[Calbeck]

As much as it may be a "professional deformity", it appears the matter is more rooted in a "professional conformity".

Unthinking adoration for the Crown seems essentially rooted in the basic concept that to NOT adore the Crown suggests some level of disloyalty. It is an absolutist concept, after all, which does not allow for lateral thinking --- even the existence of Parliament, or the Magna Carta, were events brought about by rebellion of one sort of another.

Monarchy, in and of itself, demands loyalty as its core raison d'etre.

Therefore, to say anything other than nice things about monarchy, or the Monarch in question, is to revisit the notion (if not action) of disloyalty. From a government standpoint, then, suggesting that any part of Canada had ever been anything BUT monarchist, or that non-monarchist thought should play a significant part in Canadian self-rule, would be similar to an American suggesting that it would have been a good thing for George Washington to have taken on a crown of his own.

The debate, if any, quickly skips away from the consideration of whether or not the shift is a Good Thing or Bad Thing: it is simply anathema.

[GreenTiger]

Constitutional Monarchy is a good thing.

[Psudo]

Constitutional monarchy is certainly a better thing than unfettered monarchy. I prefer a constitutional democratic republic, though.

For one thing, I don't get how any heredity officeholder can be reasoned to deserve his office on merit.

I also don't understand how it can be considered valuable to have a Head of State that is not even a citizen of your state. Either you're turning over some piece of your sovereignty to another nation, or the office is so irrelevant as to bring into question why you have it at all.

Who in the US system wields political power without vetting? The First Lady. The heads of the political parties are only vetted in the sense that their party can fire them. Neither of those examples are legally recognized governmental offices, though. Who else...?

[BartSimpson]

GreenTiger wrote:

Constitutional Monarchy is a good thing.

Concur.

[Brenda]

BartSimpson wrote:

GreenTiger wrote:

Constitutional Monarchy is a good thing.

Concur.

Why?
It's only ceremonial, and very very expensive.

[DrCaleb]

Psudo wrote:

I also don't understand how it can be considered valuable to have a Head of State that is not even a citizen of your state. Either you're turning over some piece of your sovereignty to another nation, or the office is so irrelevant as to bring into question why you have it at all.

The Queen of Canada is only concerned with Canada's affairs. That she physically sometimes is also Queen of Britain is irrelevant. When acting as Queen of Canada, she is oblivious to the concerns of Britain. That is the whole point of a Monarch - the ability to separate oneself from ones duties. Hence use of the Royal 'we'.

Psudo wrote:

Who in the US system wields political power without vetting? The First Lady. The heads of the political parties are only vetted in the sense that their party can fire them. Neither of those examples are legally recognized governmental offices, though. Who else...?

Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, The Carlsyle Group . . .

[JJ]

Calbeck wrote:

As much as it may be a "professional deformity", it appears the matter is more rooted in a "professional conformity".

Unthinking adoration for the Crown seems essentially rooted in the basic concept that to NOT adore the Crown suggests some level of disloyalty. It is an absolutist concept, after all, which does not allow for lateral thinking --- even the existence of Parliament, or the Magna Carta, were events brought about by rebellion of one sort of another.

Monarchy, in and of itself, demands loyalty as its core raison d'etre.

Therefore, to say anything other than nice things about monarchy, or the Monarch in question, is to revisit the notion (if not action) of disloyalty. From a government standpoint, then, suggesting that any part of Canada had ever been anything BUT monarchist, or that non-monarchist thought should play a significant part in Canadian self-rule, would be similar to an American suggesting that it would have been a good thing for George Washington to have taken on a crown of his own.

The debate, if any, quickly skips away from the consideration of whether or not the shift is a Good Thing or Bad Thing: it is simply anathema.

That's a very good argument. It makes a lot of sense, and probably goes a long way in explaining why monarchies are not even contested in very leftist countries like Sweden. The political culture that a monarchy imposes makes it very ideologically difficult to even begin the discussion. It also explains why the only openly republican politicians in Canada tend to be Quebec separatists, who do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Canadian state in the first place.

I kind of like the idea, which is sometimes proposed, that when the president Queen dies, Canada simply not recognize her successor, and declare the throne empty. That gesture would presumably remove much of the loyalism element from any subsequent debate to abolish the monarchy outright.

