Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[scm77]

Canadians support breaking with monarchy: poll

CTV.ca News Staff

While Canadians generally approve of Prince Charles' marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, a narrow majority in a new poll would like to see Canada's ties to the monarchy severed.

Fifty-five per cent agreed with the following statement asked in an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail: "when Queen Elizabeth's reign ends, Canada should end its formal ties to the British Monarchy."

This is up seven percentage points from the 48 per cent who agreed with that statement in October 2002.

"We'd like to see Prince Charles and Camilla have a very happy life together, but we are not looking forward to Prince Charles as King of Canada," said Tom Freda of Citizens for a Canadian Republic.

His group wants a Canadian republic with a Canadian head of state after Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends.

The monarchy's supporters say Canada's traditions help distinguish it from the United States.

"The monarchy is a given about Canada, along with the Maple Leaf and hockey when it's played and the Rockies and our bilingual and multicultural nature," said John Aimers of the Monarchist League of Canada.

His fellow monarchists argue that every province would have to approve such a change, which means it isn't likely to happen any time soon.

As a sign that life goes on -- along with the eternal debate about the monarchy's role -- it was announced that Prince Charles will become colonel-in-chief for several Canadian military units. It was a role held by the late Queen Mother.

Canadians and the marriage

As Prince Charles and Parker Bowles begin their married life, the poll suggests that a majority of Canadians approve of the nuptials.

Although the couple has long struggled to earn the approval of the British public and media, 56 per cent of Canadians surveyed by pollster Ipsos-Reid say they accept the marriage of Prince Charles and his long-time love, while 24 per cent say they disapprove.

There are some regional disparities, with acceptance highest among British Columbians at 64 per cent, and apathy highest among Quebecers at 29 per cent who say they "do not care."

While a majority of Canadians nationwide are accepting of the wedding, 65 per cent believe Parker Bowles should decline the title of Queen if Prince Charles were to become king. Parker Bowles has indicated she wants to be known as the Princess Consort if Charles becomes king.

Other points of interest:

    * Canadians aged 18-34 are more likely to believe Parker Bowles should take the title of Queen at 31 per cent, than those aged 35 and over. Among that group, support for the idea falls to 24 per cent.
     
      Men are more likely than women to believe Parker Bowles should be called Queen Camilla by 30 per cent to 22 per cent.
    * 51 per cent of Canadians believe Prince Charles should give up his place in line for the throne and pass the reign to his son Prince William.

The results are based on the telephone interviews of a randomly selected representative sample of 1,000 adult Canadians from April 5 to 7.

The aggregate results are considered accurate to within ± 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, the same as they would have been had the entire adult Canadian population been polled.

With a report from CTV's Denelle Balfour

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113095476456_56/?hub=TopStories

 

[Canuck_25]

Oh, piss off - if you are challenging the integrity of my service because I think the Monarchy is an anachronism and that the current batch of of heirs are not my ideal of a head of state, then you can cram it up your ***.   Find me a soldier today who is willing to take on the responsibility of unlimited liability for the sake of the Windsor family.

Just because we have some archaic oath to swear to doesn't mean that it takes precedence over the ideas of a liberal democratic nation that we all really serve.

Well, they are inbred - just take a look at the family trees of European royalty - Wes has a point.   Thankfully this is changing now that "blood" isn't as crucial to standing anymore.

People need to grow some thicker skin around here - for some reason we snicker at the movies making fun of George W Bush but when we poke fun at the royalty some act like their Grandmother's grave was desecrated....

Mod Vs Mod, this will be a neat show.

You know, he does have a point. Im sure during "god save the queen" you arent singing, even though it's Canada's national anthem.

Along with O Canada

 

[Neill McKay]

MacKay, drop the Moral Indignation act - it's not treason to hold an opinion on the monarchy in a liberal democratic state.  Wes is sharing an opinion that many of us hold here.

