[rhesusman]

I have a modest proposal regarding the not-so-hot topic of the monarchy in Canada. It seems that Canadian republicans want to get rid of the monarchy because it's religiously discriminatory (doesn't allow Catholics, Canada's biggest single religion) and it means Canada's head of state isn't Canadian. Monarchists want to keep it to retain distinctiveness from us Americans and to preserve history and tradition.

Here's a third option no one seems to have considered: Why not have a separate Canadian monarchy? Why not ask some member of the House of Windsor move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and marry a Canadian (the first generation monarch would be British, but not the generations after that)? That way, you solve the problem of having a foreigner as head of state, the religiously discriminatory provisions of the Act of Settlement could be abolished, you retain the history and tradition (they'd still be related to the British monarchy), and it would keep Canada different from us. Why hasn't someone suggested this as a compromise solution to the monarchist/republican debate?

[Streaker]

I have proposed this here at CKA on numerous occasions.

It's an excellent idea, natch.

[Gunnair]

rhesusman wrote:

I have a modest proposal regarding the not-so-hot topic of the monarchy in Canada. It seems that Canadian republicans want to get rid of the monarchy because it's religiously discriminatory (doesn't allow Catholics, Canada's biggest single religion) and it means Canada's head of state isn't Canadian. Monarchists want to keep it to retain distinctiveness from us Americans and to preserve history and tradition.

Here's a third option no one seems to have considered: Why not have a separate Canadian monarchy? Why not ask some member of the House of Windsor move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and marry a Canadian (the first generation monarch would be British, but not the generations after that)? That way, you solve the problem of having a foreigner as head of state, the religiously discriminatory provisions of the Act of Settlement could be abolished, you retain the history and tradition (they'd still be related to the British monarchy), and it would keep Canada different from us. Why hasn't someone suggested this as a compromise solution to the monarchist/republican debate?

Didn't know it was a problem to have a foreigner as head of state.

Didn't know the religiously discriminatory provisions against the gender discriminatory religion was a problem.

Didn't know Canada wasn't already different from the US, eh?

Wasn't suggested because it's not really plausible.

[rhesusman]

Gunnair wrote:

Didn't know it was a problem to have a foreigner as head of state.

Enough people in your country apparently think so for there to be a debate on this in the first place.

Gunnair wrote:

Didn't know the religiously discriminatory provisions against the gender discriminatory religion was a problem.

By that logic, it's okay to discriminate against Catholics in any area of society. Besides, enough of your people disagree with you to have made a big deal about this. See O'Donohue v. Canada.

Gunnair wrote:

Didn't know Canada wasn't already different from the US, eh?

I'm not the one making that argument - Canadian monarchists do as a response to republican arguments.

Gunnair wrote:

Wasn't suggested because it's not really plausible.

Why is it less plausible than the suggestion of a republic?

[Mr_Canada]

I like it.

[Toro]

I think I should be king.

That's a great idea.

[Mustang1]

There's no demonstrably persuasive reason to open up a megaconstitutional debate on the monarchy. The constitutional monarchy is working just fine and there's no reason for a republic.

[herbie]

Why not elect the GovernorGeneral, rename the position "The Crown" and redefine "The Crown" as the direct representative of the people.
Then we change absolutely squat, we don't have a Monarch, we don't have a Republic, no papers need to be changed, nobody gets to "rule" anyone and the Monarch of the Commonwealth can still come and wave to us.
Then we vote on who gets to be on the coins. I say we keep the maple leaf, the beaver, the Bluenose, the caribou, the wolf, the loon and the bear and put whatever we like on the other side. I nominate Evangline Lilly for the dime, cuz they're always "Lost" in the bottom of your pocket.

[ManifestDestiny]

just have a revolution

[herbie]

Sure. Let Harper get a majority and then we'll have a tyrant to throw out....

[GreatBriton]

rhesusman wrote:

I have a modest proposal regarding the not-so-hot topic of the monarchy in Canada. It seems that Canadian republicans want to get rid of the monarchy because it's religiously discriminatory (doesn't allow Catholics, Canada's biggest single religion) and it means Canada's head of state isn't Canadian. Monarchists want to keep it to retain distinctiveness from us Americans and to preserve history and tradition.

Here's a third option no one seems to have considered: Why not have a separate Canadian monarchy? Why not ask some member of the House of Windsor move to Canada, become a Canadian citizen, and marry a Canadian (the first generation monarch would be British, but not the generations after that)? That way, you solve the problem of having a foreigner as head of state, the religiously discriminatory provisions of the Act of Settlement could be abolished, you retain the history and tradition (they'd still be related to the British monarchy), and it would keep Canada different from us. Why hasn't someone suggested this as a compromise solution to the monarchist/republican debate?

The British Monarchy is not religiously discriminatory. The British Monarch is Head of the Church of England, just as the Pope is Head of the Catholic Church. Having a Catholic on the Throne would mean having a bizarre situation where a Catholic is the Head of the Church of England.

Calling the British Monarchy religiously discriminatory is like calling the Pope religiously discriminatory, because a Protestant can't become Pope.

And any change to the Act of Settlement's provisions barring Roman Catholics from the throne or giving male heirs precedence over females would require the unanimous consent of the parliaments of all the other Commonwealth realms if the unity of the Crown is to be retained.

And Canada does have a separate monarchy from Britain, It just so happens to be that we share a same monarch.

But if Britain was to get rid of Elizabeth II tomorrow and put someone else on the Throne, it doesn't necessarily mean that she won't still be monarch in Cnada - or vice versa.

[ziggy]

Where ya been GB?

[Canadaka]

Quote:

But if Britain was to get rid of Elizabeth II tomorrow and put someone else on the Throne, it doesn't necessarily mean that she won't still be monarch in Cnada - or vice versa.

Really? I didn't know this. Can anyone back that up?

[mixedfarmer]

interesting question. i think house of commons would have to vote on this

[Freakinoldguy]

rhesusman wrote:

It seems that Canadian republicans want to get rid of the monarchy because it's religiously discriminatory (doesn't allow Catholics, Canada's biggest single religion) and it means Canada's head of state isn't Canadian.

Having a non Canadian as a head of state doesn't seem to be a major hurdle, since if Mr. Dion was to get elected we'd be electing a French citizen as PM. Personally, due to the power that's weilded, i'd prefer the Governor General to be a foreigner rather than the PM.