Is the Queen Catholic?

[Cliffy]

test

What? Have a test run at democracy or a test run without the monarchy?:lol:

 

[AnnaG]

test

It ain't a test unless you ask a question, Andem. It ain't even a quiz.

 

[Spade]

test

A test? You didn't tell us we'd have a test! I would have studied if I'd've known. Will this test count? This is not fair!
PS
Anyone have a pencil?

 

[FiveParadox]

A test? You didn't tell us we'd have a test! I would have studied if I'd've known. Will this test count? This is not fair!
PS
Anyone have a pencil?

I have a bunch of HB pencils — one for every CC member who swears an oath of allegiance to The Queen. :lol:

 

[AnnaG]

I have a bunch of HB pencils — one for every CC member who swears an oath of allegiance to The Queen. :lol:

I will if she will reciprocate. And everyone else also.
Judging by the way all treaties with indigenous peoples have been upheld over the centuries, oaths don't mean much to Europeans, though. Apparently oaths of Prime Ministers don't mean much either.

 

[Cliffy]

I will if she will reciprocate. And everyone else also.
Judging by the way all treaties with indigenous peoples have been upheld over the centuries, oaths don't mean much to Europeans, though. Apparently oaths of Prime Ministers don't mean much either.

Funny, if I made that statement Cannuck would call me a racist. But I agree anyway (who cares what he thinks).

 

[Spade]

I have a bunch of HB pencils — one for every CC member who swears an oath of allegiance to The Queen. :lol:

I, Spade, do Solemnly swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, as long as she remains our Queen though majority support within Canada, but not to Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever, because forever is a long time and even Spades don't live that long! So help me Gawd!

Please, I want my pencil so i can write the test.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why don't we put it to a vote and settle the matter?

I am afraid it is not that simple, Cliffy. What will be the question? Will it simply be ‘do you favor abolition of the monarchy’.? That will be a nonsense question, without specifying what monarchy will be replaced with.

And that is where it will hit the fan. There is no agreement as to what monarchy should be replaced with. Should we simply abolish the post of GG, should we have it elected, should we continue as now (where PM appoints the GG), perhaps some other arrangement (maybe provincial elected bodies elect the GG), what?

They did have a referendum in Australia. When they called the referendum, anti-monarchists were leading. But when people thought about it, considered what alternatives would be, they had second thought and the referendum was defeated. It wouldn’t surrpize me if the same thing happens here in Canada.

So I am not sure referendum will settle anything.

 

[AnnaG]

Funny, if I made that statement Cannuck would call me a racist. But I agree anyway (who cares what he thinks).

lol Cannuck's ok. He just likes arguing and slips in some trolling while he's arguing.

As far as an alternative to Canada's shirt-tail monachism, I will plug Switzerland's style. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more democratic than this oligarchy we have.
Any pols try something the public doesn't like and they are turfed in quick order.

 

[givpeaceachance]

I'm just wondering, what does she do exactly? And does or has the British monarchy help to improve Canada in any way at all?

Also just want to point out that sometime soon, not trying to be morbid at all, the British will have a King. And he's had a long time to think about what he wants to do when that time comes. Let's face it. People don't really like/trust Charles but he's up next.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm just wondering, what does she do exactly? And does or has the British monarchy help to improve Canada in any way at all?

Also just want to point out that sometime soon, not trying to be morbid at all, the British will have a King. And he's had a long time to think about what he wants to do when that time comes. Let's face it. People don't really like/trust Charles but he's up next.

I am not sure he will be up next. The queen looks like she may be good for another 15 or 20 years, by then Prince William will come of age. Charles may well decide not to become the king when the time comes (he himself will be quite old by then, besides, I assume he is having too much fun with Camilla) and pass it on to Prince William.

 

[s_lone]

As far as an alternative to Canada's shirt-tail monachism, I will plug Switzerland's style. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more democratic than this oligarchy we have.
Any pols try something the public doesn't like and they are turfed in quick order.

Wait a minute... Are you trying to suggest we could have something better than monarchy? 8O

You should be jailed for lack of respect for Canadian tradition.:lol:

 

[Spade]

Wait a minute... Are you trying to suggest we could have something better than monarchy? 8O

You should be jailed for lack of respect for Canadian tradition.:lol:

We must never advocate change! Our betters (masters) may be listening!

 

[Blackleaf]

Like the Queen, the Pope is Head of State. He's Head of State of the Vatican City, the world's smallest country. And only a Catholic, and not a Protestant, can be Head of State of the Vatican City.

