News   Jun 24, 2024
 142     0 
News   Jun 24, 2024
 253     0 
News   Jun 24, 2024
 524     0 

Should Canada keep the Monarchy?

Should Canada keep the Monarchy?


  • Total voters
    158
Not much eye candy at the Royal Wedding today, I thought. Randy Andy's daughters looked particularly ridiculous in their headgear - Beatrice resembling Landseer's The Monarch of the Glen with that Philip Treacy stucture perched on top of her head.

I think they stole them off Lady GaGa's head. I don't know where else they could find such hideous looking hats.
 
Actually, I take it back - she looked more like Bullwinkle. And, in that Geogian frock coat and wide-brimmed hat, Camilla seemed as if she'd just stepped off the set of the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film.
 
I see no reason to keep a monarch simply on the basis of history or heritage. To preserve this institution on the basis of such a facile rationale (that it is historical and traditional) could be an avenue to arguing for the retention of virtually any outmoded cultural practice. I don't think society should proceed in such a manner.

History, tradition, pomp, ceremony are irrelevant. You maintain a monarch, because it is the only way to maintain a constitutional monarchy. And since the constitutional monarchy is the superior form of government, there's nothing "outdated" about it.

And anyone who would trade in our constitutional monarchy for any form of republic is the same kind of person who would vote for Rob Ford....profoundly ignorant of the topic.

Case and point....those people who think it's better to elect a head of state. What an utterly daft thing to say. The entire point is it's preferable to NOT have them elected, appointed or "chosen" in any way.
 
You mean there's actually something to be said in favour of getting stuck with morons like James II? Specifically, the fact that he was the son of the equally idiotic Charles I ... and was next in line when his brother Charles II died?
 
Last edited:
You mean there's actually something to be said in favour of getting stuck with morons like James II? Specifically, the fact that he was the son of the equally idiotic Charles I ... and was next in line when his brother Charles II died?


British politics prior to the Act of Settlement/the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. In fact, the actual individual who fills the position of monarch is fairly irrelevant, unless there is reason to believe they actually can't fulfil the duties.

The issues regarding religion are irrelevant in Canada, as the Canadian Monarch has no religious representation. Canada also has no "royal family"...the monarch is the only royal title. Members of the British royal family visiting Canada are afforded courtesy titles, but have no role, title or function in the Canadian Monarchy.

Starting a republic is simple...anybody can do it. Starting a constitutional monarchy is a much different story, as starting a royal line from scratch would pose a huge problem. That's why Canada was in an enviable position when it became an independent nation....we were able to create our own version of a constitutional monarchy....because there was already an established line to use as our monarch....the one we always had before.

Canada is unlikely to ever overthrow our monarch in favour of a republic, because stable countries do not overthrow their monarchies for republics, and Canada is as stable as countries go. The majority of unstable countries are republics and the majority of stable countries are constitutional monarchies.
 
I respect that Canadians like the tradition of monarchy. It's not for abstract or merely sentimental reasons. Monarchy is a link to the past and a source of meaning. Of course, it differentiates us from the US. Such threads can be powerful when considering the reasons for the very existence of this country. But it also seems to keep us looking beyond our nation for identity and tradition, which is problematic. The British monarchy is, in a way, a distraction from our own national identity. It's reinforced through banal daily reminders like the Queen's portrait on many pieces of our currency.

Getting rid of the monarchy is practically difficult because of how entrenched it is in Canadian politics. However, I feel a distinctly Canadian monarchy would be exciting for its cultural and diplomatic implications. Why would it be so hard to start a royal family? Find some candidates and have the country vote on them. Their family would then produce a legitimizing line of successors. By marrying an English and French Canadian, we could cement national unity.

