# The Royal Family, good or bad to have them?



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

*.*

.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Some surprising thoughts there, MCB.

According to many polls we are in the minority these days. Many want to rid Canada of our ties to the monarchy. I don't believe they should be running the show but I certainly have no problem with their current role. There aren't many that think like me anymore. I happen to like and believe in tradition. I don't have any problem being Canadian AND accepting Canada as part of the Commonwealth. I don't suffer from some identity crisis because we have a Queen and a British parliamentary system. I do not want to be the Republic of Canada.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I voted "other".

We absolutely should respect the history, symbolism, and tradition of the monarchy, but they should not have any real power. While their current role is largely symbolic, the constitution still attributes real power to them that should be there in any official capacity.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

Just think about what MCB is saying.....

Monarchs are impartial and thus not accountable or tied to any lobby groups, political parties, businesses or individuals. Monarchs represent a whole society or nation. Monarchy because of its lifelong reigns is able to solve long term issues. Since Monarchy doesn't belong to any party or group, every citizen is equal in their eyes. Monarchs are able to make decisions quickly without any delays. 

Elected parties are accountable to the voters who brought them to power. They must satisfy the populist 'mob' rule if they want to stay in power!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A monarchy is every bit as susceptible to bribery and corruption as a parliamentary system or a republic. Perhaps even more so, given the theoretical ability to bar any form of comprehensive investigation - and subsequent prosecution for - corrupt goings-on within the upper echelons of an opaque monarchy.

In any case, it's no panacea. Monarchy has a spectacular and often-bloody history of deposed leaders, crafty assinations, strategic weddings for new power alighments, strategic beheadings to ward off other power grabs, misinformed decisions with tragic, epic consequences... pointless battles that bleed out the nation's purse, not to mention sacrifice huge swathes of the citizenry... the list goes on.

Tradition is fine. But I'd rather not live under the thumb of any given king or queen. Strikes me as the stuff of fables.

The other thing is, in the absence of a monarchy, we tend to invent royal figures anyway - we grant them a similar sense of awed status or romantic vibe. Must be something deep-seated in the rabble's murky genetic soup.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

sharonmac09 said:


> Monarchs are impartial and thus not accountable or tied to any lobby groups, political parties, businesses or individuals. Monarchs represent a whole society or nation. Monarchy because of its lifelong reigns is able to solve long term issues. Since Monarchy doesn't belong to any party or group, every citizen is equal in their eyes. Monarchs are able to make decisions quickly without any delays.


I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you. That should get first prize for the fairy tale of the day.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I think the more logical question here is this: If the Monarchy is an institution which is suitable for governing, why aren't more countries with a history of an existing monarchy turning over the power to them? Answer: They are useless at leadership in the current world stage.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

SINC said:


> I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you. That should get first prize for the fairy tale of the day.


Oh boo hoo, somebody found a sucker to buy them in the first place!



MazterCBlazter said:


> Isn't that where Bush stole the vote?


:clap::lmao:



Rps said:


> I think the more logical question here is this: If the Monarchy is an institution which is suitable for governing, why aren't more countries with a history of an existing monarchy turning over the power to them? Answer: They are useless at leadership in the current world stage.


I feel that monarchy is no longer viable as an institution because the common people are now more educated than they have ever been and they can no longer be blindly governed. No more ignorant serfs working in a feudal system! No loyalty to their lords! Thus no loyalty to their kings and queens.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Very good points to ponder.
> 
> Beheadings and public executions, floggings etc. hmm. they do need some more powerful ways to deter youths from joining criminal gangs....


They do. But a monarchy isn't necessarily going to mind the store any better than the what we have with the current arrangement.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

MazterCBlazter said:


> :lmao::lmao:
> 
> The most powerful nation on Earth votes in George Bush, not once, but twice, even though he made a big mess after one term. A country full of hillbillies waiting for the rapture, with guns, gets to vote between playing dueling banjos.
> 
> ...


Yeah, yeah we can read but I never said we are more intelligent. Why do you think most people are drawn en-masse to charismatic leaders even though the latter may be dithering idiots? Or murdering cult leaders? Or evil dictators? Or amoral leaders like Hitler?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Charismatic leaders can certainly derail entire countries, or lead a nation into disastrous wars. No question there.

And we certainly continue to confuse intelligence with wisdom. An old problem with our species.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

[/QUOTE}I feel that monarchy is no longer viable as an institution because the common people are now more educated than they have ever been and they can no longer be blindly governed. No more ignorant serfs working in a feudal system! No loyalty to their lords! Thus no loyalty to their kings and queens.[/QUOTE]

The monarchy lost its ability to rule when they lost their ability to hold onto what they considered "their land rights". The "rabble" became owners and wanted to control "their land". As for being blindly governed Sharon, I'm not so sure we aren't all suffering from a form of myopia in this regard ... do we truly ever "know" are we truly "enlightened" about ours or any other countries issues? Not to turn this into a media slam, but many times our view of the world is skewed by the media we follow, in that sense we are all ignorant serfs to the media. Take a look at the commercials by lobby groups in the US, and more subtly here in Canada. You can't tell what the truth actually is anymore ... a problem that also dates back to the time of the Royals .....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Rps said:


> [/QUOTE}....many times our view of the world is skewed by the media we follow, in that sense we are all ignorant serfs to the media. Take a look at the commercials by lobby groups in the US, and more subtly here in Canada. You can't tell what the truth actually is anymore ... a problem that also dates back to the time of the Royals .....


Oh, absolu-bobbly. Right on there. Love that line "ignorant serfs to the media."