It's certainly not treason, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but it is a service offence (in Canada) to use "traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty", so one's expression of this opinion ought to be tempered with a healthy dose of civility.  My experience with the monarchy/republic debate, as confirmed in this thread, is that the republican side tends to rely on impolite and inaccurate arguments.  I've invited Mr. Allen to back up his words, something that I understand is encouraged on Army.ca, but so far it's just been more of the same from him and others.

Anyway, I've never met a republican who could tell me how anyone's life would improve, in any real and meaningful way, if we were to enact this massive and divisive change to our constitution.  Nor am I holding my breath.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Emphasis added

...

Anyway, I've never met a republican who could tell me how anyone's life would improve, in any real and meaningful way, if we were to enact this massive and divisive change to our constitution.  Nor am I holding my breath.

I wonder is it is real and meaningful to have, here at home - for all Canadians, and on the international stage - for all the world to see, all the trappings of a fully independent state which ought to include, in my not at all humble opinion, a head of state chosen by the people.

I agree with Neill McKay that the constitutional changes needed to change to republic would be â ?massive and divisiveâ ? and, based  on the Australian experience might be fruitless.  Changing the nature of our state requires the unanimous approval of 11 legislatures: ten provinces and the national parliament in Ottawa.  Anyone interested in swapping fish for rights could stall the process.

There is a better way: Pass a resolution in the House of Commons â “ not an Act, just a resolution, like the Nickle Resolution (1919) which, effectively, did away with honours for Canadians.  This resolution needs to 'Resolve that this House does not accept that Charles, Prince of Wales, or his heirs and successors are the lawful successors to the throne of Canada â “ including the throne in any Canadian province.  The Parliament of Canada will decide, in due course and for itself and for all Canadians, who might be the lawful heirs and successors to Our Most Gracious Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth II.'

Even in 1919, before the Statutes of Westminster, the constitutional convention which requires the sovereign to accept the advice of her (his) privy council (in Canada) was firmly entrenched.  This constitutional requirement for the sovereign to respect the wishes â “ even if expressed 'only' by a Resolution â “ of the national government â “ the one in Ottawa â “ is even stronger today.

At one stroke we would â “ and we can â “ settle the head of state issue, effective the day Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth dies.  We would remain a constitutional monarchy on the British model â “ as our constitution specifies; we just would not have a reigning monarch on our throne of Canada, pending a decision by parliament, in due course.  We, our elected politicians, would have to find some way (not too hard) to convert the office of the Governor General to that of Regent.

Lieutenant Governors may also need a title change.  They are appointed by the Governor General (in Council) (i.e. by the government of the day but they, the Lieutenant Governors, are not subordinate to the Governor general on any matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.  Provinces do not have authority over their own forms of government; if Ottawa decides to become a regency then the provinces become provinces within that regency; they do not have the power to select their own sovereign.

More important we might, must, in my view, find a better way to select our Regent.  Maybe the German model â “ imposed by the British (with considerable Canadian advice re: federalism) after World War II â “ would serve.  See: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.bundestag.de/parlament/wahlen/146/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBundesversammlung%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-29,GGLD:en

This, remaining a monarchy but having, simply, not quite gotten around to the business of appointing a monarch, seems like a good Canadian compromise, to me.

For some of us, of course, little will change: my blazer crest says VRI and will always do so, regardless of which johnny sits on the British throne.

 

[Neill McKay]

That particular method of sidestepping the Constitution has been debunked elsewhere.  It's not that easy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Actually, I think it is much, much easier than opponents believe.

Charles will not even try to be king where he is not wanted.

A simple parliamentary resolution will suffice; it is all the guidance the sovereign needs.  All our government needs to do, on the sad occasion of the death of HM Queen Elizabeth, is to avoid issuing a proclamation declaring anyone to be king.  No proclamation; no monarch; no pressure from Charles; no business of any other government â “ not Britain, not the provinces; no problem â “ except that there are a few harmless constitutional loose ends most of which can be â “ partially - tidied up by declaring the GG to be Regent, etc.