 

[Blackleaf]

I'm just wondering, what does she do exactly? And does or has the British monarchy help to improve Canada in any way at all?

How would a Republic improve Canada in any way? Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy yet has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

There are several advantages to a Constitutional Monarchy (including of having the Head of State as head of the Church of England):

1) It provides a safeguard against government instability: King Juan Carlos I of Spain stepped in to restore democracy after the El Tejerazo coup. Spain went from a republic and a dictatorship to a Constitutional Monarchy and a democracy. A similar thing happened in Malaysia.

2) It provides an impartial arbiter. A monarch is an impartial Head of State removed from political interests. The view that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain could have developed after Oliver Cromwell's English Republic (which lasted from 1649-1660) which eventually became a military dictatorship (the British have never trusted republics ever since).

3) It provides a focal point for unity and tradition. A non-partisan Head of State can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.

4) It provides links with other states. Monarchs tend to be linked to other monarchs. Many of the European monarchs are related to each other. Elizabeth II is a distant cousin to Queen Beatrix of Holland. And Elizabeth II is also Head of State of several Commonwealth nations.

5) The Church. As governor of the Church of England, the monarch plays quite an active role. This provides a standard set of ethics, hopes and vision for the people, allowing the nation to be more focused in how they see themselves and strive for their self-improvement.

6) A separation of government duties. Separating the head of state from the head of government (the Prime Minister), offers some advantages. This separation can be achieved by a constitutional monarchy, or a republic with both president and prime minister (unlike the US, say, which has just a president).

7) It offers a bridge to non-governmental organisations. Monarchists argue that in a limited, constitutional monarchy the monarch is able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen, etc. It is difficult to prove that the support of the monarchy is politically impartial, but it is easily documented that monarchs have supported charitable causes and NGOs. The police in the UK are charged with protecting the monarch's peace, and are thus servants of the Crown and not of the government: this allows them to be independent of the government, thus separating the administration of justice from the executive power

8 ) Monarchies have staying power. Monarchists argue that constitutional monarchy creates a head of state who is under the democratic control of Parliament (thanks to the English Civil War) but remains in power for a long time, giving stability and experience to the state. This was not the case in earlier times when factions fought over the monarchy. Modern constitutional monarchs, such as those in Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have reigned for long periods and seen many Prime Ministers come and go.

10) Discrimination. Republicans have argued that the existence of a monarchy or an aristocracy amounts to snobbery, and that a monarch should not inherit power without qualifications or merit . However, a monarchist might counter that the loss of a monarchy would do nothing to diminish discrimination, and point towards the presidency of George W. Bush in the United States or even Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan partly on the grounds that their fathers were noted politicians before them as testimony to the fact that a person can and will be placed in power on unfair grounds with or without the presence of a crown

11) The Royals are cost effective. The annual expenditure, since June 2005 has been a total of £36.7 Million or approximately 61 pence per person. When compared to the relative size and the duties that the Royal Family perform, this is significantly more cost effective as their only job duties are the meeting of foreign dignitaries, attending events and ceremonial events, to which they devote the majority of their time. In most states with a presidential system, the duties are divided between political and ceremonial responsibilities resulting in less time for both.

12) The Royals promote the Image of the United Kingdom Worldwide. A figurehead detatched from the government enables the UK to reach out and connect to other countries across the world because political ideology alone within a republic can isolate the country. A recognisable figurehead, the Queen is well respected for her work throughout the world hence promoting her country.

wikipedia.org

 

[Spade]

Like the Queen, the Pope is Head of State. He's Head of State of the Vatican City, the world's smallest country. And only a Catholic, and not a Protestant, can be Head of State of the Vatican City.

Unlike the Queen, the Pope's temporal power does not extend beyond Vatican City, which, as you point out, is the smallest nation on the planet.

Hey, I have an idea.. How big is Buckingham Palace compared to St. Peter's?

 

[s_lone]

Like the Queen, the Pope is Head of State. He's Head of State of the Vatican City, the world's smallest country. And only a Catholic, and not a Protestant, can be Head of State of the Vatican City.

And that is a good thing?

 

[AnnaG]

Wait a minute... Are you trying to suggest we could have something better than monarchy? 8O

You should be jailed for lack of respect for Canadian tradition.:lol:

I think I am too low on the totem pole to be arrested for unarmed insurgency. lol

 

[AnnaG]

How would a Republic improve Canada in any way? Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy yet has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Switzerland's democratic republic also keeps the country at a high standard of living. It is immensely more efficient a government than what we have and therefore immensely less expensive per capita. The people are the power, not the politicians. There is rarely a scandal. So you tell me.

