The Monarchy

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
patriot patriot's picture
The Monarchy

What are your views on the Monarchy?

Tommy_Paine

 

Dark.

HeywoodFloyd

Positive. I absolutely support the Queen of Canada as our Head of State.

remind remind's picture

Against "royalty" of any type.

Jingles

I thought you supported Harper as the absolute Head of State.

HeywoodFloyd

Jingles wrote:

I thought you supported Harper as the absolute Head of State.

Now what would you call that? A personal attack? An unnecessary snipe? A diversionary tactic?

And if you're serious, then what have I ever said that would give you that idea?

Tommy_Paine

 

Heriditary heads of state make as much sense as heriditary heads of university mathematics departments.

 

HeywoodFloyd

Keep in mind that I'm responding while believing fully that this thread is an attempt to sew dissent amongst us and to "troll the board" so to speak.

I agree that a heriditary monarchy doesn't make a whole lot of sense. However, it does de-politicize the office of the head of state. I would be in favour, in theory, of replacing the appointed GG with an elected GG. I would not want us to replace the head of state with a fully elected and empowered office like the US has.

Right now all of our legislative power and executive power is held in Parliament, where it should be.

Fidel

Biggest welfare bums ever. Blue bloods are in desperate need of training in some kind of useful vocation, like vegetable gardening, refuse collection, or something more useful than what they pretend to do now.

patriot patriot's picture

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Keep in mind that I'm responding while believing fully that this thread is an attempt to sew dissent amongst us and to "troll the board" so to speak.

It's merely a harmless question. You're the one trolling.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Fidel... how about if we went back to sacrificing them annually to ensure good crops?

aka Mycroft

I think monarchy is anathama to both basic democratic values and the principle that one should obtain position through merit rather than entitlement.

HeywoodFloyd

patriot wrote:

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Keep in mind that I'm responding while believing fully that this thread is an attempt to sew dissent amongst us and to "troll the board" so to speak.

It's merely a harmless question. You're the one trolling.

It could be, and in which case welcome to Babble.

My apologies if I got it wrong but my Troll-Dar went off with your posting style (join a board, ask a divisive and incendiary question as your first post, and not include any editorial content on your part including your own opinion on the question).

 

 

Fidel

bagkitty wrote:

Fidel... how about if we went back to sacrificing them annually to ensure good crops?

Excellent idea. They might make good compost. Waste not and want not.

 

patriot patriot's picture

Quote:

My apologies if I got it wrong but my Troll-Dar went off with your posting style (join a board, ask a divisive and incendiary question as your first post, and not include any editorial content on your part including your own opinion on the question).

On the contrary, I am merely trying to generate general debate. So you are wrong. Anyways ....

madmax

Imperial Margarine vs Butter.....

Why does it always come down to this....

 

KenS

Well lets see, the self styled "patriot" just got here.

And I doubt that I'm the only one who got an inane PM from him today.

 "I believe in the Canadian republic. Do you?"

 Again, questions that stir. Not the slightest statement of own position.

You may not be trolling. But anyone trolling could genuinely say they were "trying to generate debate."

HeywoodFloyd

patriot wrote:

Heywood Floyd wrote:

My apologies if I got it wrong but my Troll-Dar went off with your posting style (join a board, ask a divisive and incendiary question as your first post, and not include any editorial content on your part including your own opinion on the question).

On the contrary, I am merely trying to generate general debate. So you are wrong. Anyways ....

I am always willing to accept when I've been wrong. So....how do you feel about the Monarchy? Do you support a Canadian Republic?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

aka Mycroft wrote:

I think monarchy is anathama to both basic democratic values and the principle that one should obtain position through merit rather than entitlement.

Damn, wish I had been the one to sum things up both as eloquently and economically and aka Mycroft has.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

patriot wrote:

Heywood Floyd wrote:

My apologies if I got it wrong but my Troll-Dar went off with your posting style (join a board, ask a divisive and incendiary question as your first post, and not include any editorial content on your part including your own opinion on the question).

On the contrary, I am merely trying to generate general debate. So you are wrong. Anyways ....

And you are merely trying to generate general formatting errors in this thread. So you post as poorly as you debate. Anyways, it's a write-off at this point ...

Sean in Ottawa

The monarchy is the flagship of a classist society. I would be surprised if it were popular here.

I am not assuming that youa re a troll-- but I think the advice to put forward some thought along with a subject for debate is worth taking. Your reception of the feedback you recieved will have a lot to do with how you are perceived here. Rather than focus on the fact that poeple misread your intentions, why not look at the reason they gave you as to how that could have happened?

Anyway, I hope you can engage in some interesting debates here and I look forward to your own views on things.

 

KenS

Dude sent me two more PMs.

