The Monarchy in Canada | Queen Elizabeth 1926-2022

[MolsonExport]

If it ain't (particularly) broke, why fix it?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

A toss up between Clockzilla or Chad Kroeger. What else could it be?

Originally Posted by Acajack

Elevating and immortalizing people in this way via statues, naming stuff and imagery is fast going the way of the dodo, so Clockzilla wins easily.

[Rollerstud98]

Obviously Romana Didulo will take her rightful place as ruler of Canada. /s

[jigglysquishy]

It's a core identity issue for me. It would be like asking my grandmother to stop speaking French.

It's a moot point anyways. The Constitution is near impossible to change and it would take massive public support to make it happen. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were 10x more likely to pass, and both failed.
.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Obviously Romana Didulo will take her rightful place as ruler of Canada. /s

[MolsonExport]

Eddy Savoie on our Money. Yeah, I could see that. Should please the Quebec SSP caucus.
Clockzilla reminds me of that weird pyramid with the weird eye on American currency



You could instead put George Baldanus on the currency.

[wg_flamip]

The Crown is central to our system of government: Getting rid of it entirely would be a bit of a logistical nightmare, and that's not even wading into the tumultuous constitutional debate that would accompany such an effort. Even in an ideal world where every province and the federal government agreed to abolish it NSA with widespread public support and unanimous First Nations' approval, we have no clear idea of what would replace it—that conversation alone could devolve pretty rapidly. I doubt any of it would be worth it.

That said, I see no reason why we can't maintain the Crown as an institution while minimizing the role of the monarch as a person. For example: Fewer images of the monarch on coins and in government offices, greater visibility for the GG, etc. This is essentially the direction we've been heading in for decades anyway without much fuss.

[svlt]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

The Crown is central to our system of government: Getting rid of it entirely would be a bit of a logistical nightmare, and that's not even wading into the tumultuous constitutional debate that would accompany such an effort. Even in an ideal world where every province and the federal government agreed to abolish it NSA with widespread public support and unanimous First Nations' approval, we have no clear idea of what would replace it—that conversation alone could devolve pretty rapidly. I doubt any of it would be worth it.

That said, I see no reason why we can't maintain the Crown as an institution while minimizing the role of the monarch as a person. For example: Fewer images of the monarch on coins and in government offices, greater visibility for the GG, etc. This is essentially the direction we've been heading in for decades anyway without much fuss.

This. Would be such a massive waste of public spending to what end? The Monarchy hardly controls or has much influence other than symbolic and the very limited powers given to her, if abused, would be quite quickly snuffed out. Far more important and urgent issues we should be tackling than giving this idea any more airspace than all of that QAnon nonsense.

[jigglysquishy]

Politicians are hyper aware that the last person to attempt serious change to the constitution suffered the worst electoral defeat in Canadian history.

Harper deeply believed in Constitutional and Senate reform, and he wouldn't even touch the issue with a majority government.

I wouldn't be surprised if no majors amendments are attempted in the next 30 years.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

The Crown is central to our system of government: Getting rid of it entirely would be a bit of a logistical nightmare, and that's not even wading into the tumultuous constitutional debate that would accompany such an effort. Even in an ideal world where every province and the federal government agreed to abolish it NSA with widespread public support and unanimous First Nations' approval, we have no clear idea of what would replace it—that conversation alone could devolve pretty rapidly. I doubt any of it would be worth it.

That said, I see no reason why we can't maintain the Crown as an institution while minimizing the role of the monarch as a person. For example: Fewer images of the monarch on coins and in government offices, greater visibility for the GG, etc. This is essentially the direction we've been heading in for decades anyway without much fuss.

I think this is realistically the most likely direction that we will take. Which makes sense... I'm not sure that the sheer amount of energy that would be required to become a republic would be worth it.

[VANRIDERFAN]

All this republican talk started again due to Barbados, a small island with a fairly homogeneous population decided to vote to become a republic. Fair winds to that nation, but I doubt that for Canada the result would not be worth all the pain, suffering and cost that the change would entail.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

All this republican talk started again due to Barbados, a small island with a fairly homogeneous population decided to vote to become a republic. Fair winds to that nation, but I doubt that for Canada the result would not be worth all the pain, suffering and cost that the change would entail.

Agreed. On our list of priorities this falls near the bottom of the heap. We have literal existential crises occurring right now.

