News   Jan 09, 2025
Oxford's Union Park Swaps Office Tower for More High-Rise Residential
 1K     2 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UrbanToronto Industry Updates: Record-Low Sales, Award-Winning Innovations, and 2025 Training Opportunities
 367     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
UTPro Q4 2024: GTHA Crane Count Stabilizing After Several Large Drops
 854     0 

Should Canada keep the Monarchy?

Should Canada keep the Monarchy?

  • Yes, Canada should remain a constitutional monarchy.

    Votes: 85 53.8%

  • No, it's time to ditch the Queen and become a republic.

    Votes: 73 46.2%
  • Total voters
    158
There doesn't seem to be any large cost in having a monarchy. I think I would find having a head of state with actual powers to be worse than a figurehead. The house of commons and a way to force an election is all we need in my opinion.
 
How do we become an indepedent nation by ditching the monarchy just because the Americans did? (That is the only reason why we'd do it...)
 
Well here we are again. Speaking only for myself, it might help to respond to the last few posts that have overlapped in opposition to a version of the view that I support.

  • My prior wording was exactly as I would have had it, rather than a facsimile thereof: " ... live as an independent nation in name as in fact." Parsing for absolute clarity I shall repeat the thought as follows. In name, Canada is still tied formally to the Monarchy (1). In fact, Canada is independent.

  • The argument has been made for cost in the formal ties as the implied main reason for breaking ties, and that there is probably not much cost. (I have also seen, by the way, a judicial, standalone version of this straw man treated in a similar fashion.) While all this is interesting, and each issue has its support, my belief is that the primary motivation for breaking ties is political. Look at how the National Polls have broken down on this matter over the past few years, especially a recent one (2).

  • Finally, getting rid of all formal ties to the Monarchy is not an attempt to emulate the Americans or a de facto reason of gaining independence in fact, unless one is either using some form of a proximity argument, or think that somehow Americans have exclusive ownership of this idea. An independent Canada, in name from Britain's Monarchy, would likely carry forth institutions that still will not resemble American institutions. Hence: the Parliamentary form of goverment would likely not be a casualty, the Canadian form of federalism may or may not change but it will unlikely resemble the Americans, and there are many judicial differences under the Canadian system that would not go over well in America. Again, independence is here already but removing the Monarchy is removing a millstone that is retained more for nostalgia and sentiment, than viability.

_______________
(1) Mapleleafweb "The Monarchy in Canada". This is a fairly balanced summary of many formal ties between Canada and the British Monarchy, within a broadly historical framework. 'Current' as used here, is a couple of years back, but this website does manage to explore the 'in name' issues in various ways.

(2) Angus Reid Strategies National Poll (Conducted 2007.09.20-22) [Note (1) also provides a backdrop, with links, to how Canadian national polls have slowly evolved from 2002 through 2005, versus what we are seeing in this specific example from 2007.]
 
The Monarchy Canada has is the Canadian Monarchy. Our head of state is The Queen of Canada.

Why would we want to ditch an institution that has been part of this country for its entire history? To be replaced with a succession of party hacks of the Ray Hnatyshyn or Romeo LeBlanc type. How would that be an improvement?
 
Indeed. Better the English toe-suckers and I-wanna-be-a-Tampax-in-your-trousers crowd that we know, than the Canadians that we don't.
 
Please. The former Duchess of York was a toe-suckEE. Do try to keep things straight. Or, if it gets too complicated, just recall Lord Charteris' comment about her: "Vulgar. Vulgar. Vulgar."
 
I know! I suppose there are serene princesses, like, say Princess Stephanie, for whom vulgarity is the general stock in trade. Maybe that's what he was getting at.
 
Liz and Phil just celebrated their Diamond Anniversary.

Must have been one helluva party.
 
A Canadian Catholic potentially marrying into British royalty? Can such things be allowed?
 
It appears uncertain whether she is reconciled to or holds Communion with the See or Church of Rome, professes the Popish Religion or is a Papist, which would offend the Act of Settlement. In any event, the chances of the Act of Settlement ever operating to deny the Crown to Peter Philips are negligible, seeing as he is tenth in line to the throne today and will slip to eleventh next month when the Wessex baby is born.

But to answer your question, yes, such a thing has already been allowed. The Countess of St. Andrews, wife of the eldest son of The Duke of Kent, was Canadian, Catholic and divorced, and permission was granted for that marriage.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top