He's sincere. He's against the monarchy. But thats all I know. Except that the PMs are also offensive, and I'd just flag them like that if they were in a thread.

Anyway, I told him all that as nicely as possible. And that he could try posting his thoughts in the thread he opened.

KenS

How about nobody post anything further until / if we get some content from him?

janfromthebruce

Welcome Patriot- to be blunt HeywoodFloyd is not a troll and is a valued member of our babble community.  

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Right now all of our legislative power and executive power is held in Parliament, where it should be.

That's only technically true, its more likely in the PMO

jas

I like the Queen. Even if she is a reptilian shapeshifter.

Fotheringay-Phipps

(Shrugs on tweed jacket, sucks noisily at pipe, tries to channel Eugene Forsey)

There has been some confusion in this thread about power. Heywood Floyd wrote, "Right now all of our legislative power and executive power is held in Parliament, where it should be." In fact, power is held by the monarch, represented in Canada by the Governor-General, and exercised on her behalf by Parliament. It's an ingenious way of denying ultimate legitimacy to elected thugs, while at the same time denying power to unelected despots.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

Welcome Patriot- to be blunt HeywoodFloyd is not a troll and is a valued member of our babble community.

We're all entitled to our opinions, I suppose....

remind remind's picture

Quote:
It's an ingenious way of denying ultimate legitimacy to elected thugs, while at the same time denying power to unelected despots.

Excellent, just excellent! :D

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

Fotheringay-Phipps wrote:

It's an ingenious way of denying ultimate legitimacy to elected thugs, while at the same time denying power to unelected despots.

This would be an elegant argument if in fact that this was the case in practice. Unfortunately, our system of governance has deteriorated from a Parliamentary Democracy into an autocracy based in the PMO. Little if any of the actual power and influence in goverment accrues to the backbench MP's.

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

Further to my argument above, the monarchy in an anachronism and has little if any significant import with regard to our current way of life.

 

Caissa

King Arthur has an excellent pair of coconuts. What more can you ask from the monarchy? Oh, right--He's the only one without shit on him.

Michelle

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

patriot wrote:

Heywood Floyd wrote:

My apologies if I got it wrong but my Troll-Dar went off with your posting style (join a board, ask a divisive and incendiary question as your first post, and not include any editorial content on your part including your own opinion on the question).

On the contrary, I am merely trying to generate general debate. So you are wrong. Anyways ....

And you are merely trying to generate general formatting errors in this thread. So you post as poorly as you debate. Anyways, it's a write-off at this point ...

This is amusing, because I just fixed your post too, LTJ. :D

Michelle

Folks,

a) patriot did nothing wrong in this thread.  I haven't seen any other posts by him/her but there is nothing wrong with starting a thread like this.

b) LTJ, I've had more than one person complain about those kinds of drive-by insults like the one you posted about Heywood Floyd.  They alienate people and make them feel badly, and it's unpleasant for third parties to read as well.  Please consider next time whether what you post will serve any constructive purpose beyond making someone feel insulted and unwelcome here.

Snert Snert's picture

I'd be OK with abolishing the Monarchy, but it's my understanding that they're something of a tourist magnet in Britain (so I doubt they'll get rid of them any time soon).  Here in Canada, though, about my only concern would be "who'll go on our money, then?  Young Elvis or Old Elvis??"

ennir

Reflecting on my own experience, the notion of queens, kings, princesses and princes as noble beings was ingrained through fairytales in my childhood and I grew up believing that they were superior to ordinary people.  It was only as an adult I realized that the origins of "royalty" are rooted in thuggery, after all it was those who were prepared to kill in order to have power that rose to power. With that realization, all notions of nobility dropped away and with it any respect for those who deem themselves royal.

KenS

As noted, the monarchy is not ours to abolish.

Our option is to cut our ties with it and become a republic, like Australia did.

Anyone know what "higher powers", if any, australia now has for determining whether or not and when a government has the power to call an election?

Let alone if there are still parallels in Australia to more esoteric stuff like the right to prorogue Parliament, or not.

Caissa

This site might answer your questions KenS.

http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/overview/

KenS

Thanks for the link. And I was already wondering "is Ausralia a republic?" Did I make that up?

So....

has any Westminster system country ditched toe market and come up with other ways to handle the adjudictor, final appeal, and final decision maker?

wage zombie

Given the choice i would choose republic over dominion.  BUT i wonder how long and drawn out this woud be from a political standpoint.  Would this be a 2 year culture war issue that would eat up a lot of attention?  Is switching from a dominion to a republic going to have such as effect that it will be worth all the time not spent on other things?

