The queen of England (and a few other places) has died

[lewisnotmiller]

The existence of the monarchy has never been put to a vote in this country. No Canadian monarch has ever received a mandate from the people.

... but thank you for agreeing with my main point: that it's the will of the people, not heredity, that determines the legitimacy of a government or a head of state.

Same thing in Australia.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Probably just the British weather. As i remember there were a lot of rainbows.

Nah, it’s a sign alright; England are going to win the World Cup in Qatar. Which will have the added bonus of horrifying Scotland.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

RIP Lizzy.

I don't have respect for the institution, but I do think she did the job at hand well.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I know what I'll be watching on TV for the next 3 or 4 weeks.

I won’t be turning the damn thing on for at least a month.

 

[Debater Slayer]

RIP Lizzy.

I don't have respect for the institution, but I do think she did the job at hand well.

This almost exactly mirrors my sentiment, although I don't have a solid opinion on whether or not she did a good job because I'm not familiar enough with the details of her reign.

 

[Watchmen]

Out of respect to the Queen, I suggest a new thread be created for any discussion regarding the legitimacy of a monarchy. Best.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Out of respect to the Queen, I suggest a new thread be created for any discussion regarding the legitimacy of a monarchy. Best.

I haven't seen any disrespect toward the Queen herself so far; her person is different from the institution she nominally headed. Almost everyone in the thread (me included) has also mourned her death.

Since a high-profile figure like a queen or president is always going to be associated with the topic of the type of leadership they represent, I think it's understandable that the subject has come up in this thread.

 

[John53]

Same thing in Australia.

We voted against becoming... I think that was a vote in favour of the monarchy. Or maybe just a show of laziness and apathy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And you think this was a vote in favour of keeping Canada a monarchy? My impression was that monarchy was taken as a given in that process.

But let's go with your version: you think that one vote in 1982 is enough to not only establish someone as head of state for life, but also their children, grandchildren, etc., in perpetuity? That's absurd.

I was 5 years old in 1982. I had no say in "voting" for monarchy or even in voting for an MP you claim voted for monarchy. You think that a collection of MPs, now mostly dead, should have more say about the rulership of the country today than its current citizens? That's anti-democratic.

There's a reason why democracies refresh their mandate with periodic elections... at intervals much less than 40 years.

And the question is brought up regularly -- do we want to remain as we are, or do we want to change? And someday, I don't know when, when enough people agitate for it, it will be addressed again, and then I presume you will be old enough to vote.

I've said before, I rather support the situation the way that it is, but I recognize I'm only one voice, and in fact many of my good friends disagree with me, and would prefer to dissociate ourselves from the British monarchy altogether. I would vote against that -- but as always, I will accept the will of the people.

Of course, if we do that, we have to then decide what that change should look like? Do we want to become "American?" I most assuredly do not. Do you want to make the PM into a President? Will that President then also be head of the legislative branch? Be careful what you wish for.

But as I said, when the debate comes up, I'll argue my views, and when the issue is decided, I will accept it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And the question is brought up regularly -- do we want to remain as we are, or do we want to change? And someday, I don't know when, when enough people agitate for it, it will be addressed again, and then I presume you will be old enough to vote.

I've said before, I rather support the situation the way that it is, but I recognize I'm only one voice, and in fact many of my good friends disagree with me, and would prefer to dissociate ourselves from the British monarchy altogether. I would vote against that -- but as always, I will accept the will of the people.

My three criteria for Canada's head of state:

- they have a mandate from the Canadian people, democratically obtained, either directly or indirectly.

- they are Canadian - by birth or by choice - and make this country their home.

- they swear an oath of loyalty to Canada above all other nations.

Of course, if we do that, we have to then decide what that change should look like? Do we want to become "American?" I most assuredly do not. Do you want to make the PM into a President? Will that President then also be head of the legislative branch? Be careful what you wish for.

Personally, I'm fine with the system we already have, minus the rubber stamp from the British monarch: keep the Governor General position and its duties (I'm ambivalent about the name of the position) and make it the de jure head of state instead of the de facto head of state it currently is.

Just as the Prime Minister currently chooses the Governor General, that would continue, only without the charade of pretending that the PM is only "recommending" a GG for the monarch to "approve."

But as I said, when the debate comes up, I'll argue my views, and when the issue is decided, I will accept it.

And I all I want is the debate to happen. At the ballot box, with candidates for head of state meeting reasonable criteria... e.g. actually living in the country they seek to lead.

 

[paarsurrey]

She was a wise and intelligent lady and monarch of course, one of the best to rule. I am sad for her demise.
Regards

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We voted against becoming... I think that was a vote in favour of the monarchy. Or maybe just a show of laziness and apathy.

I've got strong opinions on that, but I won't go further here. Happy to share in a thread more specifically on republicanism.

 

[John53]

I've got strong opinions on that, but I won't go further here. Happy to share in a thread more specifically on republicanism.

I'm more worried that I missed out typing "a republic". It's concerning that I keep leaving out words in posts or maybe my brain is faster than my fingers.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Monarchy maybe died with her we will see.

Charles III activity wrt climate change, environmentalism and religion as monarch of England and Defender of the Faith will be interesting to see unfold.

 

[Watchmen]

I haven't seen any disrespect toward the Queen herself so far; her person is different from the institution she nominally headed. Almost everyone in the thread (me included) has also mourned her death.

Since a high-profile figure like a queen or president is always going to be associated with the topic of the type of leadership they represent, I think it's understandable that the subject has come up in this thread.

It’s understandable that it’s come up, and it’s understandable to continue the discussion somewhere else.

 

[England my lionheart]

Charles III activity wrt climate change, environmentalism and religion as monarch of England and Defender of the Faith will be interesting to see unfold.

I think he may surprise some,he has strong opinions on all of those and has also influenced farming practices and architecture.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think he may surprise some,he has strong opinions on all of those and has also influenced farming practices and architecture.

For the better or worse?

 

[Estro Felino]

My three criteria for Canada's head of state:

- they have a mandate from the Canadian people, democratically obtained, either directly or indirectly.

- they are Canadian - by birth or by choice - and make this country their home.

- they swear an oath of loyalty to Canada above all other nations.


Personally, I'm fine with the system we already have, minus the rubber stamp from the British monarch: keep the Governor General position and its duties (I'm ambivalent about the name of the position) and make it the de jure head of state instead of the de facto head of state it currently is.

Just as the Prime Minister currently chooses the Governor General, that would continue, only without the charade of pretending that the PM is only "recommending" a GG for the monarch to "approve."



And I all I want is the debate to happen. At the ballot box, with candidates for head of state meeting reasonable criteria... e.g. actually living in the country they seek to lead.

I hope Canadians will be wise enough not to choose a parliamentarian republic.
As a former monarchy, I witness that so many people here regret monarchy, because Freemasons and shady characters have stolen the power from the monarch, dwelling in his royal palaces.

 

[Niblo]

A quite remarkable woman, who will be sadly missed. One of a kind. Rest in Peace, Ma'am.

 

[England my lionheart]

For the better or worse?

I think for the better.