Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[Pieman]

Well, I was out for a few beers with a few egg heads the other night and the discussion got pretty heated and interesting. This is just for fun, but I think it would be interesting to see what other people here think.

The suggestion from a friend of mine who is a Political science prof, is the following: (I think he was semi-serious too   :-\)

1) Canada gets rid of the current Governor general by inviting Prince William over to take her place. IMHO no one relates to her at all anyway.
2) We set William up with the most beautiful french Canadian girl we can find and watch sparks fly.
3) We move them into some historical castle and let them reside there.

The idea is that because Prince William is Diana's boy, the population will eat the idea up and just love having him here and will have little problem seeing him as King of Canada.

The girl we set him up with would be a French Canadian version of Dianna, where she would be so charming and beautiful that the population of Quebec would eat it up.

The rest would naturally take care of itself, the position of Governor General would be changed to a permanent position, and change it so that only people following Prince Williams blood line can take the position.

IMHO, this idea is so friggen crazy it could actually work. Personally, I love the idea of having a monarchy in Canada. There is something truly appealing of having an actual person as the head role in Canada as a symbol of the country. It is something more tangable and allows a greater bonding strength than the Canadian flag or the idea of multiculturalism..whatever a Canadian is supposed to be identifying with at the time. Democracy is great, but it is kind of like a headless horseman in many respects. Because we would be Getting Prince William, who is a realy Prince with strong ties to the Queen people will accept him.

I am probably not wording this situation as well as my freind was, but you get the idea. Is it realistic? probably not, but it is in theory possible. Anyway, there were opinions from all sides on this topic, wanted to see what people here think.

 

[ackland]

I think it is a great idea! I don't think all the anty monarchist would go for it. What about the PM would the ego of that office allow some one to become popular witht he people since the individules filing that spot are rarely popular. Would we allow him to use tax dollars to fund is position or require him to use his own fortune?

Do the majority of people in Cananda still want to relate to the queen? ( i do) we started out as a british colony but how much of the population is still from this back ground?

We then could stay as part of the common wealth and perhaps the British would take more intrest in us again.

 

[combat_medic]

And have you bothered to consider the exorbitant costs associated with this? It's bad enough for the Canadian population to fork over millions of dollars every so the Governor General gets her own private aircraft and million dollar dinner parties. Building some castle and paying for the upkeep, maintenance and all associated costs of living, entertaining and PR from this little venture would be so huge as to make the entire idea even more costly than the current arrangement.

 

[beach_bum]

I would much rather my tax dollars go to support something like that, than towards some reporter and her philosopher husband!!!!!!!  :rage:

 

[Pieman]

We just use the Current Governor generals budjet, and not build a new castle/palace but upgrade something that already exits.  There are options. The cost of doing this would be more than the Governor General no doubt, but it does not have to be that much more. I think it would be worth it to have a real King...I am willing to bet it would make up for it by the money brought in by tourism, British citizens would stop by to visit, and the Americans would be curious about it.

 

[Torlyn]

And have you bothered to consider the exorbitant costs associated with this? It's bad enough for the Canadian population to fork over millions of dollars every so the Governor General gets her own private aircraft and million dollar dinner parties. Building some castle and paying for the upkeep, maintenance and all associated costs of living, entertaining and PR from this little venture would be so huge as to make the entire idea even more costly than the current arrangement.

Keep in mind that given what Prince (sic King) William will be recieving from his own personal estates in England, he'll be able to afford his own way.  Transfer the budget we spend on the useless G.G. we have now, and I'm sure it won't cost too much more.    That, and think of the American tourism!  I mean, they love royalty almost more than the brits, and they'd be willing to spend the money to come up here.  As well, I'm sure King William would be better suited as an ambassador to the states...  Might smooth over some of the more anti-Canadian sentiments floating around the Washington area...

T

 

[loyalcana]

Only the reigning monarch(from the Duchy of Lancaster) and the eldest son of the monarch(the Duchy of Cornwall) actually hold any type of estate. Everyone else recieves their income from the Queen or from the government if their working on state duty, and of course from private sources of income. We'll have to be prepared to convert some prime Crown Lands, so say hello to the Duchy of Pettawawa!