[Zipperfish]

JJ wrote:

That's a very good argument. It makes a lot of sense, and probably goes a long way in explaining why monarchies are not even contested in very leftist countries like Sweden. The political culture that a monarchy imposes makes it very ideologically difficult to even begin the discussion. It also explains why the only openly republican politicians in Canada tend to be Quebec separatists, who do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Canadian state in the first place.

I kind of like the idea, which is sometimes proposed, that when the president Queen dies, Canada simply not recognize her successor, and declare the throne empty. That gesture would presumably remove much of the loyalism element from any subsequent debate to abolish the monarchy outright.

I like that approach. My only problem with giving up the monarcy now is that I quite like the Queen. There's a premanence about her, since she's been Queen a lot longer than I've even been around. She stays out of trouble and does Queenly things. She's a cultural link for a new country, like Canada, that ties us to fifteen hundred years of history in Britain.

But with Charles, that warm familiar feeling would likely go away. He's a bit of a tosser, as they say in England. And our ditzy Governor General just drives me nuts.

[sandorski]

I'm rather Neutral on the Monarchy. If the Nation chooses to maintain it or abolish it, my Life will go on without change or concern. It has become so neutered, Politically, that it is hardly worth the Time or Effort to abolish it.

Like Zipper, I like the Queen. Mainly because she's steady and represents the best of British qualities. The Historical aspect of the current Monarchy also has value, for the Brits at least. Not so much Canada though, it reflects British influence for sure, but that influence is fading fast and is hardly much more than the ties to the Monarchy itself, these days.

So whether Canada maintains it's ties to the Monarchy seems less and less important as time passes, but for Britain it's another issue entirely. So much of British History is centered around the Monarchy that it seems entrenched in the very DNA. Despite those strong ties and the long History where the monarchy had Political Power, there's always been a resistance to the Monarchy within Britain. Not one to abolish, but one to Control, uniquely Define, and Limit the Power of the Monarchy. It is that internal conflict that created such Institutional successes such as the Magna Carta and British Parliamentary system. Maintaining the Monarchy is a constant reminder of these accomplishments and in a very real sense something that helps to maintain the spirit of such Institutions.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

GreenTiger wrote:

Constitutional Monarchy is a good thing.

Concur.

Why?
It's only ceremonial, and very very expensive.

A constitutional monarch rarely asserts power but when the constitutional processes fail or are threatened there's no substitute for having a decent person taking charge and setting things back to right.

After the dictator Franco croaked it was Juan Carlos who acted to institute reforms to dismantle the authoritarian state and in 1981 it was Juan Carlos who stopped the attempted military coup and helped the civilian government to retain power.

Not that HRH Elizabeth would need to do such things, but just in case she is needed to lead, she is so loved that she would have instant credibility and recognized leadership.

[Brenda]

There is a political crisis in The Netherlands now, there have been elections, but the biggest winner (the PVV, Geert Wilders) is treated like a redheaded stepchild, and not being taken into consideration for governing.

The only thing the Queen can do, is name an inquirer (I hope that is the right word... the man who leads the negotiations between the parties, and writes his report) and report to the Queen, who then can name another one, who should be doing the actual referring. She is politically not involved, she has no affiliation with any party.

Methinks we could do without it...

[DrCaleb]

Brenda wrote:

The only thing the Queen can do, is name an inquirer (I hope that is the right word... the man who leads the negotiations between the parties, and writes his report) and report to the Queen, who then can name another one, who should be doing the actual referring.

'Arbitrator' might be the word you were looking for there.

[Canadaka]

They did a poll on CBC Power & Politics today.

"Do we still need the Queen as Canada's head of state?"
YES 76%
NO 23%
NOT SURE 1%

I see no chance of things changing while the current Queen is on the throne, many say things could change when she dies or suceeds. But with her genes she could be Queen for another 20 years, so people waiting for that, don't hold your breath.

[DrCaleb]

Long live the Queen.

[BartSimpson]

I personally hope that Charles has the good sense to let William ascend to the throne when that time eventually comes around.