There are several advantages to a Constitutional Monarchy (including of having the Head of State as head of the Church of England):

1) It provides a safeguard against government instability: King Juan Carlos I of Spain stepped in to restore democracy after the El Tejerazo coup. Spain went from a republic and a dictatorship to a Constitutional Monarchy and a democracy. A similar thing happened in Malaysia.

2) It provides an impartial arbiter. A monarch is an impartial Head of State removed from political interests. The view that the Crown is a guarantor against the misuse of constitutional power by politicians for personal gain could have developed after Oliver Cromwell's English Republic (which lasted from 1649-1660) which eventually became a military dictatorship (the British have never trusted republics ever since).

3) It provides a focal point for unity and tradition. A non-partisan Head of State can provide a focus for national unity, national awards and honours, national institutions, and allegiance, as opposed to a president affiliated to a political party.

4) It provides links with other states. Monarchs tend to be linked to other monarchs. Many of the European monarchs are related to each other. Elizabeth II is a distant cousin to Queen Beatrix of Holland. And Elizabeth II is also Head of State of several Commonwealth nations.

5) The Church. As governor of the Church of England, the monarch plays quite an active role. This provides a standard set of ethics, hopes and vision for the people, allowing the nation to be more focused in how they see themselves and strive for their self-improvement.

6) A separation of government duties. Separating the head of state from the head of government (the Prime Minister), offers some advantages. This separation can be achieved by a constitutional monarchy, or a republic with both president and prime minister (unlike the US, say, which has just a president).

7) It offers a bridge to non-governmental organisations. Monarchists argue that in a limited, constitutional monarchy the monarch is able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations, faiths, charities, artists, craftsmen, etc. It is difficult to prove that the support of the monarchy is politically impartial, but it is easily documented that monarchs have supported charitable causes and NGOs. The police in the UK are charged with protecting the monarch's peace, and are thus servants of the Crown and not of the government: this allows them to be independent of the government, thus separating the administration of justice from the executive power

8 ) Monarchies have staying power. Monarchists argue that constitutional monarchy creates a head of state who is under the democratic control of Parliament (thanks to the English Civil War) but remains in power for a long time, giving stability and experience to the state. This was not the case in earlier times when factions fought over the monarchy. Modern constitutional monarchs, such as those in Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, have reigned for long periods and seen many Prime Ministers come and go.

10) Discrimination. Republicans have argued that the existence of a monarchy or an aristocracy amounts to snobbery, and that a monarch should not inherit power without qualifications or merit . However, a monarchist might counter that the loss of a monarchy would do nothing to diminish discrimination, and point towards the presidency of George W. Bush in the United States or even Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan partly on the grounds that their fathers were noted politicians before them as testimony to the fact that a person can and will be placed in power on unfair grounds with or without the presence of a crown

11) The Royals are cost effective. The annual expenditure, since June 2005 has been a total of £36.7 Million or approximately 61 pence per person. When compared to the relative size and the duties that the Royal Family perform, this is significantly more cost effective as their only job duties are the meeting of foreign dignitaries, attending events and ceremonial events, to which they devote the majority of their time. In most states with a presidential system, the duties are divided between political and ceremonial responsibilities resulting in less time for both.

12) The Royals promote the Image of the United Kingdom Worldwide. A figurehead detatched from the government enables the UK to reach out and connect to other countries across the world because political ideology alone within a republic can isolate the country. A recognisable figurehead, the Queen is well respected for her work throughout the world hence promoting her country.

wikipedia.org

Image? lmao Definitely image is a really important factor.

So republics don't have their advantages over monarchies. I see. lol

The benefits of a republic

Republicans feel that a republic is the next logical step of a historical process of gradual democratic reform.[7] They assert that the British people will excel within a non-hereditary democratic and open system for selecting the head of the executive branch of government as well as the head of state.
"The new office of President would represent a new political culture - social inclusiveness would replace social hierarchy, mutual respect would replace deference, genuine intellect would replace the spurious wisdom of princes. Pompous titles, counterfeit 'generals' and royal chancellors of universities would be consigned to history. The current system of honours would be simplified and modernised and based only on merit."[8]
Republicans argue that such a system would advance the egalitarian cause of meritocracy, and create a political consciousness less connected with social class or birth. Every child growing up in a British republic, from whatever background, would know from an early age that they could aspire one day to becoming Head of State.[9]

- Wiki

Arguments against monarchy

Most republicans assert that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist[citation needed]. They claim that in a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth[citation needed]. Such a system, they assert, does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a "modern nation"[citation needed]. Some claim that maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens.[citation needed]
Further, republicans argue that 'the people', not the members of one family, should be sovereign.

