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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2013, 03:31 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,276 posts, read 6,604,283 times
Reputation: 14315

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp View Post
Those people are not "wannabes." They are people taking a stand for a cause, which is that requiring immigrants who wish to naturalize to give an oath of allegiance to a Queen is a repugnant practice.

The oath should be to uphold the Constitution of Canada.

Are you suggesting that a person must agree with 100% of the laws and customs of a nation in order to live there? Because that sounds like fascism to me. Like it or not, part of the benefit of immigration is the new ways of thinking it brings to the country.

That being said, the monarchy does not define Canada and is in fact quite irrelevant to Canada. There are many natural-born Canadians who agree on this point and find the monarchy to be detestable. In fact, it's quite a huge majority in Quebec, and last time I checked, they were the original Canadians (no, the aboriginals were not Canadians. They had their own nations).
Nonsense. They don't have a cause. Their cause is strictly for their own self-interests without any thought for country. Those people are all republican minded people who are already landed immigrants enjoying the benefits of immigration but now they want more, they want all the extra benefits that come with Canadian citizenship. They want the extra benefits of citizenship but they don't want to pay the price for the benefits, namely to swear allegiance to Crown and Country. So they use the monarchy and the present monarch's British heritage as an excuse to not swear allegiance.

It's a really lame excuse. I don't trust selfish hypocrites like that who come here thinking only of themselves and wanting all the benefits they can get and to use the country for all it's worth but they don't want to commit themselves in return. It makes me wonder if their true allegiance is to the home countries and governments they came from and maybe the only reason they immigrated to Canada was in the hopes of infilltrating and changing Canada to suit their own selfish needs or the desires of some other country's government or possibly even more insidious ulterior motives. In this day and age any of that is possible.

If they want citizenship and all it's benefits instead of remaining landed immigrants then they must give their allegiance.

And I don't care about the original Quebecers being the original Canadians - they're all dead and gone now and are not relevant to new immigrants coming here and trying to get Canada to change for them.

You didn't answer my question. If you disapprove of monarchy then why did you immigrate to Canada instead of to some other country that isn't a monarchy? Are you a landed immigrant in Canada without all the benefits of citizenship or are you now a Canadian citizen who swore allegiance in spite of your disapproval so that you could get all the benefits?

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 07-12-2013 at 03:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2013, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,697 posts, read 8,771,886 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
We do indeed get to choose, as the crown of Canada is technically separate from the crown of the UK.

We actually just passed a succession to the crown act this year, though it was just an affirmation of the changes to the succession laws that the UK recently passed. [center for constitutional studies]

One difference that I did catch was that of regency. In the UK, if the king or queen is a minor or incapable or ruling, a regent rules in their place. The regent, however, would not be recognized in Canada.
This is fascinating. I'm going to read up on this...maybe get my name in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,697 posts, read 8,771,886 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp View Post
Those people are not "wannabes." They are people taking a stand for a cause, which is that requiring immigrants who wish to naturalize to give an oath of allegiance to a Queen is a repugnant practice.

The oath should be to uphold the Constitution of Canada.

Are you suggesting that a person must agree with 100% of the laws and customs of a nation in order to live there? Because that sounds like fascism to me. Like it or not, part of the benefit of immigration is the new ways of thinking it brings to the country.

That being said, the monarchy does not define Canada and is in fact quite irrelevant to Canada. There are many natural-born Canadians who agree on this point and find the monarchy to be detestable. In fact, it's quite a huge majority in Quebec, and last time I checked, they were the original Canadians (no, the aboriginals were not Canadians. They had their own nations).
They are not Canadians, so they really don't have a right to complain about the country and it's oaths that they CHOSE to immigrate too.
After they become Canadians, go for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,024 posts, read 10,580,197 times
Reputation: 8913
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp View Post
lucknow, I am an immigrant and I don't approve of monarchy. What are you going to do about it?
Nothing but disrespect you!

It's like an American immigrant who does not approve of the Stars and Stripes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,697 posts, read 8,771,886 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
We were taught that in elementary school social studies, politics and history, more than 55 years ago. Maybe that is no longer taught in school these days.

You are correct in that Queen Elizabeth's personal wealth is separate from the wealth of the House of Windsor and both the Queen's wealth and the House wealth are separate from the wealths of the British Crown and the Canadian Crown. The monarch's wealth is not passed on to Canada, however, the wealth of the Canadian Crown is separate from the wealth of the British Crown. They are two separate things and Canada's wealth remains with Canada no matter who the monarch is.

Regarding the following wiki quote - those are individuals with their own personal and/or business wealths - they are not royal Houses with accrued wealth that goes back for many centuries as with the House of Windsor. Before it was the House of Windsor it was called the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and before the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha it was the House of Hannover (also known as the House of Brunswick, Hanover Line) going back to around 400 years ago, and before that I don't remember what the House was called. Maybe someone else can research it. They are all the same royal House and same lineage in spite of name changes and that House is the wealthiest entity of all.