There are legal and bureaucratic impediments to what I propose but, I believe, all fall into that wonderful category of technicalities and none are show stoppers.

If a solid majority of Canadians do not want a monarch or, at least, not a specific monarch â “ and I have no idea about the state of those numbers, then you can depend upon the fact that the government of the day will find its way through the thicket of technicalities.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I copied this from a Monarchist blog at http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/ (17 Feb 05):

In a book to be titled The Governor General and the Prime Ministers, Mr. McWhinney, a retired political scientist in Vancouver and former president of the prestigious Geneva-based Institute of International Law, lays out the surprisingly simple legal procedure for phasing out the monarchy in Canada.
He asserts the Constitution, being a living tree -- as it was recently described by the Supreme Court -- evolves not merely through use of the amending formula.

Those up on matters constitutional will know that amending Canada's Constitution is a virtual impossibility because the Senate, Commons and all provincial and territorial legislatures would have to sing in unison on the topic. That is very unlikely to happen.

A more practical and viable strategy, argues Mr. McWhinney, would be for the federal government to act "more subtly and by indirection, through creating new glosses on the Law of the Constitution as written, without formally amending it."

That is, a future government of Canada would, after the Queen ends her reign, cut ties with the monarchy "quietly and without fanfare by simply failing legally to proclaim any successor to the Queen in relation to Canada."

At present, the monarch has no duties in Canada beyond the honorific function of approving the choice of governor general every five years.

"It would be easy enough to do everything in Canada from now on and to have the prime minister's choice formally approved by cabinet."

For that matter, cabinet could approve the people's choice of head of state, should it be decided the best way to pick that person is by way of a popular vote.

"It is difficult to imagine," writes Mr. McWhinney, "that anyone in Great Britain -- the British government, and certainly the Queen herself -- would be upset by that, so long as it was all done politely and in good will."

The "Office of the Queen" would thus remain in the Constitution, but "would remain inactive and, like very many other historically spent sections of the Constitution Act, wither away and lapse by constitutional convention."

Mr. McWhinney says it's unthinkable any Supreme Court "would grant standing to sue and agree to hear any legal objection from anyone in Canada trying to make a constitutional issue out of what would be, in the end, a highly political decision." Membership in the Commonwealth need not be affected.

Mr. McWhinney is keen to have Canadians start discussing whether the monarchy is still relevant here.
It's a discussion the Toronto-based Citizens for a Canadian Republic (www.canadian.republic.ca) is certainly anxious to see. The three-year- old group favours an elected Canadian head of state.

The following is a reply from the Dominion Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada, Mr. John Aimers:

Professor McWhinney is free to advance the Manley agenda and advocate a Canadian republic, but he is naive and mistaken to imagine this fundamental change to our governance could happen "quietly and without fanfare" by Ottawa's merely refusing to proclaim Charles King at the time of our Queen's death.

What makes McWhinney imagine that the provinces - who derive their powers in Confederation from The Crown, represented by their Lieutenant Governors, would passively accept such an extra-legal power grab by the feds ?

Does he think Canadians are so supine as to allow Ottawa to resort to technical machinations rather than to insist on debating the issue openly and resolving it through the processes entrenched in the Constitution ?

Speaking of The Constitution Act, 1867, Sections 9 and 17 are prescriptive, not permissive. Executive government in Canada is "vested in The Queen"; Parliament consists of "The Queen" and its two chambers.

Academics do a great deal of mischief by suggesting such outlandish theories. Ottawa may continue to misrepresent the Governor General as Head of State, draft legislation to establish a Council of State, remove the Crown as a symbol wherever possible and seek legal by-ways to concentrate all power in the hands of the political elite; but an inquisitive public's respect for the rule of law - and loyalty to the Crown - will not smooth their way down this most dangerous path.

(See: http://www.ronsdalepress.com/catalogue/chretien.html for a review of McWhinney's last book.)

