I find it an interesting quirk that the PM guts to sit next to the representative of the Crown. In the UK, the PM joins the rest of the rabble from the Commons (albeit standing side by side with the leader of the opposition).
Do the PMs of Jamaica, Australia and New Zealand follow similar lines of protocol during their speeches from the throne J.J?
It really should be the Government House Leader next to the GG. In the UK the Leader of the Commons stands off to one side of the Queen during the speech.
Oh, you mean the Speaker of the Commons! Yes, he enters with the Sergeant at Arms into the Lords chamber, followed by the MPs. The reason why its held in the Lords chamber and not in the Commons chamber for example was because of the grand episode which kicked off the first English Civil war where Charles I tried to arrest several MPs but was held up by the very valiant Speaker of the house. Ever since then, no Monarch has ever entered the Commons chamber.
Quote:
That's the thing, we don't. We only spend money for the Queen when she comes. When she doesn't, she costs $0 to the Canadian taxpayers.
Yes, that is true, but I meant much more than paying to house the Queen when she visits. For example, who pays for all the government stationary with the Royalist insignia associated with Canada? If you are a constitutional monarchy, one way or another, you are paying some cost towards either the upkeep or the representation of that royal authority in your land.
I'm kind of just saying that regardless of whether or not a nation is in favour of having someone who lives a long way away as your figurehead ruler, the very least that figurehead could do would be to drop by Parliament once a year to have a mug of coffee, see whats going on, maybe do some shopping in the gift shop.
WBenson
Active Member
Posts: 476
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:27 pm
Prestwick wrote:
Oh, you mean the Speaker of the Commons! Yes, he enters with the Sergeant at Arms into the Lords chamber, followed by the MPs. The reason why its held in the Lords chamber and not in the Commons chamber for example was because of the grand episode which kicked off the first English Civil war where Charles I tried to arrest several MPs but was held up by the very valiant Speaker of the house. Ever since then, no Monarch has ever entered the Commons chamber.
No, I mean the Leader of the House of Commons, the UK equivalent of our Government House Leader. He stands at the front of the House of Lords, entering with the Queen in her procession. The office is currently combined with the sinecure of Lord Privy Seal.
Prestwick wrote:
Yes, that is true, but I meant much more than paying to house the Queen when she visits. For example, who pays for all the government stationary with the Royalist insignia associated with Canada? If you are a constitutional monarchy, one way or another, you are paying some cost towards either the upkeep or the representation of that royal authority in your land.
That cost would be quite minimal then. The amount of ink used by the crown on the coat of arms can't be that much.
Prestwick wrote:
I'm kind of just saying that regardless of whether or not a nation is in favour of having someone who lives a long way away as your figurehead ruler, the very least that figurehead could do would be to drop by Parliament once a year to have a mug of coffee, see whats going on, maybe do some shopping in the gift shop.
I agree about more visits. That's completely up to the PM though.
Prestwick
Active Member
Posts: 422
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:38 pm
WBenson wrote:
Prestwick wrote:
Oh, you mean the Speaker of the Commons! Yes, he enters with the Sergeant at Arms into the Lords chamber, followed by the MPs. The reason why its held in the Lords chamber and not in the Commons chamber for example was because of the grand episode which kicked off the first English Civil war where Charles I tried to arrest several MPs but was held up by the very valiant Speaker of the house. Ever since then, no Monarch has ever entered the Commons chamber.
No, I mean the Leader of the House of Commons, the UK equivalent of our Government House Leader. He stands at the front of the House of Lords, entering with the Queen in her procession. The office is currently combined with the sinecure of Lord Privy Seal.
But Harriet Harman is the Leader of the Commons. It has been combined in the past though.
Fun fact for J.J. Harriet Harman can count Neville and his evil twin Austen Chamberlain as her cousins, both of which served as Leader of the House of Commons at one time in their careers.
WBenson
Active Member
Posts: 476
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:49 pm
Prestwick wrote:
WBenson wrote:
Prestwick wrote:
Oh, you mean the Speaker of the Commons! Yes, he enters with the Sergeant at Arms into the Lords chamber, followed by the MPs. The reason why its held in the Lords chamber and not in the Commons chamber for example was because of the grand episode which kicked off the first English Civil war where Charles I tried to arrest several MPs but was held up by the very valiant Speaker of the house. Ever since then, no Monarch has ever entered the Commons chamber.
No, I mean the Leader of the House of Commons, the UK equivalent of our Government House Leader. He stands at the front of the House of Lords, entering with the Queen in her procession. The office is currently combined with the sinecure of Lord Privy Seal.
But Harriet Harman is the Leader of the Commons. It has been combined in the past though.
Fun fact for J.J. Harriet Harman can count Neville and his evil twin Austen Chamberlain as her cousins, both of which served as Leader of the House of Commons at one time in their careers.
