Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[McG]

Just a correction, in the US the President is the Head of State and the Speaker of the House is the Head of Government (Legislative Branch). The President can not initiate legislation, only suggest it.

The title "head of government" is normally applied to the head of the executive, but I see what you are saying.

 

[McG]

To answer RCA and MCG. I never did say that we do not have courruption. Just that the scale of it is quite a bit less then down south. However, it is there in all its unfortunate glory.

True or not, this is not relevant to the monarchy.

 

[S McKee]

Ga...



But I must say that the education that I am getting from Kirkhill and all those concerned is quite nice.

Yes I have to agree with Zipper.... I enjoy reading your insights Kirkhill. J.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Jumper and Zipper.

But I have to confess to an error. In the interest of historical accuracy the Dragonnades started 2 years after the Highland Host not 40 and it was Charles II that set the Host upon the lowlanders but it was Charles I that lost his head.

Regardless, the thread of the story is correct.  In both Scotland and France the Catholic Monarchy was at odds with a sizeable portion of the population that were Calvinist Presbyterians.  In Scotland the Protestants won, in France Louis won.

 

[1feral1]

If Chuck does indeed become King (personally I hope it goes to Willie), whatever the changes there will be, it will no doubt be expensive to say the least, and whether you pay taxes in Canada or here in 'the lucky country', we'll be footing the bill for an outdated and hoplessly incompetant and inbread regime. When the Queen dies or steps down, it may be the end of the whole Royal farce.

Sorry if I offended any monarchists out there, but that just how I feel, and besides I'd rather have my own son or daughter to be able to have the right be head of state in my own bloody country, rather than some foreigner.

My 2 cents,

Wes

 

[Neill McKay]

If Chuck does indeed become King (personally I hope it goes to Willie), whatever the changes there will be, it will no doubt be expensive to say the least, and whether you pay taxes in Canada or here in 'the lucky country', we'll be footing the bill for an outdated and hoplessly incompetant and inbread regime. When the Queen dies or steps down, it may be the end of the whole Royal farce.

If you're still in the Service, you can expect a charge for saying things like that.  If you're not, then I'm afraid all I can do is say that was a boorish display of ill manners.

FYI, the Crown costs less than a dollar per Canadian per year, certainly no more than a presidency would cost.

Nor is the Queen incompetent.  Do you have an example to show otherwise?

Also, please back up your "inbred" comment.

Sorry if I offended any monarchists out there, but that just how I feel, and besides I'd rather have my own son or daughter to be able to have the right be head of state in my own bloody country, rather than some foreigner.

The chances of your son of daughter being the president aren't significantly different from those of their being King or Queen.  It's like lottery: the chances of winning are about the same whether you play or not.

Anyway, when you put a politician into your highest office you get a Clinton, Bush, or Cretien running your country, and surely to God you don't want that.  Better to keep politicians in their place as servants of the Crown, not wearers of it.

 

[thorbahn]

An entirely new discussion could be spawned from this one, regarding what would change if, for lack of a better explanation, we became "unroyal".

 

[Infanteer]

MacKay, drop the Moral Indignation act - it's not treason to hold an opinion on the monarchy in a liberal democratic state.   Wes is sharing an opinion that many of us hold here.

 

[1feral1]

"If you're still in the Service, you can expect a charge for saying things like that.   If you're not, then I'm afraid all I can do is say that was a boorish display of ill manners""

Neil, I got almost 30 yrs service in TWO Commonwealth Armies, and I'll express my opinion anyway I see fit, thankyou! 

"The chances of your son of daughter being the president aren't significantly different from those of their being King or Queen":  

As it still stands, both in Canada and here in Australia, citizens cannot be head of state regardless of 'the lottery'

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Michael Dorosh]

If Chuck does indeed become King (personally I hope it goes to Willie),

Sorry if I offended any monarchists out there,

It's a little odd to use openly disrespectful terms guaranteed to offend, and then apologize for being offensive in the next paragraph.  Your opinions are fine, I don't think you needed to refer to Prince Charles or Prince William in an openly disrespectful manner to get the point across.  You automatically dragged down the level of your post with the second word in the first sentence.  You could have said that just as well by referring to them respectfully.

No different than me saying "Well, Wessy-Boy, I think the monarchy still serves a real purpose, but we will probably disagree on that and should properly discuss it in the other thread in any event."  The second word would be designed to inflame and only goes draws attention away from the rest of the statement.

