Does Canada Need the Royals?

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I hated the royals until the wind blew up Kate's yellow dress.

fyp - if supporting the royals means more Pippa then it is time to implement a Pippa tax or tariff.......

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

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.

I am a fan of getting money from the gov't, can I also be appeased?

The GG is the representative of the queen in Canada. If we get rid of the monarchy, then the GG will be gone as well.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I hated the royals until Kate's yellow dress.

You mean what was under Kate's yellow dress

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I think the bigger question here is, why the heck are they going to Saint John?

Perhaps we're trying to convince the Royals to get rid of us :P

[Ozy_Flame]

I support the Monarchy as our head of state. We are historically a Commonwealth country, we represent a large number of multi-generational Brits born into the colonies, and it is one of the defining features IMO that keeps us from being identified as the 51st state.

For me, it's the link to our European ancestry and a big reason of why I identify with us as more of a European country than an American one.

[PeteLFan]

We don't need them, and we should get rid of them.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I think the bigger question here is, why the heck are they going to Saint John?

Perhaps we're trying to convince the Royals to get rid of us :P

My mother lives in Saint John and is a huge fan of the royal family. When I emailed her to ask what she thought of the planned visit, her response was, "Why would they want to come to this stinking hellhole?"

[bizaro86]

I'm pretty sure the monarchy is enshrined in the Canadian constitution.

If we're going to re-open the constitution and argue about it, is the monarchy really the biggest problem that we need to address?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm pretty sure the monarchy is enshrined in the Canadian constitution.

If we're going to re-open the constitution and argue about it, is the monarchy really the biggest problem that we need to address?

So because it might be hard work we shouldn't look at it.

In my youth I was all for the monarchy, but as I age, I find I have less and less time for them.

[Resolute 14]

England's monarchy is a quaint tradition that has had no real meaning to Canada in decades, save for the fact that Liz is plastered on our coins and $20s and that we get to kick ass in the Commonwealth Games every four years. There is no harm in maintaining the tradition, so long as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors all realize that, despite the technicalities of the constitution, they rank below our elected governments.

As was noted, foreign dignitaries visit all the time, and we pay for those visits. It doesn't matter if we are a Commonwealth Realm or a republic, we're on the hook either way. So the question of this tour is not "should we dump the royals", but rather "how can we make this trip benefit us?"

Personally, I think Will and Kate's trip was of great value, if for no other reason than their participation in last year's Stampede and how foul a taste that must have left in the mouths of Britain's nosy animal welfare groups.

[Jacks]

I have no problem with the royal family. A little history and tradition is a good thing. By the same logic we should bulldoze historic sites if they cost money to operate. Besides, as others have said we'd have to open the constitution which just isn't worth it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So because it might be hard work we shouldn't look at it.

In my youth I was all for the monarchy, but as I age, I find I have less and less time for them.

I don't think his point was "it's hard, don't do it", but rather that if you are going to open constitutional talks, issues like provincial rights, the question of Quebec and others are far more important than who is the technical head of state. If we're going to alter the constitution, I'd rather see a complete and total overhaul of how we elect our federal government - ideally to find a way to minimalize the politics of playing one region against another as a meaningful strategy. Though really, you could do all at once... assuming you don't go down in flames the way Meech Lake and Charlottetown did.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

England's monarchy is a quaint tradition that has had no real meaning to Canada in decades, save for the fact that Liz is plastered on our coins and $20s and that we get to kick ass in the Commonwealth Games every four years. There is no harm in maintaining the tradition, so long as the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors all realize that, despite the technicalities of the constitution, they rank below our elected governments.

As was noted, foreign dignitaries visit all the time, and we pay for those visits. It doesn't matter if we are a Commonwealth Realm or a republic, we're on the hook either way. So the question of this tour is not "should we dump the royals", but rather "how can we make this trip benefit us?"

Personally, I think Will and Kate's trip was of great value, if for no other reason than their participation in last year's Stampede and how foul a taste that must have left in the mouths of Britain's nosy animal welfare groups.

But when heads of state visit they have, in theroy, the ability to increase trade or other links between the two countries. The royals do what.................... nothing of note really.

[Jimmy Stang]

I'd be in favour of some small adjustments to Canadianize some things. Put some old prime ministers on our coinage (we can leave the Queen on one, however, as a nod to our history in the commonwealth, much like how she's on the $20 bill but nothing else). Actually, this has slowly been happening anyway. We got our own anthem, our own flag, etc. This doesn't mean that we need to ditch the connection entirely, but I don't mind making things more Canadian.

As for Canadian taxpayers footing the bill for the royal visits, I'd argue that if you added up a lot of the indirect financial benefits (increased tourism through increased exposure, for example), that these trips are nothing more than a feel-good advertisement of our country that reaches people that may not otherwise consider Canada as a destination for travel and trade. The trickle-down benefits of William and Kate's visit are probably quite high considering the level of coverage it received worldwide. It's one of those intangible things, and quite honestly, is a small fraction of what this government spends on things far more unnecessary and controversial.

That being said, I don't mind the old hag and her ridiculous family. Like it or not, the monarchy is a huge part of our history, and as long as they don't have a say in day-to-day Canadian affairs, I don't have a problem with preserving our ties to our nation's motherland.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't think his point was "it's hard, don't do it", but rather that if you are going to open constitutional talks, issues like provincial rights, the question of Quebec and others are far more important than who is the technical head of state. If we're going to alter the constitution, I'd rather see a complete and total overhaul of how we elect our federal government - ideally to find a way to minimalize the politics of playing one region against another as a meaningful strategy. Though really, you could do all at once... assuming you don't go down in flames the way Meech Lake and Charlottetown did.

that's you opinion, which is cool.

I feel that if we want to review these other items, let's start with the top of the list, the royals. Counntries are ever evolving things.

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So because it might be hard work we shouldn't look at it.

In my youth I was all for the monarchy, but as I age, I find I have less and less time for them.

How much time would you say you are spending on the monarchy on a weekly basis?

I only ask because it may be more of a time budgeting issue than a monarchy issue.

[TurnedTheCorner]

No one *needs* the royals.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

that's you opinion, which is cool.

I feel that if we want to review these other items, let's start with the top of the list, the royals. Counntries are ever evolving things.

I guess my point was I don't think the royals should be at the top of the list. There's a limited amount of time/appetite for constitutional change, and I'd start with other issues that I think are more important (Quebec, first nations peoples, senate reform, regionalism, etc)

[Magnum PEI]

We should have got rid of them a long time ago. Pearson tried to at one point, but he didn't get a majority so he couldn't pass the legislation. He should be on the twenty, not some random grandma from England.

For people who say its part of our heritage, well so are a lot of things. If we had kept the Seigneural system wed all have waterfront property.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I guess my point was I don't think the royals should be at the top of the list. There's a limited amount of time/appetite for constitutional change, and I'd start with other issues that I think are more important (Quebec, first nations peoples, etc)

Exactly. If we're going to reopen the constitution, it had better be for a better reason than removing a historical figure that has no power anyway. The gain or loss to Canada from ditching the monarchy? Pretty much nothing either way.

I'll save this for another day when the royals do something to threaten Canadian sovereignty (which won't happen), or when there is an actual benefit to ditch them (can't think of a reason that would make the process worthwhile). Until then, I'll just continue to not think about them because, with or without them, my life isn't really going to change.