58131
Post by: Eetion
So UK lot. What's your thoughts on the Monarchy. Love it or loath it? Keep it or Get rid?
And why?
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.
7145
Post by: Salad_Fingers
Republican here, though actually more of a European federalist.
However have no real objection to keeping the queen, her power is limited, she is rather useful for tourism and perform quite a lot of diplomatic duties.
However i would like to see her purse from the tax payer reduced and i believe she could still perform her official duties on a much cut down estate. One huge residence is enough. Gift the extra royal residences to the people.
Otherwise like was mention on have i got news, since we give her money she is effectively receiving benefits so hit her with the new empty bed room tax. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Cheesecat wrote:Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.
In theory this is true, but in a country with an unwritten constitution and a limited bill of rights nothing is concrete
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Other: dictatorship. Just for entertainment value you should get an absolute-power dictator.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Cheesecat wrote:Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.
Not true. Ask the Australians about the crisis in the 1960s or 1970s (not sure which decade) in which the Queen used her authority to bring down the elected government in a vote of no confidence (or something like that) Australians throw me a bone here!
And recently, in the UK, parliament is trying to get the monarch to push for a Royal prerogative on regulating press freedom in the UK. So it may be symbolic most of the time, but it stills looms in the background.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
I'm happy with the Queen. Personaly I think she is quite cheap as heads of state go. Costs much less than a president (Not just USA, but places like France and Germany). She is also alot less of a problem than presidents and politicians can be. IMO there are advantages to having a non political head of state, as long as there power is very limited.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.
OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
 BryllCream wrote:I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.
OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).
Yeah, I kind of expecting that to happen as well.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
BryllCream wrote:I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.
OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).
See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: BryllCream wrote:I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.
OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).
See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.
No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
I am aware of the money that the royal family generates through tourism and such, and although I dislike the amount of media coverage the family gets, I also understand that it would simply be spent on some other largely overblown celebrity family/group otherwise. I don't really understand the fascination over them. They're just unremarkable people born into remarkable positions.
Really, I'd be filled with complete ambivalence if it weren't for the fact that I find the idea of a monarchy, and nepotism in general, to be distasteful, and that the royal family is a symbol of an era where people were greatly oppressed, romanticism aside.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I like to think it helps distinguish Canada from the US.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
BryllCream wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: BryllCream wrote:I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.
OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).
See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.
No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.
Never thought I would write this, but I need an Australian! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
The governor general, being an agent of the Crown, is acting on behalf of the Queen.
47598
Post by: motyak
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cheesecat wrote:Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.
Not true. Ask the Australians about the crisis in the 1960s or 1970s (not sure which decade) in which the Queen used her authority to bring down the elected government in a vote of no confidence (or something like that) Australians throw me a bone here! And recently, in the UK, parliament is trying to get the monarch to push for a Royal prerogative on regulating press freedom in the UK. So it may be symbolic most of the time, but it stills looms in the background.
Ehhh sorta, the governor general, Kerr (pronounced like cur, and incidentally a hilarious name for the man who kicked out a quite well loved, at least according to everyone I know, prime minister), it was, I believe, similar to the debt ceiling thing the yanks have, and the opposition kept blocking it in the senate (The second house the bill goes to) trying to force whitlam to call an election, but he didn't, eventually he got dismissed by the governor general. That is a really concise, what-i-vaguely-remember-from-grade-12 description, use wiki for a bit more info ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis), but it wasn't the queen who did it, but the queen's 'representative' which doesn't really mean he phoned QE asking 'do I hit him now?', more he just had the power to do that as well as dissolve the parliament pending elections. I don't believe Kerr conferred with Queen Elizabeth on the subject, but again, this is just recall from grade 12 (what, 5 years ago?)
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: BryllCream wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: BryllCream wrote:I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.
OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).
See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.
No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.
Never thought I would write this, but I need an Australian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
The governor general, being an agent of the Crown, is acting on behalf of the Queen.
That's not so much a power as a constitutional mechanism.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Has anyone ever found out if the Queen is a reptilian? As that may change my stance in this thread.