 

[Infanteer]

Oh waah - does calling the guy Chuck immediately drag him off the throne of veneration that some people still think is vitally important to the survival of our nation?

 

[1feral1]

Come on Mike, they are just shortened names and are almost 'pet names' (even used in the papers here)here in Australia, secondly if you believe in the monarchy, thats cool, thats you opinion and your right. I am even a former member of the League back in Canada, but my opinions have changed in the past 15 yrs, especially with the new generation of Royals, and now with yesterday's joke of a 'Royal wedding'. King Charles and his "Queen", crickey, I'd rather have Mr Bean!

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Oh waah - does calling the guy Chuck immediately drag him off the throne of veneration that some people still think is vitally important to the survival of our nation?

No, it just derails any attempt at serious conversation.  It's no different than all the Papa Doc Crouton stuff that used to go on here; it reveals a bias and indicates hard-headedness.  You're creating a strawman.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Come on Mike, they are just shortened names and are almost 'pet names' (even used in the papers here)here in Australia, secondly if you believe in the monarchy, thats cool, thats you opinion and your right. I am even a former member of the League back in Canada, but my opinions have changed in the past 15 yrs, especially with the new generation of Royals, and now with yesterday's joke of a 'Royal wedding'.

Cheers,

Wes

I have no problem with your opinions, and may even share them - I just think you shut out any chance of seriously discussing them by using terms like that. 

Tell me, honestly, why did you use them, if not to indicate your disdain for the Royal Family? 

 

[Infanteer]

No, it just derails any attempt at serious conversation.    It's no different than all the Papa Doc Crouton stuff that used to go on here; it reveals a bias and indicates hard-headedness.    You're creating a strawman.

Well, we should all make a note to adopt the tea-room approach to arguing a point - it certainly was more effective then saying "I hold contempt for the monarchy!".  Judging form the events of the last few weeks, Papa Doc Crouton doesn't seem too far off....

 

[1feral1]

I guess for the same reason I refer to the Aussie PM as "Jackboot Johnnie", and I voted for him and I like him  ;D I also remember Cdn PMs "Joe Who" and "Lie'n Brian" too. Oh, we can't forget "Randy Andy" either.

Offically my Ex-Wife No.1 (BTW, I only have one ex-wife) is referred to as the Ex-Dragon too  ;D

Cheers,

Wes

 

[McInnes]

Whether you are a monarchist or not, you still have sworn allegiance to the Queen and her heirs, regardless of personal opinion. Any sort of slanderous statement made in public or on public forums are not my idea of holding to your oath of loyalty and 'devoted support'.

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, some people believe very strongly in their King or their Queen, and there is really very little point in calling them "incompetant and inbread", much akin to slamming one's religion. It is uneeded, offensive, and entirely different than expressing your opionion on something in a calm and respectful mannner.

 

[Infanteer]

Whether you are a monarchist or not, you still have sworn allegiance to the Queen and her heirs, regardless of personal opinion. Any sort of slanderous statement made in public or on public forums are not my idea of holding to your oath of loyalty and 'devoted support'.

Oh, piss off - if you are challenging the integrity of my service because I think the Monarchy is an anachronism and that the current batch of of heirs are not my ideal of a head of state, then you can cram it up your ass.   Find me a soldier today who is willing to take on the responsibility of unlimited liability for the sake of the Windsor family.

Just because we have some archaic oath to swear to doesn't mean that it takes precedence over the ideas of a liberal democratic nation that we all really serve.

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, some people believe very strongly in their King or their Queen, and there is really very little point in calling them "incompetant and inbread", much akin to slamming one's religion. It is uneeded, offensive, and entirely different than expressing your opionion on something in a calm and respectful mannner.

Well, they are inbred - just take a look at the family trees of European royalty - Wes has a point.   Thankfully this is changing now that "blood" isn't as crucial to standing anymore.

People need to grow some thicker skin around here - for some reason we snicker at the movies making fun of George W Bush but when we poke fun at the royalty some act like their Grandmother's grave was desecrated....

 

[Britney Spears]

Considering they way British papers treat the royal family, any Brits reading this thread must be laughing their asses off at the poor little colonials.

 

[1feral1]

How bloody true!