Harper Hates Queens?

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
Barts
Harper Hates Queens?

What has Harper got agains Queens? Or is it just that he doesn't like women? I'm no monarchist and wouldn't object to the instituion being abolished. But why is Stephen Harper opposed to the rules of succession in the British monarchy being changed to allow the first born, if a woman, to become the monarch, and head of state for Canada?

See Is Canada stalling royal succession reforms?

Maybe he thinks Queen means Freddy Mercury and his British Rock band or maybe men who wear women's clothes and sing like Judy Garland?

It's queer that Harper doesn't like queens. Just sayin'

remind remind's picture

Think about it a bit more Barts and I am sure it will come to you...

Doug

Wow. There's conservative and then there's just silly.

Caissa

Would this require any change in the Constitution Act?

ETA: This may cover it.

Amendment by unanimous consent
41.
An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a)
the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

(b)
the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

(c)
subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d)
the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e)
an amendment to this Part.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1982.html

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Steve, what's the big deal?

Sean in Ottawa

I tweeted this:

SH: "The successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man... That's our position." http://tinyurl.com/44pwlee

Sean in Ottawa

There will be those who say this does not matter because it is just the monarchy.

In fact it does matter, very much. You may not care about the Monarchy but Steve does. In this he is expressing two things:

1) the he does not consider women equal or at least that women's equality is not something worth putting any effort into

2) he does not think Canadians care either-- about the principle of women's equality

If anyone knows anyone voting for Steven Harper's party-- or not voting this election -- please have a chat with them. This is what is seeking a mandate.

DaveW

Harper hates Queens??

well, I went to McGill and EVERYBODY did, esp. around football weekends, so no novelty there ...

Frmrsldr

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There will be those who say this does not matter because it is just the monarchy.

In fact it does matter, very much. You may not care about the Monarchy but Steve does. In this he is expressing two things:

1) the he does not consider women equal or at least that women's equality is not something worth putting any effort into

2) he does not think Canadians care either-- about the principle of women's equality

If anyone knows anyone voting for Steven Harper's party-- or not voting this election -- please have a chat with them. This is what is seeking a mandate.

Is it just me.

Or am I the one who doesn't get it?

You cannot reform monarchy.

Its very existence revolves around the principle (and society's acceptance of that principle) that its members are entitled to certain liberties, powers, rights, titles and entitlements, etc., by virtue of being born into a particular family.

Monarchy, by its very nature, is inegalitarian (as well as unrepresentative and anti-democratic.)

Cosmetic internal changes to monarchy does not change what it is.

It is an institution that harks back to a feudal era.

One either accepts this and keeps it.

Or get rid of it and welcome the 21st Century.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Trust me, this country is filled with queens who hate Harper right back.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wait, that kind of Queen. Sorry.

adma

With all those Archie Bunker types supporting the Conservatives, Harper should have every reason to love Queens

Unionist

I don't often post in defence of Stephen Harper, but this could be a simply question of fairness.

Women have held the British throne for 123 of the past 174 years - that's almost 71% of the time.

Surely, we should postpone any change to the primogeniture rules until just a few more inbred royal male bastards have had an opportunity to suck the blood of the people for a wee bit longer?

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

(I do like Unionist's irreverent take.)

Unlike most proposals to reform or replace the monarchy, a relatively straightforward proposal to reform the law of succession to eliminate the preference of males over females would probably be doable.  What provincial premier would dare oppose that?  Or, for that matter, would dare oppose the removal of the religious restriction that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic or married to a Roman Catholic.

Of course, it would beg the question in some quarters of attempting more radical reforms, or even the abolition of the monarchy.  But (without wanting to get into that pointless go round again) more radical reform or abolition would probably not be able to get unanimous consent of the provinces any time soon.  Thus, more extensive proposals are probably counterproductive and, given the almost purely symbolic nature of the office, simply not worth the trouble.

Unionist

Another idea would be to provide, upon decease, for the monarch's surviving parent(s) to accede to the throne. This would address the long-standing age discrimination that has plagued the institution, although admittedly it may not work as a long-term solution.