I am assured, by a constitutional lawyer, that Mr. Aimers' views on the status of the provinces in this particular matter, are 100% wrong.  The provinces have no voice unless there is to be a change in the Constitution; failing to proclaim a sovereign does not change the Constitution; it is bureaucratic housekeeping â “ the provinces will have a sovereign when the national government gets around to proclaiming one, no sooner and no later.  The 'office' of the Queen does not change, it does not disappear; it is vacant, temporarily, until we, Canadians, decide who should fill it, as it is our natural right to do.

 

[Infanteer]

It's certainly not treason, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but it is a service offence (in Canada) to use "traitorous or disloyal words regarding Her Majesty", so one's expression of this opinion ought to be tempered with a healthy dose of civility.

Try getting that charge to stick.

Anyway, I've never met a republican who could tell me how anyone's life would improve, in any real and meaningful way, if we were to enact this massive and divisive change to our constitution.   Nor am I holding my breath.

How come it is assumed that the only alternative is full-blown, American-style Republicanism?

I had to dig 5 pages back, but I found my proposal here:

Anyways, here is a new look at the argument which may be a suitable (and uniquely Canadian) approach to satisfying the issue.

 

[Neill McKay]

Try getting that charge to stick.

I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to break the law as long as you can slide out of any sanction for it.

How come it is assumed that the only alternative is full-blown, American-style Republicanism?

I had to dig 5 pages back, but I found my proposal here:

Your proposal sounds to me like a president with a different name.  How do you see it as being better than a presidency?

 

[Infanteer]

I hope you're not suggesting that it's okay to break the law as long as you can slide out of any sanction for it.

No, what I'm saying is that there are plenty of laws on the books that aren't applicable anymore, and this would be one of them.

Kind of like the by-law in Calgary which demands that all businesses have a place to tie up horses.

http://www.main.com/~anns/other/humor/sillylaws.html

Your proposal sounds to me like a president with a different name.   How do you see it as being better than a presidency?

It all really depends on what you are going to do with the Head of State if you changed the system.   The real concern with getting rid of the Monarchy is how will it pan out for our Parliament and the office of the PMO (which isn't firmly defined in the Constitution) - the Governor General still has (on the books) important powers which may be of use to the Government if the office was legitimized.

I would see this setup more akin to the dual system of France or Germany then the strong officer of the President in the U.S.

Anyways, I argued to moderately change the Governor General (in order to not rock the boat politically) and to have a Canadian "Crown" that is held, not worn (in order to not rock the boat traditionally or administratively).   An interesting compromise, I figured.

In the end, arguing for the Monarchy is like arguing to keep an antique around the house.   Neither side is going to rock the boat with a real good arguement on why change or no change would be better because the antique isn't really functional in the house (and thus neither arguement is compelling) - Wes and I just happen to hate Grandma's lamp that sits on the mantle while others still like it.

My only claim is that Canada, as an liberal democracy with a (politically) egalitartian society, shouldn't close off the office of the Head of State to a single family of Brits that are rapidly becoming less and less relevent to Canadian society.

 

[McInnes]

Oh, piss off - if you are challenging the integrity of my service because I think the Monarchy is an anachronism and that the current batch of of heirs are not my ideal of a head of state, then you can cram it up your ass.   Find me a soldier today who is willing to take on the responsibility of unlimited liability for the sake of the Windsor family.

Just because we have some archaic oath to swear to doesn't mean that it takes precedence over the ideas of a liberal democratic nation that we all really serve.

Well, they are inbred - just take a look at the family trees of European royalty - Wes has a point.   Thankfully this is changing now that "blood" isn't as crucial to standing anymore.

No where in my post do I recall challenging the integrity of your military service. I did say however, that slanderous statements made in public against HM are not in accordance with keeping your oath to the Queen, which I know you have sworn. We are in actuality the Queen's army. Not the Queen of England, but the Queen of Canada's who is representative of our nation as a figurehead. I fail to see how there needs to be any conflict or precedence on service to our Country, or to our Queen, as they are intertwined and can be thought of as fighting for the same thing (For King and country).

