AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 957
- Points
- 1,010
One question regarding the problem of BC accepting the new monarch and Parliment not. Does that mean that BC can ignore Federal legislation that has not recieved Royal Assent?
Retain the Monarchy in Canada?
- Thread starter Pieman
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,862
- Points
- 1,160
I'm afraid you're getting a lot more serious than I intended this 'idea' to be ... but I think that §12 and §58 fol of the BNA make it clear that the provincial lieutenant governors are appointed by and are responsible to the governor general. They exercise the sovereign's powers with respect to the matters covered in §92, which, unless I missed something, does not include deciding on who ought (or ought not) to be king.All that being said: there isn't much convention for establishing a regency so I'm not sure that legalisms would be much help.
Going back to the start: there are only two ways to change the form of the nation:
"¢ A unanimous amendment to the constitution; or
"¢ Revolution.
I neither of those is appealing and if the idea of King Charles III is equally unappealing then something else would need to be done ...
B
Boydfish
Guest
Nah, no more serious than politics should be taken. ;D
I think that the provinces would rightly point out that the confederal government exists because of them, not the other way around, if the confederal government sought to change the nature of the confederation like that.
I think that the provinces would rightly point out that the confederal government exists because of them, not the other way around, if the confederal government sought to change the nature of the confederation like that.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Just curious (not sure if this topic's been done to death since I haven't been here that long) but what does everyone think about Canada, and the Force's, whole affiliation with the British monarchy? Do you think we'd be better off without it or would it just be too much trouble to change everything for what would really be a pretty minor difference?
I was just pondering it and wondered whether dropping the monarchy would alter Canada's personality and what effects its relationship with the monarchy has on the character of its people. Does our affiliation with the monarchy make our forces better, worse, or have no effect? (I don't mean insofar as skill is concerned, but more in the realm of conduct and prestige)
I was just pondering it and wondered whether dropping the monarchy would alter Canada's personality and what effects its relationship with the monarchy has on the character of its people. Does our affiliation with the monarchy make our forces better, worse, or have no effect? (I don't mean insofar as skill is concerned, but more in the realm of conduct and prestige)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I was watching a documentary on the Royals the other day, and being quite familiar with the Royals of Englands past I had a thought.
The current Queen is a stroke of bloody luck. Shes a wonderful figurehead lends herself to causes etc and works well infront of the media (The maniacal media) she is the first head of Britain to have to do so.
Recently tapes of intereviews with Princess Di have been released and the Prince of Wales supposedly said "I will not be the first prince of wales to not have a mistress." To his wife no less. The Royals are not all as good as QE2 and this is something we will have to deal with.
Think of how the public at large would have viewed king Henry and his many wives, the fat prince George and his insane father.
Not just the nobility as it was then, but in the modern era where everyone pretty much has a good look at the Royals.
Good conduct and prestige have little to do with the Royals if their behaviour is studied carefully throughout history and even the modern ones.
I have to agree with the idea that it's just too much trouble as well as spitting in the face of the many Canadians who have died for King and Country in the past.
The current Queen is a stroke of bloody luck. Shes a wonderful figurehead lends herself to causes etc and works well infront of the media (The maniacal media) she is the first head of Britain to have to do so.
Recently tapes of intereviews with Princess Di have been released and the Prince of Wales supposedly said "I will not be the first prince of wales to not have a mistress." To his wife no less. The Royals are not all as good as QE2 and this is something we will have to deal with.
Think of how the public at large would have viewed king Henry and his many wives, the fat prince George and his insane father.
Not just the nobility as it was then, but in the modern era where everyone pretty much has a good look at the Royals.
Good conduct and prestige have little to do with the Royals if their behaviour is studied carefully throughout history and even the modern ones.
I have to agree with the idea that it's just too much trouble as well as spitting in the face of the many Canadians who have died for King and Country in the past.
- Reaction score
- 7,777
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks Che.
I am one of those that supports the Royals. For good or ill. Queen Elizabeth is ruddy good at her job and we may have to pass through one or two less able before we find another.
See, the thing for me, I have to admit, is as much about race, blood and kin as it is anything to do with legal authority. That family, to people of my background, represents a physical tie to something very ancient. That's what deBrett's peerage is about. I am no aristocrat but that family and my families, like most families in the UK have intertwined histories. In many ways, to me they represent a living version of Stonehenge - they probably wouldn't be thrilled by the comparison - but they are a touchstone. For me.
To others they represent other things, much like any work of art or institution, it is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand why many Canadians, especially recent immigrants don't find a reason for the connection. But to about half the population there is at least some form of connection and not all of it has to do with race. I have run across monarchists amongst many non-Brits.
As to your comment about public perception of the Royals - "Georgie Porgie Puddin' and Pie, Kissed the girls and made them cry", an English nursery rhyme, was composed in "honour" of an arrogant, fat, rake of an individual who took advantage of his position to secure more than his fair share of good times and forgot to leave appropriate tips. The public didn't think much of him when he was Prince of Wales, a position he held for far too long under an long-lived father. He became George IV and was quite well liked as a King. Edward VII was much the same.