[lakeshoredrive]

I read an article awhile ago that talked about how constitutional monarchy provides a more stable government and prevents it from veering off path to tyranny/fascism. I will try to find this article and post it on here. Even if they somehow get rid of the monarchy, at the very least they should try to have a parliamentary style government with the President being the head of state. Better that way than following the USA's model of a republic.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

I read an article awhile ago that talked about how constitutional monarchy provides a more stable government and prevents it from veering off path to tyranny/fascism. I will try to find this article and post it on here. Even if they somehow get rid of the monarchy, at the very least they should try to have a parliamentary style government with the President being the head of state. Better that way than following the USA's model of a republic.

"The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions.

A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship on to some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person.

In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breastplates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power.

On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the royal family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania.

If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings toward Stalin. I do not defend the institution of Monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an innoculating effect and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy."

- George Orwell, 1944

His concern about the splendor of a shared head of state/head of government is valid. Perhaps Trump in the US is the best example of this in recent years.

Pageantry is popular, and tying it up with a constitutional monarch can remove fascist leaning possibilities.

Prince Charles fits the bill as well. For all of his love of urbanism and environmentalism, it is a fairly minor political involvement.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

I read an article awhile ago that talked about how constitutional monarchy provides a more stable government and prevents it from veering off path to tyranny/fascism. I will try to find this article and post it on here. Even if they somehow get rid of the monarchy, at the very least they should try to have a parliamentary style government with the President being the head of state. Better that way than following the USA's model of a republic.

I don't think anyone is arguing for anything other than a Parliamentary Republic.

There's literally no difference between having ERII as the head of state, or making the Governor General the "President" or "Chancellor" or "Canadian Crown" or whatever. Purely ceremonial. It's whether or not we want to spend the $$ to make that superficial change that happen.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

The Crown is central to our system of government: Getting rid of it entirely would be a bit of a logistical nightmare, and that's not even wading into the tumultuous constitutional debate that would accompany such an effort. Even in an ideal world where every province and the federal government agreed to abolish it NSA with widespread public support and unanimous First Nations' approval, we have no clear idea of what would replace it—that conversation alone could devolve pretty rapidly. I doubt any of it would be worth it.

That said, I see no reason why we can't maintain the Crown as an institution while minimizing the role of the monarch as a person. For example: Fewer images of the monarch on coins and in government offices, greater visibility for the GG, etc. This is essentially the direction we've been heading in for decades anyway without much fuss.

This. The fewer images of Charles and/or William the less likely this becomes an issue of concern that takes up too much time.

We're not Barbados

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

The Crown is central to our system of government: Getting rid of it entirely would be a bit of a logistical nightmare, and that's not even wading into the tumultuous constitutional debate that would accompany such an effort. Even in an ideal world where every province and the federal government agreed to abolish it NSA with widespread public support and unanimous First Nations' approval, we have no clear idea of what would replace it—that conversation alone could devolve pretty rapidly. I doubt any of it would be worth it.

That said, I see no reason why we can't maintain the Crown as an institution while minimizing the role of the monarch as a person. For example: Fewer images of the monarch on coins and in government offices, greater visibility for the GG, etc. This is essentially the direction we've been heading in for decades anyway without much fuss.

good post

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

The Crown is central to our system of government: Getting rid of it entirely would be a bit of a logistical nightmare, and that's not even wading into the tumultuous constitutional debate that would accompany such an effort. Even in an ideal world where every province and the federal government agreed to abolish it NSA with widespread public support and unanimous First Nations' approval, we have no clear idea of what would replace it—that conversation alone could devolve pretty rapidly. I doubt any of it would be worth it.

That said, I see no reason why we can't maintain the Crown as an institution while minimizing the role of the monarch as a person. For example: Fewer images of the monarch on coins and in government offices, greater visibility for the GG, etc. This is essentially the direction we've been heading in for decades anyway without much fuss.

Completely agree. Well said.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I really don't understand all the Canadians that want to keep the monarchy.

Exactly what does it do for Canada in 2021?
(Besides young people able to get working visas easily in Commonwealth countries I see no benefit)

What does being a republic do for the US in 2021?

Monarchies and republics can both be horrible dictatorships or functional democracies.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

If it ain't (particularly) broke, why fix it?

In practice, is it realistic to attempt that change, and what would it change anyways if we managed to get it done? “No” and “Nearly nothing” are my answers to those questions, so, I’m with you.