Cheers or jeers?? Wills and Kate arrive in Canada
- Thread starter Fingertrouble
- Start date
A little "green" are we? :lol:
About as homely as a mud fence! :lol:
Oh Way Cool, gerry! Get some photos for us. :smile:
I saw an item on CTV about special pairs of cowboy boots that were being made in Calgary for Will and Kate. I know they will have a wonderful time in your beautiful city and I hope you and your family have a great time Royal Watching.
They had to pick Canada first since India has long got rid of the British raj, and Australia is heading in that direction. So what's left but the last remaining colony, and we pay with humility.
That "figure head" thing does not fly with me, there is an awful lot of economic benefit to be derived from this Master-servant servant relationship. I have nothing against the British as long as they are staying home or come here as regular tourists and pay their own expenses. In a well publicized royal visit this is not the case.
we just enjoy being good hosts without thinking of any political or humble things at all, just enjoying
the moment without scowling.
They could have picked any number of countries to visit first -- I, for one, am happy that they chose Canada.
One day, His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge K.G. will be the head of State of at least sixteen Commonwealth Realms, and any one of these countries would have made perfect sense for a royal homecoming. The costs of constitutional monarchy are so miniscule compared to the costs of an elected head of State (with tremendous governance advantages too), and I am confident that this case can be made to dissuade any of the remaining sixteen realms from ending their constitutional relationship with the Crown:
One day, His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge K.G. will be the head of State of at least sixteen Commonwealth Realms, and any one of these countries would have made perfect sense for a royal homecoming. The costs of constitutional monarchy are so miniscule compared to the costs of an elected head of State (with tremendous governance advantages too), and I am confident that this case can be made to dissuade any of the remaining sixteen realms from ending their constitutional relationship with the Crown:
- Antigua and Barbuda
- the Commmonwealth of Australia
- the Commonwealth of the Bahamas
- Barbados
- Belize
- Canada
- Grenada
- Jamaica
- New Zealand
- the Independent State of Papua New Guinea
- the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- the Solomon Islands
- Tuvalu
It's funny then that their second official visit will be to the United States. As you noted, they could have visited any number of Commonwealth realms, but instead chose a former colony that succeeded in violently driving the royal family out.
Some people can't seem to get it through their thick heads that it doesn't matter how much it costs us to be hosts for 10 days, it's like the old woman who pissed in the ocean compared to the financial pay back for years to come. :roll:
I enjoyed watching Willy's dunks in a Sea King. Only in Canada, you say. Pity. I especially liked the strategic placement of duct tape so the darned thing wouldn't leak....
No one said that the Monarchy is a completely "modern" institution. Will and Kate are literally the first to begin placing a modern and youthful face on to it. It is so steeped in tradition and ritual that changes can be a major challenge. (even the smallest ones).......like allowing Royalty to marry Catholics without losing their position in the throne line.
(think Peter and Autumn Philips )
ALL traditions, and rituals hold progress and change back. Be they of the religious nature or the monarchy ( regardless if it is the UK or any of the other Royals in Europe. )
So we either accept that for what it is and enjoy having it part of our own tradition. OR we ignore it , dismiss it and have nasty little protests that end up being nothing more than a blip on the higher scheme of things.
To the person that said.........the we get plenty back from these visits , you are right. All one has to do is stop and think about it.
Personally, I like the fact that Canada was their first royal visit. (although when one thinks about it.......Canada is very non theatening , it is a SAFE country, it is stunningly gorgeous with so many facets to its wonder as one travels from coast to coast. And we are hospitable. Why would we want to be any different??
and why would anyone want to be RUDE to their guests. Particularly when these guests are show casing the country to the world on a level almost as big as the Olympics.
Wait till they arrive in California. How they are treated and met will tell you exactly how much the americans miss having their own lines to REAL royalty. Sure Elvis was regal in talent , looks and mystique.......but even he did not have blood ties to the real deal.;-);-)
(think Peter and Autumn Philips )
ALL traditions, and rituals hold progress and change back. Be they of the religious nature or the monarchy ( regardless if it is the UK or any of the other Royals in Europe. )
So we either accept that for what it is and enjoy having it part of our own tradition. OR we ignore it , dismiss it and have nasty little protests that end up being nothing more than a blip on the higher scheme of things.