I could see how this could be a winning issue politically, IF the economy were in a better state.

montrealais

I think it's essential for the function of head of state to be distinguished from particular policies, especially in Canada in view of the constitutional consensuses and traditions that have emerged over the years. One need only look to the States under Bush to see what happens when the dignity of the state and particular policies are allowed to be conflated: there is no longer any such thing as the Loyal Opposition because the party of the head of state is able to portray disagreement with its policies as treasonable behaviour.

So, yes, I think having a non-partisan head of state is essential.

Beyond that, it's just my personal taste that says that a constitutional monarchy is the most entertaining way we've come up with to do that. There's lots about our political system that needs fixing well before that aspect of it.

Sean in Ottawa

A monarchy is a symbol and those are important-- apart from the connection to another country, the symbol is distasteful especially in a nation of branchplants-- let our powerless symbols at least be our own.

It is also a question of confusion and problem in light of a general erosion of accountibility.

Public participation in a choice of head of state I think can be a good thing- can be done from lists presented by all the parties: So if each party produced a list of two nominees and we used a single transferrable vote for people to rank them we could have a popular choice for the position. The nominees should not be party activists in most cases-- I think the electorate would take care of that. We could use a system of alternation as well to make sure that we moved between Francophone, anglophone, new Canadians and Aboriginal nominees. We should start with Aboriginal. If we did this then each party would be requested 2 names -- more than one party can advance the same name.

Having a foreign monarch is a huge wasted opportunity. The idea that we have a GG subservient to the Queen is repulsive- even if that is a symbol only.

G. Muffin

I don't mind Queenie at all (I understand she's very kind to animals) but I think she should be our last monarch. 

Tigana Tigana's picture

bagkitty wrote:

 

"Fidel... how about if we went back to sacrificing them annually to ensure good crops?"

 

 ~ grin!

 

Sean in Ottawa

Tigana wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

 

"Fidel... how about if we went back to sacrificing them annually to ensure good crops?"

 ~ grin!

I thought that was virgins and nobody ever accused the royal family of being that...

Frmrsldr

KenS wrote:

Thanks for the link. And I was already wondering "is Ausralia a republic?" Did I make that up?

So....

has any Westminster system country ditched toe market and come up with other ways to handle the adjudictor, final appeal, and final decision maker?

I would look up the Republic of Ireland, India and South Africa to mention a few.

Tigana Tigana's picture

Monarchies created corporations - and support them, though the powers, influence and dangers of businesses to the people have eclipsed those of royalty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Magog45 Magog45's picture

If you value history then the monarchy might be important as a reminder of where we were, as to how far we have come, there is no proof that our elected rulers are any more or less compedant than the hereditary ones. Personally I think they are all idiots.

remind remind's picture

The idea that the Queen owns the lands of Canada is offensive...

Tigana Tigana's picture

remind wrote:

The idea that the Queen owns the lands of Canada is offensive...

 

Agree, lands should be relinquished to the original owners.

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A monarchy is a symbol and those are important-- apart from the connection to another country, the symbol is distasteful especially in a nation of branchplants-- let our powerless symbols at least be our own.

It is also a question of confusion and problem in light of a general erosion of accountibility.

Public participation in a choice of head of state I think can be a good thing- can be done from lists presented by all the parties: So if each party produced a list of two nominees and we used a single transferrable vote for people to rank them we could have a popular choice for the position. The nominees should not be party activists in most cases-- I think the electorate would take care of that. We could use a system of alternation as well to make sure that we moved between Francophone, anglophone, new Canadians and Aboriginal nominees. We should start with Aboriginal. If we did this then each party would be requested 2 names -- more than one party can advance the same name.

Having a foreign monarch is a huge wasted opportunity. The idea that we have a GG subservient to the Queen is repulsive- even if that is a symbol only.

Fucc the queen and I dont think all but 1 group has any right to be no monarch these ways. 2 are here as a result of practicing colonisation, genocide and slavery. ANd the otehr is there because they the victims of it.

 

And I also like how u automaticcaly assunmed that anybody who's not white or aboriginal is automatically a new canadian. You know that KKKanada got a history of slavery pure africans been here for 100's of years in places like nova scotia, other groups in places like B.C etc.

 

It aint the norm esp In TO/ON but it is what it is.

 

And It looks bad on me if I say we should get to elect a monarch so at the end of the day let the ppl who were here 1st decide.

 

Fucc an apology and power here I want my $$$.

 

Fucc KKKanada My KKKanada is from KP to The Doomz n then to H-Blocc. Fucc the rest Im just from the hood, that's it.

 

Im lookin out for mine I give a fucc if something happens to Africans, Aboriginals and dem Se Asians because they mixed.

 

For the most part the rest dont like me I dont like them.

 

We live in a system where ppl are put above n below each other and the queen is the head of that.

 

Nuff Said.

Pages

Topic locked