My take is a bit different and perhaps admittedly greyer - it's that it's not us vs. the media; never has been. Rather, we _are_ the media and we get what we deserve. We like to complain, but we still ravenously watch/download/disseminate.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

YouTube - Monty Python and the Holy Grail


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

sharonmac09 said:


> Monarchs are impartial and thus not accountable or tied to any lobby groups, political parties, businesses or individuals. Monarchs represent a whole society or nation. Monarchy because of its lifelong reigns is able to solve long term issues. Since Monarchy doesn't belong to any party or group, every citizen is equal in their eyes. Monarchs are able to make decisions quickly without any delays.


Crap!!!! Monarchs are bunch of self-serving freeloaders who live off the sweat of others and should be the first against the wall in the revolution. Monarchs don't give a sh!t about those they parasite off.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

rgray, as Max so eloquently said, not all monarchs have wisdom. Some of course are/were freeloaders and have led their nations to ruination. What I have said earlier is just a description of monarchy-nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

MazterCBlazter said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> ...


:lmao::lmao:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

No. She had a short chat with him about social housing for the poor when he dedicated their low-income housing project here in St.John's.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

sharonmac09 said:


> rgray, as Max so eloquently said, not all monarchs have wisdom. Some of course are/were freeloaders and have led their nations to ruination. What I have said earlier is just a description of monarchy-nothing more, nothing less.


Was there ever an actual monarchy that fit your description....?? You are talking potentials at best..... In reality human nature intervenes and power corrupts.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

How the mighty have fallen.

YouTube - The Original 'Maple Leaf Forever'

My wife recalls having to sing this in school when she was growing up in Alberta.

YouTube - The Maple Leaf forever (original version)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

YouTube - The Royal & National Anthems of Canada

At the rate that Elizabeth II is going, not sure when Charles will make it to the throne. We shall see.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

What angers me about this royal business is that I, and indeed all Canadians, are going to have to pay out so this useless shmuck can have a free vacation.

I don't see there ever being any possibility that Chuck or any other of his freeloading ilk are going to toss so much as a dime, from their vast stolen fortune, my way so that I might go on a vacation. On top of that, the stupid fawning acolytes are going to shower him with gifts.....


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I like the fact that the Governor General is the Head of State in this country when the Monarch stays away. They are appointed serve a term and are gone. 

We can be critical of the Government and its policies without being critical of the Country. 

In the Excited States where they elect their Monarch, if you are critical of the President, you are critical of the Head of State and thereby perceived to be critical of the Country.

Look at the situation the Dixie Chicks found themselves in, when they mentioned their embarrassment of Bush as President, on the eve of the war in Iraq. They were considered disloyal, traitors.

In Canada you dump on the PM and not be considered a traitor (well that is as long as the PM isn’t a Conservative and you don’t dump on her/him here on Ehmac. )


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> Was there ever an actual monarchy that fit your description....?? You are talking potentials at best..... In reality human nature intervenes and power corrupts.


That is exactly why I said that the original description should win first place for the best fairly tale in the thread. It was naive at best and so far from the truth describing any monarchy it was sad.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

sinc said:


> that is exactly why i said that the original description should win first place for the best fairly tale in the thread. It was naive at best and so far from the truth describing any monarchy it was sad.


+ ∞


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I like the fact that the Governor General is the Head of State in this country when the Monarch stays away. They are appointed serve a term and are gone.


I guess you missed the hubbub all over the news a few weeks back.

The GG is NOT Canada's "head of state". That title is reserved for Queen Elizabeth alone. 

Having noted that, the position should be abolished altogether.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

rgray said:


> Was there ever an actual monarchy that fit your description....??


I'm gonna say Peter the Great, he was alright.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

rgray said:


> What angers me about this royal business is that I, and indeed all Canadians, are going to have to pay out so this useless shmuck can have a free vacation..


After all, aren't we supposedly in a public health crisis where a few dollars more would maybe make a difference.


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

rgray said:


> Was there ever an actual monarchy that fit your description....?? You are talking potentials at best..... In reality human nature intervenes and power corrupts.


Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Let me elucidate it for you. IT IS JUST A DESCRIPTION OF THE MONARCHY'S POWERS. Nowhere did it say that I endorse this system.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

^^^

Stating it in an uncritical way is _de facto_ endorsement.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The Prince of Wales - The Prince's Charities
> 
> The Prince of Wales - Home
> 
> ...


Plus, he wants the Anglican church to re-enter the Catholic fold. He's got my vote!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

bsenka said:


> I voted "other".
> 
> We absolutely should respect the history, symbolism, and tradition of the monarchy, but they should not have any real power. While their current role is largely symbolic, the constitution still attributes real power to them that should be there in any official capacity.


+1
but will add, if we have a charter of rights, we behave like a country then we should be rid of them other than symbolism not to mention we should rid ourselves of the money pit called the Governor General.. If the PMO is the power of all powers - then what is the purpose for that role other than, read mandates of the newly elected Parliaments.. I am sure we can find someone else who is cheaper to handle that role. It seems that the GG role is like the secretary of state, flying around making promises no one can keep. :lmao:
We have someone for that role.. Leader of the Opposition..


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> That's a little more than I give to charities.


Yeah, but then you (and your ancestors) didn't steal your money from every country in the empire.....

The royal treasury comes from plundering and pillaging the better part of the world, and from the slave trade.... Makes 'blood diamonds' look like penny ante cash...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> I guess you missed the hubbub all over the news a few weeks back.
> 
> The GG is NOT Canada's "head of state". That title is reserved for Queen Elizabeth alone.
> 
> Having noted that, the position should be abolished altogether.


Well Sinc, even the government was confused on this one. What is interesting is prior GGs referred to themselves as Head of State, since they are the Queen's Representative in Canada and as such thought themselves appropriate for that appellation. It was only this GG and our current PM that this became an issue ... all around the time of a possible forced election ... hmmmmmmmmmm. How very regal of him.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

rgray said:


> Yeah, but then you (and your ancestors) didn't steal your money from every country in the empire.....
> 
> The royal treasury comes from plundering and pillaging the better part of the world, and from the slave trade.... Makes 'blood diamonds' look like penny ante cash...


