Queen of Canada is the correct term. Our head of state is the Queen of Canada who is also the queen of England, Scotland etc. She happens to live in Great Britain.
No, I was referring specifically to the Queen of England since the discussion involved the possible creation of a new head of state. I didn't want to confuse a theoretical new Queen of Canada (who would probably not happen to live in GB) and the current Queen of Canada (who happens to live in GB).
Not that it matters. That's a pedantic correction. She's all of those titles, not just one.
republic we could have president trump
monarchy we could have king joffrey
Very true. Not all presidents have the actual power that they do in the US or Russia though so I'm sure this threat could be mitigated by carefully defining the role. I mean the queen can't actually have people beheaded ala Joffrey.
The Following User Says Thank You to station For This Useful Post:
A job she has continued doing through her 70s and 80s, long after most people retire.
The material she reads is confidential, so she is not allowed to share it with her secretary, her husband, or anyone else.
Presumably you don't get out to many official or ceremonial events. I saw plenty when I was a reporter, and presiding over them is way harder than most people think. Being pleasant and dignified and greeting dozens of people a day, every day, week after week after month after year. Sitting attentively through interminable speeches and ceremonies. Formal meals among strangers many times a week. Never getting impatient. Never looking bored. Never saying anything the least bit insensitive or controversial. Never losing your cool. From what I've seen, it's the toughest part of being a civic representative. Most people couldn't hack even being a city councillor for a week.
Again, it's nothing personal against her. But why does the person doing that job have to be born into it? Who is anyone or family to be placed on such a pedestal. If the system didn't already exist like that, would you invent it?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 01-06-2017 at 02:35 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
So let me get this straight, if the queen dies all of the fiat currency that has her face on it, and ergo her personal guarantee of its value, becomes worthless?
This sounds like a 'Purge' movie.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Great thread. I am a republican who considers QEII a living anachronism and believes the French had the right idea on what to do with monarchs.
The death of QEII will be the most significant event for many lives in the former British Empire. Counties throughout the commonwealth will need to make a tough decision on pulling an India/Ireland/South Africa and breaking ties with the monarchy, or keep the status quo and start printing money with Charles on it.
There will likely be a second republic referendum in Australia which should succeed this time due to republicans learning their lessons and no longer having a popular queen around. I also see republic support growing in Canada but am not sure Canada would ever become a republic because it is too hard to change the constitution. At least Canada has a beautiful flag with no Union Jack on it though.
Also as far as a new system of government goes I like the Irish model. The president is elected by popular vote to a mostly ceremonial position.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
So let me get this straight, if the queen dies all of the fiat currency that has her face on it, and ergo her personal guarantee of its value, becomes worthless?
This sounds like a 'Purge' movie.
All currency is worthless anyway, it only works if we truly believe in it and think happy thoughts, like Peter Pan flying.
President Erdogan put his buddy into the PM role that helps him consolidate power into the office of the president. They don't really seem to have a check against that kind of power, where we technically do. Didn't Putin play games like that as well, to secure more power?
President Erdogan put his buddy into the PM role that helps him consolidate power into the office of the president. They don't really seem to have a check against that kind of power, where we technically do. Didn't Putin play games like that as well, to secure more power?
In some ways the very anachronistic nature, with its inbuilt opposition, of the monarchy makes it the best system.
The Royals all know they are a hairs breadth away from getting kicked to the curb and having to open a kebab shop or the like therefore go to massive lengths to be seen to not meddle in politics.
A president, elected by the people would probably think he or she had a mandate to be involved in the running of the country
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Great thread. I am a republican who considers QEII a living anachronism and believes the French had the right idea on what to do with monarchs.
The death of QEII will be the most significant event for many lives in the former British Empire. Counties throughout the commonwealth will need to make a tough decision on pulling an India/Ireland/South Africa and breaking ties with the monarchy, or keep the status quo and start printing money with Charles on it.