Anyway, just because the current batch of heirs is not your idea of a head of state, you think that an elected politician will be more to your liking? Maybe, maybe not. There will always be brilliant leaders and absolute crap hats elected at one time or another, just look at our line of Prime Minister's. The monarchy and it's representative the GG never really exercise their powers to begin with, the last time I believe being the King/Byng affair in 1926. So I fail to see how at least showing proper allegiance to your Queen, in public anyway, is hampering you as a person or us as a nation.

People need to grow some thicker skin around

Speaking of growing thicker skin, I would recommend it to you. No personal offence intended, as this isn't personal to begin with, but telling me to "piss offâ ? and to "cram it up my assâ ?, simply because I have seemingly offended your sensibilities and lashing out at me because of it, is not my idea of having thick skin. Regardless, telling me to cram it up my ass seems to make it a bit more personal. If I have misread the tone of your post, or accidentally offended you in my original post, then I apologise.


Finally, in regard to your old antique analogy, I don't associate the Monarchy as some sort of vase that does nothing but decorate our house. I would imagine the monarchy to be more like the 'grandma' is this situation. She owns the house, but is too old to manage it and thus bed ridden and essentially useless in the mundane sense of the word. It doesn't mean we should necessarily get rid of grandma and attempt to put the house in our name. And you never know, the old bat may still have her uses, like having a quiet chat with father when he gets out of line.  :

 

[Neill McKay]

I'm partial to the fire extinguisher analogy.  You've never used it, and you hope you never have to, but you should really keep it around anyway because if you ever do need it there's nothing else that will do.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm partial to the fire extinguisher analogy.   You've never used it, and you hope you never have to, but you should really keep it around anyway because if you ever do need it there's nothing else that will do.

I agree with Neil McKay re: the fire extinguisher.

I do not see that need translating into a monarch; I don't see why a Constitutional Regent â “ a Canadian selected somehow or other, by Canadians or their representatives, will not suffice.

I prefer the more modern, somewhat more revolutionary Westminster style of responsible parliamentary democracy to the finely tuned, carefully balanced American style of representative republican democracy, rooted, as it is, in the 18th century.  I like the idea that the government of the day must be able to command the support of the people's elected representatives for their major projects; I like the idea that a policy or a budget can force a general election.  (There are a number of things I like, also, about the American implementation of democratic government, including, e.g.: strong committees with some real power to amend or, at least, delay legislation, an open budget process and elected legislators â “ all of 'em.  Those things are, however, American rather than republican and they could (and should) exist in Canada in a parliamentary democracy.)

One essential attribute of a Westminster style parliamentary democracy is a separate, largely ceremonial head of state who, inter alia and acting on behalf of the nation as a whole, appoints a government from elected members and, eventually, dissolves parliament when new elections are necessary â “ the 'fire extinguisher' in other words.  A monarch, a British monarch, known by and in touch with the country, serves Britain well in that capacity.  We Canadians need a Canadian head of state, a person known by and in touch with the country, who can represent our virtues back to us â “ being a symbol of all Canadians and their control over their government.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been an excellent head of state; she has never lost her strong connections to a generation of Canadians who watched her grow and who served, in war, with her.  She established new links with younger Canadians but the data seems clear: Canadians are less and less interested in or respectful of their sovereign.  We do not, I suggest, want a sovereign who is out of touch with our country â “ that might deepen the growing distrust and disconnect between the people and the government.  I do not believe that Charles of William are in touch with Canada and Canadians â “ not as much as they need to be in order to be respected and, therefore, effective monarchs.

We need a head of state who represents all of us and that means we need a Canadian head of state.  Amending the constitution to change the nature of our country is too hard and it is unnecessary.  We can remain a constitutional monarchy on the Westminster model by, simply, refusing to offer our throne to anyone and, de facto, becoming a regency â “ a well established form of monarchy.