A real Canadian monarchy would be excellent for culture and national identity. Imagine royal-sponsored public art and influences on urban planning. One could presume the standards for such cultural works would be very high. Every city would need to plan, build, and maintain royal ceremonial routes and improve public spaces for royal events. Canadian architects would get to build ambitious royal buildings. A Canadian monarchy would probably inject more money into culture and provide a "guiding hand" dedicated to excellence. Of course, some artists might rebel, increasing the dynamism of culture in Canada. French and English Canadian culture would be further entwined. New diplomatic traditions would emerge. So there's a lot of potential for positive cultural growth through a unique, Canadian monarchy.
 
The British monarchy is, in a way, a distraction from our own national identity. It's reinforced through banal daily reminders like the Queen's portrait on many pieces of our currency.

People just need to get there heads around the fact that the British monarchy and the Canadian monarchy are two completely separate and independent entities. The Canadian monarchy was invented in Canada...by Canadians. The fact that the part of the monarchy that is the actual person of the sovereign happens to moonlight as sovereign of other monarchies as well, is not really an issue.

I agree, if our sovereign permanently resided in Canada, it would be preferable. But personally, I think we tend to overlook the value of having a sovereign that is so worldly, respected and experienced. As world figures go, few are in Queen Elizabeth II's league. Sharing a sovereign creates a special relationship with all the nations of the Commonwealth (over 2 billion people).



Why would it be so hard to start a royal family? Find some candidates and have the country vote on them.

Start scratching the surface of that one, and all kinds of big problems arise.

The first problem would be finding a candidate with the qualifications of a sovereign (besides the obvious line of succession)....there isn't one. It's not something you take a course on...it's not even something you "decide" to do....it's something you just "are", from the day you are born...til the day you die, surrounded by an entire institution that reinforces this "special" position. It's not something you can quit either, which is why abdications are rare.

Which brings up the second problem....who in their right mind would want it? It all sounds very glamorous, but in reality it isn't. Would you give up your, or your children's right to live your own life? I sure wouldn't. Which brings up a secondary problem, which is that we would have to create special amendment, excluding this line from their Rights and Freedoms.

Let's be thankful that our current monarch is a result of 1000 years of sorting this out.

But yes, you can start one...it's just very handicapped and less than ideal.

If we were to do that, the only reasonable solution is to arrange for a future Canada-only monarch from the existing line of succession. We could pick a future royal heir, and designate the second born of that heir (if they have one) to be designated the heir to the Canadian throne. And when that heir reaches adulthood, they would move permanently to Canada and start their own royal line.

The other remote possibility is to use a royal line already in Canada...First Nations hereditary Sachems.

But whatever you you do, you can never "vote" for one....it defeats the purpose.
 
Last edited:
Canada's beloved Queen was in delightful company at her Diamond Jubilee bash yesterday - the tyrant kings of Bahrain and Swaziland, and the Saudi and Kuwaiti royals all showed up, among others, to celebrate the inherited benefits of bloodline.

60 years a Queen - imagine that!
 
I have to stare at the Queen's mug everyday on my twenty dollar bills and coins reminding myself that we are still not entirely masters of our own house.

Do you honestly think the Queen has any say in the cultural, economical, etc, goings-on of Canada? She doesn't have any power in England let alone Canada. We are masters/mistresses ;o) of our own house. Plus, British, French and of course Aboriginal culture and identity are the cultural heritage of Canada.
 
We are free, however, to cut ourselves off from being reminded of the sillier aspects of that cultural heritage ( the idea of inherited priviledges, which the Royal family represents, for instance ) if we choose to do so. Airline pilots and brain surgeons and supreme court judges don't inherit their social positions and powers, any more than dentists or architects or drywallers do, so we could easily jettison the notion of a foreign-born head of state.
 
I really don't care for the monarchy but I don't think it's worth wasting time and money to change things either.
 
People just need to get there heads around the fact that the British monarchy and the Canadian monarchy are two completely separate and independent entities. The Canadian monarchy was invented in Canada...by Canadians. The fact that the part of the monarchy that is the actual person of the sovereign happens to moonlight as sovereign of other monarchies as well, is not really an issue.