7145
Post by: Salad_Fingers
BryllCream wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: BryllCream wrote:I predict this thread will be full of bickerings over costitutional nuances. Or more likely, people who want to sound worldly and intelligent spontaniously ejaculating redundant information in the guise of an argument.
OT - don't give a gak. I'm fine with a constitutional monarch (who, by the way, does not have any powers at all, not even symbolic ones).
See my above post. The Queen does have powers, she just chooses not to use them.
No, the queen is a slave to the constitution. The fact that she *does* things doesn't mean she has a power over them.
Point is she can not be 'slave' to an unwritten constitution, and one of tenants that we claim make up our uncodified constitution is royal prerogative, and Charles has said on several occasions he would consider using Royal Assent to veto certain bills if he were monarch.
We have an incredibly and sometimes worryingly flexible constitution, thankfully the supremacy of European law has somewhat made it a 'partly' written constitution. But the queen is certainly not a slave to it, now it seem stupid that she would ever use her powers to veto things, but then the idea of an unelected second house is pretty stupid on the same level.
58131
Post by: Eetion
I see it rather simply.
I don't trust politicians to line their pockets as much as they are able during their term in office.
I'd trust the queen to be above scandal more than I'd trust a peesident.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
 Salad_Fingers wrote:
Point is she can not be 'slave' to an unwritten constitution, and one of tenants that we claim make up our uncodified constitution is royal prerogative, and Charles has said on several occasions he would consider using Royal Assent to veto certain bills if he were monarch.
We have an incredibly and sometimes worryingly flexible constitution, thankfully the supremacy of European law has somewhat made it a 'partly' written constitution. But the queen is certainly not a slave to it, now it seem stupid that she would ever use her powers to veto things, but then the idea of an unelected second house is pretty stupid on the same level.
The monarch can veto bills, but so what? The Speaker can refuse to open parliament, do you think that means that the Speaker has power or influence? Especially when, like the queen, he is specifically forbidden from doing so?
If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.
12313
Post by: Ouze
BryllCream wrote:If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.
I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?
7145
Post by: Salad_Fingers
 Ouze wrote: BryllCream wrote:If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.
I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?
Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation
Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Salad_Fingers wrote: Ouze wrote: BryllCream wrote:If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.
I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?
Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation
Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis
Well there would be a lot of controversy if the queen decided to veto.
7145
Post by: Salad_Fingers
In theory the Royal prerogative in our Constitution grants the monarch the powers to...
Appoint the Prime Minister
Dissolve Parliament
Dismiss the Government
Withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cheesecat wrote: Salad_Fingers wrote: Ouze wrote: BryllCream wrote:If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.
I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?
Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation
Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis
Well there would be a lot of controversy if the queen decided to veto.
Indeed, probably worth noting it was last used in 1708
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Salad_Fingers wrote: Ouze wrote: BryllCream wrote:If Charles IV refused to sign a bill into law, there'd be a constiutional crisis - the end result being either the throne being passed onto William, or the abolishment of the monarchy entirely.
I'm unfamiliar with the specifics on British government. Does the head of state truly have a veto power they are essentially forbidden to use? Also, is there some... procedure for removing someone from the throne, short of death or abdication?
Basically every law and bill passed in this country needs 'Royal Assent', in other words the monarch needs to approve it. This is pretty much a given, however there is nothing in law stopping the monarch using Royal Assent to veto legislation
Also there is no current constitutional basis for removing a monarch, hence as BryllCream said it would spark a constitutional crisis
This often gets miss-read by Americans who don't understand the nature of unwritten constitutions. The monarch cannot deny Royal Assent to a bill, as to do so would destroy the very premise of Constitutional Monarchy. Similarly, there is no constitutional barrier to the Prime Minister instituting a tyranical dictatorship - it is simply not done.
So the monarch has the power to veto bills, the way that I have the power to take a gak on my boss's desk.
58131
Post by: Eetion
Although it is a small comfort to know that their is that barrier if we did have a prime minister try and pass a bill to make him PM for life.
Doubt that would be given royal assent.