My personal opinion is that it is economically and politically a good move for Canada to continue to stay aligned with the wealthiest and most influential entity which is the House of Windsor and its inheritors.



.
If they did teach it, I certainly didn't retain it. I will read up on it though.

I'm still wary in believing the wealth part . Does anyone have figures?

As for it being economically a good move to align ourselves with the House of Windsor, I still fail to see that considering that wealth does not and will not flow towards Canada, conversely it's not a disadvantage.

What could be argued is the advantages, if any, of being part of the Commonwealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,265 posts, read 13,174,599 times
Reputation: 13467
I've been wondering when dr.knoble was going to reappear on our board.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,697 posts, read 8,771,886 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux View Post
I've been wondering when dr.knoble was going to reappear on our board.
Yes...just waiting for " it " ....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 04:17 PM
 
25,059 posts, read 23,196,156 times
Reputation: 11624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Those "wannabe Canadian Citizen" immigrants (and anyone else who sympathises with them) who are fighting the oath are ignorant idiots who don't understand history, haven't done their homework about Canada as a monarchy and they don't deserve to become Canadians. I hope they all go back home to where they originally came from and stay there.

The Canadian Monarch (Queen Elizabeth at this time) is symbolic and representative of the Canadian Crown and the Canadian Crown is Canada. By swearing allegiance to the monarch they are swearing allegiance to Crown and Canada. If they don't want to swear allegiance to Canada then Canada doesn't need or want people like that because they are enemies to Canada.

I think something that confuses some people in other countries (even some Canadians) is understanding that in Canada Queen Elizabeth is not the Queen of England, that she is the Queen of Canada and is a Canadian citizen.

So they think because she is also the Queen of England that it must mean that Canada is dominated by the English Crown, not understanding that the Canadian Crown is a completely different entity and monarchy.

Canada did have the option of becoming a republic (or any other ruling system of their choice) but Canada chose to remain a monarchy in its own right and chose to keep Queen Elizabeth as the monarch. Queen Elizabeth is a separate monarch in 16 other countries too, who all chose to remain as monarchies and all chose to keep her as their monarch when they gained independence from British rule and the British Crown. There's 2 or 3 other countries that decided to give up the monarchical system altogether and became republics instead. Those republics are still members of the Commonwealth of Nations because of their previous connection with the British monarchy but they aren't doing as well as republics as the monarchies are doing as monarchies.

When Queen Elizabeth dies Canada will be faced with choosing whether or not to keep Elizabeth's line and House of Windsor inheritor (Charles) as Canada's new monarch or to choose an entirely different new monarch, possibly a native-born Canadian this time. Canada has the option to choose anyone as monarch, it can be someone who is a Canadian or it could be somebody else from a completely different country.

I'm pretty sure though that when she dies Canada will continue to keep the inheritor(s) of House of Windsor as monarch rather than choosing a new monarch from Canada or from somewhere else. It's "smart" politics to keep the House of Windsor since the House of Windsor is the wealthiest entity on the planet.

.
You do have one wrong thing in your post.
Quote:
I think something that confuses some people in other countries (even some Canadians) is understanding that in Canada Queen Elizabeth is not the Queen of England, that she is the Queen of Canada and is a Canadian citizen
. Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, yes, but she is not a Canadian citizen. She is the Sovereign of Canada, a citizen cannot be a sovereign, and vice versa. The governor general, however, is a Canadian citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 04:35 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,276 posts, read 6,604,283 times
Reputation: 14315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
What could be argued is the advantages, if any, of being part of the Commonwealth.
That might be worthy of a topic in it's own right. There was a topic here about the Commonwealth but I don't recall if there was any discussion about the advantages of being members of the Commonwealth.

Australia did a poll about it:
Benefit of Membership of Commonwealth of Nations

Quote:
Q. Do you think Australia benefits from being part of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly known as the British Commonwealth)?

A. 47% believed there is some or a lot of benefit in being part of the Commonwealth and 19% think there is no benefit. Those most likely to think there is some/a lot of benefit were aged 65+ (64%) and Liberal/National voters (55%)
Aside from all the "good works" that the Commonwealth is noted for, there are also trade advantages to its 53 members: Commonwealth Secretariat - Commonwealth members enjoy up to 50 per cent trade advantage

Quote:

A Commonwealth country’s trade with another member is likely to be a third to a half more than with a non-member, even after taking into account other possible contributory factors such as proximity, level of development and language, according to new research published today by the Royal Commonwealth Society (RCS).


The research also reveals that, over the last two decades, the importance of Commonwealth members to each other as sources of imports and destinations for exports has grown by around a quarter and third respectively .............
Commonwealth Secretariat - Home

BBC News - Profile: The Commonwealth

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2013, 04:49 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,732,030 times
Reputation: 9029
welcome back drknoble, missed ya
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