I agree, if our sovereign permanently resided in Canada, it would be preferable. But personally, I think we tend to overlook the value of having a sovereign that is so worldly, respected and experienced. As world figures go, few are in Queen Elizabeth II's league. Sharing a sovereign creates a special relationship with all the nations of the Commonwealth (over 2 billion people).

I don't see the value presently in maintaining a foreigner as our monarch. We inherited it from our colonial past, and though we may call someone who wasn't born here and doesn't live here the Queen of Canada, it doesn't make this title particularly relevant. Why should we waste our time with trivial institutions?

Start scratching the surface of that one, and all kinds of big problems arise.

The first problem would be finding a candidate with the qualifications of a sovereign (besides the obvious line of succession)....there isn't one. It's not something you take a course on...it's not even something you "decide" to do....it's something you just "are", from the day you are born...til the day you die, surrounded by an entire institution that reinforces this "special" position. It's not something you can quit either, which is why abdications are rare.

Which brings up the second problem....who in their right mind would want it? It all sounds very glamorous, but in reality it isn't. Would you give up your, or your children's right to live your own life? I sure wouldn't. Which brings up a secondary problem, which is that we would have to create special amendment, excluding this line from their Rights and Freedoms.

Let's be thankful that our current monarch is a result of 1000 years of sorting this out.

But yes, you can start one...it's just very handicapped and less than ideal.

If we were to do that, the only reasonable solution is to arrange for a future Canada-only monarch from the existing line of succession. We could pick a future royal heir, and designate the second born of that heir (if they have one) to be designated the heir to the Canadian throne. And when that heir reaches adulthood, they would move permanently to Canada and start their own royal line.

The other remote possibility is to use a royal line already in Canada...First Nations hereditary Sachems.

But whatever you you do, you can never "vote" for one....it defeats the purpose.
It wouldn't be easy, but it's feasible. The Canadian monarchy might not be perfect at first, but we would have generations to refine it. Just figuring these things out would be a huge injection of vitality into Canadian culture. The King and Queen of Canada would have to be respected and accomplished citizens with national, multi-partisan appeal.

jcphoenix said:
I really don't care for the monarchy but I don't think it's worth wasting time and money to change things either.

I think we need to care about this issue because it's a matter of our cultural vitality and identity. Do we as Canadians maintain the culture of foreign countries even as it becomes more and more irrelevant to our society? We should assert our control over our culture and keep it vital by choosing something more relevant like a republic or true Canadian monarchy which resides here and is focused on Canadian society and culture. I don't care to spend any more time and money on the British monarchy. I'd rather spend a little more to have something more relevant and meaningful in my country.
 
To say that the Head of State is not British but Canadian is just being in denial of the facts. Whose laws define the succession? The UK just changed their succession law. Does that mean we have to go along with it? How often is the royal family in Canada compared to in Buckingham Palace? Why haven't any of the Crown Princes served in Canada's military?

Who says monarchies are more stable than republics? Tell that to Thailand, or Italy under Mussolini. Don't forget all the European Wars of Succession, which have only gotten better because royal families have started to marry commoners instead of other royal families.

I think the whole idea of hereditary privilege utterly repugnant, but if we do need a constitutional monarchy we might as well have someone from Canada. Why not have a lottery? If you win, you become king or queen. When you die, there's another lottery. It's stupid but I'd much rather have a born-and-bred Canadian head of state than a foreigner who is only Canadian because the law says they are.
 
2 things

First, as Montesquieu observed in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Britain is a republic disguised as a monarchy.

Second, the amount of pain and suffering we would endure discussing a major constitutional change with Quebec would put the unity of the country in jeopardy. The quebecois may not like the monarchy, but they like Canada even less.

Why fix something that isn't really broken?
 
If DNA proves that this Canadian dude's the 17th great grand-nephew of Dick The Turd, then kick out the Hanoverian Queen and all her brood, and let's have Michael I the Hoser King in her stead, say I.
 

Back
Top