Canadians Split on Monarchy, Dump It I Say

[s_lone]

How do you figure that? I haven't seen QE2 running around the planet blessing people and spewing anything like religious dogma. So if QE2 is the head of the CoE in Canada it's in title only.

I believe in secularism and I don't see any coherence in the present situation. I find it to be hypocritical that all religions are to be considered as equal in light of this aspect of our system. I you don't have an issue with it I respect your opinion.

It's not a big deal when it comes to our daily lives as Canadians. But to me it's just a ridiculous state of affairs of which I feel ashamed of. In other words, it has a direct influence on the respect I have for my own country.

 

[gerryh]

But to me it's just a ridiculous state of affairs of which I feel ashamed of. In other words, it has a direct influence on the respect I have for my own country.

Well.....I'm sure you could find the door....... and be sure the door doesn't hit your ass on the way out.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

How do you figure that? I haven't seen QE2 running around the planet blessing people and spewing anything like religious dogma. So if QE2 is the head of the CoE in Canada it's in title only.

Does "in title only" mean nothing? If it means nothing, then why give her the title?

That's the contradiction, we have a head of state in QE2 who is also the head of a religion.

 

[taxslave]

One of these days this dolt will be our king:

'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Charles urges environmentalists | Mail Online

This is one of the prime reasons I want to do away with the monarchy. Not only would we have the dumbest king in history, horseface would be the ugliest queen.

That is an inconsistency. However, traditions are not always consistent, sometimes there is an inconsistency. With tradition, it is more important to see how they operate, rather than what they are actually saying.
Traditions are for people that are too lazy to try something new.

 

[s_lone]

Well.....I'm sure you could find the door....... and be sure the door doesn't hit your ass on the way out.

Loyal subjects like you are only good at ass kissing, not ass kicking.

Once you get a spine, perhaps you can stand straight.

 

[FiveParadox]

Her Majesty is the Defender of the Faith, which means a defender of faith in general, and not of any particular religion (as Canada has no State religion or faith). The Queen’s roles and titles in other countries (including the United Kingdom) have no effect on the Queen’s constitutional role here. The Queen’s title in Canada, per the Royal Style and Titles Act, is:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. As far as our constitutional arrangements are concerned, the Queen’s role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England does not exist. As Her Majesty acts in Canadian affairs only on the advice of Canadian ministers and advisors, and within the bounds of our Canadian constitution, this is entirely a non-issue.

Members can dramaticise this as much as they’d like (for example, s_lone suggesting that those who respect the Queen are spineless, or dumpthemonarchy suggesting that the Queen’s personal religious convictions undermine Canadian democracy), but at the end of the day, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada has always acted in the most admirable way possible as our head of State. Our unique take on constitutional monarchy has served Canadians well, and we should continue to cherish a system that helps to safeguard — for so modest a cost — fundamental principles of democracy, such as responsible government.

 

[s_lone]

Her Majesty is the Defender of the Faith, which means a defender of faith in general, and not of any particular religion (as Canada has no State religion or faith). The Queen’s roles and titles in other countries (including the United Kingdom) have no effect on the Queen’s constitutional role here. The Queen’s title in Canada, per the Royal Style and Titles Act, is:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. As far as our constitutional arrangements are concerned, the Queen’s role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England does not exist. As Her Majesty acts in Canadian affairs only on the advice of Canadian ministers and advisors, and within the bounds of our Canadian constitution, this is entirely a non-issue.

A non-issue for monarchy supporters like you of course. Hereditary monarchy is fundamentally flawed from the start, in my opinion. The fact that the Canadian Head of State is necessarily the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is just one more detail in the big picture.

Members can dramaticise this as much as they’d like (for example, s_lone suggesting that those who respect the Queen are spineless, or dumpthemonarchy suggesting that the Queen’s personal religious convictions undermine Canadian democracy), but at the end of the day, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada has always acted in the most admirable way possible as our head of State. Our unique take on constitutional monarchy has served Canadians well, and we should continue to cherish a system that helps to safeguard — for so modest a cost — fundamental principles of democracy, such as responsible government.