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
I'm in favour of the Monarchy.
Something else interesting I find; even people who don't much like the Royal Family, or are in favour of being a Republic don't actively dislike the Queen.
I mean, it's pretty hard to actively dislike her, she's just a nice old lady; like everyone's favourite grandma. 
On the whole, I'd be much happier keeping them around. It's not like they don't bring any benefit; and IMO it's far better than placing everything in the hands of the PM.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
 Eetion wrote:Although it is a small comfort to know that their is that barrier if we did have a prime minister try and pass a bill to make him PM for life.
Doubt that would be given royal assent.
Fair point. I do know the monarchy in Spain re-instated democracy after decades of fascism, and our own royal family does have a history of progressivism.
27564
Post by: Gorskar.da.Lost
I have no issue with the Royal Family.
Honestly, as a historian, the fact that there's so much continuity there kind of appeals to me.
Besides, let's be honest; they serve a more or less decorational role these days, and there's something to be said for not becoming too much like France.
(I kid, French Dakkanauts, I kid)
9892
Post by: Flashman
As George Orwell once noted, a system with a separate head of state and head of government makes it very difficult for a Stalin or Hitler to come to power in the UK.
53059
Post by: dæl
 Flashman wrote:As George Orwell once noted, a system with a separate head of state and head of government makes it very difficult for a Stalin or Hitler to come to power in the UK.
Orwell would have had his opinion formed somewhat by his time in Spain during the civil war.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Don't the Royal estates generate more wealth then the Royal family uses? I seem to recall someone mentioning that the Royal's budget is completely generated by their private estate, and they turn over the surplus to the Government pretty much out of the goodness of their hearts.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
The British do not live in a monarchy, a monarchy is ruled over by a monarch.
We have a titular monarch in an unwritten constitutional democracy.
It's far less costly than a president, attracts tourism and is a useful binding agent for the diverse cultural mix of our island states.
Her Madge retains lots of ancient powers on paper, none of them feasible unless somehow a lunatic assumed control of the isles and then Queenie can instruct the entire armed forces to stop following that person and depose them. And they would...
I consider the monarch to be a very good idea as a mostly harmless insta-celeb for boosting morale and opening stuff.
I view the thousands of peripheral hangers on with less favor.
58131
Post by: Eetion
If anyone is interested.
A quick overview of the monarchys finances.
Roughly 33 million given
Over 200 million to the government from the crown estates.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-does-the-monarchy-pay-for-itself/10711
But doesn't include security. Feel free to browse and see what you think.
18698
Post by: kronk
Anarcho-syndicalist communes tend to avoid the violence inherent to other systems.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 kronk wrote:Anarcho-syndicalist communes tend to avoid the violence inherent to other systems.
And the occurence of orgies is a lot higher too!
58131
Post by: Eetion
 Kovnik Obama wrote: kronk wrote:Anarcho-syndicalist communes tend to avoid the violence inherent to other systems.
And the occurence of orgies is a lot higher too!
If you saw my neighbours then that's the very last form of government you want.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I'd rather the royal family than more politicians. Hell, I'd rather have a monkey throwing excrement at a decision board than politicians (and at least with the monkey it might get some things right ).
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Federalism is the way to go. 
Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.
15594
Post by: Albatross
 azazel the cat wrote:Federalism is the way to go.
Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.
Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?
9892
Post by: Flashman
 Albatross wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Federalism is the way to go.
Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.
Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?
Particularly if you like castles... the git
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
azazel the cat wrote:
Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.
Cromwellian England was a nightmare state of religious fanaticism and terrifying abuses of the people.
And you do know what he did to Ireland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
Anarchism.
Wait, what? No option?
Fine. Dump the monarchy, and overly lauded former politicians. Automatically Appended Next Post: Flashman wrote: Albatross wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Federalism is the way to go.
Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.
Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?
Particularly if you like castles... the git
Hey, look, a southerner. Cool.
Anyway, I don't think we'll get another Cromwell.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
Worth noting that much of the land that was seized during the Norman invasion remains in the hands of aristocrats.