 

Sean in Ottawa

There are a lot of posts here that I like... pretty much all of them.

Frmrsldr

Reform monarchy.

Yeah, the Titanic has a hole in it that needs to be fixed.

All the Leaning Tower of Pisa needs is a good paint job.

Cosmetic surgery ought to cure the terminally ill cancer patient.

Give me a fucking break.

Even if the rules of primogeniture are made egalitarian between the sexes in the British monarchy,

how can the larger issue of the British monarchy being, by its very nature, inegalitarian be solved?

Have a national lottery every 4, 5, 6, ? years where the pool selected from is the name of every adult (from the census, say) who is a British citizen?

The name selected will be the monarch for the next duration.

That is fair and just and seeing how the position is largely symbolic, has very little political power to it and Britain doesn't have a written Constitution anyways, I don't see this as being a problem.

A reform like making primogeniture egalitarian among the sexes to the British monarchy is not up to Canada to make, it is up to Britain (or, more accurately, the British government and courts) to make.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Frmsldr... you lack imagination... how about geting the top 50 contenders together (I believe they are all neatly ranked), issue them pointy weapons and have them fight it out for the title. I think the Brits could actually get rid of all the hereditary "peers" if they applied this equitably.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Actually, Fmrsldr, you have it wrong again.

Whether the situation is ideal or not, the present monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch of 15 other sovreign countries.  Thus the UK government will not undertake any change to the succession laws without the consent of the other 15.

(Similarly, the abdication of Edward VIII required the consent of the other Commonwealth monarchies.)

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

 

Whether the situation is ideal or not, the present monarch of the United Kingdom is also the monarch of 15 other sovreign countries.  Thus the UK government will not undertake any change to the succession laws without the consent of the other 15.

(Similarly, the abdication of Edward VIII required the consent of the other Commonwealth monarchies.)

Oh yeah?

Post some links.

Why would the British government seriously give a fuck about what the 'colonials' think on this issue?

If they did, then they would seriously consider abolishing the monarchy because that is what the majority of the people of all the other "slave colonies" (ie., those that still have the British monarchy as the ultimate head of their governments) - save Canada, want.

Prove to me that too pro-nazi fuck Eddie VIII stepped down because of consent from (some) Commonwealth countries of the time.

Otherwise, my mentality is "feed me some more bullshit."

Frmrsldr

bagkitty wrote:

Frmsldr... you lack imagination... how about geting the top 50 contenders together (I believe they are all neatly ranked), issue them pointy weapons and have them fight it out for the title. I think the Brits could actually get rid of all the hereditary "peers" if they applied this equitably.

My idea about the 'national lottery' was not about abolishing the monarchy.

It was an attempt to square the logical circle on how to make the monarchy fully fair and egalitarian.

Adult members of the Windsors or Battenburgs or whatever you want to call them would be entered into the lottery but if their names were drawn, they would be disqualified and a new name would be drawn.

Frmrsldr

Dp.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

A short extract from scene 3 of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Quote:

ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?

Really, do we need a level of analysis about the monarchy any more extensive than that offered in the movie?

Frmrsldr

bagkitty wrote:

A short extract from scene 3 of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Quote:

ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?

Really, do we need a level of analysis about the monarchy any more extensive than that offered in the movie?

You've got it!

That's where I'm coming from.

That's why the "Glorious Revolution" and Parliament's disgusting grovelling for Georgie from the house of Hanover to become their lord, king and protector and how that continued the process of a "limited monarchy" in Britain and its 'possessions' is an oxymoronic farce.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Fmrsldr, a simple google search of "edward viii, abdication" will bring you a number of links explaining both the requirement of the UK government to consult the Commonwealth monarchies on matters regarding the institution of the Crown and the way in which that was played out during the abdication.

That you don't care for the facts, or that you think the facts ought to be different does not make them anytheless facts

When you are interested in having a serious discussion about the issue, let me know.

For now, it appears you want to play the same game of abuse, insult and slander you played before.

I decline to play your sick game.