My ''spineless'' attack was solely directed at Gerry. While I believe it would be more honourable for Canada to improve its system by getting rid of hereditary monarchy, I have the upmost respect for people like you who defend the institution. You do it elegantly and respectfully, unlike others who don't deserve further attention.

As I already stated, I have no issue with Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, the real human being who occupies the position of Monarch. As far as I know, she does her job with dignity. And if I had the power to choose, I would certainly wait until she dies before triggering the process of change. To me, it would be a good moment to reassess whether or not Canadians truly want to live within the current system. But for the immediate present, I agree with the status quo.

My issue is entirely with what the monarch and the system of hereditary monarchy represents, despite who occupies the position. The way I understand it, hereditary monarchy is a relic of medieval times in which the major world view saw the monarch as being elected by God. This makes no sense in the world we live in and I don't think it accurately represents who we are as Canadians.

 

[Machjo]

My issue is entirely with what the monarch and the system of hereditary monarchy represents, despite who occupies the position. The way I understand it, hereditary monarchy is a relic of medieval times in which the major world view saw the monarch as being elected by God. This makes no sense in the world we live in and I don't think it accurately represents who we are as Canadians.

Actually, if you read on the history of monarchism, most if not all hereditary monarchies evolved (or devolved, depending on how you look at it) out of elective ones.

 

[s_lone]

Actually, if you read on the history of monarchism, most if not all hereditary monarchies evolved (or devolved, depending on how you look at it) out of elective ones.

Well that would make sense because God didn't just come and proclaim who would be King right? The first monarchs were either chosen or self-proclaimed.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I believe in secularism and I don't see any coherence in the present situation. I find it to be hypocritical that all religions are to be considered as equal in light of this aspect of our system. I you don't have an issue with it I respect your opinion.

It's not a big deal when it comes to our daily lives as Canadians. But to me it's just a ridiculous state of affairs of which I feel ashamed of. In other words, it has a direct influence on the respect I have for my own country.

Coherence or not it works. And you are right, it is not really that big a deal.

 

[AnnaG]

I believe in secularism and I don't see any coherence in the present situation. I find it to be hypocritical that all religions are to be considered as equal in light of this aspect of our system. I you don't have an issue with it I respect your opinion.

It's not a big deal when it comes to our daily lives as Canadians. But to me it's just a ridiculous state of affairs of which I feel ashamed of. In other words, it has a direct influence on the respect I have for my own country.

That's fine, but I still don't think it's feasible to change the status quo any time soon.

Does "in title only" mean nothing? If it means nothing, then why give her the title?

No reason to. But she already has the title, or did you forget that what you are proposing is an expensive stripping her of the title? Those are two very different things.

That's the contradiction, we have a head of state in QE2 who is also the head of a religion.

We have politicians who don't really represent us either, so?

This is one of the prime reasons I want to do away with the monarchy. Not only would we have the dumbest king in history, horseface would be the ugliest queen.

That is an inconsistency. However, traditions are not always consistent, sometimes there is an inconsistency. With tradition, it is more important to see how they operate, rather than what they are actually saying.
Traditions are for people that are too lazy to try something new.

Or can't afford something new.

As I already stated, I have no issue with Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, the real human being who occupies the position of Monarch. As far as I know, she does her job with dignity. And if I had the power to choose, I would certainly wait until she dies before triggering the process of change. To me, it would be a good moment to reassess whether or not Canadians truly want to live within the current system. But for the immediate present, I agree with the status quo.

Cool.

My issue is entirely with what the monarch and the system of hereditary monarchy represents, despite who occupies the position. The way I understand it, hereditary monarchy is a relic of medieval times in which the major world view saw the monarch as being elected by God. This makes no sense in the world we live in and I don't think it accurately represents who we are as Canadians.

Switching to automobile transportation from bicycle transportation when you would lose the bike and are unable to afford the car would be senseless, too.