You forget that the Empire was the first to ban slavery; and when they did so it was with a fervour that could only have sprung from the Evangelicalism that prevailed at the time (who says they're all nutters?), by forcing upon all sea-faring (sea-transport being of course the primary method of engaging in the trade) this very same policy, and committing no piddling amount of resources towards this cause. So while yes the British Empire did participate initially, thanks to to some good thinking by those at the top (actually somewhat grassroots at first), plenty of souls were spared the Atlantic crossing.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bsenka said:


> the history, symbolism, and tradition of the monarchy


The history of the monarchy is one of profiting from the delivery of misery around the world. The tradition includes pretty much inventing the slave trade (with the spanish and portuguese).... We should respect that? These families were quilty of what today we would call crimes against humanity on a scale that is difficult to comprehend because it is so massive.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Then vote already


Done!


----------



## sharonmac09 (Apr 10, 2009)

rgray and Sinc, for FYI, the description of the monarchy powers is derived from the following link. 

Advantages of Monarchy (Imperial Qing Restoration Organization)

FYI, I have tried to remain impartial in this discussion. I'm 100% behind democracy even though this system is imperfect and full of corruption and cronyism.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

And continuing chasMac point, if I may, England has given the world many gifts: Parliament, Common Law, Sportsmanship, Educational models ...I'll ignore soccer but it's up there as well... It also revolutionized navigation techniques in those little wood boats they almost conquered the world with .... each time liberating countries from themselves ...... We talk of history in this country, something as simple as the river Thames is history. Most of us can name the Royal Houses and their Kings and Queens [ can we name 1/2 of our Prime Ministers ] even the television is not immune with The Tudors .... you think they will have a show about Stevie and his family 400 years form now?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Rps said:


> .... each time liberating countries from themselves ......


A very anglo-centric viewpoint refuted easily by a reading of the history of most of the counties involved. <sigh> I give up for now. The fawning acolytes win this round...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

rgray said:


> A very anglo-centric viewpoint refuted easily by a reading of the history of most of the counties involved. <sigh> I give up for now. The fawning acolytes win this round...[/QUOTE
> 
> Actually Robert it was a satirical statement which really supports your view ... I'm guessing your not a Monty Python fan......


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Rps said:


> rgray said:
> 
> 
> > A very anglo-centric viewpoint refuted easily by a reading of the history of most of the counties involved. <sigh> I give up for now. The fawning acolytes win this round...[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

rgray said:


> Rps said:
> 
> 
> > Not so... I am a huge fan of the Python.. Apologies, I tend to lose perspective when dealing with acolytes of the royals.... they (the royals) represent such a huge outrage against ordinary people that it seems to me that it should be patently obvious. ..
> ...


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Rps said:


> No problem, just remember though, in times of deepest despair the Royal family were and probably always will be an inspiration to the British.


Yes, but is this owing to a monarchical system? Or in other words, could not any head of state and his family have fulfilled this role; whether or not they acheived their position through being born into it, elected into it, or simply took it. Remember, the little Bavarian was genuinely idolized (ie: not by virtue of terror like some other mustachioed dictators).


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

chasMac, there is not a temporality with the Monarchy as there is with other leaders ... Tin Pot or otherwise. It is because of the lineage that they can transcend time. Not saying that it's a good thing or a bad thing, but we seldom have leaders who have generations of family members elected [ Teddy and Franklin R come to mind, not "The Kennedys" , and only if Jeb gets in can you even think of the Bush family ] And only Provincially can I think of families of leaders.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> I guess you missed the hubbub all over the news a few weeks back.
> 
> The GG is NOT Canada's "head of state". That title is reserved for Queen Elizabeth alone.
> 
> Having noted that, the position should be abolished altogether.


Which hub bub? 


cbc news said:


> Canada's Governor General
> CBC News Online | Updated April 6, 2006
> WHAT
> Queen's representative in Canada and Canada's de facto head of state. (The Queen is the official head of state....)


 To my point that this is a good thing.

Some news for some. CBC News Indepth: Canada's Governor General



Mac Dictionary said:


> Definition: vice (also vice-)
> combining form
> acting as deputy or substitute for; next in rank : vice regent | vice-consul.
> 
> ORIGIN from Latin vice ‘in place of’





Mac Dictionary said:


> _Definition: _de facto
> adverb
> in fact, whether by right or not: _the island has been de facto divided into two countries._ often contrasted with *DE JURE .
> *
> ...



Queen Elizabeth is our head of state. She has no formal duties governing Canada unless she is in our country.

Last year did our boy Steve Harper check with Elizabeth Regina to prorogue Parliament? No!

Did GG Jean ask Her Majesty if it was OK to take advise from Steve? No!

If it doesn’t agree with an agenda then what? It’s not true?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Which hub bub?


This hub bub:

Governor General calling herself 'head of state' riles monarchists

Governor General?s new website adds fuel to head-of-state debate

Governor-General's Relaunched Website Shys From Head Of State Title | AHN

Conclusion: The GG is NOT the head of state.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

sharonmac09 said:


> rgray and Sinc, for FYI, the description of the monarchy powers is derived from the following link.
> 
> Advantages of Monarchy (Imperial Qing Restoration Organization)


Had you posted it as a "quote" and provided the link as a source, you would not have gotten the reaction from us. It looked to me that it was your own words, thus the come backs from both of us.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> This hub bub:
> 
> Governor General calling herself 'head of state' riles monarchists
> 
> ...


In the art of compromise that is Canada the Monarch of the United Kingdom is the Monarch of Canada. However when the Monarch of Canada is not in Canada the duties and and the function of Head of State resides with the Governor General for Canada and the Lieutenant-Governor(s) in the Province(s) 

We do not pay anything for the Monarch. We do pay for the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governor. These position fill a real role in our evolving system of compromise.