But seriously Prince William is currently second in succession to the thrones of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, and nine other nations, really what points does he have in comming here. If really wan't our own King we have look much further down on the succession list. So we will be looking at the likes of Lord Fredrick Windsor(#29) or Prince Peter of Yugoslavia(#89). It's really the Status Quo or a Republic for me but thats just my opinion.

 

[Pieman]

Good point Will, I think you are right that Prince William may have too much going for him where he is. At our drinking session, someone else brought up the possibility that Prince Charles would step aside and let his son take the throne for the purpose of strengthening the monarchy. Or Prince William may be willing to wait out his father and just that the position when his time comes.

So maybe Prince Harry is the more logical choice where he is not really in a position where is is going to inherit anything. I kind of like that idea better now that I think of it, Prince Harry says he is going to serve in the Army when he finishes his University.

The core of this argument is that the vast majority of people will be willing to accept either of Dianna's sons as a monarch, simply because they are held in such high regard already, and we have seen these people grow up.

The other people you mention may go over well with people who are already pro-monarchy, but to the people who are not normally for a monarchy would never be swayed by the prospect of bringing in some other royal line that no one here has ever seen. That is my take on it anyway.

So....anyone got Prince Harry's email address? Let's write and see what he thinks.   LOL   :warstory:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

1) Canada gets rid of the current Governor general by inviting Prince William over to take her place. IMHO no one relates to her at all anyway.

This Governor General is the first one in a long time to take a deep interest in the Forces, and she has sacrificed her holidays on at least one occasion to spent time with the troops.  Not to mention her eloquent speeches at such occasions as the Unknown Soldier's memorial unveiling.

So who is it that doesn't relate to her?

And just how would "we" relate to Prince William - a foreign national who is also royalty?  We have had a long line of Canadian Governors-General, this would be a major step backward.  We would "relate" even less to British royalty, but then again, who says we have to "relate" to the GG anyway?  They're SUPPOSED to travel in different circles than the average Canadian, duh.

2) We set William up with the most beautiful french Canadian girl we can find and watch sparks fly.

Who is "we"?  If the Parliament can't think up something better to do with it's time...

3) We move them into some historical castle and let them reside there.

Disneyland, perhaps?

The current Governor General has done very good things for the CF - the commendation, for one, but also just raising the profile of the Forces at critical times also.  Say what you will about her spending, she's cultured, refined and caring and has been much more of an ambassador than Jean Chretien was.

The rest would naturally take care of itself, the position of Governor General would be changed to a permanent position, and change it so that only people following Prince Williams blood line can take the position.

To what end?

IMHO, this idea is so friggen crazy it could actually work. Personally, I love the idea of having a monarchy in Canada. There is something truly appealing of having an actual person as the head role in Canada as a symbol of the country. It is something more tangable and allows a greater bonding strength than the Canadian flag or the idea of multiculturalism..whatever a Canadian is supposed to be identifying with at the time. Democracy is great, but it is kind of like a headless horseman in many respects. Because we would be Getting Prince William, who is a realy Prince with strong ties to the Queen people will accept him.

You really think that a foreign royalty figure with no life experience or political ambition is going to be a central figure in Canadian life just because someone parachutes him in and says it must be so?

I am probably not wording this situation as well as my freind was, but you get the idea. Is it realistic? probably not, but it is in theory possible. Anyway, there were opinions from all sides on this topic, wanted to see what people here think.

It is not "in theory possible" - there is no mechanism in place for this to happen, certainly not the last two suggestions which are more out of a preschoolers fantasy than what I would expect a political science major to suggest (maybe my comments in the Up From The Ranks thread about Universities are more correct than I know), and the first suggestion - that we not have a Canadian Governor General, or not have one with life experience, is simply fatuous.

 

[Pieman]

So who is it that doesn't relate to her?

I don't. This is the most well known  G.G. we have had to date (from what I heard. I never paid any attention to any other G.G.) and that is only because the media has attacked her position as being a waste of money. I agree with this as I don't think she is a necessary figure head for Canada, I feel that she does not have a leadership quality. But this is my opinion, I am sure others feel different.

Who is "we"?  If the Parliament can't think up something better to do with it's time...

Whomever takes the initiative to have him installed, obviously.

