• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

GOD save Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland.

geo said:
In the end, the Queen remains on the throne AND there are no pretenders who are claiming "right" to the English throne.

Unless a pretender steps forward, this discussion has no relevance.

EXACTLY!!  Mods. please remove every single irrelevant thread on the site... should clear out about 80% of the forums.



oh, forgot to add  :D
 
Kat Stevens said:
EXACTLY!!  Mods. please remove every single irrelevant thread on the site... should clear out about 80% of the forums.

:rofl:

Too funny...too true! Maybe the same can be said for life in general.  :)
 
geo said:
In the end, the Queen remains on the throne AND there are no pretenders who are claiming "right" to the English throne.

Unless a pretender steps forward, this discussion has no relevance.

I'd hate to have our family called up ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymoke)   :threat:    ;D
 
ex-Sup,

It's too bad teachers like yourselves don't spend more time on real Canadian history, as you do trying to defend your 'rightful' place in history.

Quit trying to explain such an archaic system as the British crown progression. Get back to teaching our children about Vimy & Dieppe. What THEIR heritage is and what THEY have to be proud of. They don't hear how we fought in all the conflicts and World Wars, yet we expect them to try and understand Afghanistan, from an NDP teacher's point of view (and I'm not saying that's you).

Our kids today don't even get taught how parliment works, yet we expect them to vote sensibly.

The school system is failing us, as far as turning out functional citizens. It starts in the schools and with the TEACHERS!

Canada is losing it's identity and self worth, and the decline is starting in the education system.

The teachers are the front line.


Sorry for the rant, nothing personal.
 
Thucydides said:
In the happy event you become the Sovereign of England, you too will become "Defender of the Faith". (I am less clear if this applies should you become Sovereign of Canada).

Aren't they both the same ?

Line of succession for the throne of Canada equal line of succession for the throne of England...

Act of Settlement 1701

In Canada, where the Act of Settlement is now a part of Canadian constitutional law, Tony O'Donohue, a Canadian civic politician, observed that the Act of Settlement 1701 explicitly excludes Roman Catholics from the throne and the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, requiring her to be an Anglican. This, he claimed, discriminates against non-Anglicans, including Catholics, who are the largest faith group in Canada.[7] In 2002, O'Donohue launched an ultimately unsuccessful court action that argued the Act of Settlement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His case was dismissed by the court, which found that as the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution, the Charter of Rights does not have supremacy over it. Also, the court pointed out that while Canada has the power to amend the line of succession to the Canadian throne, the Statute of Westminster stipulates that the agreement of the governments of the fifteen other realms that share the Crown would first have to be sought if Canada wished to continue its relationship with the other Commonwealth Realms.
 
Great.

Gordon the Clueless forces a choice between the House of Hesse-Saxe-Coburg-Oldenburg and Bavaria - two German mobs that have been squabbling over the Rheinland since at least 250 AD.

Mortarman Rockpainter and Infanteer will be thrilled I am sure.  ::) ;D.

Come away the Hanoverians.  >:D
 
Kirkhill said:
Mortarman Rockpainter and Infanteer will be thrilled I am sure.   ::) ;D.
I'll be happy only if this means we get to bomb Germany again!  That or be forced to template CRPs and Vanguards advancing through Fulda.  Otherwise, I'll be as malevolent as ever  >:D
 
recceguy said:
ex-Sup,
It's too bad teachers like yourselves don't spend more time on real Canadian history, as you do trying to defend your 'rightful' place in history. Quit trying to explain such an archaic system as the British crown progression.
Arrrgggghhh…just lost my post again!