Henry VIII and Bloody Mary had very few redeeming qualities.
Royals come and go, good and bad, but like Stonehenge, the line endures. For some of us that is probably all that is necessary.
I would be quite happy with Canada a member of the Commonwealth of which QE is head while we have our own Elected Governor-General.
The secret with tradition is to maintain the ties to history while at the same time adjusting to the realities of today.
Cheers.
History is personal. They put real people into history and supply a personal tie to historical events.
I am one of those that supports the Royals. For good or ill. Queen Elizabeth is ruddy good at her job and we may have to pass through one or two less able before we find another.
See, the thing for me, I have to admit, is as much about race, blood and kin as it is anything to do with legal authority. That family, to people of my background, represents a physical tie to something very ancient. That's what deBrett's peerage is about. I am no aristocrat but that family and my families, like most families in the UK have intertwined histories. In many ways, to me they represent a living version of Stonehenge - they probably wouldn't be thrilled by the comparison - but they are a touchstone. For me.
To others they represent other things, much like any work of art or institution, it is in the eye of the beholder. I can understand why many Canadians, especially recent immigrants don't find a reason for the connection. But to about half the population there is at least some form of connection and not all of it has to do with race. I have run across monarchists amongst many non-Brits.
As to your comment about public perception of the Royals - "Georgie Porgie Puddin' and Pie, Kissed the girls and made them cry", an English nursery rhyme, was composed in "honour" of an arrogant, fat, rake of an individual who took advantage of his position to secure more than his fair share of good times and forgot to leave appropriate tips. The public didn't think much of him when he was Prince of Wales, a position he held for far too long under an long-lived father. He became George IV and was quite well liked as a King. Edward VII was much the same.
Henry VIII and Bloody Mary had very few redeeming qualities.
Royals come and go, good and bad, but like Stonehenge, the line endures. For some of us that is probably all that is necessary.
I would be quite happy with Canada a member of the Commonwealth of which QE is head while we have our own Elected Governor-General.
The secret with tradition is to maintain the ties to history while at the same time adjusting to the realities of today.
Cheers.
History is personal. They put real people into history and supply a personal tie to historical events.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I've been doing some research on Charlie, and I wonder if he will be as good as his mother. He seems like he'd fit in quite well with Sir Reginald Boddy Nigel Hawthorne Upon Tweed at Berwick (well daddy was a banker, and mommy was a...horse) I mean he has his causes, is dedicated to the arts, etc. etc. and he seems to be at the end of the "Old Royals" where his mother was something of anomaly for her time.
I believe that William will do quite well however, charismatic, presumably intelligent and no doubt will take up some of his mothers causes.
If the media doesn't end the monarchy when Charles takes over. I really think he's got some very interesting things that haven't been dug up yet, but when they do, watch the circus tents go up.
I believe that William will do quite well however, charismatic, presumably intelligent and no doubt will take up some of his mothers causes.
If the media doesn't end the monarchy when Charles takes over. I really think he's got some very interesting things that haven't been dug up yet, but when they do, watch the circus tents go up.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Sorry if anyone didn't catch the upper class twit reference, I only tease though, I have an uncle who is waiting for his father to die so he can stop working and spend some time in the Cotswalds so I feel it's my duty to rag on them.
Just for a laugh:
Just for a laugh:
- Reaction score
- 9,944
- Points
- 1,260
nULL said:
I once was. But now I feel the that more and more, the military basing so much of it's lineage and image (Royal, colours, crowns, etc, etc) around a Monarch seems to ring more and more hollow every time I think about it.
Personally, I'm not too keen on still being a subject to the Crown.
From my own personal observations about Australia (I'm sure Wes could confirm) the collective sense of national identity down there is much more prevalent. While Australia may soon be a republic (when put to a second vote) I have no doubt that they seem to have a better idea of who they are.
At my school down there, I remember singing "Advance Australia Fare" and "Waltzing Matilda" enthusiastically with other like minded people; back home, "Oh Canada" always seemed to be sung with a touch of....embarrassment? Awkwardness? But then again, perhaps that's what happened when they took the singing of the anthem out of schools. :
Perhaps when Canadians decide not to base their collective self image on making themselves distinct from the Americans (how the hell did we come so far as to discuss the decriminalization of marijuana?) , and have stopped fostering a national image around hockey and beer (fun for a laugh, but seriously...) we'll be ready.
Personally, I don't see why we can't be a unique mix of the old world and the new, but while we're on the topic....
At my school down there, I remember singing "Advance Australia Fare" and "Waltzing Matilda" enthusiastically with other like minded people; back home, "Oh Canada" always seemed to be sung with a touch of....embarrassment? Awkwardness? But then again, perhaps that's what happened when they took the singing of the anthem out of schools. :
Perhaps when Canadians decide not to base their collective self image on making themselves distinct from the Americans (how the hell did we come so far as to discuss the decriminalization of marijuana?) , and have stopped fostering a national image around hockey and beer (fun for a laugh, but seriously...) we'll be ready.