How would one define a "monarchist" government, then?
Not simply by saying "they aren't republican."
That's not really an answer.
WBenson
Active Member
Posts: 476
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:06 am
Psudo wrote:
WBenson wrote:
JJ wrote:
How would one define a "monarchist" government, then?
Not simply by saying "they aren't republican."
That's not really an answer.
No, but that seemed to be his standard.
JJ
Active Member
Posts: 435
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:31 pm
Every government Canada has ever had has declared that they support the monarchy and have shown respect and reverence for the Queen in accordance with all the proper protocol. I don't really know what else the monarchists want, other than more old white men as Governor General and maybe a government more prone to throwing out fanatical, Diefenbakeresque allegations of disloyal republicanism at their opponents.
WBenson
Active Member
Posts: 476
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:09 pm
JJ wrote:
Every government Canada has ever had has declared that they support the monarchy and have shown respect and reverence for the Queen in accordance with all the proper protocol. I don't really know what else the monarchists want, other than more old white men as Governor General and maybe a government more prone to throwing out fanatical, Diefenbakeresque allegations of disloyal republicanism at their opponents.
I would prefer a Governor General who actually knew what his or her job was, or at least a Rideau Hall staff that could put up a forceful illusion that he or she did. Age, sex, and race have nothing to do with that, though.
I don't believe that Mme. Jean has either of those going for her. Neither of them are her fault, which is why I feel bad sometimes when I think that she is not a shining success at her job. She's a very friendly and warm person, but that is not all her job is made of. I truly believe she thinks that her role is to wave at people and pretend to travel around the world as a president/celebrity with another title for a few years.
CanadianJeff
Forum Elite
Posts: 1391
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:51 pm
...That is her job. The govener general is a figurehead posistion. It's true she can do a great deal many things power wise but she is still in a figurehead posistion.
Frankly I don't know as a Canadian if I would approve of the queen's representitive playing a large role in Canadian politics. Then again if she did things like force free voting rather then voting along party lines then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as it was acting in the best benefits to Canadian people.
JJ
Active Member
Posts: 435
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:35 pm
It's functionally impossible for the GG to intervene politically AND retain her "above politics" aura, however. We've long ago decided that the role of the GG is strictly ceremonial, you can't very well blame Ms. Jean for conforming to this reality.
WBenson
Active Member
Posts: 476
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:40 pm
CanadianJeff wrote:
...That is her job. The govener general is a figurehead posistion. It's true she can do a great deal many things power wise but she is still in a figurehead posistion.
Frankly I don't know as a Canadian if I would approve of the queen's representitive playing a large role in Canadian politics. Then again if she did things like force free voting rather then voting along party lines then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as it was acting in the best benefits to Canadian people.
Figurehead != Celebrity
I don't want her to play a large role in politics. I want her to understand that she isn't just another celebrity. I want her to at least give off something that gives me confidence that the entire system doesn't have some kind of brain-leeching worm that has eaten away at the significance of the office. If the next holder of the office doesn't do something to turn that around, it's doomed. We have plenty of celebrities. Those can be seen every day in the newspapers and television. Fortunately, Mme Jean hasn't sunk to that level, and is still a wonderful role model for people who want to rise out of adversity.
WBenson
Active Member
Posts: 476
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:42 pm
JJ wrote:
It's functionally impossible for the GG to intervene politically AND retain her "above politics" aura, however. We've long ago decided that the role of the GG is strictly ceremonial, you can't very well blame Ms. Jean for conforming to this reality.
She's conforming to a reality that is a creation of Rideau Hall within the past 10-15 years. The first sign of it was when Romeo LeBlanc changed the GG's standard because it was "rude looking."
JJ
Active Member
Posts: 435
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:12 pm
What made previous governor generals different? People like General Vanier and Roland Michener carried themselves differently because they were elderly white men born in a different generation. Ms. Sauve, Mr. Hnatyshyn, and the others carried themselves like politicians, because that's what they were.
The office of Governor General is so obviously an anachronism, that's why it is such a struggle to find an occupent who can make the office "relevant" to the 21st Century. We no longer expect the job to remind us of colonialism or politics. So what else is left other than celebrity?
Michigan_Democrat
Newbie
Posts: 1
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:33 am
In all fairness, Stephane Dion actually WANTED to call an election, instead of sitting out the vote. And from a strategic perspective, it would've been the best move. Essentially, the caucus has no confidence in his leadership ability, and election time is when his best qualities would come out. It would've also forced cuacus unity, something the martinites (or iggy-ites nowadays) seem to be particularly adept at destroying. Also, I'm confident an election with dion at the helm would chew through the NDP vote, since dion's own leftish views would marginalise Layton.
CKA Elite 
