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.
It seems some republican types do not think it through, Howard had the utter cheek to make out he was defacto head of state when he decided he outranked HM in opening the Sydney olympics.
He was of course just one of the hired help.
Politicians believe THEY are entitled to a salute from military personnel, they are not, only ministers of the crown and leader of HM's loyal opposition are entitled to have one thrown up .
We who were in uniform should have saluted the servants of the people, in their dreams.
The types who send letters to battalions bosses asking if less ammunition could be used
Of course if Canada becomes a republic like Germany they would have to dump the Victoria Cross as it's highest award for valour.
I'm not in the military, but I'm sure there are people in that realm who would oppose abandoning tradition and moving towards a republic.
My opinion is that the tradition itself is wrong. I won't ever salute a foreign-born head of state who's only credentials are their family name and their religious affiliation, that goes against everything I believe in and probably what many people living in any modern mature democracy also believe in, they just haven't thought it through because it isn't an issue that makes the news.
Look at the system we have in place....we have a situation where the Governor General is appointed by the PM, but the Governor General is the de-facto head of state and has ultimate decision-making powers that the PM doesn't have, and the Governor General is also head of the military. The Queen NEVER interferes.
Why even bother keeeping up the charade? Why not let the people vote who becomes the Governor General instead?
If you value democracy, egalitarianism, meritocracy...then it makes complete sense. Hereditary rule is unneccessary and a waste of tax payer money.
I am a dual citizen American and Canadian. Born in the USA to Canadian parents. I am a Monarchist. the Crown ensures the rights and freedoms of all Canadians and is above political party. The Queen's role in the Canadian Realm is different than in the UK. I prefer the Canadian way of Government , God save the Queen of Canada !
I am a dual citizen American and Canadian. Born in the USA to Canadian parents. I am a Monarchist. the Crown ensures the rights and freedoms of all Canadians and is above political party. The Queen's role in the Canadian Realm is different than in the UK. I prefer the Canadian way of Government , God save the Queen of Canada !
It boils down to whether you want to elect your head of state, or preserve a figurehead and a bloodline going back centuries.
I used to be a very staunch republican to say the least, now I find myself undecided, partly because of my desire for Britain itself not to Americanise itself even further.
I do not want a head of state the same as the US presidency. It causes the ills and successes of the nation to be placed on one man or woman's shoulders.
In a sense, you could argue that the British and commonwealth nations do have a choice anyway. If the majority of British people decided that the monarchy needed to go, the monarchy would be phased out, diplomatically and carefully, with no revolution or bloodshed needed.
You have to look at the cost/benefit. What would we really gain from the change and what would we lose? They have no power anyway and I wouldn't want an elected head of state with power and selfish interests replacing them, to be honest, unless we could say have a similar system to the Irish system. I would rather have the government made accountable for their decisions, not an individual.
UK government has a vested interest in the monarchy because it owns all their property and their crown jewels, there is also the tourism industry to consider, so the likelyhood of any UK government opening up a monarchy debate is zero. The rest of us commonwealth member nations getting nothing but a big fat bill whenever they come visit.
My desire would be to see the Governor General become an elected office by a direct vote from the people, no need to redefine the role or their powers, just keep them as they are. It would be very similar to the Irish system.
Last edited by zortation; 01-16-2012 at 09:47 AM..
UK government has a vested interest in the monarchy because it owns all their property and their crown jewels, there is also the tourism industry to consider, so the likelyhood of any UK government opening up a monarchy debate is zero. The rest of us commonwealth member nations getting nothing but a big fat bill whenever they come visit.
My desire would be to see the Governor General become an elected office by a direct vote from the people, no need to redefine the role or their powers, just keep them as they are. It would be very similar to the Irish system.
You get a big fat bill anytime anyone important visits, president, king, prime minster or chancellor.
I agree though, commonwealth countries have a different need and a different decision to make. I wouldn't mind the Irish system either, for the record, but as someone fairly into history, it's quite interesting to me preserving that bloodline for future generations. It's just another way of preserving our history.
WIHS, Prince William has done no end of good for the image and popularity of the royal family. He has picked up where his mother left off. He will make an excellent king and frankly, they should bypass Charles and make Wills king.
The man is a great role model and a great figurehead to have + a genuinely nice bloke.
Done no end of good? How? What has anyone in the royal family (the biggest welfare recipients anywhere on earth) done for anyone? If you believe that the UK should 'bypass' Charles then you do not support a hereditary system of power. We cannot simply disguard the parts of the system that we do not like - either we have a hereditary system of head of state or we don't.
The fact that we have a 'royal family' is a slap in the face to common sense. If we need a head of state to watch over the government then lets elect one. if they don't really use any power then lets get rid of them. A president would also come with baggage, lies or anything else that comes with being a politician but at least they have been elected.
Having a royal family contributes to an ignorance within British society that allows some people to be given status, wealth, power and credibility without any prerequisite other than being born through the appropriate womb. That is dangerous, regressive and intellectually embarassing. I find support to the monarch some of the most archaic and intellectully bankrupt opinions I've ever come accross.
I'm sure that a lot of people in Canada (and other commonwealth countries) couldn't care that much because it doesn't really mean anything to them either way, but I would love to see them elect to become republics out of pure principle.
Done no end of good? How? What has anyone in the royal family (the biggest welfare recipients anywhere on earth) done for anyone? If you believe that the UK should 'bypass' Charles then you do not support a hereditary system of power. We cannot simply disguard the parts of the system that we do not like - either we have a hereditary system of head of state or we don't.
The fact that we have a 'royal family' is a slap in the face to common sense. If we need a head of state to watch over the government then lets elect one. if they don't really use any power then lets get rid of them. A president would also come with baggage, lies or anything else that comes with being a politician but at least they have been elected.
Having a royal family contributes to an ignorance within British society that allows some people to be given status, wealth, power and credibility without any prerequisite other than being born through the appropriate womb. That is dangerous, regressive and intellectually embarassing. I find support to the monarch some of the most archaic and intellectully bankrupt opinions I've ever come accross.
I'm sure that a lot of people in Canada (and other commonwealth countries) couldn't care that much because it doesn't really mean anything to them either way, but I would love to see them elect to become republics out of pure principle.
What good has being a republic been for the United States?
The office of President has evolved into a de-facto elected monarch as it is ....
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.
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.