Recceguy,
I'm not sure how to take your comments. At first, the little vein in my head was popping out (as the kids like to tell me). However, I think there is some misunderstand here.
The course I was mentioning is a Grade 12 modern western history course, which focuses on Europe since the 16th century. See below under CHY4U:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld1112curr.pdf
I, like you, simply follow orders ie. the curriculum. One of the topics we looked at was the English Civil War, and its consequences such as the Glorious Revolution. I came across the article and I thought it would put a modern spin on some of the things we discussed in class. It wasn't a heated, lengthy debate; just a 10-15 min chat. Trust me; while I support the idea of the monarchy, I'm a second generation Italian. There's no connection there whatsoever (I still remember the day I came home in my kilt; my father nearly peed his pants that I was wearing a “dress”).
Get back to teaching our children about Vimy & Dieppe. What THEIR heritage is and what THEY have to be proud of. They don't hear how we fought in all the conflicts and World Wars, yet we expect them to try and understand Afghanistan, from an NDP teacher's point of view (and I'm not saying that's you).
We do spend time on this in the Grade 10 program, CHC2D:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld910curr.pdf
As a former reservist and staunch supporter of the military, my views are quite clear to my students and my colleagues (I proudly wear my camo SOT bracelet everyday). I'm about as far as you can get from Jack’s ideology (I curse every time my taxpayer dollars are wasted when I get mail from him). I've even had to defend what I teach on this very site:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53162.60.html
I do my best, but I am only one of 120,000 teachers in this province. Miracles, unfortunately, are not my dept (Catholic teacher joke  ;D). But in all seriousness, I do encourage my students to form their own opinions, but based on all the facts.
Our kids today don't even get taught how parliment works, yet we expect them to vote sensibly.
We do have a civics course, but many kids don't care. It has one of the highest failure rates of any course.
The school system is failing us, as far as turning out functional citizens. It starts in the schools and with the TEACHERS!
Canada is losing it's identity and self worth, and the decline is starting in the education system.
Unfortunately, it's not all the system's fault. If you check some of my previous posts on other topics, there are many other issues that need to be addressed. There is a general malaise and apathy among many students today; they simply don't care. This is me on some days.  :brickwall:
Some of that stems from what happens at home. I had a very different home experience than many kids today. If I ever got in trouble at school, my old man would have killed me (he would never had a chance though, ‘cause I wouldn't have even gone home). Some parents are very quick to make excuses for their kids and allow them to develop these habits. They let them skip school, call to complain for the slightest thing and so on. It's not the schools, it's society that's the problem.
The teachers are the front line.
Yes we are, but we can only do so much (see above). I teach, I coach and my door is always open. I tell people that teaching is a calling, because it's certainly not an easy job. I changed from a career in the military to one in teaching because I thought I could make more of a contribution to the world around me. Not that I'm some sort of idealist, but if I can make at least a little difference for some kids, it's all worth it. I can write more, but work beckons!

Sorry for the rant, nothing personal.
Well, hopefully this clears a few things up.  :)
 
As a graduate of the Ontario secondary school system in the past five years, I can say categorically that the civics and history curriculums are absolute crap. I'd not have learned anything useful were it not for some teachers who went WELL above and beyond the curriculum, and my own nurtured interest in current events- which necessarily entailed learning about the past and the system to put them in any context.

Our kids are being failed miserably. Civics should be treated as a high-standards grade eleven or twelve course, not an easy half semester in grade ten that most kids can sleep through and still B.S. their way to a passing grade. History - CANADIAN history - should receive a much more thorough treatment as well, and with a bit less of a focus on the individual trees making up the forest- it's damned near impossible to learn anything about history in high school without constantly getting diverted into very narrow politically correct (and expedient?) areas of feel-good study.

Sorry, if I sound like I'm possessed by the ghost of Granatstein, reading his book just made me quite bitter about it all.
 
Brihard,

While I can appreciate where you are coming from, a lot of your concerns are beyond that of the teacher (which I think you are implying). The curriculum is set by the Ministry of Education; so while there is some “wiggle” room, we are slaves to our masters. I am curious however as to what you would like to see changed in the curriculum? You obviously care more than 95% of the students.

The curriculum was changed 3 years ago, whereby the course now starts at WWI (which does allow me to get further along in the course, but it assumes that kids come in with the requisite background from grade 8, which they don’t). It will be up for review again in the next three or four years (depending how delaying they get doing the other subjects).

I can’t really comment about your civics concerns because I never really taught it and it’s not in my dept (it’s supposed to be, but that’s a story for another time). I guess you can count yourself lucky that you didn’t go through when I did (class of ’92). Civics used to be part of the history curriculum; the first month of history would be spent doing civics. They pulled it out to allow history to focus on history and allow for more topics to be covered in civics. Most of my colleagues who teach civics/careers feel that they should trash the whole careers part (or at least trim it down to 2 weeks which is all the amount of time you need) and spend more time on civics.
 
ex-Sup said:
Brihard,

While I can appreciate where you are coming from, a lot of your concerns are beyond that of the teacher (which I think you are implying). The curriculum is set by the Ministry of Education; so while there is some “wiggle” room, we are slaves to our masters. I am curious however as to what you would like to see changed in the curriculum? You obviously care more than 95% of the students.

The curriculum was changed 3 years ago, whereby the course now starts at WWI (which does allow me to get further along in the course, but it assumes that kids come in with the requisite background from grade 8, which they don’t). It will be up for review again in the next three or four years (depending how delaying they get doing the other subjects).

I can’t really comment about your civics concerns because I never really taught it and it’s not in my dept (it’s supposed to be, but that’s a story for another time). I guess you can count yourself lucky that you didn’t go through when I did (class of ’92). Civics used to be part of the history curriculum; the first month of history would be spent doing civics. They pulled it out to allow history to focus on history and allow for more topics to be covered in civics. Most of my colleagues who teach civics/careers feel that they should trash the whole careers part (or at least trim it down to 2 weeks which is all the amount of time you need) and spend more time on civics.

