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.
The sad day of the death of QE2 will hasten that debate.
A sad day indeed. I have come to admire QEII. She has dedicated her entire life to the service of her country. Am sure at times it has to be really difficult to have your entire life on display like that.
I have nothing against the monarchy at all. In fact, I would hope the UK never ceases to be a kingdom. I just don't understand the concept of sharing your head of state with a bunch of other countries. To me it is such a unique position that each nation should have its own head of state and identity.
A sad day indeed. I have come to admire QEII. She has dedicated her entire life to the service of her country. Am sure at times it has to be really difficult to have your entire life on display like that.
I have nothing against the monarchy at all. In fact, I would hope the UK never ceases to be a kingdom. I just don't understand the concept of sharing your head of state with a bunch of other countries. To me it is such a unique position that each nation should have its own head of state and identity.
Canada is interesting, while the monarchy may not be popular neither of the 2 main political parties have any interest in becoming a republic.
Some other points on the issue:
1) Recent polls have indicated a significant decline in support for a republic in Australia and New Zealand. John Key says he dosent expect any serious debate on the issue for "at least another decade", and Julia Gillard says that while she supports a republic it should not happen until after Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends. Either way I think Australia and New Zealand will retain the monarchy for at least another 15-20 years if not even longer.
2) Prince William and Kate Middleton, need I say more?
3) Queen Elizabeth II could very well be on the throne for another 10-20 years, I mean her mother lived to be 101 and continued her royal duties until like a month before she died. Queen Elizabeth II says she has no intention to abdicate so we could very well see her about for quite some time to come. I just don't see Charles stepping up to be king when he's in his late 70s/early 80s.
4) I think there will be even less support for a republic when she dies due to the sympathy factor, and the possibility that William may skip over his father to become king. If this happens then I expect it to set the republican movement back even further, probably another 30-40 years before it again becomes a big issue.
5) As an American I will tell you that being a republic is not all it's made out to be. It's also much more expensive.
One interesting idea proposed by some Canadians is that Prince Harry become King of Canada alone. I think it has some merit, as does the idea of skipping Charles for the significantly more popular William.
One interesting idea proposed by some Canadians is that Prince Harry become King of Canada alone. I think it has some merit, as does the idea of skipping Charles for the significantly more popular William.
I've never heard of this idea being proposed by anyone. And number two, I don't think there is anything in the Commonwealth that would allow for such a thing, that a prince, whether William or Harry, could become a king of an individual member country without also being King of the UK. As far as I'm concerned, a Canada with a king that is not first and foremost king of the UK, would be constitutionally an entirely different country.
Canada only passed the BNA act so that the U.S. Wouldn't take over Canada either as an annex, territory or decide it into states, because they assumed that the U.S. wouldn't invade a sovereign nation and it was a correct assumption at the time. That was before the U.S. was completely govt. controlled and people still had power. Back when we used to do the right thing because it was right, not for votes or for money. So I'd be willing to bet at crunch time, when we need Canada's resources, we will unfortunately head North and take whatever we want!
Canada only passed the BNA act so that the U.S. Wouldn't take over Canada either as an annex, territory or decide it into states, because they assumed that the U.S. wouldn't invade a sovereign nation and it was a correct assumption at the time. That was before the U.S. was completely govt. controlled and people still had power. Back when we used to do the right thing because it was right, not for votes or for money. So I'd be willing to bet at crunch time, when we need Canada's resources, we will unfortunately head North and take whatever we want!
Canada passed the BNA act because the British said "hey you colonial rejects, you aren't making us any money and you are a drag on our finances. Join together so we don't have to pay for your bloody defence". That's it in a nutshell. They also hoped to assimilate the French Canadians and wipe out "the problem" once and for all.
I'm not Canadian, but I'm from a different Commonwealth Realm with Elizabeth II as our head of state as well, and I can't deny that there are alot of advantages to having an apolitical hereditary monarch as head of state rather than an elected president.
While there are valid arguments about monarchy violating principles of equality in a democratic society, the truth is that an elected president can be just as divisive, if not more so. Take the recent debacle with the US Congress and Obama, literally 8 years spent with the legislature deliberately obstructing and undermining an ELECTED head of state, to the extent that they'd actually go behind his back and deliberately sabotage diplomatic negotiations between their own president and another sovereign nation.
When you consider the level of political infighting that goes on in elected republics, a Constitutional Monarchy where your head of government is merely an MP makes alot more sense. Having the identity of a nation wrapped up in one man with openly declared political leanings is dangerous to say the least. Nearly all of the constitutional monarchies in existence today are highly egalitarian and well-run democracies, whereas most republics are basket-cases.
I'm not Canadian, but I'm from a different Commonwealth Realm with Elizabeth II as our head of state as well, and I can't deny that there are alot of advantages to having an apolitical hereditary monarch as head of state rather than an elected president.
While there are valid arguments about monarchy violating principles of equality in a democratic society, the truth is that an elected president can be just as divisive, if not more so. Take the recent debacle with the US Congress and Obama, literally 8 years spent with the legislature deliberately obstructing and undermining an ELECTED head of state, to the extent that they'd actually go behind his back and deliberately sabotage diplomatic negotiations between their own president and another sovereign nation.
When you consider the level of political infighting that goes on in elected republics, a Constitutional Monarchy where your head of government is merely an MP makes alot more sense. Having the identity of a nation wrapped up in one man with openly declared political leanings is dangerous to say the least. Nearly all of the constitutional monarchies in existence today are highly egalitarian and well-run democracies, whereas most republics are basket-cases.
That's because the constitutional monarchies that didn't work out were overthrown and replaced with republics. Of course the ones that are left will be the successful ones thanks to processes of elimination.
That's because the constitutional monarchies that didn't work out were overthrown and replaced with republics. Of course the ones that are left will be the successful ones thanks to processes of elimination.
This is true, but there must be a reason why they work and that should be explored. There's a reason why the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia have had largely uninterrupted succession for the last several centuries without crisis, while countries like France and Italy have had multiple constitutional revisions, regime changes and reinventions. There's something to be said about the constitutional monarchy as a model for good governance.
Your argument is correct except for one thing. The BNA was enacted by both the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of Canada. The assumption was that a newly re-united USA after the civil war would eventually turn it's sights on Canada unless it became a sovereign state. There is no reason to think that this assessment was invalid.
I've never heard of this idea being proposed by anyone. And number two, I don't think there is anything in the Commonwealth that would allow for such a thing, that a prince, whether William or Harry, could become a king of an individual member country without also being King of the UK. As far as I'm concerned, a Canada with a king that is not first and foremost king of the UK, would be constitutionally an entirely different country.
that's not only stupid but also sad, as if Canada desperately needs a foreigner to serve as the head of state of the country.
What about asking Obama to act as our King?
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.