Oh! And the Royal visit, we're generous we do pay for invited guest, the only decent thing to do really.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bottom line is that the GG is NOT the head of state.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

BigDL said:


> We do not pay anything for the Monarch.


According to MacCleans Canadians pay 1,53$ per capita each year and the British 1,32$ only.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> A lot more cost effective and useful than the gun registry.


Without a doubt !


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

I want my $1.53 back. I'll accept a tax credit....

All the GG has done "for" us (sic) lately is allow Harper to break his own law and call a useless and expensive election.

I say get rid of the whole thing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

+1


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

rgray said:


> All the GG has done "for" us (sic) lately is allow Harper to break his own law and call a useless and expensive election.


Elections should never be useless, if you think about it. No country is immune to an authoritarian regime taking power when citizens participate less and less in the elections.



rgray said:


> I say get rid of the whole thing.


I agree: Canada should declare its independence.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gilles said:


> Elections should never be useless, if you think about it. No country is immune to an authoritarian regime taking power when citizens participate less and less in the elections.
> 
> 
> I agree: Canada should declare its independence.


True. Maybe we could become a republic. Get rid of the Senate, or make it an elected body. The people could elect a president rather than a party electing a PM.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> True. Maybe we could become a republic. Get rid of the Senate, or make it an elected body. The people could elect a president rather than a party electing a PM.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> The people could elect a president rather than a party electing a PM.


I would go further, and abolish all political parties ; the citizens then would be able to vote for people who truly represent them. If you think about it, we only have a choice amongst candidates that are _screened_ by the party they belong to, and they have to follow the party line even in contradiction to what the electors think.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Gilles said:


> I would go further, and abolish all political parties ; the citizens then would be able to vote for people who truly represent them. If you think about it, we only have a choice amongst candidates that are _screened_ by the party they belong to, and they have to follow the party line even in contradiction to what the electors think.


Even if a person starts out with good intentions by time they have made it through the party system to the point where they are allowed to be a candidate they have kissed so much ass their lips are physically unable to tell the truth...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> True. Maybe we could become a republic. Get rid of the Senate, or make it an elected body. The people could elect a president rather than a party electing a PM.


I'm in favour of abolishing the senate. I don't want to elect the monarch that's so 18th century. Keep the Canadian head of state a largely cerimonial post but with the power and mediation skills of a kindergarden teacher to settle the spats that may arise in the house of commons.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

rgray said:


> Even if a person starts out with good intentions by time they have made it through the party system to the point where they are allowed to be a candidate they have kissed so much ass their lips are physically unable to tell the truth...


The trouble is most people won't vote for and thereby elect a person that tells the truth. It just not in a citizens nature.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

BigDL said:


> The trouble is most people won't vote for and thereby elect a person that tells the truth. It just not in a citizens nature.


In some countries it is illegal not to vote... Hmm. sounds like Canada should go by that rule as well.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If you have to vote, in no way does that guarantee that you'll actually think before you vote.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> In some countries it is illegal not to vote... Hmm. sounds like Canada should go by that rule as well.


I have spoken to many Canadians that think voting is a waste time and effort. They don't want democracy but would be happier complaining about their lot in life and the injustice of it all.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> I have spoken to many Canadians that think voting is a waste time and effort. They don't want democracy but would be happier complaining about their lot in life and the injustice of it all.


I'd be much more enthusiastic about voting if I had someone decent to vote for.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

How are Ontario politicians indecent?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> Bottom line is that the GG is NOT the head of state.


True. This was a question on my citizenship test. We are a constitutional monarchy. 

Up the Republic!!!!!!!!!! :clap:


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I'd be much more enthusiastic about voting if I had someone decent to vote for.


Politicians used to be decent ; that was when the citizens were decent.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> True. Maybe we could become a republic. Get rid of the Senate, or make it an elected body. The people could elect a president rather than a party electing a PM.


Marc, I have been a proponent of an elected Senate for 30 years. We have a few problems to iron out:

1. Canada's population distribution really generates regional voting. The US tried this with its Electoral College, but I'm not so sure that that evens out the representation issues - although I think the Founding Fathers thought the population too dumb to make correct voting decisions.

2. If you have a Senate it should be equal, 2 Senators for each Province and Territory. However, unlike the US, our power structure lies with the House of Commons, We would need to make a shift in this regard.

3. I would place a " None of the Above" option on the ballot, everyone must vote but give them a protest choice.

4. No party can run in a Federal Election unless it can run candidates in a majority of the Provinces in each election.

5. Fixed Term and FIxed Election Date, and Term Limits on all elected members. Thus no snap calls, we know when we vote and for how long, and no pensions for elected members.

6. The Senate will be elected halfway through the House term, specifically timed and when the Municipal elections take place [ cost saving measure ]

This just might stop the pandering.....


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Rps said:


> 4. No party can run in a Federal Election unless it can run candidates in a majority of the Provinces in each election.


Maybe you designed this point in order to eliminate the Bloc Québécois, maybe not, but you're sure to antagonize a majority of Quebecers and it would give a considerable boost to Québec nationalism.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> How are Ontario politicians indecent?


It's not so much the Ontario politicians as it is the party leadership.

I'm not a fan of Harper's politics, though I'll admit he's doing a reasonable job--but he's more right wing than I am.

The Liberal party is a mess.

Neither the Green Party nor the NDP have any hope of actually getting elected.

What's a girl to do?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Gilles said:


> Maybe you designed this point in order to eliminate the Bloc Québécois, maybe not, but you're sure to antagonize a majority of Quebecers and it would give a considerable boost to Québec nationalism.