The current Governor General has done very good things for the CF - the commendation, for one, but also just raising the profile of the Forces at critical times also.  Say what you will about her spending, she's cultured, refined and caring and has been much more of an ambassador than Jean Chretien was.

That's your opinion. You may like her because she has spoken up about the forces etc, but that is not enough for me. That's my opinion.

To what end?

That would mean that the position would work like a any other Royal seat where the children take over the position after the death of the current holder.

You really think that a foreign royalty figure with no life experience or political ambition is going to be a central figure in Canadian life just because someone parachutes him in and says it must be so?

Ultimately that would be up to Prince William/Harry, not like anyone would force them.

It is not "in theory possible" - there is no mechanism in place for this to happen

Mechanisms can be changed.

  certainly not the last two suggestions which are more out of a preschoolers fantasy than what I would expect a political science major to suggest (maybe my comments in the Up From The Ranks thread about Universities are more correct than I know), and the first suggestion - that we not have a Canadian Governor General, or not have one with life experience, is simply fatuous.

Yes I have been reading your comments about University education, quite amusing. I will refrain from commenting here, University extends well beyond the undergraduate level and things become more intricate as you climb up the ladder. My friend is a doctorate in Political Science and knows his field very well and is highly regarded for his ideas on strategic political policies.

What you are failing to see is that there is something used in any scientific field called 'imagination'. This is a very far fetched and semi- unrealistic suggestion, but in playing with the idea, one learns more about the value/uselessness of a monarchy positions. It brings into question the  value/role of the governor general, and leads to a greater understanding of what we personally values as symbols/representations of Canada. That is the essence of what this topic is about really. Do I or anyone else here really believe that this would ever happen? Probably not,  but the idea is contraversal and exciting which leads to discussion, which leads to a deeper understanding of parallel but equally important ideas. See? I thought it would be fun to mull over the idea here, but I guess it require a certain amount of vision to be able to participate.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I don't. This is the most well known   G.G. we have had to date (from what I heard. I never paid any attention to any other G.G.) and that is only because the media has attacked her position as being a waste of money. I agree with this as I don't think she is a necessary figure head for Canada, I feel that she does not have a leadership quality. But this is my opinion, I am sure others feel different.

You're not supposed to, though.   You are simply parroting what has been in the press - perhaps you can give us your own analysis of her spending habits and explain why this is detrimental.   Government does cost money, yes?  

And you never addressed the other point - would you really relate to British royalty more than a Canadian?   Talk about delusions of grandeur.

And finally, you never addressed the question - why is it necessary for Canadians to "identify" with their Governor General.   How man Canadians would truly identify no matter who it was?   If Don Cherry was G-G, there would be thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians who didn't know who he was, or disliked him personally.

That's your opinion. You may like her because she has spoken up about the forces etc, but that is not enough for me. That's my opinion.

You have no reason to dislike her beyond a couple of articles you've read in the newspaper intimating that she spends too much.   Tell me whom she visited on her northern tour without using google.

That would mean that the position would work like a any other Royal seat where the children take over the position after the death of the current holder.

You didn't answer the question, you ducked it.   The question is "to what end."    Why would this be an advantage over an appointed Governor General?

Mechanisms can be changed.

You've yet to identify a single reason why we should, beyond your visceral reaction to a couple of newspaper articles.

Yes I have been reading your comments about University education, quite amusing. I will refrain from commenting here, University extends well beyond the undergraduate level and things become more intricate as you climb up the ladder.

How would you know?

Moreover, how many people stop after their first BA?  Many, many more than go on to do MA or PhD study.  The conversation in that thread is about the value of a BA, so anything beyond that is a bit irrelevant to the point at hand.  If University only gets more "intricate as you climb up the ladder" then you prove my point that it is useless at the level the majority of students study at.

My friend is a doctorate in Political Science and knows his field very well and is highly regarded for his ideas on strategic political policies.

How is this relevant?   Was it the university system that got him where he is, or his own hard work?   REally, since my point was that it is extremely easy to succeed in academia, what does that say about your friend?

What you are failing to see is that there is something used in any scientific field called 'imagination'.

Some people call imagination not rooted in reality "fantasy" or "pie in the sky."    Your idea has absolutely no merit whatsoever, simply because you have yet to identify a single practical advantage to this proposal.

