U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-14-2013, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,265 posts, read 13,167,241 times
Reputation: 13467

Advertisements

I think we'll all find out when she croaks.

I would say as it stands, it's probably a 50/50 split. For those that even have glancing thoughts about the monarchy anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2013, 04:41 PM
 
18,284 posts, read 10,383,572 times
Reputation: 13353
The optics are bad to make a change immediately upon her death but certainly I hope that someone is looking into all the details and possibilities.

If it requires some sort of Ascendancy Ritual of Canada as a country accepting the succession to the throne of another royal family member,by the country per-se, pledging allegiance to the ascending Monarch, then would be the opportune time to say on behalf of Canadians: "On behalf of the citizens of Canada, you have our heartfelt congratulations, BUT, we'll pass on that, thank you."

Certainly some testing of the water should take place in the near future to gauge Canadian sentiment on the issue given her age and the very real possibility of an immanent ascendancy.

Her Majesty hasn't been the worst at the job, but having Prince Charles and Camilla? Cripes; the mind boggles.

Nothing has been done to change the status-quo because we just haven't been that bothered by it, nor have we been overly upset with the performance of the last few Governor Generals acting on our behalf but maybe........

Now, if the next in line refuses to take the job anjd it passes down to William and Kate, we might be looking at a ground swell of desire to make them de-facto rulers for life. LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 04:50 PM
 
103 posts, read 138,266 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
The optics are bad to make a change immediately upon her death but certainly I hope that someone is looking into all the details and possibilities.

If it requires some sort of Ascendancy Ritual of Canada as a country accepting the succession to the throne of another royal family member,by the country per-se, pledging allegiance to the ascending Monarch, then would be the opportune time to say on behalf of Canadians: "On behalf of the citizens of Canada, you have our heartfelt congratulations, BUT, we'll pass on that, thank you."

Certainly some testing of the water should take place in the near future to gauge Canadian sentiment on the issue given her age and the very real possibility of an immanent ascendancy.

Her Majesty hasn't been the worst at the job, but having Prince Charles and Camilla? Cripes; the mind boggles.

Nothing has been done to change the status-quo because we just haven't been that bothered by it, nor have we been overly upset with the performance of the last few Governor Generals acting on our behalf but maybe........

Now, if the next in line refuses to take the job anjd it passes down to William and Kate, we might be looking at a ground swell of desire to make them de-facto rulers for life. LOL.
The thing i think people see to assume is it would be cheaper and thing such as immigration laws would not be as strict its very possible that it would not be cheaper and immigration laws could be stricter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,176 posts, read 1,754,272 times
Reputation: 2652
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayme2015 View Post
Harper can't just end the ties to the Monarchy first he has to find out is that really what the Canadian people want then they can start to to end ties with the Monarchy plus finding a new system but that would not been done ina few years we would be talking years.
No Prime Minister (Harper or anybody who comes after him) can just end the ties to the monarchy. To get rid of the monarchy would require a constitutional amendment. On paper, it sounds easy: we need the assent of Parliament, plus the assent of at least seven provinces containing of at least 50% of the population. But in practice, it is extremely difficult: witness Meech Lake and Charlottetown, both of which were attempts to amend the Constitution, and neither of which passed. I'm sure that even if there was the will to re-open the Constitution to get rid of the monarchy, a number of provinces would clutter the process with a refusal to vote in favour unless their particular wishes were included.

And before we amend the Constitution that way, we have to figure out what to replace the monarchy with. I think that's going to be a long, tough slog before we reach enough agreement one way or the other. The Australians couldn't agree in their 1999 referendum on abolishing the monarchy; why do we think we could?

Right now, things ain't broke. No need to fix them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 05:53 PM
 
103 posts, read 138,266 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
No Prime Minister (Harper or anybody who comes after him) can just end the ties to the monarchy. To get rid of the monarchy would require a constitutional amendment. On paper, it sounds easy: we need the assent of Parliament, plus the assent of at least seven provinces containing of at least 50% of the population. But in practice, it is extremely difficult: witness Meech Lake and Charlottetown, both of which were attempts to amend the Constitution, and neither of which passed. I'm sure that even if there was the will to re-open the Constitution to get rid of the monarchy, a number of provinces would clutter the process with a refusal to vote in favour unless their particular wishes were included.

And before we amend the Constitution that way, we have to figure out what to replace the monarchy with. I think that's going to be a long, tough slog before we reach enough agreement one way or the other. The Australians couldn't agree in their 1999 referendum on abolishing the monarchy; why do we think we could?