Hi GIlles, I did put this in exactly for that reason. While I do not tolerate the Separatist mandate, you have to listen to 1/3 of the country, this is a weakness of the current system. We form regional solutions and no matter what the government does it will always appear to pander to regional interest groups and that those in other areas will feel their voice is not heard. That is why we need to transfer power to an equal and elected Senate and not the representation method used in the Commons. The Reform Party was a regional party that moved quickly to become national in scope. I have no problem with the Bloc going that route.

But if we have too many parties, under the current system then we will always be in minority and electoral mode. In fact, I think the leader of the Bloc would make an excellent Prime Minister -- I just do not go along with his regionalist views. Get him by that and he would win in a landslide......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> Hi GIlles, I did put this in exactly for that reason. While I do not tolerate the Separatist mandate, you have to listen to 1/3 of the country, this is a weakness of the current system.


Rps, that is no longer true. The most recent census figures I have seen put Quebec as having only 23.3% of the nation's population and that is falling year by year.

At some point in the future, this will have to be dealt with to level the playing field. It is unfair that a province with less than 1/4 of the population can run candidates in a federal election.

For instance BC and Alberta combined outnumber Quebec as does Ontario by a wide margin and none of them are allowed to field candidates from a provincial party.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> Rps, that is no longer true. The most recent census figures I have seen put Quebec as having only 23.3% of the nation's population and that is falling year by year.
> 
> At some point in the future, this will have to be dealt with to level the playing field. It is unfair that a province with less than 1/4 of the population can run candidates in a federal election.


Sinc, how many people were in the Reform when Preston ran? I'm sure Alberta had less than Quebec. My issue is not where the party comes from, my issue is that you can't have a party in a Federal election which solely runs in one Province. 

Also, not meaning to question your facts, but I'm shocked at the population total for Quebec, is that cited in Stats Can?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Rps said:


> Sinc, how many people were in the Reform when Preston ran? I'm sure Alberta had less than Quebec. My issue is not where the party comes from, my issue is that you can't have a party in a Federal election which solely runs in one Province.
> 
> Also, not meaning to question your facts, but I'm shocked at the population total for Quebec, is that cited in Stats Can?


Sorry Don, the Stats Can picture did not come up on my screen until after I posted.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

SINC said:


> For instance BC and Alberta combined outnumber Quebec as does Ontario by a wide margin and none of them are allowed to field candidates from a provincial party.


Well... The Bloc Québécois is not a provincial party. I know our opinions are based on completely different views of Canada (you think of Canada as one nation and I as two, in others words, a federation) for historical reasons.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> Sinc, how many people were in the Reform when Preston ran? I'm sure Alberta had less than Quebec. My issue is not where the party comes from, my issue is that you can't have a party in a Federal election which solely runs in one Province.
> 
> Also, not meaning to question your facts, but I'm shocked at the population total for Quebec, is that cited in Stats Can?


It was and still is a common misconception Rps, that the Reform Party was an Alberta only party. That is dead wrong. It fielded candidates in MB through BC back then.

From Wiki:

The Reform Party of Canada (French: ''Parti réformiste du Canada'') was a Canadian federal political party that existed from 1987 to 2000. It was originally founded as a Western Canada-based protest party, but attempted to expand eastward in the 1990s. It viewed itself as a conservative and populist party. The party became the Canadian Alliance in 2000, and merged with the PC party in 2003 to form the Conservative Party of Canada, which currently forms the Government of Canada.

Reform Party of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> It was and still is a common misconception Rps, that the Reform Party was an Alberta only party. That is dead wrong. It fielded candidates in MB through BC back then.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> ...


Sinc, you're right on that. We , here in Ontario, only thought of it as running in Alberta. But it would still follow through with my thoughts. You have to start somewhere. But they grew and ran in a number of areas fairly quickly. I think the Bloc should do the same or be banned from running.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Rps said:


> While I do not tolerate the Separatist mandate, you have to listen to 1/3 of the country, this is a weakness of the current system. […] I think the leader of the Bloc would make an excellent Prime Minister […]


Hi Rps,

Of course you do not tolerate Québec separatism, I can understand that. But we have to live with this stress as long as Canada doesn't recognize its bi-national "fabric", so to speak.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Gilles said:


> Well... The Bloc Québécois is not a provincial party. I know our opinions are based on completely different views of Canada (you think of Canada as one nation and I as two, in others words, a federation) for historical reasons.


GIles, I do understand the point you are making. But it is our outdated "British-centric" government structure that is the problem. If we want to have fairness then all areas need to have equal representation in our governance. Even if we do form some type of alliance, someone still has to be Solomon and make the big decisions.

However, and not to put too fine a point on it, when "our" founding fathers established the country it was a loose federation of two founding nations. That means we are both French and English. While clearly the majority of the Francophone population lives in Quebec, I don't believe the founding fathers intended to alienate the other Francophones in other areas of the country. I don't believe the Bloc speaks for them ... from what I see, it only speaks for Quebec. This is not a slight, so please don't read it this way. It is a subtle difference of intent of the concept of Canada.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Gilles said:


> Hi Rps,
> 
> Of course you do not tolerate Québec separatism, I can understand that. But we have to live with this stress as long as Canada doesn't recognize its bi-national "fabric", so to speak.


Hi GIles, I think I out of sync in the posts, but please refer to my post #95, I think we actually agree in principle.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Rps said:


> I don't believe the Bloc speaks for [Francophones in other areas of the country] from what I see, it only speaks for Quebec.


That's right, the Bloc represents Québec citizens's interests and views in the central (federal) parliament and the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party try to represent both Québec and Canadian citizen's interests and views. I think that's the problem.

I know many Québec federalists who won't ever again vote for the Liberals and feel the Conservatives lean too much to the Right. One solution, other than voting for the Bloc is to vote NDP, but they're socialists in name only (and they don't even dare to use the name).

(Sorry, I have to log out, time to go to work.)