 

[selin]

Isn't monarchy old-fashioned?

 

[AnnaG]

Isn't monarchy old-fashioned?

Oh, yeah. It sure is.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Isn't monarchy old-fashioned?

And your point is?

 

[FiveParadox]

The British people desperately wanted to restore their constitutional monarchy after it was disrupted for several years under the abhorrent leadership of the Protectorate; the people overwhelmingly supported the Restoration of the Monarchy. And now, we have a constitutional monarchy that resembles in no way the absolute monarchies of the distant past; we have a monarchy that is bound by our constitutional conventions, and which responds to the day-to-day needs of the people through our Canadian system of responsible government.

Yes, the monarch is an unelected position (as is, necessarily, the Governor General); however, royal prerogatives are almost always exercised keeping with the principles of responsible government. Decisions are made by the Queen-in-Council, or the Governor General-in-Council (i.e., the Queen, or the Governor General, acting with the constitutional advice of the Privy Council’s Cabinet—that is, the prime minister and in some cases other members of the ministry). Since the ministry as a whole is responsible to the House of Commons, the support of the people’s representatives gives the monarch’s exercises of executive power complete democratic legitimacy.

 

[AnnaG]

And your point is?

Um, I'd say her point was that monarchism is old-fashioned. You had a problem understanding that? roflmao

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Her Majesty is the Defender of the Faith, which means a defender of faith in general, and not of any particular religion (as Canada has no State religion or faith). The Queen’s roles and titles in other countries (including the United Kingdom) have no effect on the Queen’s constitutional role here. The Queen’s title in Canada, per the Royal Style and Titles Act, is:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. As far as our constitutional arrangements are concerned, the Queen’s role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England does not exist. As Her Majesty acts in Canadian affairs only on the advice of Canadian ministers and advisors, and within the bounds of our Canadian constitution, this is entirely a non-issue.

Members can dramaticise this as much as they’d like (for example, s_lone suggesting that those who respect the Queen are spineless, or dumpthemonarchy suggesting that the Queen’s personal religious convictions undermine Canadian democracy), but at the end of the day, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada has always acted in the most admirable way possible as our head of State. Our unique take on constitutional monarchy has served Canadians well, and we should continue to cherish a system that helps to safeguard — for so modest a cost — fundamental principles of democracy, such as responsible government.

I don't really care what the queen's personal religious feelings are just like I don't care what my neighbour's are. The queen has political office, my neighbour doesn't. I care about her title and power, not my neighbour's. Being the head of a religious faith is a real bone of contention in a the modern world because religion is hoodoo voodoo and needs to be reduced as much as possible. and our head of state is also the head of a particular religion.

The queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, according to
The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Church > Queen and other faiths

So your assertion the queen is the defender of the faith in general is wrong. Or perhaps, just one enterpretation.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: The Queen’s Canadian Style and Titles

The Web site you’ve referenced refers to the Queen’s role as the Queen of the United Kingdom, something entirely exclusive of Her Majesty’s role as the Canadian head of State. Pursuant to the Royal Style and Titles Act, as passed by the Parliament of Canada, the Queen’s title as Canadian head of State does not refer to the Church of England in any capacity, but rather it refers to the Defender of the Faith. You can try to confuse the issue all you’d like with whatever the Queen’s roles are in the fifteen other Realms of the Commonwealth, but we are discussing the Canadian constitutional monarchy.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The queen has political office, my neighbour doesn't. I care about her title and power, not my neighbour's. Being the head of a religious faith is a real bone of contention in a the modern world because religion is hoodoo voodoo and needs to be reduced as much as possible. and our head of state is also the head of a particular religion.

I don't think Queen holds a political office. Her office is mainly ceremonial (with plenty of glamour and pomp), which also happens to have a political side to it.

 

[Starscream]

I say keep the monarchy. Heck, not like the crown has any actual power over us, and our way of life. We earned our indipendence (through loyalty and sacrifice) and out of respect we should keep ties with the Crown.