Should Canada still see the British Monarch as its own?

jd3189 · #1 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 2:18 AM**

I've been thinking about this for a while but wanted to see what many of you felt about the matter. The recent Queen's Jubilee has raised up the debate again for me.I understand that Queen Elizabeth is the head of state for not only the UK and Canada but for the whole Commonwealth, and also that she reigns instead of rules. However should this system continue because of heritage or should it stop? I was also thinking of a hybrid idea. The Royal family is pretty large and one within it can live their whole lives without reaching the throne. Why not let them disperse to the other wealthy countries of the Commonwealth to reign? Canada, as well as Australia, New Zealand,etc can have family members of their own instead of relying on one monarch. However, there may be a problem with this, but in essence which choice is the best in your opinion?

Beedok · #2 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 2:29 AM**

Splitting it seems like to much hassle. Just have them visit more often.

vid · #3 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 2:42 AM**

The cost of converting would be prohibitive, especially in "these economic times", as the current credit clusterfuck is referred to.

Eventually the British Monarchy will cease to reign, but in the meantime I really see no practical reason to abandon it. An elected head of state will cost the same as the monarchy does now, but with the added risks of politicizing the role of head of state.

On the other hand, taking some powers from the Prime Minister and giving them to a President might help to curtail the abuses of majority governments.

DizzyEdge · #4 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 3:29 AM**

Keep it while QEII is alive, then simply keep things they way they always were, ie governor general appointed by PM, etc, but just deem that the GG is not a representative of the monarchy**, but is the head of state themselves. When a new monarch comes, don't redesign our coins to have say King Charles on the back, nor our $20 bill, in fact I'm ok with the $20 having QEII past her reign, as a symbol of our last monarch.

** I've heard mixed messages about how that would work. Some sides think that parliament simply never has to make a motion to recognize the new monarch and that's that, others aren't sure of the legality.

MonkeyRonin · #5 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 3:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Keep it while QEII is alive, then simply keep things they way they always were, ie governor general appointed by PM, etc, but just deem that the GG is not a representative of the monarchy**, but is the head of state themselves. When a new monarch comes, don't redesign our coins to have say King Charles on the back, nor our $20 bill, in fact I'm ok with the $20 having QEII past her reign, as a symbol of our last monarch.

Exactly my thoughts.

artvandelay · #6 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 3:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Keep it while QEII is alive, then simply keep things they way they always were, ie governor general appointed by PM, etc, but just deem that the GG is not a representative of the monarchy**, but is the head of state themselves. When a new monarch comes, don't redesign our coins to have say King Charles on the back, nor our $20 bill, in fact I'm ok with the $20 having QEII past her reign, as a symbol of our last monarch.

** I've heard mixed messages about how that would work. Some sides think that parliament simply never has to make a motion to recognize the new monarch and that's that, others aren't sure of the legality.

I completely agree with this course of action.

I may be wrong but I believe that it would require a constitutional amendment, so good luck getting the provinces to agree on anything!

isaidso · #7 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Exactly my thoughts.

+2

Enough is enough. And we wonder why francophones don't feel 100% comfortable within Canada. Are people really that thick? Having the Queen of England as our Head of State is the quickest way we can ensure the breakup of our country. Let's rub their noses in it every time they open their wallet. Unbelievable!

MonkeyRonin · #8 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 4:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

Enough is enough. And we wonder why francophones don't feel 100% comfortable within Canada. Are people really that thick? Having the Queen of England as our Head of State is the quickest way we can ensure the breakup of our country.

I don't quite understand why Francophones would be more uncomfortable with the monarchy than anyone else though (with the traditional French-French speakers and British-English speakers dichotomy it makes sense, but thats obviously not true anymore). Whatever language you speak we still have a foreign monarch.

Nouvellecosse · #9 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 5:08 AM**

I wonder how expensive it would be to just make the Governor General the symbolic head of state and have any legal or constitutional references refer to it.

DizzyEdge · #10 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 5:43 AM**

Assuming my suggestion happened, I'd then be interested in alternate arrangements as far as head of state. What about a council of 3 - English, French, native. That's just off the top of my head, but I think it could be interesting to play with ideas.

Alternately, I would volunteer to be made King of Canada, with no special powers other to make sure every Canadian knows our histor inside and out

. I'll make everyone watch Canada: A people's history.

