the higher cause people hate politics and wish to end issues once and for all, and they can't. They want a veto for as long as possible which causes division and strife. There should be the 7/50 formula where no one group or rpovince can block change. Where 7 of the provinces with over 50% of the population can make consitutional change.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


What difference does that make? She's not even English or British either.

Right. The British have dumped one royal house for another when it suits them. There is nothing sacred about this. I have heard them called "foreigner Germans". They spoke German amongst themselves at Buckingham Palace in the 19th and 20th century. Some even sided with Hitler.
 
bluebyrd35
+1
#55
Geez Canada is not a monarchy. We are though, a member of the Commonwealth. Many of those 54 member states accept the Queen as a symbol of that membership. This puts us in a reasonably decent trading position with those members. Canada is a member of an exclusive club and most of those have the Queen on some of their currency.

The US who declared independence from England and wanted nothing to do with the Monarchy, are now more enamoured by the royals than most Canadians. Pomp, Ceremony and tradition mean something more to Americans, than it does to Canadians.........mostly because we are have always had them and it seems exotic and historical to them. It does lend a sense of continuity, and reinforces our connection to our past with very few drawbacks or costs.

As for some English royals siding with Hitler, true, but then so did quite a number of Americans, until Pearl Harbour..

The fact that England chose to join up with the US in the Iraq war and Canada did not, should point out our political independence. And it was never about dumping the Monarchy in England, but about being invaded and having "foreign" rulers forced upon them. Over the centuries, it was never the population that was assimilated but the invaders that succumbed. English is a conglomerate of nearly every language in the world, simply because of all those invasions.
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Jan 23rd, 2012 at 11:06 PM..
 
gerryh
+1
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Geez Canada is not a monarchy. We are though, a member of the Commonwealth. Many of those 54 member states accept the Queen as a symbol of that membership. This puts us in a reasonably decent trading position with those members. Canada is a member of an exclusive club and most of those have the Queen on some of their currency.


Oh so very wrong.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Geez Canada is not a monarchy. We are though, a member of the Commonwealth. Many of those 54 member states accept the Queen as a symbol of that membership. This puts us in a reasonably decent trading position with those members. Canada is a member of an exclusive club and most of those have the Queen on some of their currency.
The US who declared independence from England and wanted nothing to do with the Monarchy, are now more enamoured by the royals than most Canadians. Pomp, Ceremony and tradition mean something more to Americans, than it does to Canadians.........mostly because we are have always had them and it seems exotic and historical to them. It does lend a sense of continuity, and reinforces our connection to our past with very few drawbacks or costs.
As for some English royals siding with Hitler, true, but then so did quite a number of Americans, until Pearl Harbour..
The fact that England chose to join up with the US in the Iraq war and Canada did not, should point out our political independence. And it was never about dumping the Monarchy in England, but about being invaded and having "foreign" rulers forced upon them. Over the centuries, it was never the population that was assimilated but the invaders that succumbed. English is a conglomerate of nearly every language in the world, simply because of all those invasions.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
In terms of exports the Commonwealth is small potatoes. We have no economic need for it.

Pomp and ceremony means something to Americans because they fought a 7 year war for independence and many died. It altered the character of the country in ways wars do-that is, being assertive and aggressive and fighting wars. The American view of the monarchy is just romantic, nice to think about, but don't really want it.

And Canadians in Germany in 1936, at the Olympics, wanted Hitler's autograph. Point is, the English dump their monarch when it is politically suitable. Now the English establishment has a relevancy problem with the doddering Charles, his son William with the hottie Kate looks far more fun to the masses. Someone could get a push soon.
 
Blackleaf
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Geez Canada is not a monarchy.

Yes, it is.

Quote:

The US who declared independence from England and wanted nothing to do with the Monarchy, are now more enamoured by the royals than most Canadians. Pomp, Ceremony and tradition mean something more to Americans, than it does to Canadians.........mostly because we are have always had them and it seems exotic and historical to them. It does lend a sense of continuity, and reinforces our connection to our past with very few drawbacks or costs.

That's because, like people who live in most republics, the Americans secretly wish that their country was a constitutional monarchy. They know that a republic is mundane and boring and they yearn for the tradition and beautiful pomp and ceremony that monarchy brings.

And the showing of British historical drama Downton Abbey in the US has suddenly seen a huge increase there of sales of books to do with the British upper classes and nobility.

Quote:

As for some English royals siding with Hitler, true, but then so did quite a number of Americans, until Pearl Harbour..

They are not English royals. They are British royals. There hasn't been an English Royal Family since 1603.

Quote:

The fact that England chose to join up with the US in the Iraq war and Canada did not, should point out our political independence.

England didn't choose to join up with the US in the Iraq War. The UK did.
 
Spade
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

England didn't choose to join up with the US in the Iraq War. The UK did.

Why?

Perhaps you are confusing the government of Tony Blair with the British People?

“He in his madness prays for storms, and dreams that storms will bring him peace”
― Lev Tolstoy
 
bluebyrd35
+1
#60
[QUOTE=Blackleaf;1537829]Yes, it is.

Technically speaking, a monarchy is the head of a country/territory, governed by a king/queen ....even a prince or princess. Sometimes, they were benign and often they were autocratic, but they were the ruling force. Canada is a Monarchy in name only. (Although there have been PM's that governed as though they were a Monarch)


LOL .....British Royals as you say......Not Canadian ones eh??

[QUOTE=dumpthemonarchy;1537699]In terms of exports the Commonwealth is small potatoes. We have no economic need for it.

Pomp and ceremony means something to Americans because they fought a 7 year war for independence and many died. It altered the character of the country in ways wars do-that is, being assertive and aggressive and fighting wars. The American view of the monarchy is just romantic, nice to think about, but don't really want it.

And Canadians in Germany in 1936, at the Olympics, wanted Hitler's autograph. Point is, the English dump their monarch when it is politically suitable. Now the English establishment has a relevancy problem with the doddering Charles, his son William with the hottie Kate looks far more fun to the masses. Someone could get a push soon.[/QUOTE)

Yes, and Canadians fought the same war but to keep our connection to Britian. Canadians also, on the whole, view them (Royals) as romantic. Perhaps some Canadians in 1936 wanted Hitler's autograph, after all he was, inspite of being a bit mad, a very charismatic individual. It just seems to me that we Canadians can find much more beneficial issues to protest for or against than dumping the monarchy. Remember, that we also fought a 6 year world war, alongside of many other Commonwealth nations. Fighting for ideals doesn't always produce needy aggressiveness.

Of course we don't NEED the economic benefits of the commonwealth, but the world does need at least one organization that has a higher aspiration than gaining the upper financial advantage or other benefit from their dealing with other countries. ie. world peace, individual liberty, democracy, rule of law, human rights etc.
 
no new posts