If the costs aren't outrageous and if there's some benefit to the relationship continuing I'm supportive of it. It's part of our history. I don't think we should abolish remembrance day because there's events put on across the county that likely cost the government. And NO I'M NOT comparing the significance of Remembrance day to the Royals visiting.
Additionally I'm only stating this opinion based on them "visting" with respect to having influence on Canada. . . That would likely warrant a different response from me.
No. Wtf is wrong with a little heritage and culture?
The Monarchy is a huge part of who we are as a nation. Canada has barely any identity on it's own as such a young country. I for one am proud of our heritage as a former member of the commonwealth. Nothing wrong with a little history and culture.
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to Notorious Honey Badger For This Useful Post:
Given the choice between King Harper and Queen Elizebeth I'd take Liz.
The cost issue is a canard anyway as whether we have a Queen or a Presidant or something else we would need a head of state of some sort and it will cost money, in fact it is likley that our current situation is about the cheapest we can get, we have a Queen we only have to pay for every 5 years or so.
I really don't see what the big deal is. It's a part of our history and they have no actual power in Canada. Canada is part of the Commonwealth, and there is no harm in acknowledging that.
Obviously, the public wants to see them or they wouldn't bother to hold these events. Noone is forcing people to show up and cheer. This isn't North Korea.
Should the monarchs remain on our money...that's another issue. Quite frankly, what else would we put on there. Pictures of old prime ministers?
As far as economic costs, not really all that big of a deal, as most of the money will be paid to Canadian employees/companies. The government will also receive some of the money back through taxes generated by increased commerce associate with these kind of events.
Is there any real benefit or gain from removing ourselves from the Royals? It doesn't seem to matter one way or another so why change if they want to continue coming over?
This was posted to get some debate and discussion, thank you for the responses.
I think we should move away from them "head of state". I believe the country, if we wish to grow needs to distance itself from the Monarchy. Should we ignore them no, they can remain a part of our history. Should we be swearing allegiance to them.....no I don't think so.
Is there any real benefit or gain from removing ourselves from the Royals? It doesn't seem to matter one way or another so why change if they want to continue coming over?
because they don't pay their own way......if they want to fund their trips fine, but I reckon this will shake out to cost around $2 million.
The Queen staying in Britain during WWII, which did a lot for the troop moral of the commonwealth nations. I think their current place of prestige has been earned and there is some real value that they bring to the table, but the world will quickly move on if the Royal family just becomes a bunch of euro-trash weirdos.
You missed the opportunity to let them go, however, when the Queen/Charles spent a decade bungling how they handled Diana and the Monarchy fell into disgrace with her death.
Since then, the Queen remodelled herself and a hugely popular Kate & William have ridden into the picture.
You don't have a chance in hell of getting rid of the Monarchy for another 50 or more years if things play out like seems to be happening.
And just to reinforce that trend, I highly doubt Charles will be King.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
To me it's not so much the costs, but rather I find the idea of monarchy to be morally repugnant. No one's station in life should be solely a result of who their ancestors were in my opinion.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
The cost issue is a canard anyway as whether we have a Queen or a Presidant or something else we would need a head of state of some sort and it will cost money, in fact it is likley that our current situation is about the cheapest we can get, we have a Queen we only have to pay for every 5 years or so.
Why? Just because we're removing a symbolic head of state doesn't mean we have to replace her with a new one. In fact, we could get rid of the Governor General position too while we're at it.
The Following User Says Thank You to BlackEleven For This Useful Post:
It's not like they have any say in how are country is run, so I honestly don't really care too much either way. It is kind of nice to honour part of our history though, so I don't really get why there are people who are so worked up over it.
When the queen dies and we have to redo our money, I would like to see a move away from the royal family, unless it has some serious benefits for us, the monarchy simply isn't necessary anymore.
Meh, I could care less if they come over, and 2 million is f-all to spend appeasing the fans of the monarchy.
If you want to sever ties however, start with the governer general. I still don't know what their role is, other than flying around the world on a continuous holiday, while holding the power to veto legislative bills. I don't think it's ever happened (GG actually vetoing something), but having someone who is the queens representative with that much power is a little annoying.
Does Canada Need the Royals?