TreckerTom

It is pretty cut and dried really. The Statute of Westminster (1931) requires the consent of the "Parliaments of all the Dominions" to any law affecting succession to the throne. As Malcolm wrote, the consent (not consultation) was required of the Parliament of Canada and the other Dominions for the Abdication Act of 1936 which ended the crisis around Edward VIII. 

From the Statute of Westminster:

"And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol to the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:"

 

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/StatuteofWestminster.html

 

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, a simple google search of "edward viii, abdication" will bring you a number of links explaining both the requirement of the UK government to consult the Commonwealth monarchies on matters regarding the institution of the Crown and the way in which that was played out during the abdication.

If you wish to continue, let me make it clear what I'm asking for:

What I'm asking for are links that clearly establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the British government sought/seeks input from the governments of other countries on a basis of equality concerning matters about the institution of the British crown.

So somewhere in British law, there is a "requirement of the U.K. government to consult the Commonwealth monarchies on matters regarding the institution of the crown."

That means sweet fuck all for two reasons:

1. It doesn't eliminate the possibility of the U.K. government from ignoring this requirement.

2. "Consult" can mean just about anything.

The U.K. government could inform the other governments about its intentions and actions without seeking, accepting or listening to their input.

Concerning Eddie VIII, did the U.K. government provide full disclosure to the 'Commonwealth' governments, informing them that the reason why he had to go was that he was too (even for a British royal) pro-nazi? Were all the countries belonging to the Commonwealth treated equally in this regard? I could just see those racist fucks in Whitehall at the time tripping all over each other to seek input from Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Not to mention Burma, Fiji, Gold Coast (now Ghana) Hong Kong, India, Kenya and a host of other countries that were part of the Commonwealth by virtue of the fact they were British colonies prior to WW2.

Malcolm wrote:

That you don't care for the facts, or that you think the facts ought to be different does not make them anytheless facts

I despise inequality.

Inequality (among all other social ills) is something that should be abolished.

Monarchy is an institution that is based upon inequality.

Therefore, I despise monarchy and it should be abolished.

That is all I need to know about monarchy.

Spending time and effort on monarchy beyond that (abolishing it) is to sidetrack oneself and piss valuable time and effort away.

Malcolm wrote:

For now, it appears you want to play the same game of abuse, insult and slander you played before.

You're convinced of that are you?

Malcolm wrote:

I decline to play your sick game.

Good because I never asked you to in the first pace.

As a free agent (i.e., someone possessing free will) you are entirely at liberty to post or not post on this thread.

Frmrsldr

TreckerTom wrote:

It is pretty cut and dried really. The Statute of Westminster (1931) requires the consent of the "Parliaments of all the Dominions" to any law affecting succession to the throne. As Malcolm wrote, the consent (not consultation) was required of the Parliament of Canada and the other Dominions for the Abdication Act of 1936 which ended the crisis around Edward VIII. 

From the Statute of Westminster:

"And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol to the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:"

 

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/StatuteofWestminster.html

Yeah,

that's all nice and cute and everything

but it still doesn't answer my challenge:

Did the U.K. government consult with and seek the assent of all Commonwealth, Dominions and (British) colonies - because they would have been part of the Commonwealth as well, governments on an equal basis and did the U.K. give full disclosure as to the reason why they were pushing Eddie VIII off the cliff?

One cannot provide informed advice on a basis of equality if there is not full disclosure or, in other words, if important information is withheld or one is lied to.

Provide me with some links that establish that Antigua and Barbuda, Burma, Fiji, Gold Coast (later Ghana), Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu for example, were "consulted."

My guess is all you'll find is that those racist fucks in Whitehall only informed the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and possibly South Africa and the Viceroy of India.

It really is pretty cut and dried, isn't it?

Caissa

The Queen is celebrating her 85th birthday on Thursday

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/04/21/queen-elizabeth-birthday.html

Sean in Ottawa

Who cares about the monarchy? The issue here is that Harper does and that this is a reflection of what he thinks about women's equality.

The British monarchy is irrelevant except for entertainment and tourism and they could achieve a lot more with less money. But to tell Canadians that Canada would support symbolicly or otherwise an official institution that does not show gender equality. Makes me think I am living in 1911 instead of 2011.