• Monarchy is the opposite of democracy
  • Monarchy denies the people a basic right - Republicans, influenced by philosophical assumptions regarding natural law, believe that it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their head of state and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office. It is then argued such a head of state is more accountable to the people, and that such accountability to the people creates a "better" nation.[10]
  • Monarchy devalues a parliamentary system - Monarchical prerogative powers can be used to circumvent normal democratic process with no accountability, and that such precesses are more desirable then not for any given nation-state.

• The British monarchy is religiously discriminatory

Due to the history of Great Britain and especially Plots of Catholic Jesuits against Protestantism within the Nation, it is law that Roman Catholics may not inherit the Crown. It is argued by Republicans that having an Anglican head of state is unrepresentative of a nation where 4% of adults are practising Anglicans.[11] yet when realising that Protestantism is not only subjected to Anglicanism, over 38% of the British Population would still consider themselves Protestant.[12] The exclusion only applies to Catholics (officially 'Papists') not members of any other faith.

• Monarchy is gender-discriminitive

The British Royal Family uses male primogeniture, which means that the crown is inherited by the eldest son, and is only passed on to a daughter if the monarch has no sons. If absolute primogeniture were used instead of male primogeniture, the crown would be passed on to the eldest child irrespective of sex so that daughters had the same rights as sons. This method of succession disinherits not only daughters but their descendants. However this is not an argument against Monarchy per se, only against particular monarchical systems.

• A monarchy demands deference

It is argued by republicans that the way citizens are expected to address members, however junior, of the royal family is part of an attempt to keep subjects 'in their place'.[13]

• It is the enemy of merit and aspiration

The order of succession in a monarchy specifies a person who will become head of state, regardless of qualifications. The highest titular office in the land is not open to "free and fair competition"[citation needed]. However, it can be argued that the position of Prime Minister, which is the title with real power, is something anyone can aspire to become.

• It devalues intellect and achievement

Republicans argue that members of the royal family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement. Examples in the UK include the Queen's many honorary military titles of colonel-in-chief.[14] The Queen's sole military experience, though honourable and bold for its day, was as a driver and mechanic. There is debate over the roles the members of the monarchy have played in the military, many doubt that members of the royal family took any part on the front line for any length of time. It is seen to some as more of a PR exercise then military service. It is also seen that members of the royal family are fast tracked to higher ranks in the army.[15]

• It harms the monarchs themselves

Republicans argue that a hereditary system condemns each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.[16]

• Monarchs are not impartial, and lack accountability

Republicans argue that monarchs are not impartial but harbour their own opinions, motives, and wish to protect their interests. Rather than feeling comforted that monarchs are impartial by their freedom from election, republicans claim that monarchs are not accountable. As an example, though he has clarified that he will avoid "politically contentions" issues, republicans argue that Prince Charles has spoken or acted in a way that could be interpreted as taking a political stance, citing his refusal to attend, in protest of China's dealings with Tibet, a state dinner hosted by the Queen for the Chinese head of state; his strong stance on GM food; and the contents of certain memos regarding how people achieve their positions which were leaked to the press.[17][18][19]
While monarchists tend to feel that an impartial advantage is gained by various aspects of the civil service reporting to the Crown, (see example of police below), republicans see a lack of important democratic accountability and transparency for such institutions.

• The monarchy is expensive

Republicans claim that the total costs to taxpayers including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill) of the monarchy are over £100 million per annum.[20] The Daily Telegraph claims the monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year.[5]

• The monarchy makes the UK look backwards

Republicans argue that the monarchy may be considered embarrassing: as a concept it is archaic and while the UK has a hereditary head of state it can not claim to be a concept it is archaic and while the UK has a hereditary head of state it can not claim to be a modern nation, and that such a claim is an overriding value.[citation needed].

- wiki

Did you know that in Pakistan, political parties are inherited?

 

[Spade]

I think Blackleaf suggests we backward colonials need a Tudor. Mind you, I thought that was a little hair of the dog to cure a Hanover?
Hmmm... Windsor some, lose some!