Well, maybe spelled that way it is, but otherwise, no big deal. We have a Queen of Canada, her father was the King of Canada, and the monarch who follows her will be another King of Canada.
So You Want to be King/Queen...
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Ahhh, the suggestion of an infinite progression. My dear fellow, in affairs temporal, there is no infinite. In the end, all human institutions, regardless of how they're spelt, are finite. It is just that the finite takes a little more imagination. "Draw a deep breath,and shut your eyes."
The god of the kingdom has always been about wealth and power, about oppression and control. And every empire has fallen and rotted from the pursuit. The kingdom has disintegrated from within and all the pomp and ceremony will not save it from its terminal cancer. Time for Canada to declare its freedom and independence from that decaying institution and those that worship at its alter.
I didn't mistake anything.
"Defender of the Faith," as a title, does not correspond to "Supreme Governor of the Church of England." As explained when the current titles were created, as proposed by the late The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent P.C., C.C., Q.C., the 12th Prime Minister, it was stated:
The current monarch has British blood. Her mother was Scottish, and she is the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter of Mary, Queen of Scots.
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy
The Tudors are pretenders who stole the throne from its rightful owners the Scots.
You need to read your history books better.
The Scottish monarchs of England - the Stuarts - came AFTER the Tudors.
Last edited:
You're in denial.
Do you deny that the sovereign of the UK is the very same person that is sovereign of Canada? Do you deny that the person (made of flesh) holding the title of King or Queen of Canada also happens to be the Head of the Church of England?
And especially... Do you deny that should the King or Queen of Canada choose to convert to catholicism, he or she could no longer be King or Queen of Canada?
And the Tudors weren't English, either. They were Welsh.
You're right.
Canada does not have the British monarchy. It has the Canadian monarchy, which is separate from, and independent of, the British monarchy, as Canada is now an independent, sovereign state. It just so happens to be that the same people are members of both monarchies.
The Monarch of Canada can only be Church of England. The Act of Settlement 1701 which states this remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession not only to the throne of the United Kingdom, but also to those of the 15 other Commonwealth realms (the 16 nations of which Elizabeth II is Head of State).
The Act of Settlement 1701 in Canada
In Canada, where the Act of Settlement is now a part of Canadian constitutional law, Tony O'Donohue, a Canadian civic politician, took issue with the provisions that exclude Roman Catholics from the throne, and which make the monarch of Canada the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, requiring him or her to be an Anglican. This, he claimed, discriminated against non-Anglicans, including Catholics, who are the largest faith group in Canada.In 2002, O'Donohue launcheda court action that argued the Act of Settlement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the case was dismissed by the court. It found that, as the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as another part of the same constitution, does not have supremacy over it. Also, the court noted that, while Canada has the power to amend the line of succession to the Canadian throne, the Statute of Westminster stipulates that the agreement of the governments of the fifteen other Commonwealth realms that share the Crown would first have to be sought if Canada wished to continue its relationship with these countries. An appeal of the decision was dismissed on 16 March 2005. A result of this is that any single provincial legislature could hinder any attempts to change this Act, and by extension, to the line of succession for the shared crown of all 16 Commonwealth Realms.
With the announcement in 2007 of the engagement of the Queen's grandson Peter Phillips to Autumn Kelly, a Roman Catholic and a Canadian, discussion about the Act of Settlement was revived. Norman Spector called in The Globe and Mail for Prime MinisterStephen Harper to address the issue of the act's bar on Catholics, saying that Phillips' marriage to Kelly would be the first time the provisions of the act would bear directly on Canada—Phillips would be barred from acceding to the Canadian throne because he married a Roman Catholic Canadian.(In fact, the Earl of St. Andrews had already lost his place in the line of succession when he married the Roman Catholic Canadian Sylvana Palma Tomaselli in 1988, but St. Andrews' place in the line of succession was significantly lower than Phillips'.) Criticism of the Act of Settlement due to the Phillips-Kelly marriage was muted when Autumn Kelly converted to Anglicanism shortly before her marriage, thus preserving her husband's place in the line of succession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701#Canada
Last edited:
It doesn't just ''happen to be the same people'' that are members of both. It's always the same people that are members of both.
I as a person can very well have two different jobs that are totally not related. But the fact remains that if I were to quit one of these jobs, someone else could fill my spot. That doesn't apply to British and Canadian monarchy. If the British Monarch chooses to resign, we loose our Canadian Monarch. You can defend the independence of the titles as much as you want, that doesn't change the fact that they are inextricably linked together.
And because the monarch of Canada can only be of the Church of England, there is an inconsistency with the notion that we ought not to discriminate anybody based on his or her religion.
That doesn't have to be the case.
The Monarch is the Head of the Church of England. So how can the monarch be anything BUT Church of England? I don't want a Catholic or a Muslim or a Jew or a Sikh or a Hindu being the Head of the Church of England.
Do you also advocate a Church of England person becoming Pope?
How could it not?
My point exactly.
Makes sense. But I'd rather have a country where my Head of State can be of any religion.
No. I advocate secularism and in the present case we are discussing, there is an inconsistency with secular principles.
Canada doesn't have to follow the same line of succession as Britain. There is no provision in Canadian law requiring that the king or queen of Canada must be the same person as the king or queen of the United Kingdom.
Well get rid of your monarchy then, or change yourr monarchy so that a person of any religion can be the monarch. Whilst you share the same person as monarch as Britain you CANNOT have anyone other than a member of the Church of England as your monarch.
Not everybody in Canada does, though, do they?
But the symbol of parting ways would be quite strong don't you agree? If we wanted a different monarch than the UK, there would be some form of severance.
That's what I'm trying to explain to FiveParadox.
I guess not.
Unless the Queen plays a banjo, she would have 32 767 other ancestors alive at the same time as Mary.
Of course she plays a banjo. All the royal families of Europe do. Why do you think they have such an incredibly high incidence of inbreeding-related disorders like the Romanov haemophilia, the Wittelsbach insanity, and Charles' face?
And, thank you Blackleaf - a true Englander - for crushing FiveParadox's arguments. Will you be at mass on Sunday?
I hardly think one more would constitute an infinite series, the number of monarchs will always be readily countable. I hold out some hope that Chuck will prove so inept and foolish at the job that the monarchy will lose all credibility as a useful institution and we, perhaps along with Australia, New Zealand, and several dozen other such places, will rid ourselves of this archaic remnant of hereditary totalitarianism. The Brits I don't think will ever do it, but the dominions and territories might. The only credibility the monarchy currently has I think is due entirely to the quality of person Elizabeth II is, put a lugubrious basset hound on her chair and we might see some changes.