 

MegB

Frmrsldr and Malcolm, I'm guessing the last time you two were given a vacation from babble, it didn't make much of an impression.

If you insist on wasting up to 80% of mods' time with your bickering, you will be out of here again.  Play nice, or don't play at all.

Caissa

Navy in 1911, Air Force in 2011. Some call it progress.Wink

Frmrsldr

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

But to tell Canadians that Canada would support symbolicly or otherwise an official institution that does not show gender equality.

Absolutely Herr Harper supports the British monarchy.

He's not "anti-Queen" either.

Here's two reasons:

1. His statement on the British monarchy is just that - a statement of fact, not an argument. As things are now, the crown or throne or process of succession (whatever you want to call it) will go to first a male and then after that to another male after Liz passes on. That is barring the bipassing of bonny prince Charles, which there is grumbling in some quarters in favor of doing.

2. The Queen's representative in Canada, the Governor General has worked very well for Herr Harper granting him two prorogues in slightly more than a year. This has had the effect of twice saving his worthless political hide.

Frmrsldr

Rebecca West wrote:

If you insist on wasting up to 80% of mods' time with your bickering,...

[Bolding added]

Don't look at me.

I mind my own business.

I don't go pestering the mods insisting that they do anything.

If Malcolm wants to brand me as a slanderer, it's a free country. He can call me a slanderer all he wants. I personally don't give a shit, but I don't think it falls under your category of "playing nice" however.

Rebecca West wrote:

Play nice, or don't play at all.

Is this what babble has become?

One can't even engage in a good ol' fashioned philosophical discussion anymore?

 

TreckerTom

Frmrsldr wrote:

Yeah,

that's all nice and cute and everything

but it still doesn't answer my challenge:

Did the U.K. government consult with and seek the assent of all Commonwealth, Dominions and (British) colonies - because they would have been part of the Commonwealth as well, governments on an equal basis and did the U.K. give full disclosure as to the reason why they were pushing Eddie VIII off the cliff?

One cannot provide informed advice on a basis of equality if there is not full disclosure or, in other words, if important information is withheld or one is lied to.

Provide me with some links that establish that Antigua and Barbuda, Burma, Fiji, Gold Coast (later Ghana), Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu for example, were "consulted."

My guess is all you'll find is that those racist fucks in Whitehall only informed the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and possibly South Africa and the Viceroy of India.

It really is pretty cut and dried, isn't it?

You have been provided with the quote you requested so there is no need to guess. 

The Commonwealth parliaments (mainly the anglo-saxon settler states and the Irish Free State) consented to the abdication through various acts of legislation. The other nations you mention were mainly colonies and therefore not members of the Commonwealth in 1936 as you seem to believe. They had no sovereign parliament to consult (except the one in London).

The stated reasons for "pushing Ediie VIII off the cliff" were well known. The abdication crisis went on for months, involved all the Commonwealth heads of government, and the issues were publicly debated everywhere. The Nazi sympathies of Edward and his wife were only one, and not the biggest, reason behind the push. After all, Nazi sympathies were hardly unknown among the British upper class who were the main force behind the abdication. The working class, including the British Communist Party, were more sympathetic to the king. 

On the point you are disputing - that any changes to succession would need to pass all the Commonwealth parliaments - the law is pretty clear. That doesn't make the institution any less offensive or irrelevant.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Frmrsldr, your bickering wastes time because you take up space and disrupt conversations so that you can pursue a one-on-one vendetta with another babbler. It has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with ego. You account for over 1/3 of the posts in this thread alone, and that's not adjusting for post length. When one has polluted dozens of threads on the same subject, after having watched all other comers drop out due to frustration, ennui or disgust, when one is still repeating the same arguments in the face of the same refutations, one should realize that it's not about expanding and progressing leftist thought, it's about winning. So stop it.