I thought it would be fun to mull over the idea here, but I guess it require a certain amount of vision to be able to participate.

Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change.   You've identified neither

a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
c) a single reason to even consider these changes in the first place, beyond a visceral reaction to the current GG

If you want to couch your proposal in some form of coherent presentation, perhaps there would be something to discuss.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The suggestion from a friend of mine who is a Political science prof, is the following: (I think he was semi-serious too  )

1) Canada gets rid of the current Governor general by inviting Prince William over to take her place. IMHO no one relates to her at all anyway.
2) We set William up with the most beautiful french Canadian girl we can find and watch sparks fly.
3) We move them into some historical castle and let them reside there.


A political science prof and this is what he thinks about? And on his spare time he writes for Seventeen magazine?
Puet etre cette prof devrais penser de les repercussions de metre quelqun de l'Angleterre dans la position de GG?
No wait...that would require imagination on his part...maybe next idea! :

 

[Torlyn]

A political science prof and this is what he thinks about? And on his spare time he writes for Seventeen magazine?
Puet etre cette prof devrais penser de les repercussions de metre quelqun de l'Angleterre dans la position de GG?
No wait...that would require imagination on his part...maybe next idea! :

Hmm...  Political Science prof that has worked for the Fraser Institute...  Do you really have to start attacking an idea thrown out for fun?  Grain of salt, my good man.  Imagination?  I believe you are showing a lack of it right now.  Your qualifications haven't been attacked, so why attack his?

T

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

HMMMM..maybe this is why he USED to work for the Fraser institute.

..and next time I throw out a really stupid idea, feel free to ridicule it.

..and lastly, the qualifications were thrown out there with the idea, therefore they are part and parcel...imagine!

 

[Torlyn]

HMMMM..maybe this is why he USED to work for the Fraser institute.

..and next time I throw out a really stupid idea, feel free to ridicule it.

..and lastly, the qualifications were thrown out there with the idea, therefore they are part and parcel...imagine!

And he's not there anymore because he's teaching again...  Sigh.

If you've got nothing to add to the thread, then why don't you just leave it?  You don't like the idea, by all means, pike off.  Instead of being childish about it, trying to demean another person who isn't here to defend themselves, try and show a bit of maturity, and ignore the thread.

T

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Pieman,
Anyway, there were opinions from all sides on this topic, wanted to see what people here think.

Hey Torlyn, at least your AA buddy wanted different opinions,..I guess you do also as long as they are the same as yours, ...did you mention maturity......?

 

[Torlyn]

Different opinions are one thing.  You didn't offer any, rather chose to ridicule the topic.  Do you READ what you write?  Try PMing if you have any further concerns.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Torlyn, you should have PMed about three posts ago yourself.  Pot, meet the kettle.

Oh, and Torlyn, if you are so sure Bruce is wrong about this being a dumb idea, perhaps you need to explain why it is the opposite - all you've done is complain that Bruce is being unfair to the professor.

I will give the professor credit though - I am sure Pieman has misrepresented his idea in some basically drastic ways - he as much as admits doing so in the initial post.

So, does anyone want to leap back on topic and say for the first time why we should attempt such a plan?

 

[Pieman]

You're not supposed to, though.  You are simply parroting what has been in the press - perhaps you can give us your own analysis of her spending habits and explain why this is detrimental.  Government does cost money, yes?  

If you read my statement again, you should see that I was saying she appears to be popular because of the media attacks on her spending. The cost of supporting her position is not the issue, the value of her position is what I am questioning. It is of my opinion that I do not relate to her or see her position as something I consider to be of value. I do not see her as a good symbol of Canada. If I cannot relate to her, and I do not see her position as a good symbol of Canada then why would I want that position there at all?

And you never addressed the other point - would you really relate to British royalty more than a Canadian?  Talk about delusions of grandeur.

I relate to the Queen better than I relate to the current G.G. Simply out of historical value. I feel that Canadians have very little to identify themselves with. Having a representative that extends from the bloodline of the kingdom that had such a major role in the establishment of Canada is a very powerful symbol, at least to me. I suspect that many people here would disagree.

And finally, you never addressed the question - why is it necessary for Canadians to "identify" with their Governor General.  How man Canadians would truly identify no matter who it was?  If Don Cherry was G-G, there would be thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians who didn't know who he was, or disliked him personally.