You're absolutely right- I apologize if you interpreted any of what I said as a slight against you as a teacher. I certainly did not mean in that way. I found that teachers made the best of the curriculum, not the other way round, and that the best teachers did their best to cover the curriculum in the first half of the semester, and then to get on with more teaching. I've got nothing but the utmost respect for our secondary school teachers; they make the best of a pretty bad go, at least that's how it always struck me. I had a few great teachers who really kept me on a straight track, and who I'm still in touch with. It's a profession that deserves respect.
 
No offense taken...I've developed a thick skin (though I'm not afraid to speak my mind).
Brihard said:
It's a profession that deserves respect.
It's always nice to get some positive feedback; too bad everyone doesn't have the same opinion.
 
Brihard said:
As a graduate of the Ontario secondary school system in the past five years, I can say categorically that the civics and history curriculums are absolute crap. I'd not have learned anything useful were it not for some teachers who went WELL above and beyond the curriculum, and my own nurtured interest in current events- which necessarily entailed learning about the past and the system to put them in any context.

Our kids are being failed miserably. Civics should be treated as a high-standards grade eleven or twelve course, not an easy half semester in grade ten that most kids can sleep through and still B.S. their way to a passing grade. History - CANADIAN history - should receive a much more thorough treatment as well, and with a bit less of a focus on the individual trees making up the forest- it's damned near impossible to learn anything about history in high school without constantly getting diverted into very narrow politically correct (and expedient?) areas of feel-good study.

Sorry, if I sound like I'm possessed by the ghost of Granatstein, reading his book just made me quite bitter about it all.


Personally I'm not so sure why you hate the curriculums so much, maybe it's different in Ontario but here in Manitoba I took a correspondance course of 12th grade history as it wasn't offered at my school(small school). Basically I got sent a pile of papers that was the entire curriculum, I had to read it all, write two essays and two exams to get my mark. I found that the curriculum was perfect, treating the subjects of most historical value very well, you say that the curriculum is wrong and some teachers can fix it by twisting it but I believe that is exactly the problem, as some teachers may have different point of views. One teacher could quickly pass through parts of the cultural history, others could pass quickly through the political history or another because they personally consider it to be "unimportant". While I'm not saying all teachers do this I believe it is reasonable to say that some do.

As well I'm not sure how you want canadian history to receive a more thorough treatment, the curiculum covers all the most important subjects, as well it's a mandatory course in grade 11. I think that the problem is both how it's taught, I personally had a great teacher who explained everything in a way that made us interested, some of my friends had a teacher who ended up just copying the curiculum and making them copy it all down in notes and study it, and as ex-Sup said the interest displayed by some of the students. I quote one of my friends.

"I wanna be a cook why the hell do I need to learn all this history crap that's never going to help me with my life or career?"

 
Some good comments here, though I have a few observations.
ghyslyn said:
Basically I got sent a pile of papers that was the entire curriculum, I had to read it all, write two essays and two exams to get my mark. I found that the curriculum was perfect, treating the subjects of most historical value very well
Since I don't live in Manitoba I can't be entirely sure, but I don't think they gave you the curriculum; it doesn't really say much. It's basically a guideline, with overall and specific expectations. Here's the ON Gr.12:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/canworld1112curr.pdf
ghyslyn said:
One teacher could quickly pass through parts of the cultural history, others could pass quickly through the political history or another because they personally consider it to be "unimportant". While I'm not saying all teachers do this I believe it is reasonable to say that some do.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens. We're all different people, with different backgrounds, education and views; it's impossible to keep this out of the classroom. As I mentioned in my previous posts, and others on different topics, my students will be influenced by my military background, my schooling (9 history credits, heavily slanted toward political & military history) and my interests. There are/will have been six different teachers (including myself) teaching the Gr.10 Canadian history in my dept. Even though we cover all the same topics, our teaching styles vary substantially. The amount of time we spend on certain subjects differs as well, in addition to our knowledge of those subjects. This is the reason for a "curriculum," but as I mentioned it is a guideline that does have some "wiggle" room.
In the end, it doesn't make much of a difference. Most kids don't care about history, despite the best efforts of people like myself. Some of that fault can be attributed to society; there is so much emphasis on maths and sciences (not saying that we don't need these; we do) that the "social" sciences are often neglected. Even if kids have an interest in history, they cannot find room in their timetables after English, physics and calculus. Here in Ontario we went from a 5 year program to a 4 year diploma, which has exacerbated the problem. One year less means less time for elective courses . If we want our kids to know more about themselves, there needs to be a political will.
 
One year less means less time for elective courses . If we want our kids to know more about themselves, there needs to be a political will.