Frmrsldr

Catchfire wrote:

Frmrsldr, your bickering wastes time because you take up space and disrupt conversations so that you can pursue a one-on-one vendetta with another babbler. It has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with ego. You account for over 1/3 of the posts in this thread alone, and that's not adjusting for post length. When one has polluted dozens of threads on the same subject, after having watched all other comers drop out due to frustration, ennui or disgust, when one is still repeating the same arguments in the face of the same refutations, one should realize that it's not about expanding and progressing leftist thought, it's about winning. So stop it.

To prejudge by dragging in other threads in this discussion is pejudice (i.e., prejudging.)

Thanks for your prejudging and impartial moderating.

Oh, btw, who brought in this unrelated Eddie VIII bullshit?

As a mod, I know you know who this new TreckerTom character is.Wink

Frmrsldr

TreckerTom wrote:

You have been provided with the quote you requested so there is no need to guess. 

No such thing has happened.

All you have established is what a portion of the Statute of Westminster states and that is it. You have established nothing else.

Do you seriously believe that just because a law says something, it therefore follows, of necessity, that the law was obeyed and appropriate actions occurred according to the letter of the law?

If you believe that, I suggest you look at UNSCR 1973 and the actions of the U.K., the U.S., France and Canada (in the war on Libya.)

TreckerTom wrote:

The Commonwealth parliaments (mainly the anglo-saxon settler states and the Irish Free State) consented to the abdication through various acts of legislation.

That in no way establishes that the communication among the British government and the "Anglo-Saxon settler states and the Irish Free State" was a two way dialogue with input from the "Anglo-Saxon settler states and the Irish Free State" governments.

In fact, it suggests the exact opposite: That the British government told the other governments what it had done and the other governments accordingly changed their legislation to accommodate (what) the British government (had done.)

TreckerTom wrote:

The Commonwealth parliaments (mainly the anglo-saxon settler state and the Irish Free State)... The other nations you mention were mainly colonies and therefore not members of the Commonwealth in 1936 as you seem to believe. They had no sovereign parliament to consult (except the one in London).

With that distinction you make between the "Anglo-Saxon settler and the Irish Free State" nations and "the other nations ... [that] were mainly colonies..." you have vindicated my argument that the British government and British Empire but also the institution of the British monarchy, because it backed the British Empire, is not only inegalitarian and sexist - it's also racist. Thank you.

Do you even know what the Commonwealth in the 1930s was and what its purpose was?

TreckerTom wrote:

The stated reasons for "pushing Ediie VIII off the cliff" were well known. The abdication crisis went on for months, involved all the Commonwealth heads of government, and the issues were publicly debated everywhere. The Nazi sympathies of Edward and his wife were only one, and not the biggest, reason behind the push. After all, Nazi sympathies were hardly unknown among the British upper class who were the main force behind the abdication.

The British media sure was quick to try to get the British public to forget that and to spin a new story in 1941 - remember when Rudolph Hess parachuted into Britain? It was now WW2 and the British government was fighting against nazi Germany. It wouldn't do for the British public to be reminded of their royal family's nazi sympathies.

TreckerTom wrote:

The working class, including the British Communist Party, were more sympathetic to the king. 

I'll leave that colossal gem with you Tom.

MegB

Frmrsldr wrote:

To prejudge by dragging in other threads in this discussion is pejudice (i.e., prejudging.)

Thanks for your prejudging and impartial moderating.

Oh, btw, who brought in this unrelated Eddie VIII bullshit?

As a mod, I know you know who this new TreckerTom character is.Wink

 

Actually, as mods, we don't know who is who unless we have a strong suspicion that someone who has been banned is posting under another account, and then we check the IP address.  And even then, we can't be sure.

You're suggesting a level of complicity that, to be honest, we have neither the time nor the interest to indulge.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

The Edward VIII reference is relevant as an example of the consultations required under the Statute of Westminster.

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

The Edward VIII reference is relevant as an example of the consultations required under the Statute of Westminster.

I got the Eddie VIII reference part of it.

But what has not been established is that, in fact, any two-way dialogue took place on an equal basis between the British and "Anglo-Saxon and Irish Free State" governments.

Frmrsldr

This whole thing is a bullshit non-existent issue to begin with.

