Should Canada keep the Monarchy?

[Admiral Beez]

I think we'd be fighting for years, with lengthy and expensive commissions to come up with a replacement that satisfies Quebec, the west, the east and Ontario. If we want to end the monarchy in Canada I'd say the only solution is to abandon the idea of a separate head of state, and instead make the PM both head of government and head of state.

 

[Tewder]

So which is it? The symbolism never stopped the country from evolving (making it irrelevant), or that the symbolism influenced the evolution?

Probably a little of both, I would think. Your assumption that the evolving of the country must render the symbolism of the monarchy irrelevant is not as self-evident as you seem to think it is. The role of the monarchy, as opposed to the symbolism of it, has also been evolving to keep pace. This has been the great success of the English monarchy, from Magna Carta onwards.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The big change will be when William takes over from Elizabeth II (after a very short reign for Charles). I think we'll see William take on a more informal role, like that of the royals in Denmark and Holland, which may impact the role of the monarchy in Canada.

 

[Tewder]

Possibly. The role will definately continue to evolve as it always has.

I'm not really 100% convinced the monarchy is a good thing for Canada, I'm just not necessarily quick to assume it's not.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I was always kinda hoping Princess Margaret would've gone postal and staged a coup but, sadly, it didn't happen.

 

[vicente]

The Americans, Irish, Australians, and even the South Africans, Indians, Malaysians, Ghanians, Egyptians, and Sudanese wouldn't be what they are today because of the British Crown. Should they then keep the British Crown because of the pivotal British influence on their history, whether good or bad or genocidal? Or should they go on to forge their own identity, full of their own unique culture, customs, ideas, and achievements?

 

[vicente]

Sorry to disappoint you, jaymackay, but either of those men, when they become the King of Canada, will become legally Canadian by the Constitution, so there is no use in debating on how they are unrelated to Canada, because one of them will soon be as Canadian as (or maybe more than!) you and me. Their English blood, being of the same blood as those who founded this country, is truly more worthy of being the Head of State as any of us descendants of immigrants from outside of British Isles could ever hope to be. Stupid us!

 

[Tewder]

The Americans, Irish, Australians, and even the South Africans, Indians, Malaysians, Ghanians, Egyptians, and Sudanese wouldn't be what they are today because of the British Crown. Should they then keep the British Crown because of the pivotal British influence on their history, whether good or bad or genocidal? Or should they go on to forge their own identity, full of their own unique culture, customs, ideas, and achievements?

...but that's just the point, for Canada the pivotal role wasn't 'bad' or 'genocidal'! Canada has forged its own identity which is as a constitutional monarchy, so there's no need to compare other former British colonies with our own unique experience, or our own 'culture, customs, ideas, and achievements". Sorry if you don't like it, but be careful not to judge that which has evolved here through the prism of bias of another country's experience (presumably that of your ancestors?).

 

[Tewder]

Their English blood, being of the same blood as those who founded this country, is truly more worthy of being the Head of State as any of us descendants of immigrants from outside of British Isles could ever hope to be. Stupid us!

Stupid you is right.

Michaelle Jean has made a lovely GG, in my opinion.

 

[Hydrogen]

Your assumption that the evolving of the country must render the symbolism of the monarchy irrelevant is not as self-evident as you seem to think it is. The role of the monarchy, as opposed to the symbolism of it, has also been evolving to keep pace. This has been the great success of the English monarchy, from Magna Carta onwards.

If anything, the monarch has "kept pace" by being made irrelevant by parliamentary rule. And as you keep repeating, it's an English monarchy. The symbols of another country need not have any automatic relevance to the population of this country - except to some of those with English ancestry.

 

[Tewder]

If anything, the monarch has "kept pace" by being made irrelevant by parliamentary rule. And as you keep repeating, it's an English monarchy. The symbols of another country need not have any automatic relevance to the population of this country - except to some of those with English ancestry.

The monarch is not irrelevent (refer to previous posts), nor relevent only to those of British ancestry:

I find it really distasteful that immigrants would come into this country and say that we should get rid of the monarchy because it doesn't have any meaning to them.

My family is from Poland, but I support the monarchy. Why get rid of one of the last traditions that Canada still has?

 

[lordmandeep]

Why do you think all minorities dislike the Monarchy. Its mostly American wannabes that hate them.

My family comes from India where the British ruled over us, but we still follow the family. I find them to be interesting and really what benefit is there to Canada.

Do you really want Stephen Harper to be our head of state??

 

[ganjavih]

Do you really want Stephen Harper to be our head of state??

No, our head of state should be someone who represents all the people... someone we we all can believe in, trust and cherish... someone who would never lead us astray, who will always make life better for us.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/ganjavih/misc/yourmajesty.jpg

 

[lordmandeep]

Who would be this new head of state??

Creating a president type role is stupid as most people in India don't care or know who their president is.

 

[Hydrogen]

The monarch is not irrelevent (refer to previous posts), nor relevent only to those of British ancestry:

You have stated that the monarch is relevant, but you have failed to state how it is relevant today.