With respect ex-Sup some of us that have had kids go through the system (mine in BC, Alberta and Indiana) as well as observing various other systems (me Ontario public and English state, my wife Saskatchewan Catholic) might point out that the curricula often seem to make inadequate use of the time available.  I refer specifically to the early grades, which seem to be defined later and later, where expectations are intentionally kept low so as not to impact the self-esteem of the dullards.  This results in more and more of the classes seeing the entire exercise as a giant waste of time.

More information needs to be transmitted early on in the system.  Not just learning techniques and socialization skills.

Kids are quite capable of learning maths and languages and classification systems at very young ages.  My classmates did.
 
Kirkhill said:
might point out that the curricula often seem to make inadequate use of the time available.   I refer specifically to the early grades, which seem to be defined later and later, where expectations are intentionally kept low so as not to impact the self-esteem of the dullards.  This results in more and more of the classes seeing the entire exercise as a giant waste of time.
I cannot speak fully for my elementary brethren, but there are issues with the system. Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, we are simply pawns cogs in the machinery. We are often handicapped by the decisions that are made by our political masters (heard that before?). Most of the time, we do the best that we can with what we've got (new motto for the CF?). I cannot recount the number of times I (and my colleagues) have been frustrated by the rules that we must conform to. Yes, it does begin in elementary with the idea that no one fails. Kids keep getting passed along despite that fact that they cannot read, write or do math. It then becomes a huge problem when they get to high school where they can and do fail (in addition to the fact they must pass standardized literacy and numeracy tests). Most of these kids end up dropping out.
In high school, we are frustrated by such things as no late marks and no zeros. Most of us have found a way around the zeros, but the late marks continues to be a thorn in our side. According the ministry, we can only evaluate what they produce ie. something tangible. Failure to hand something in on time should not be assessed a grade, because it is a learning skill (there are 5 little check boxes in the report card for these skills). Since they don't lose marks, ergo they don't hand anything in on time. However, we all know that life is about deadlines and being punctual and that there are repercussions for being late. Valuable life lessions are not being taught because our hands are tied.  :brickwall:
Anyway, long story short...their are problems. In my short time as a teacher things have changed so many times it isn't funny. Just when we've got through the implementation, and are trying to make things work, it changes again (usually because the gov't changes...I'm really starting to sound like I'm still in the forces). So in response to your comments Kirkhill, yes, there always is a better way to do things. But hey, I work for the gov't, so that says it all.

Mods...could we split this thread since we've deviated immensely from the original topic.
 
Reviving an old thread here, but I think the original topic applies...

Mods, if you disagree, please feel free to place where appropriate.


I found this article today:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2011/10/28/18890976.html


Commonwealth realms agree to new succession rules
By David Akin, Parliamentary Bureau Chief

PERTH, Australia - The Conservative government has agreed to put new legislation before Parliament to give Canada's consent to change the
300-year-old rules of British succession that, among other things, favour male heirs to the throne over female ones.
Canada is one of 16 of Queen Elizabeth II's realms that met here Friday and agreed to changes proposed by UK Prime Minister David Cameron to update the laws of succession set out in the 1601 Acts of Settlement.
"Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen," Cameron told reporters here.
The agreement of Canada and the other realms is required before the changes are put before the British House of Commons. And Canada is one of a handful of realms where agreement to the changes must come in the form of legislation.
Cameron's initiative, which has the Queen's blessing, would also allow the monarch to marry a Roman Catholic, currently forbidden under the 1601 law.
"There was unanimous agreement that these changes recognized the equality of women and Catholics," said Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "These are obvious modernizations."
Harper did not say when the legislation would come before Canada's Parliament.
A third change would be to remove a requirement that descendants of a monarch need the monarch's permission to marry.
Cameron's office had noted that, had these changes been in place in 1509, for example, Margaret Tudor would have ascended to the throne following Henry VII, rather then her younger brother. Her younger brother, though, did take the throne and became Henry VIII, most famous for breaking with the Church of Rome in 1533 and establishing the Church of England.
Perhaps even more interesting, had the new rules been in effect in 1901, Queen Victoria's daughter, Princess Victoria, would have become Queen Victoria II in January of that year, rather then her younger brother who became Edward VII.
Princess Victoria died seven months after her mother and, had she been queen, the succession would have gone to Kaiser Wilhelm II, and he would have been King of Britain during the First World War.
 
Davionn said:
Reviving an old thread here, but I think the original topic applies...

Mods, if you disagree, please feel free to place where appropriate.


I found this article today:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2011/10/28/18890976.html

Aww Hell No!!!! Now they are going to want to vote too! ;D
 
cupper said:
Aww Hell No!!!! Now they are going to want to vote too! ;D


And drive!!!!!



carmess.jpg
 
Back
Top