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

(Sorry said:


> Thanks for the conversation Giles, have a good and safe day at work and maybe we can discuss later. I have enjoyed it.
> 
> Rp


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Why do Ehmac members desire that I can not offer myself as an independent representative of the citizen of my riding. Under a proposal of national party only, the independent representative is a casualty. 

With thoughts of national representation and strong governance, it seems that the purpose of representing the citizens from diverse ridings in this country has been forgotten.

To satisfy the will of a few, the will of the majority of a particular riding is to be thwarted? 

I thought we elected a representative to reflect our local views in the nations assembly. If that doesn’t result in majority government of a particular stripe, too bad. The people are never wrong.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

BigDL said:


> I thought we elected a representative to reflect our local views in the nation's assembly. If that doesn’t result in majority government of a particular stripe, too bad.


I agree. But big corporations and professional politicians fear local views and democracy. The so-called globalization wouldn't have been possible if your neighbors could have voted for you as their representative ; unless they agree to globalize.

The concept of "majority" would be totally different than what it is now ; we would have _ad hoc_ and fluctuating majorities, to be negotiated for each new bill or proposal amongst the representatives, after consultation with the citizens of their riding.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Gilles said:


> I agree. But big corporations and professional politicians fear local views and democracy. The so-called globalization wouldn't have been possible if your neighbors could have voted for you as their representative ; unless they agree to globalize.
> 
> The concept of "majority" would be totally different than what it is now ; we would have _ad hoc_ and fluctuating majorities, to be negotiated for each new bill or proposal amongst the representatives, after consultation with the citizens of their riding.


I'll go +1 with this view, until the citizen become envolved. I believe most citizen do not want that much consultation and say. I fear it is human nature or perhaps conditioning from school to defer to the leader.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> I thought we elected a representative to reflect our local views in the nations assembly. If that doesn’t result in majority government of a particular stripe, too bad. The people are never wrong.


Toronto has 23 MPs sitting in Ottawa. That's more than twice than all of New Brunswick. (Heck, that's only 5 short of the whole of Alberta.)

My need to have representation to reflect local Toronto views in Ottawa is somewhat less--if it's good for large urban areas (and there are lots of people representing large urban in Ottawa) it's probably good for Toronto.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Well, Charles and Camilla are on their way to ON. Wish them well for us here in NL. We showed them a good time and picked up the tab for their vacation. It is estimated that for what it cost, every person going to a food bank here in NL could have been given enough food until New Year's Day. So, I certainly hoped they enjoyed themselves ............... and are appreciative of our sacrifice. We shall see.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, Charles and Camilla are on their way to ON. Wish them well for us here in NL. We showed them a good time and picked up the tab for their vacation. It is estimated that for what it cost, every person going to a food bank here in NL could have been given enough food until New Year's Day. So, I certainly hoped they enjoyed themselves ............... and are appreciative of our sacrifice. We shall see.


And that is the sad part isn't it ... we find it easier paying for a party to put on a show for the Royals [ who show up occasionally and don't actively govern us and who probably think we are quaint ] rather than house and feed needy full time residents. The accident's of birth strike again.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> And that is the sad part isn't it ... we find it easier paying for a party to put on a show for the Royals [ who show up occasionally and don't actively govern us and who probably think we are quaint ] rather than house and feed needy full time residents. The accident's of birth strike again.....


Rp, at least they did not tell our poor to "eat cake". That would have been the end to the monarchy here in NL.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

You really think the royals are on vacation? Wow! I don't know anyone who's idea of a vacation is standing listening to boring speeches and planting oak trees in cold, damp Newfoundland in November. Maybe I'm missing out on some "fun". My idea of a good time in November is hitting the beach down south. 

If you think we should feed the poor instead of royalty may I suggest we do the same with ALL dignitaries that visit Canada. Lets close our doors to all heads of state who want to visit our beautiful country. You may want to include Clinton and Obama too. It cost us big money for their security. Heck, we even paid for Bush's security.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Smoothfonzo (May 17, 2007)

My family has quite a history with the Royal Family.

I've met Prince Charles twice, and Princess Diana once, probably during one of the last two times they came to Canada; I know it was during the same visit where they had their famous visit to Niagara Falls.

During one of the Queen's visits in the 80's, my sister had personally handed some flowers to her, something we were told was usually never done. My sister was quite persistent however, and the Queen was quite pleased. We have a picture of it in our entrance. 

When my Grandfather was an RCMP officer, and who's 96 now, he had been tasked to be the Queen's personal escort during one of her visits to Canada. I think it was in the 50's.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

adagio said:


> You really think the royals are on vacation? Wow! I don't know anyone who's idea of a vacation is standing listening to boring speeches and planting oak trees in cold, damp Newfoundland in November. Maybe I'm missing out on some "fun". My idea of a good time in November is hitting the beach down south.
> 
> If you think we should feed the poor instead of royalty may I suggest we do the same with ALL dignitaries that visit Canada. Lets close our doors to all heads of state who want to visit our beautiful country. You may want to include Clinton and Obama too. It cost us big money for their security. Heck, we even paid for Bush's security.


Charles did not plant a tree here in NL. That was his great grandfather who did that here at Government House. You can still see the tree and the small bronze sign at the base of the tree. 

I am all for doing away with fancy state dinners and outlandish expenditures when people come to visit Canada. I would have no problem, and would vote for whatever PM who had the courage to say to a visiting guest "With so many children going to school hungry, and ordinary Canadians having to go to food banks each day, we felt it was inappropriate to have a lavish display for your visit." :clap:


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Having worked for many years trying to assist those who were less fortunate Dr. G, I say AMEN to that


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Having worked for many years trying to assist those who were less fortunate Dr. G, I say AMEN to that


Very true, Rps. I tip my hat to you. Paix, mon ami. :clap::clap:


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

I voted for "other." I'm not a fan of the royals, but I have even greater problems with the republican model (that's small "r" republican) for how it concentrates executive power. Do away with the Crown, BUT let the Office of the Governor General function as-is, not just as the defacto head of state, but as a full fledged one.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

(( p g )) said:


> Do away with the Crown, BUT let the Office of the Governor General function as-is, not just as the defacto head of state, but as a full fledged one.