What I originally said was:

Frmrsldr wrote:

A reform like making primogeniture egalitarian among the sexes to the British monarchy is not up to Canada to make,...

Meaning it's not up to Canada to unilaterally make such a decision

Or in other words, it's not up to Canada to unilaterally tell or dictate to Britain what changes to make in their (i.e., Britian's) institution of the monarchy - (save in my opinion, if Canada wishes to abolish the suzerainty of the British monarchy over Canada. Such an act is called sovereignty or self-determination and Canadians should not need to go grovelling or kowtowing to the British government and monarch to do that.)

takeitslowly

The king wont be just any man...it would and always be a white man.

TreckerTom

 

Frmrsldr wrote:

Meaning it's not up to Canada to unilaterally make such a decision

Actually, what you originally wrote was very different. You wrote that the decision was one that was legally up to the British parliament and courts to take unilaterally. No one ever claimed that Canada could act unilaterally. 

Here is your original quote in full:

Frmrsldr wrote:

A reform like making primogeniture egalitarian among the sexes to the British monarchy is not up to Canada to make, it is up to Britain (or, more accurately, the British government and courts) to make.

Technically Britain could act unilaterally but it would be a breach of the Statute of Westminster and it would end the unity of the Crown. Potentially it could lead to a situation where the first born daughter of William would be the Queen of Britain while her younger brother would be the King of Canada (and any other Commonwealth realm which didn't change its laws to conform with the British parliament).

Changing the succession laws in Canada might be a little more difficult than it appears in the press reports. Any change that affects the monarchy in Canada would trigger the unanimity formula of the constitution requiring the consent of all provincial legislatures and parliament. It could be a PQ government that casts the deciding vote on whether the daughter or the son of William and Kate would succeed to the throne. A far more interesting spectacle than a royal wedding.

Sineed

Never mind Prince William and his bride - if the succession laws are changed to be non-gender specific, doesn't that mean Princess Anne becomes the heiress to the throne?

The discussion around whether or not Westminster would bother with consultation with all of the commonwealth countries is aside from the main point, which is, what is Harper's problem?  If the law as Trecker Tom has laid out is followed, then changing the succession laws requires a change to the constitution, no?  I think therein lies Harper's problem.  Assuming that his rationale is based on misogyny is too easy an answer.  He is a highly scheming and plotting individual - mucking about with our constitution is what bugs him IMV.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Sineed wrote:

Never mind Prince William and his bride - if the succession laws are changed to be non-gender specific, doesn't that mean Princess Anne becomes the heiress to the throne?

Charles is older than the current Anne, so while she would move up ahead of her younger brothers (Andrew and Edward) and their issue, she'd still be behind Charles, William and Henry and their issue.

That said, IF there were changes to the succession, I expect that the Westminster Parliament would do what it did the last time it legislated on the succession (only this time, in consultation with the Commonwealth monarchies under the terms of the Statue of Westminster).

James II having been deemed to have abdicated and his son (whom Jacobites eventually styled James III and Hanoverians "the Old Pretender") deemed an imposter, James's daughter Mary and her husband William were invoted to assume the throne conjointly.  The legal order of succession at that time was (omitting the newborn prince) James's elder daughter Mary, James's younger daughter Anne and then James's nephew William - who also happened to be his son-in-law.

To clarify matters, and with the consent of Anne, Parliament gave William priority over Anne by virtue of the offer to the throne.  Subsequent legislation (the Act of Succession) established the order of succession as follows:

  • "heirs of the body" of William and Mary (ie, their hypothetical children)
  • "heirs of the body" of Mary (her hypothetical children by a future husband after the hypothetical death of William)
  • "heirs of the body" of William his hypothetical children by a future wife after the hypothetical death of Mary)
  • Anne
  • "heirs of the body" of Anne
  • skipping several dozen descendents who were Roman Catholics, including the King of France
  • Sophia, wife of the Elector of Hanover
  • "heirs of the body" of Sophia.

 

I suspect that any change to the succession would set out the order of succession to the umpteenth point.