 

[Neill McKay]

I do not see that need translating into a monarch; I don't see why a Constitutional Regent â “ a Canadian selected somehow or other, by Canadians or their representatives, will not suffice.

As soon as the position becomes elected it will be politicized.  One of the essential virtues of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen doesn't owe anyone any favours, is immune to political pressure, and is above the divisiveness of politics.  The minute you start choosing the person for the office, which really means electing him or her at some level, then you've got yourself another politician.  And we have plenty of those already.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been an excellent head of state; she has never lost her strong connections to a generation of Canadians who watched her grow and who served, in war, with her.   She established new links with younger Canadians but the data seems clear: Canadians are less and less interested in or respectful of their sovereign.

I would challenge that.  Popular support for the monarchy fluctuates with the news (and the question asked, which is sometimes very badly worded), but in general the monarchy has continued to enjoy the support of a majority of Canadians, including young ones.

As to being in tough with Canadians that has only increased and will continue to increase as the wealth of communication technologies makes the world smaller and smaller.

 

[Infanteer]

No where in my post do I recall challenging the integrity of your military service.

You implied that those critical of the Monarchy were coming up short with regards to professionalism by somehow failing to live up to our Oath.   If that isn't a challenge, I don't know what is.

Wes said it best somewhere - 30 years in two Armies under the same Oath - are you telling me that he has failed to live up to his profession because of his opinions on the Monarchy?

We are in actuality the Queen's army. Not the Queen of England, but the Queen of Canada's who is representative of our nation as a figurehead. I fail to see how there needs to be any conflict or precedence on service to our Country, or to our Queen, as they are intertwined and can be thought of as fighting for the same thing (For King and country).

You need to learn the difference between de facto and de jure.   We are not a Queen's Army.   We take our marching orders from the democratically elected government which represents the people.   The Monarchy, although it is written into this relationship (shall I say wedged), has no say on what we do.

As I said, find a soldier today who joined for the express purpose of serving the British Royals.

Anyway, just because the current batch of heirs is not your idea of a head of state, you think that an elected politician will be more to your liking? Maybe, maybe not. There will always be brilliant leaders and absolute crap hats elected at one time or another, just look at our line of Prime Minister's.

At least:

1) PM's (and Parliament) are Canadian.

2) We (in terms of the Canadian public) put them there.

3) If we really wanted, we could go there ourselves.

Speaking of growing thicker skin, I would recommend it to you. No personal offence intended, as this isn't personal to begin with, but telling me to â Å“piss offâ ? and to â Å“cram it up my assâ ?, simply because I have seemingly offended your sensibilities and lashing out at me because of it, is not my idea of having thick skin. Regardless, telling me to cram it up my ass seems to make it a bit more personal. If I have misread the tone of your post, or accidentally offended you in my original post, then I apologise.

You've decided to make it personal by telling us we fail to live up to our oaths.   You took the "moral indignation" act with Wes and I (among others) and I told you where to take it.   If you're upset because my words were mean, that's your problem.

Finally, in regard to your old antique analogy, I don't associate the Monarchy as some sort of vase that does nothing but decorate our house. I would imagine the monarchy to be more like the 'grandma' is this situation. She owns the house, but is too old to manage it and thus bed ridden and essentially useless in the mundane sense of the word. It doesn't mean we should necessarily get rid of grandma and attempt to put the house in our name. And you never know, the old bat may still have her uses, like having a quiet chat with father when he gets out of line.    :

Nope, she ain't Grandma.   She doesn't own the house (remember de facto and de jure), I can't see it having any use what-so-ever (other then coming for some pagentry), and I doubt the Queen (or King) will come to Canada to have a chat with the Prime Minister or Parliament about how they do their jobs.   In fact, "she" is a useless definition because the "Crown" is inanimate.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm partial to the fire extinguisher analogy.   You've never used it, and you hope you never have to, but you should really keep it around anyway because if you ever do need it there's nothing else that will do.

I'm not sure how this fits.   How will the Monarchy that rests in Britain ever come to pull us out of the fire?