To the person that said.........the we get plenty back from these visits , you are right. All one has to do is stop and think about it.
Personally, I like the fact that Canada was their first royal visit. (although when one thinks about it.......Canada is very non theatening , it is a SAFE country, it is stunningly gorgeous with so many facets to its wonder as one travels from coast to coast. And we are hospitable. Why would we want to be any different??
and why would anyone want to be RUDE to their guests. Particularly when these guests are show casing the country to the world on a level almost as big as the Olympics.
Wait till they arrive in California. How they are treated and met will tell you exactly how much the americans miss having their own lines to REAL royalty. Sure Elvis was regal in talent , looks and mystique.......but even he did not have blood ties to the real deal.;-);-)
The toughest part about being an anti-monarchist is that the monarchy's power is largely symbolic. It's difficult to argue that the institution subordinates the people when there is no visible manifestation of that, save the language of the law. But it's discussions like these that give us our answers.
See, there are rational sounding arguments in favour of the monarchy, but most monarchists don't know them. Most monarchists at best will argue "tradition" or at worst feel their reasons at you. That is to say, they only support the monarchy for some amorphous emotional reason, which can only be expressed in blabbering on about how wonderful it is. It's a feeling I'm sure you might have felt as a teenager (at least I have, though I'm younger than most here). Teenagers get overly excited about things and exaggerate their importance despite not having the words to express them. Their enthusiasm is expressed in how powerfully they can emphasize the adjective they are using, i.e. how much they feel it at you. The enthusiasm is often lost in communication.
When I read some of the posts in this thread, I detect attempts to convey this enthusiasm for the monarchy in words, but it's totally lost on me, like it's teenager trying to convey how "epic" something is. Like someone explaining some religious principle. It's all white noise. Meaningless babble. But it does demonstrate how the monarchy subordinates the people. Reading the effusive praise heaped on the monarchy and the royal family one bares witness to that subordination. To watch adults babble on about these celebrities, the absurd things they reduce their intelligence to praise, insults their dignity as human beings.
It would be disturbing enough they were just normal celebrities, but in all this they are expressing joy that these people are all rulers. It's odd when you see this kind of enthusiasm in the United States, but at least the subordination isn't there.
See, there are rational sounding arguments in favour of the monarchy, but most monarchists don't know them. Most monarchists at best will argue "tradition" or at worst feel their reasons at you. That is to say, they only support the monarchy for some amorphous emotional reason, which can only be expressed in blabbering on about how wonderful it is. It's a feeling I'm sure you might have felt as a teenager (at least I have, though I'm younger than most here). Teenagers get overly excited about things and exaggerate their importance despite not having the words to express them. Their enthusiasm is expressed in how powerfully they can emphasize the adjective they are using, i.e. how much they feel it at you. The enthusiasm is often lost in communication.
When I read some of the posts in this thread, I detect attempts to convey this enthusiasm for the monarchy in words, but it's totally lost on me, like it's teenager trying to convey how "epic" something is. Like someone explaining some religious principle. It's all white noise. Meaningless babble. But it does demonstrate how the monarchy subordinates the people. Reading the effusive praise heaped on the monarchy and the royal family one bares witness to that subordination. To watch adults babble on about these celebrities, the absurd things they reduce their intelligence to praise, insults their dignity as human beings.
It would be disturbing enough they were just normal celebrities, but in all this they are expressing joy that these people are all rulers. It's odd when you see this kind of enthusiasm in the United States, but at least the subordination isn't there.
it never ceases to amaze me, that so many exist in this country with such a narrow view
of the world, and of our history, and completely forget that this country would wave the
stars and stripes if not for the monarchy and friends, thanks to all of them, we are the
free individuals within our country, that we are, and don't have to answer to the white house.
I like our american friends to the south, but don't want to be one, I am a proud canadian, and
won't ever forget how that came about.
I've read this from you many times before but have never been given any specifics. I know Canadian history and I can't think of any instances when the monarchy protected us from take over by the United States. Could you tell me when this happened?
Which monarch are you referring to specifically? George III or IV? William IV, Victoria? Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II?
What did they do to stop the United States from taking us over?