So You Want to be King/Queen...

[Tecumsehsbones]

Forgive him father, for he knows not what he says.

He is, however, running gerry a dead heat for tightest anus in North America (amateur division).

 

[s_lone]

I don't find it amusing when the separatist pig puts down my country.

Canada is my country as well as yours Gerry and I'm interested in the way it works and have opinions about it.

You're clearly incapable of understanding that my opinions concerning separatism are nuanced and constantly evolving. You're stuck with this black and white view that separatism = bad.

I suspect this black and white world you live in is caused by your head being stuffed inside your own ***. You should come out to breathe once and a while. The world doesn't always smell so rotten you know...

 

[damngrumpy]

The Tudors are pretenders who stole the throne from its rightful owners the Scots.
Cliffy and I will have to share power I too am a descendant from the royal line the
real royal line. One of the great grandfathers of long ago was Stuart the second.
I am hoping the Scots win the referendum and separate as I intend to go back
to Scotland and lay land claims to the lands of the MacDonalds, as I am in league
with them too. Ah can't wait for the chance to start land claim problems somewhere
else.

 

[Spade]

One of my ancestors was a carpenter.

 

[Cliffy]

The Tudors are pretenders who stole the throne from its rightful owners the Scots.
Cliffy and I will have to share power I too am a descendant from the royal line the
real royal line. One of the great grandfathers of long ago was Stuart the second.
I am hoping the Scots win the referendum and separate as I intend to go back
to Scotland and lay land claims to the lands of the MacDonalds, as I am in league
with them too. Ah can't wait for the chance to start land claim problems somewhere
else.

Although I never went to kindergarten, I am willing to share.

One of my ancestors was a carpenter.

Try not to let them nail you to the furniture.

 

[Spade]

Cliffy skipped kindergarten; I knew he was clever!

 

[taxslave]

Forgive him father, for he knows not what he says.

You gave up your pension?

 

[damngrumpy]

No taxslave we are not ready to give up our pensions Cliffy nor myself we paid for
them over the years. Although we would be willing to take more money if possible.

 

[s_lone]

What I am saying is that Canadians should be proud that we have been part of a much-needed modernisation of the institution of the Canadian monarchy.

The ''much-needed'' modernization should have happened decades ago and the fact that it hasn't is a testament to the archaic nature of monarchy.

Had one of the fifteen other realms not assented to the proposed revisions, then I would argue that the balance of the realms should have proceeded anyway with changes to the order of succession -- and the "dissenting" realms could have thereby been left to their own devices.

Should Canada one day be one of the ''dissenting'' nations, would you agree we should ''be left to our own devices''?

I should note, too, that all provisions of the Canadian constitution are co-independent. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot render other parts of our constitutional framework invalid or unenforceable, and this includes the structure of the Canadian monarchy and the order of succession. (This will likely also hold to be true with the upcoming case respecting the oath of allegiance to the Crown.)

The legal principles don't change the fact that up until now, we had a system that was explicitly sexist and that we implicitly supported it through our acceptance of the system. The fact that the Charter can't render the structure of monarchy invalid changes nothing to the fact that there can be profound ethical inconsistencies between the values we supposedly cherish (as according to the Charter) and the system we hold on to.

That's a theoretical situation. The fact is that Canada has already consented to changes to the order of succession (as considered and passed by both the Senate and the House of Commons), and that we are now prepared to move forward with a modernised structure for our constitutional monarchy. The shared Crown is a voluntary union and relationship between sixteen countries.

Canada should have stood up for itself and push for the change decades ago.

I don't think constitutional monarchy is a "lazy" system at all. Rather, it's the understanding that we have the best system of government in the world with respect to day-to-day efficiencies, flexibility in the formation of politically-supported governments, and ensuring the primacy of democratic direction in decision-making.

It's certainly not the worst we could have and in our case, it has indeed been a pretty cozy ride up to now. But we can do better. I'd still prefer a system that doesn't depend on the sex lives of dead conquerors' descendants.

Considerable advances have been made to address these concerns -- many of them with the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 of the Parliament of Canada. I think that Canadians should be proud of the steps that we have taken, as a group of countries, to ensure the modernisation of an institution that has served our countries well, and that will continue to do so with one of the best structures of government in the world.

We should be proud that we ONLY got rid of a sexist principle in 2013? As I already said, it should have happened decades ago.

 

[Spade]

Of the 54 members of the Commonwealth, only 15 besides Britain have the Queen as head of state.

The Queen is the titular head of the Church of England. Does that make Kanada a theocracy?
Sign me,
Concerned
PS
Why isn't titular expurgated?

 

[s_lone]

Of the 54 members of the Commonwealth, only 15 besides Britain have the Queen as head of state.

The Queen is the titular head of the Church of England. Does that make Kanada a theocracy?
Sign me,
Concerned
PS
Why isn't titular expurgated?

Our monarch is by default the Head of the Church of England. We're some sort of closeted theocracy.

 

[FiveParadox]

Her Majesty's official style in Canada does not include any reference to the United Kingdom office of the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England." That is a role that Her Majesty has in her capacity as the United Kingdom monarch, and is independent, severable, and separate from Her Majesty's role as the Canadian sovereign. That is a deliberate decision of the Canadian people by way of the Royal Style and Titles Act as passed by the Senate and Commons of our own Parliament.

 

[Spade]

Quite the Paradox; a head there but not a head here. This is just like relativity.
Music for our King.
Zadok The Priest - British Coronation Anthem - YouTube

 

[s_lone]

Her Majesty's official style in Canada does not include any reference to the United Kingdom office of the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England." That is a role that Her Majesty has in her capacity as the United Kingdom monarch, and is independent, severable, and separate from Her Majesty's role as the Canadian sovereign. That is a deliberate decision of the Canadian people by way of the Royal Style and Titles Act as passed by the Senate and Commons of our own Parliament.

It's still the same person FiveParadox and no amount of verbiage will change that. Canada's monarch will always be the Head of the Church of England so long as nothing changes in that regard.

Let's say a city's mayor is in conflict of interest when it comes to choosing which of many companies will get an important contract with the city because the mayor has important shares in one of the companies. The fact that the mayors' job description has nothing to say about the how the person holding the job manages his or her own money changes nothing to the fact that their is a conflict of interest in the first place.

I'm not saying the Queen is corrupt or anything like that. My point is simply that you can't deny the fact that so long as the system isn't changed, the monarch will always be, by default, the Head of Church of England. That goes against our principles of equality regarding religion.

 

[Spade]

What does a secularist say?
Christopher Hitchens on Prince Charles - YouTube

 

[FiveParadox]

That argument doesn't hold water, Spade.

The United Kingdom can bestow whatever titles and additional functions they wish upon their sovereign, just as we can with ours. The Queen's functions in Canada are independent of and separate from Her Majesty's functions in the United Kingdom. Whatever role the Queen may or may not have with the Church of England has no relationship to the Queen's functions in Canada, where the State and the Church of England have no official relationship (or any relationship, really).

 

[Spade]

Dear FiveParadox,
You mistook.
May I quote from the Style And Titles Act (1985)
"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."
What faith (singular) does she defend?
With respect,
Spade the Commoner

 

[petros]

Not many know Charles is a Muzzie.

 

[Spade]

PS
As you well know, punctuation is everything. The Act states "...by the grace of God of the United Kingdom...". There is no comma after "God". Since the comma is absent, it does not state that she is Queen of the United Kingdom through the grace of God. Rather, it states that she is Queen by the grace of the God of the United Kingdom. What god be that? Woden?

 

[petros]

I bet Vishnu can swim the English Channel faster than any other god.