The_Architect · #11 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 8:39 AM**

Yes. We are a part of the Commonwealth and the monarchy is the head of the Commonwealth. Being here for the Jubilee celebrations is enough in itself to make me glad she's our monarch too.

This thread is treason you know..

Nouvellecosse · #12 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 8:49 AM**

You being there in a foreign country spending your tourist dollars to enrich a foreign economy in order to celebrate the Canadian head of state is enough to make me wish our head of state was based here.

The_Architect · #13 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 9:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You being there in a foreign country spending your tourist dollars to enrich a foreign economy in order to celebrate the Canadian head of state is enough to make me wish our head of state was based here.

I'm not a tourist, I've been living here for a month and will be living here for months after, spending the money I've made by working here. Nice try though.
In fact, I wish Canada was more like Great Britain. They have a lot more national pride. The Jubilee was even a big deal in Wales and Scotland, who used to actually be their own countries.

Besides if you base your opinion off of what one person does then you shouldn't be trusted to make any major decisions.

Nouvellecosse · #14 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 9:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Architect

I'm not a tourist, I've been living here for a month and will be living here for months after, spending the money I've made by working here. Nice try though.

It's not a nice try (condescending much??) it's true regardless of your personal situation. The Monarchy and related pomp attracts tourist from all over the world to the UK including from Canada and enriches their economy and profile but does little if anything for ours.

I've felt that about the monarchy long before your "nice try" with trying to use people's jubilee sentiment to bolster support for the monarchy.

The_Architect · #15 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 10:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's not a nice try (condescending much??) it's true regardless of your personal situation. The Monarchy and related pomp attracts tourist from all over the world to the UK including from Canada and enriches their economy and profile but does little if anything for ours.

I've felt that about the monarchy long before your "nice try" with trying to use people's jubilee sentiment to bolster support for the monarchy.

I'm not trying to bolster support for anything, just giving my opinion and one of the reasons..

Beedok · #16 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 11:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso

+2

Enough is enough. And we wonder why francophones don't feel 100% comfortable within Canada. Are people really that thick? Having the Queen of England as our Head of State is the quickest way we can ensure the breakup of our country. Let's rub their noses in it every time they open their wallet. Unbelievable!

The Queeen for whom all official documents legally have to be done in Norse French and who traces her legitimacy back to a French conqueror of the English is anti-French?

Doug · #17 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 12:48 PM**

Counter intuitively, the Monarchy needs to stay because of Quebec. Dumping the Queen would involve changing the Constitution which would degenerate into a nasty and divisive negotiation with the Quebec government. Don't go there.

Acajack · #18 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 1:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

The Queeen for whom all official documents legally have to be done in Norse French and who traces her legitimacy back to a French conqueror of the English is anti-French?

Nobody considers the Queen to be anti-French (she actually speaks the language quite well), but holy grasping at straws Batman!

Like it or not, the monarchy and the Crown represent for the vast majority of francophones conquest and colonialism.

And she and her family are far more German (Saxe-Cobourg) than they are "Norman" (northern France) like William the Conqueror was.

Anyway, none of this is really a big issue for francophones these days, but one should not really be surprised that the monarchy does not generate a lot of enthusiasm, or that she is not considered "our" Queen (even though she legally is I know).

Acajack · #19 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I don't quite understand why Francophones would be more uncomfortable with the monarchy than anyone else though (with the traditional French-French speakers and British-English speakers dichotomy it makes sense, but thats obviously not true anymore). Whatever language you speak we still have a foreign monarch.

It is not really that difficult to understand.

Francophones tend to have the least favourable "relationship" with the monarchy because they were already here and it was imposed "over top" of them by the conquerors.

For Canadians of British origins, some may have issues with it (certainly not all of them are monarchists), but it is still part of their heritage whether they like it or not.

Canadians of other origins either chose to move to a country (Canada) where the British-originated monarchy was already in place, or are direct descendants of people who did.

As for aboriginal Canadians, they generally have reasonably favourable views of the monarchy because they historically (for a variety of reasons) see the Crown as the legitimate entity with which they negotiate their status, and afford it greater legitimacy than either the federal or provincial governments.

flar · #20 Posted **Jun 13, 2012, 2:07 PM**

I could not care less about the monarchy. The whole idea is idiotic.