Right now, things ain't broke. No need to fix them.
I think it would open up a can of worms you could have Quebec saying we will agree if we get this and that same with Ontario etc i just don't think it would be worth it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,146,540 times
Reputation: 3738
We do have a lot of historical ties to the monarchy and the commonwealth.. aside from that I wouldn't object to having a Canadian HOS - in practice the Governor General has done more as HOS than the Queen for a long time now so really the role is totally traditional and symbolic. I think that is why most Canadians don't really care to open this can of worms.

Also - in her capacity of HOS of Canada - the Queen is not the Queen of England... she is the Queen of Canada. There is no connection to the Queen of England and the Queen of Canada.

I personally think we have bigger fish to fry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
I believe that swearing allegiance to the Queen of England to gain citizenship in Canada is an outdated tradition that should be put to rest, along with all our other symbolic ties to the British monarchy. However, Stephen Harper seems to be a royalist who jizzes all over himself in the presence of British royalty and is doing everything he can to reverse Canada's decades-long drift away from Britain's monarchy.

Canada is a big boy now. We don't need the queen on our money, or anywhere else. It's time to break all remaining ties with the British monarchy and declare ourselves a fully independent and sovereign nation - no oaths of allegiance necessary, except to Canada itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 06:54 PM
 
18,284 posts, read 10,383,572 times
Reputation: 13353
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayme2015 View Post
I think it would open up a can of worms you could have Quebec saying we will agree if we get this and that same with Ontario etc i just don't think it would be worth it.
The last two posts are excellent counter-points to mine with the kicker being "if it ain't broke why fix it?"

Why indeed. Just to encourage some immigrants when we get all we desire?

To appease anti-royalists who are not in any way ill effected by the conventions?

Why indeed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 07:17 PM
 
1,723 posts, read 5,142,745 times
Reputation: 1351
BruSan - that doesn't mean we can't fix the oath to make it an oath to Canada and not to the queen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 07:49 PM
 
558 posts, read 547,642 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM View Post
The world isn't so black and white as that. I understand where you're coming from on this, I too was a Republican when I was a young man, it came naturally from my background, but the Monarchy serves us well as a check against politicians. I don't really care that it isn't democratic because that's what it's for, it's a useful counterbalance against the negative aspects of democracy, which despite the ideology we've been fed all our lives is not a perfect form of government to be held up on a pedestal. Pure democracy can lead to senseless and selfish decision making, like voting in tons of benefits while cutting taxes in a way that is not in the longterm interests of the society. That kind of chaotic, disjointed and unplanned legislation is what seems to have happened in California and it doesn't seem to be working out well there. That's where representative government comes in, but that leads to the evil quagmire of party politcs and even worse, those politicians becoming the symbols of the whole civilization or society. We need something above it all, and I feel the monarchy with its broad view of matters, symbolism, and limited but important jurisdiction is a vital part of that equation when it comes to creating a governance model that helps us be a successful state.
But how can an undemocratic and unelected monarchy, which has no legal checks on its own executive powers, serve as a check against a democracy? Currently that monarchy is passive, but what legally restricts the monarchy if it becomes aggressive. The people can vote to change party politics, but according to your constitution, the queen cannot be removed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM View Post
As for equality, it's a single exception and it's fine, because the truth is we all are coming from special places and are not the same. I am born as a citizen with certain rights and responsibilities that a Nigerian doesn't have, likewise the royals are born with a different set of rights and responsibilities as they do not have the same status as I at birth. Freedom is important but I already am being governed by a government no matter what and need that to live in a civilized society. They are not despots, and when they do act they do so on behalf of the people`s interests. Democracy, as I said, I do not see absolute democracy as a good system, and neither did others which is why we live in representative democracies rather then direct ones, because somebody has to take the longview. The monarch keeps those representatives from getting too uppity, and I`m fine with someone who hasn`t too much power doing that.
Wow. So basically you're against equality. Where else does your "single exception" apply? Slavery, murder, rape?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2013, 08:14 PM
 
558 posts, read 547,642 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby View Post
You are confused dear boy, the USA is a REPUBLIC not a democracy, might I suggest you read a touch about your so called founders, they were against Democracy. Equality in the USA, hell one could not vote in the sixties if one had a touch of the tar brush in the USA. Good god, another yank who believes only the USA has freedom.
On the contrary my dear fellow, you are actually the one that is confused because the US is both a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY through and through. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Especially considering that many citizens of those countries such as yourself are doing everything in their power to defend and making excuses for that barbaric and undemocratic institution.

And the democratic US constitution was created with a way for it's people to legally make amendments such as extending voting rights. Is there a specified legal way for you to remove your country's monarchy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top