I must admit I never understood monarchy. The assumption that some humans are superior to others by birth is repulsive to me. What does Prince Charles have that the rest of us don't? He is an ordinary man with a very ordinary intellect. He does stand for some good causes and that is a plus but the rest of the broohaha I don't understand. I don't think monarchy for Canada is relevent anymore. I do believe all humans are created equal. Prince, princesses and kings should be a thing of the past in the 21st century.
Recommend this post
I understand that His Highness, Charles, the Prince of Wales and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall will definitely be attending the races this afternoon as part of their Royal duties!!
ReplyDeleteAhh ... it is SO difficult ... living a 'Charles' Life' ....
ReplyDeleteIt is good to meet a loyalist royalist like you who keeps such a good collection of videos of his royal highness!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(typo above .. sorry)
ReplyDeleteChalk it up to my Irish ancestry and upbringing!
That the monarchy is no longer relevant is part of its utility for Canada.
ReplyDeleteThe question is how do/will we choose our head of state? [pace the Harper/GG argument]
An old Brit, commenting on his being chosen for some royal honour, proclaimed
"What I like about this is that there is none of that damned nonsense about merit!"
What has happened over the years since Brits were no longer named GG is that PMs have opted for a choice celebrating symbolic virtues of the Canadian population.
I'm not sure how we can beat a foreign-born, visible minority, female, multilingual babe ....
What better way of choosing a symbolic leader have you in mind?
Electing someone, which would legitimate a new centre of power?
Letting the PM choose a real head of state, which would make it a politcal football?
Let's see how the Australians do.
And if the British abolish the monarchy, maybe we can get their tourist dollars. Anachronisms are great draws.
There. I believe I have given this issue the amount of deep thought appropriate to a royal visit.
A number of questions will arise when Canada abolishes attachment to the British monarcy ... SO WHAT?!! Canadians are pretty good a solving problems .. so why are you so anxious to throw up you hands and try to convince us that the challenge is too difficult to even attempt.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the majority of Canadians want to have no part of a 'King Charles' is sufficient to have the discussion on how to proceed.
We have a Governor-General who has NO real powers EXCEPT when a constitution crisis of some sort occurs. We simply move to a structure where our Governor-general takes the role of the figurehead (with no functioning day to day political power) and we elect that individual every few years.
No problem .....
Leftdog, I had the privilege of seeing your previous comment before you deleted it. I understand. I also think that majority of English don't much care about monarchy anymore. It is becoming a joke.
ReplyDeleteMeddy, as far as your reasoning is concerned I tend to agree with Lefdog. He has already given you a good response.
"Canadians are pretty good a solving problems .. so why are you so anxious to throw up you hands and try to convince us that the challenge is too difficult to even attempt."
ReplyDeleteI didn't do that. I don't think its a problem.
Why should we invent a problem just so we can challenge ourselves to solve it?
Buckling down to solve imaginary problems is not our best use of politics. We have religion for that.
And we have enough real problems.
An interesting bit of text from a Lawrence Martin article. "Is it time for a full-scale debate on the monarchy? We haven't had a dustup on the future of the country since the constitutional quarrels over the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords ....."
Oh boy. That we really need.
Martin gets lyrical about "the challenge" "A debate ... would be of major consequence. It would be about entering a new stage of nationhood... risky but invigorating."
Alas, we have no trailblazers, says Martin.
Well, Martin has whipped off his column for the day. Probably only had to refresh his last column from the last visit.
And we will hear no more until the next visit.
The issue lacks salience.
Meddy, you make a good point that it only becomes an issue whenever these folks visit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we do stand to save lot of money by eliminating the GG office.
An austalian item --
ReplyDeletehttp://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/11/06/republic-referendum-10th-anniversary/
One of the comments is perhaps an indication of the sort of things we would be in for --
[...]
"At a minimum, what is needed is that most direct election supporters and most supporters of other models can all agree that their preferred option has been given a fair go through a staged process of consultations and plebiscites, and that those whose preferred option(s) aren’t chosen through this process will accept the outcome and support, or at least acquiesce in, the chosen option in the final referendum.
Having said that, if some kind of agreement can be reached on what powers and functions a republican head of state should have, how this position articulates with other parts of the political system, and whether and how the HOS’ powers and functions can be codified, this could obviate the most serious (in my view, the only serious) objection to a direct election model."
[...] etc ... etc