There will likely be a second republic referendum in Australia which should succeed this time due to republicans learning their lessons and no longer having a popular queen around. I also see republic support growing in Canada but am not sure Canada would ever become a republic because it is too hard to change the constitution. At least Canada has a beautiful flag with no Union Jack on it though.
Also as far as a new system of government goes I like the Irish model. The president is elected by popular vote to a mostly ceremonial position.
the next question would be, does Canada have the appetite to have 2 federal elections? Ireland (as well as most republics) have a presidential election every 7 years and then the normal house of commons election whenever government terms are or whenever the house falls.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
In some ways the very anachronistic nature, with its inbuilt opposition, of the monarchy makes it the best system.
The Royals all know they are a hairs breadth away from getting kicked to the curb and having to open a kebab shop or the like therefore go to massive lengths to be seen to not meddle in politics.
A president, elected by the people would probably think he or she had a mandate to be involved in the running of the country
Assuming the role is the same as now what happens when the president refuses to sigh a bill into law. It's kind of like how the senate doesn't do anything either but is likely good to be there in case a majority government tries to do really stupid things.
A tad overdramatic, I think. While imperialism is a thing of the past (except for the United States...) and outdated the Royal family didn't undertake state sponsored genocide. Comparing them to Hitler is a ridiculous comparison and sounds like a Hail Mary from anti-monarchists.
But that ignores the countless other atrocities committed under this dynasty. True they may not have been fully autocratic but they helped determine the foreign policy of the most expansionist nation in human history. If anything theyre worse than the Nazis. Id rather not have their symbols and faces on our emblems and government institutions.
You guys are all aware that Crown Land means literally the Queen owns that land, it would not be an easy task constitutionally, legally if you will, working out how to change that, you think Quebec would allow that to just transfer to a native dude in Ottawa, no they'd want the land given to the Province.
I agree in theory it could be simple and cheap but it would be horrendously complex and expensive in practise.
Dont the provinces administer the Crown Land already (except National Parks)? Im not sure how it would work legally but in practice Im not sure anything would change.
But that ignores the countless other atrocities committed under this dynasty. True they may not have been fully autocratic but they helped determine the foreign policy of the most expansionist nation in human history. If anything theyre worse than the Nazis. Id rather not have their symbols and faces on our emblems and government institutions.
I'm going to have to say that's the first I've heard of this. Queen Elizabeth II. Now officially worse than hitler. You'd think Jon Oliver would've done a segment on it at least.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
Dont the provinces administer the Crown Land already (except National Parks)? Im not sure how it would work legally but in practice Im not sure anything would change.
The problem is they are owned by the Crown, if you them get rid of the Crown their ownership has to be decided, do the Provinces get them or the Feds?
How long and expensive do you think that court case takes?
In some ways the very anachronistic nature, with its inbuilt opposition, of the monarchy makes it the best system. The Royals all know they are a hairs breadth away from getting kicked to the curb and having to open a kebab shop or the like therefore go to massive lengths to be seen to not meddle in politics.
A president, elected by the people would probably think he or she had a mandate to be involved in the running of the country
umm I am pretty sure the bolded is 100% false with the money the royals bring into England via tourists and letting the government make royalties and profit off THEIR land - which to my understanding they could simply take back from the people of England.
The royal family has the people of England by the neck. They won't get more political power, but they won't be kicked to the curb. They will continue to be held in their current position.
I'm going to have to say that's the first I've heard of this. Queen Elizabeth II. Now officially worse than hitler. You'd think Jon Oliver would've done a segment on it at least.
Obviously I was talking about the dynansty as a whole. Hitler was a bad dude, but he didn't enslave India for 200 years, or exterminate the Tasmanians.
Obviously I was talking about the dynansty as a whole. Hitler was a bad dude, but he didn't enslave India for 200 years, or exterminate the Tasmanians.
Enslave India? So people in India didn't have private property, or freedom of movement, under the British?
Did the Mughuls enslave India? Or is it cool to invade India and rule the place for 200 years if you're Persian and not British? Akbar - worse than Hitler?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