  • The Prince of Wales and his issue,
  • Prince William of Wales and his issue
  • Prince Henry of Wales and his issue
  • The Princess Royal and her issue
  • Mr. Peter Phillips* and his issue
  • Ms Zara Phillips and her issue
  • The Duke of York . . .
  • And from that point, the change doesn't affect anyone until you get to something like 20th in line

 

(* Peter Phillips may be affected by another discriminatory provision, in that his Canadian wife was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church and has never formally converted, though she is apparently non-observant.  As a person married to a Roman Catholic, he may be excluded, though not his issue.)

(The technical meaning of "heirs of the body" creates a curious legal argumant that the Commonwealth monarchy effectively ceased to exist February 6, 1952, when George VI died leaving two daughters and no sons.  Any peerage vested in "heirs of the body," under those circumstances, would have gone into "abeyance" until the issue of one daughter or the other became extinct.)

Unionist

I'm not sure I'm following this discussion. Why is the Untied Kingdumb? And who is Great Brian? I think I may be missing some of the basics here.

Anyway, my attitude to the monarchy can be summed up in two words:

Oliver Cromwell.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:

 

Anyway, my attitude to the monarchy can be summed up in two words:

 

Oliver Cromwell.

 

Laughing

Sean in Ottawa

I guess I have an Irish reaction to Cromwell-- did not have any fondness for him either.

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

Meaning it's not up to Canada to unilaterally make such a decision

TreckerTom wrote:

Actually, what you originally wrote was very different. You wrote that the decision was one that was legally up to the British parliament and courts to take unilaterally. No one ever claimed that Canada could act unilaterally. 

Here is your original quote in full:

Frmrsldr wrote:

A reform like making primogeniture egalitarian among the sexes to the British monarchy is not up to Canada to make, it is up to Britain (or, more accurately, the British government and courts) to make.

Yeah, which is precisely what I said.

Who initiates the change? Canada or Britain?

Britain, right?

So what matter does it make what Herr Harper says about the laws of succession?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

TreckerTom wrote:

Technically Britain could act unilaterally but it would be a breach of the Statute of Westminster and it would end the unity of the Crown. Potentially it could lead to a situation where the first born daughter of William would be the Queen of Britain while her younger brother would be the King of Canada (and any other Commonwealth realm which didn't change its laws to conform with the British parliament).

Changing the succession laws in Canada might be a little more difficult than it appears in the press reports. Any change that affects the monarchy in Canada would trigger the unanimity formula of the constitution requiring the consent of all provincial legislatures and parliament. It could be a PQ government that casts the deciding vote on whether the daughter or the son of William and Kate would succeed to the throne. A far more interesting spectacle than a royal wedding.

Which shows the direction of the "consultation." IT IS ONE WAY. IT GOES FROM BRITAIN TO CANADA. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. BRITAIN ANNOUNCES THE CHANGE AND CANADA THE SLAVE VASSAL STATE HAS TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGE(S).

Canada's political response to Britain changing the laws of succession almost entirely affects what happens IN CANADA. The only affect this has on Britain is on the aforementioned "unity of the crown" (in the Statute of Westminster.)

Policywonk

Through the Statute of Westminster, the Canadian parliament alone can change our rules of succession, but we also agreed not to change them without the unanimous consent of, and a parallel change of succession in, the other realms of the Commonwealth, unless explicitly leaving the shared monarchy relationship. That would require unanimous consent according to our Constitution, I think.

Frmrsldr

In all the hubris (I would daresay "bullshit"), no one answered Caissa's question:

Caissa wrote:

Would this require any change in the Constitution Act?

 

Amendment by unanimous consent
41.
An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a)
the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

Does the Constitution of Canada even cover the issue of succession?

It states:

"An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters...

(a) the office of the Queen"

Does the original British Statutory law that covers the issues of succession etc., (everything but the "'office' of the Queen" which sounds to me like the question of whether Canada wishes to keep or abolish the monarchy) inherited by Canada, reside within the Constitution, or does that law still reside independently (i.e., outside) the Constitution?

If it does reside outside of the Constitution, then only the relevant portion of that Statutory law needs to be amended and not the Constitution.

Pages