The governor general should be the main head figurehead of Canada and a symbol of it's people. If this person is supposed to represent Canada, and the people cannot relate to her, then what is the point of having that symbol?

You have no reason to dislike her beyond a couple of articles you've read in the newspaper intimating that she spends too much.  Tell me whom she visited on her northern tour without using google.

I have no reason to like her. She went to Russia, Finland, and Iceland from what I recall. That was splattered all over the news.  Is her northern tour relevant to Canadians? Is it a requirement that I know the ins and outs of her position? or is the fact that her positions does nothing to speak to me about being a Canadian the point at hand? I think the latter question is the one that should be examined.

You've yet to identify a single reason why we should, beyond your visceral reaction to a couple of newspaper articles.

Because I think that people in Canada do not identify with the G.G. position as it is. I think having a more powerful symbol in it's place would allow for a greater sense of what a Canadian is. Again, this is just me.

How would you know?

Simple, my education extends beyond the undergraduate level. However, I don't have a degree in political science or any field related to it, so I am arguing these points as a layman. Do you have training in this field? If so, please explain why the idea appears to be impossible, and why it is impossible to alter the system to make it happen. I can see it being a big legal headache, but if there is a will there is a way.

How is this relevant?  Was it the university system that got him where he is, or his own hard work?  Really, since my point was that it is extremely easy to succeed in academia, what does that say about your friend?

You attacked his credentials for bringing up this the original question, so that was my response. I don't know what University system you have experienced, but not one of the Universities I attended would someone make it through the Doctorate level without knowing what they were doing. (Well, I am sure it happens to some level, as no system is perfect.) I guess some Universities really are that different, or more likely you have some serious misconceptions. I don't know anyone coming out of a Masters/Doctorate level without working their tail off.

Some people call imagination not rooted in reality "fantasy" or "pie in the sky."   Your idea has absolutely no merit whatsoever, simply because you have yet to identify a single practical advantage to this proposal.

It has merit as the practical advantage, for me anyway, is having a figurehead that is someone I can identify with, that is a Symbol of Canada. I simply like the idea. Like I said, it is unrealistic, and requires one to have an imagination. In your arguments you have revealed that you agree/like the G.G. Do you identify with her? Do you feel she is a necessary and important part of the Canadian system? Why? Would you rather not have someone in her place that is a stronger and more representative of what a Canadian is, if the opportunity presented itself?

Fantasizing about Prince William porking some hot babe from Quebec isn't really an interesting or entertaining method of discussing governmental change.  

I found it to be an interesting and entertaining idea. Sorry you can't see it that way. The original idea was to have a french Canadian in the mix so that the French population, who from what I know, are not particularly fond of the idea of a Monarchy would be more apt to accept the situation. It was said more for the entertainment value, but it does point out the problem that the French population may not agree, so it was a 'quick fix' solution to allow the discussion to continue.

You've identified neither

a) what mechanism we could use to effect these changes
b) a single practical benefit of having enacted these changes
c) a single reason to even consider these changes in the first place, beyond a visceral reaction to the current GG

If you want to couch your proposal in some form of coherent presentation, perhaps there would be something to discuss.

I cannot get into actual mechanisms, simply because the details of our legal system is not something I know about. Things in any Democratic system are supposed to be able to change given enough effort from my understanding. The practical benefit I think I explained in my posts. The single reason to go beyond the GG is like I said, it could be changed into a position that takes on more meaning to Canadians.


Again, I will reiterate that this was supposed to be a fun topic, so it requires a certain amount of open mindedness and imagination. If you take it too serious and literally, you are totally missing the point.

 

[Torlyn]

Torlyn, you should have PMed about three posts ago yourself.  Pot, meet the kettle.

Oh, and Torlyn, if you are so sure Bruce is wrong about this being a dumb idea, perhaps you need to explain why it is the opposite - all you've done is complain that Bruce is being unfair to the professor.

I will give the professor credit though - I am sure Pieman has misrepresented his idea in some basically drastic ways - he as much as admits doing so in the initial post.

So, does anyone want to leap back on topic and say for the first time why we should attempt such a plan?

Point taken.  I recind my comments.

T