Wouldn't you be concentrating all the power into one person, then ?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

+1

Creating a dictatorship are we?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Gilles said:


> Wouldn't you be concentrating all the power into one person, then ?


And it looks like an unelected one at that Giles....... a system fit for a King I'd say.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

King of the Britons ................

YouTube - Monty Python- The Annoying Peasant


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Gilles said:


> Wouldn't you be concentrating all the power into one person, then ?


No. The GGs position has traditionally been more of a figurehead. However, owing to our British tradition, there are a whole range of "reserve" powers at his/her disposal...essentially things that the GG has never/rarely exercised, but could in the event of a serious emergency or constitutional crisis stemming from an abuse of power at the executive branch.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

There are plenty of parliamentary democracies around the world which do not have a monarch as the head of state...figure head or otherwise.

I think it's about time we we enter the 21st century. Monarchies, IMHO are way too outdated. Cultural traditions are important, to be sure, but with respect to the monarchy in Canada...it's time to move on. The Brits can keep 'em.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

(( p g )) said:


> […] there are a whole range of "reserve" powers at his/her disposal... essentially things that the GG has never/rarely exercised, but could in the event of a serious emergency or constitutional crisis stemming from an abuse of power at the executive branch.


Considering that the Governor General is hand-picked by the Prime Minister although he is appointed by the Queen, I doubt he would ever contradict him or "take over" in any situation.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gilles said:


> Considering that the Governor General is hand-picked by the Prime Minister although he is appointed by the Queen, I doubt he would ever contradict him or "take over" in any situation.


Keep in mind that our Gov. Gen., Michaëlle Jean, is a woman, so I am not sure whom the "he" you refer to is discussing.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Keep in mind that our Gov. Gen., Michaëlle Jean, is a woman, so I am not sure whom the "he" you refer to is discussing.


I was referring to any Governor General... in general.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Giles, we've had some discussion on the British aspect of our system, but from my knowledge of the French system it makes more sense to me. Would you know if my assumption that they run-off their leaders until they have an absolute winner is correct. I'm assuming if it is, then no minority government, which would be fine with me.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gilles said:


> I was referring to any Governor General... in general.


I see. Keep in mind that our last two GGs have been women. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Gilles said:


> Considering that the Governor General is hand-picked by the Prime Minister although he is appointed by the Queen, I doubt he would ever contradict him or "take over" in any situation.


It's not a question of whether a GG could "take over," rather it's about maintaining a system of checks and balances against the executive branch.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Rps said:


> […] my assumption that they run-off their leaders until they have an absolute winner is correct.


Yes. It's called _scrutin uninominal à deux tours_ (in english _two-round system_) which means that if no candidate gets a majority of votes (50% + 1) in the first round, people vote again the following sunday for the two (and only two) candidates who got the greater number of votes in the first round. The candidate who gets more votes in the second round is elected. A candidate can be elected in the first round if gets a majority, of course.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

(( p g )) said:


> […] it's about maintaining a system of checks and balances against the executive branch.


Isn't that the function of the Senate ?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Well...yes and no. The Senate's job relates to law and law making. What I'm talking about here is where the actual authority to govern comes from. The GG (via the Crown as the Queen's representative) has the authority to dissolve and form Parliament. The Senate's authority relates to amending proposed laws.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

(( p g )) said:


> What I'm talking about here is where the actual authority to govern comes from.


It comes from being elected by the citizens, nowhere else.



(( p g )) said:


> The GG (via the Crown as the Queen's representative) has the authority to dissolve and form Parliament.


Yes, but the Governor General dissolves the parliament _only_ at the initiative of the Prime Minister ; same thing with forming the government, he (or she) only sanctions what the PM decided. Canada has _responsible government_ and the Governor General has only ceremonial duties. In Canada, the so-called _Royal Prerogative_ applies only to passports in certain exceptional cases.

_The royal prerogative are the powers given to the crown by the common law. These powers are unique to the crown and have no equivalent power to any one else. In modern times, the royal prerogative has fallen into disuse. The courts have held that there is no longer the prerogative power to legislate or administer justice, and there remains little of this power left. The prerogative exists primarily as a convention and is generally accepted as no longer being enforced by the courts.
The Constitution Act, 1867 was not meant to be a complete constitution for an independent country. In 1867, the territory of what is now Canada was broken up into several provinces of the British Empire. The Constitution Act, 1867 was simply a statute passed by the British Parliament to federate several of its provinces. The relations between the Empire and its Canadian colonies would remain the same: the Empire would still run Canada's foreign affairs, sign and ratify treaties on its behalf, and declare war in its name.
When Canada became an independent country, the powers that the British Empire exercised on Canada's behalf fell to the federal government. However, they were not powers that the Canadian Parliament (legislature) inhereited. Rather, they were powers that the Governor-General inherited. *As stated above, the powers of the Governor-General are in fact exercised by the Prime Minister*. Therefore, decisions on how to run Canada's foreign affairs, to sign and ratify treaties, and declare war are not decisions that the Parliament of Canada make. Rather, they are made directly by the Prime Minister and Cabinet._
— Sources of Constitutional Law, The Royal Prerogative.