Personally, I don't see why we can't be a unique mix of the old world and the new, but while we're on the topic....
- Reaction score
- 9,944
- Points
- 1,260
Well, unlike many others, I'm not willing to base the necessity of maintaining links to the Monarchy on preserving a few "neat" heritage things in the military. My argument stems from the political notion that we are "grown-ups" now as a sovereign state - we've repatriated our Constitution - a long process that started with the King/Byng affair and ended with Trudeau's Constitution Act, 1982 (and thus our own control over the head of government) and it will only be a matter of time before we repatriate our Head of State (and thus having de jure control over our sovereignty as well).
Just because I advocate eliminating the Monarchy in Canada doesn't mean that I urge for a dramatic "severing of the chord" - a la post-Revolutionary America. It is quite feasible to remain engaged in our traditional and long-standing relationship with our distant relatives in Britain; for example - India is a member of the Commonwealth and maintains vestiges of it's history as the Raj, and yet it does not maintain the monarchy.
I believe Null is 100% correct on this question though; first, Canada must get a better grasp on who we are. I will give Trudeau credit for starting us down a road that, for better or for worse, has made us well capable of standing on our own as a political idea.
I look forward to the day when Canada, along with our military, can start to forge institutional image and function around our own ideas of who we are.
Just because I advocate eliminating the Monarchy in Canada doesn't mean that I urge for a dramatic "severing of the chord" - a la post-Revolutionary America. It is quite feasible to remain engaged in our traditional and long-standing relationship with our distant relatives in Britain; for example - India is a member of the Commonwealth and maintains vestiges of it's history as the Raj, and yet it does not maintain the monarchy.
I believe Null is 100% correct on this question though; first, Canada must get a better grasp on who we are. I will give Trudeau credit for starting us down a road that, for better or for worse, has made us well capable of standing on our own as a political idea.
I look forward to the day when Canada, along with our military, can start to forge institutional image and function around our own ideas of who we are.
Infanteer....quick constitutional question; wasn't the repatriating of our constitition as much (if not more) a desire of the British as it was to us?
Certainly though, were the monarch (Clarkson) to engage in anything other than her obligational parliamentary duties and engage in something at her own discretion, we're repatriate our Head of State right-quick
Still, I can't see how it would affect the country as a whole; were we to become a republic, nULL predicts casual indifference among populace.
Certainly though, were the monarch (Clarkson) to engage in anything other than her obligational parliamentary duties and engage in something at her own discretion, we're repatriate our Head of State right-quick
Still, I can't see how it would affect the country as a whole; were we to become a republic, nULL predicts casual indifference among populace.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
There is only one answer...
NO.
It is not only proper messing etiquette...but tradition in the CF. We've been toasting the Crown (either King or Queen) for eons. Why stop now?
Some of us, IIRC, swore an oath to Canada and the Queen.
Sounds like Commie talk to me! ;D
Regards
NO.
It is not only proper messing etiquette...but tradition in the CF. We've been toasting the Crown (either King or Queen) for eons. Why stop now?
Some of us, IIRC, swore an oath to Canada and the Queen.
Sounds like Commie talk to me! ;D
Regards
M
M16
Guest
Why should we go back to the Monarchy in Canada if we're doing fine right now?
M
M16
Guest
Inch said:
I don't think I have.
- Reaction score
- 6,019
- Points
- 1,360
M-16,
This is a moderator warning, STOP posting useless one-line [or less] posts all around this forum.
Please read the thread BEFORE you post.
This is a moderator warning, STOP posting useless one-line [or less] posts all around this forum.
Please read the thread BEFORE you post.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hmmmm Guess I will stir it up some.
I am a republican Canadian. I believe in an elected senate, and no monarchy. I dont believe that the monarchy is key to what makes us Canadian as much as our progressive social policies and the many contributions we have made to the world.
I come from a Celtic ancestory, Irish and Scots. I do not relate to an English monarchy. Before someone jumps on me and says that they (Charles, etc.) are also monarchs of Scotland and Wales here is some info on that subject.
Scotland voted and succeeded in devolution and Wales may do the same soon as well.
What does this have to do with this thread? Well my point is that not all Canadians come from and English(British) background. I do not believe that the monarchy is that important to Canada anymore. Not that we give them money anymore. We pay when they visit but we do that with any foreign dignatory.
I am a republican Canadian. I believe in an elected senate, and no monarchy. I dont believe that the monarchy is key to what makes us Canadian as much as our progressive social policies and the many contributions we have made to the world.
I come from a Celtic ancestory, Irish and Scots. I do not relate to an English monarchy. Before someone jumps on me and says that they (Charles, etc.) are also monarchs of Scotland and Wales here is some info on that subject.
Scotland voted and succeeded in devolution and Wales may do the same soon as well.
What does this have to do with this thread? Well my point is that not all Canadians come from and English(British) background. I do not believe that the monarchy is that important to Canada anymore. Not that we give them money anymore. We pay when they visit but we do that with any foreign dignatory.
Similar threads