If you are implying the Governor General, then yes, I agree - but until you open that office to some sort of public accountability, it won't be politically feasible to rely on it (the King/Byng affair was mentioned).

As well, we are assuming that the Governor General must to represent the British Royals?

No - I can't see the Monarchy being a fire extinguisher; the antique seems to fit better.

As soon as the position becomes elected it will be politicized.   One of the essential virtues of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen doesn't owe anyone any favours, is immune to political pressure, and is above the divisiveness of politics.   The minute you start choosing the person for the office, which really means electing him or her at some level, then you've got yourself another politician.   And we have plenty of those already.

No, once you empower a position, it becomes politicized.   Kings and Queens of any nation, when they've had their hands in the pie, have proved just as capable of providing favours, being swayed by pressure, and taking a bias on national affairs.   There is no immutable law that states that Monarchs are above partisan politics.

As Edward mentioned:

Is the German president overly political?   How about the Indian president or the Israeli president?   There are several Westminster style parliamentary republics, with selected presidents.   I refuse to accept that Canadians are so venal as to be unable to manage.

There are many examples of how we can structurally limit the divisiveness of partisan politics on the head of state.   I'm all for having a popularly elected Governor General who takes on the "Elder Statesman" role - essentially filling out your fire-extinguisher analogy.

 

[Neill McKay]

It's odd the Germany has been held up as an example.  Do you remember what happened to them when they lost their monarchy?

 

[Infanteer]

It's odd the Germany has been held up as an example.   Do you remember what happened to them when they lost their monarchy?

They became an elected republic?

You're reaching now - and the analogy is really poor.    

1) The role of Germany's Monarchy up to the end of WWI within German politics is far different then the role of the Monarchy in Canadian politics now.

2) What happened to the American's when they lost their Monarchy?

3) As well, I fail to see how losing the Kaiser was the reason the Nazi's came to power - I don't recall the glory of the Hohenzollern's being a biggie in Hitler's speeches.

Anyways, you've just enacted Godwin's Law on the Monarchy thread - good going....

 

[Neill McKay]

Anyways, you've just enacted Godwin's Law on the Monarchy thread - good going....

Yes, realised that myself almost immediately!

 

[McInnes]

The oath: I, undersigned _____ do solemnly affirm/swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors according to law. 

Quote me where I implied that you have failed in your duty in regard to military service, as I implied no such thing. Perhaps you like to see challenges where there are none. And also if you please, tell me how someone saying slanderous things in public, lives up to this oath. All questions of morality aside.

Wes or anyone for that matter can have whatever opinion they please on our monarchy. I have no issue with it, this is Canada after all. However, I do have issue with derogatory statements issued towards our monarchy made in public. One is not necessary to promote the other.

You've decided to make it personal by telling us we fail to live up to our oaths.  You took the "moral indignation" act with Wes and I (among others) and I told you where to take it.  If you're upset because my words were mean, that's your problem.

Perhaps you have. That is your thing. It does not have any sort of personal impact on me so it's not exactly terribly upsetting.

As I said, find a soldier today who joined for the express purpose of serving the British Royals.

I must admit, I would be hardpressed to do so, as that is not even why I joined. However, the British Royals...I guess it's how you view it. I could care less about the 'Queen of England' so to speak, however I am obligated to show allegiance to the 'Queen of Canada'. Two separate offices filled by the same person. Times have changed and people feel differently. I do admit to being somewhat swayed in my thinking, listening to various members of my family speak before they passed away, of their time in the forces from the days of WWII. To me the Queen of Canada represents Canada, much like Jesus to many, gives human face to Christianity and all that it stands for and all of its ideals. Not to mix religion with politics  :-X

I believe there was an idea put forward awhile ago, about simply having one of the Queen's line marry some suitable Quebecois girl and moving to Canada, replacing the GG and having an actual Canadian born monarchy. It seems that that might solve some problems people seem to have with having a British born Queen.