The situation is almost the same in England. Except for
[…] _the Crown's rights to sturgeon, certain swans, and whales, and the right to impress men into the Royal Navy. _
— Select Committee on Public Administration Fourth Report.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gilles said:


> *As stated above, the powers of the Governor-General are in fact exercised by the Prime Minister*. Therefore, decisions on how to run Canada's foreign affairs, to sign and ratify treaties, and declare war are not decisions that the Parliament of Canada make. Rather, they are made directly by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.[/i]
> — Sources of Constitutional Law, The Royal Prerogative.
> 
> The situation is almost the same in England. Except for
> ...


Gilles, I must say that I am both surprised and pleased to see someone who thinks of Canada as two nations put forth such deep understanding of how the Canadian parliamentary system works.

Your points are well taken and as far as I understand the system, correct.

The real power lies with the Prime Minister and no one else. The GG does his bidding in most cases.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Gilles said:


> It comes from being elected by the citizens, nowhere else.


It's a bit more complicated than that. Under our system, the _moral_ authority to govern comes from citizens via elections, but the Crown is the ultimate sovereign which, in effect, reigns but does not rule.





Gilles said:


> Yes, but the Governor General dissolves the parliament _only_ at the initiative of the Prime Minister ; same thing with forming the government, he (or she) only sanctions what the PM decided. Canada has _responsible government_ and the Governor General has only ceremonial duties. In Canada, the so-called _Royal Prerogative_ applies only to passports in certain exceptional cases.


This is an interesting topic and one that's been explored by a lot of constitutional scholars. There have been cases here and in other countries where the GG has been at odds with a Prime Minister over whether an election could be (or should be) called (we nearly had another case just a year ago). In Australia, the GG's reserve powers were used to remove their Prime Minister from power. My point here is that it is a mistake to underestimate those reserve powers. 

In addition to reserve powers, there are also two other important places from which unwritten sources of power come from: convention and unwritten principles. It is from here that, for example, a Prime Minster is expected to call an election after losing a vote of non-confidence. All three of these, along with what's written down in the Constitution, serve as the rule book for how legitimate power is exercised in Canada.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to diminish the significant amount of power that is concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office. And the moral authority to govern is a cornerstone of our democratic tradition. The source of that power, however, comes from a Westminster system that is built on rules that are written *and* unwritten.

My point to all of this (to get back on topic) is that our system of government *does* function well and could continue to do so even without having the Queen as head of state. But rather than transferring all that power -- both written and unwritten -- into the hands of the executive branch, I'd rather see it go to the GG. It's there already in de-facto form anyways.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

My opinion on the Royal Family of Canada and England (since I've lived in both countries) has changed over the years, but basically I think they are a terrific value for money spent. They actually do in point of fact work pretty hard for their wealth (which has built up over centuries, they don't actually get a huge amount of money anymore), don't actually have a lot of power or influence, and can only suggest or influence based on their personal popularity, which is fleeting at best. There are MUCH easier lives out there than being a royal -- you're probably living one right now.

Royals increase the tourist value of a country by huge margins, particularly when they are as admired as our Queen. Even with their personal foibles and occasional missteps, the Royal Family see themselves as ambassadors and living heritage and bring a bit of dignity and class to life, yet Britons spend less on the upkeep of the Royal infrastructure than Americans do on PBS. Good deal, I say.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> My opinion on the Royal Family of Canada and England (since I've lived in both countries) has changed over the years, but basically I think they are a terrific value for money spent. They actually do in point of fact work pretty hard for their wealth (which has built up over centuries, they don't actually get a huge amount of money anymore), don't actually have a lot of power or influence, and can only suggest or influence based on their personal popularity, which is fleeting at best. There are MUCH easier lives out there than being a royal -- you're probably living one right now.
> 
> Royals increase the tourist value of a country by huge margins, particularly when they are as admired as our Queen. Even with their personal foibles and occasional missteps, the Royal Family see themselves as ambassadors and living heritage and bring a bit of dignity and class to life, yet Britons spend less on the upkeep of the Royal infrastructure than Americans do on PBS. Good deal, I say.


Sadly you got one part of that post terribly wrong, namely:

"Royals increase the tourist value of a country by huge margins, particularly when they are as admired as our Queen."

Sorry Chuck, but she's YOUR Queen, not ours. It is high time we rid ourselves of Lizzie and her band of inbred misfits.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

I was held up on the Gardiner today as the royal motorcade was coming through. I asked the cop if Charles was coming through and he said no, just the Dutchess. I'm sitting there, in my car watching the entourage of eight limos and at least a dozen police cars and motorcycles and it occurred to me - we are making this big deal over a woman because she happens to be sleeping with someone. No other qualification. She's just having sex with the Crown Prince. I had to shake my head at the absurdity.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The real absurdity was that Chuck baby was cheating on the side with his current horse faced partner when he had a real beauty back home. God help us all if anyone with that kind of judgement ever rules over us. That alone pretty much seals it for me that the royals have to go.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

SINC said:


> The real absurdity was that Chuck baby was cheating on the side with his current horse faced partner when he had a real beauty back home.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... personally I found Lady Diana rather bland and somewhat infantile. Anyway, it's not beauty that counts, but expertise (up to a point, of course).


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

I would rather put my arm through a meat grinder than see another constitutional debate in my lifetime - hell, I want to put the constitution on the next flight back to London!

So for that reason, lets keep them.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

(( p g )) said:


> This is an interesting topic and one that's been explored by a lot of constitutional scholars. There have been cases here and in other countries where the GG has been at odds with a Prime Minister over whether an election could be (or should be) called (we nearly had another case just a year ago).


The reason King-Byng was such a scandal was precisely because the GG overstepped his bounds. It's the exception that proves rule that the GG is ceremonial only. In the case last year, the GG did what the PM told her to do, and that's the only "decision" there was for her to make.



Trevor... said:


> I would rather put my arm through a meat grinder than see another constitutional debate in my lifetime - hell, I want to put the constitution on the next flight back to London!


Not me. Wholesale changes, if not outright replacement of the current constitution is something I look forward to.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------