Lord Grovenor, Duke of Westminister is the wealthiest British person, worth £7.3bn ($11.2bn), virtually all of it accumilated from land seized during the Norman invasion. I am ambivilent about the monarch, but would be quite happy to see this spanker's land confiscated and sold to private bidders pro bono publico.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
What makes his seizure of land any different to the probable seizure of his holdings by ultra rich property tycoons?
11194
Post by: Krellnus
Republic or go home.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Albatross wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Federalism is the way to go.
Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.
Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?
Which considering the impressive record of many English monarchs is quite the feat of bastardry.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Albatross wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Federalism is the way to go.
Every polisci paper I've ever written has been dedicated to Oliver Cromwell and anyone else that ever committed regicide.
Erm, you are aware the Cromwell was a bigger bastard than most English kings, right?
Some English kings. And that's not the point.
67781
Post by: BryllCream
 Da Boss wrote:What makes his seizure of land any different to the probable seizure of his holdings by ultra rich property tycoons?
The transfer of wealth into public coffers.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Frazz, whenever Brits and/or Europeans have commented on threads about the 2nd amendment, you've always threatened to unleash an army of wieners on us. This is a thread about British monarchy, so I'm warning you to keep your Texas loving, Nancy Reagan loving, weak American beer loving, John Wayne loving nose out of our business!! 
Do you think a weiner dog is a match for one of the queen's corgi dogs? Do ya?? 
Automatically Appended Next Post:  MeanGreenStompa wrote:The British do not live in a monarchy, a monarchy is ruled over by a monarch.
We have a titular monarch in an unwritten constitutional democracy.
It's far less costly than a president, attracts tourism and is a useful binding agent for the diverse cultural mix of our island states.
Her Madge retains lots of ancient powers on paper, none of them feasible unless somehow a lunatic assumed control of the isles and then Queenie can instruct the entire armed forces to stop following that person and depose them. And they would...
I consider the monarch to be a very good idea as a mostly harmless insta-celeb for boosting morale and opening stuff.
I view the thousands of peripheral hangers on with less favor.
I've never bought the argument that the monarchy attracts tourists to Britain, because the French get more tourists visiting their palaces/castles than us, and their monarchy famously had a meeting with a sharp edge! Maybe it's the cheese?
Not having a go at you personally, but the thing about unwritten constitutions is that they are, er, unwritten!
Your average American can point to their constitution and amendments, but the average Brit? What have we got? European conventions? English Common law?
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Since we have this pseudo-monarchy thing here too. And a new king being put on the throne in 2 weeks, I might as well add something.
Here the Queen got booted from any involvement in the forming of government not too long ago and honestly, since then, it seems like they are just over payed celebritity version of ambasadors.
At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.
65757
Post by: PredaKhaine
 Soladrin wrote:At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.
Our queen has her own *patented wave! Have you never heard of 'The Royal Wave'? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/06/royal-wave-how-do-the-royals-do-it/ *not really, but it should be...
15594
Post by: Albatross
Soladrin wrote:
At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.
Our Queen has nukes, yours has Edam.
But thanks for playing.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Not to mention that Liz could take Beatrix in a brawl.
What kind of Queen abdicates after only 33 years on the Throne? Workshy wench...
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Now while obviously from a Canadian perspective, that thing with the Aussies and the GG dissolving an ineffectual parliament, it's just that, it's a way to have elections until someone gets the votes to either form a coalition or a minority government that can actually get things done.
Also, it's not like the royals haven't used their powers in good ways either, I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of Britain by King George the VI. I don't remember an election for the position ever being held after the downfall of Chamberlain.
As for the monarchy, I love them personally. I would actually like them to take an actual greater role in politics then they do now, but I'm weird like that.
As to the poster who was aghast at the monarch or her representative having a veto power over a bill, it's no different then the President having a veto.
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
As an American, I definitely favor a monarchy. I feel like life long rulers tend to be more stable, and less drawn to crowd pleasing laws and movements in the pursuit of reelection.
221
Post by: Frazzled
BryllCream wrote:Worth noting that much of the land that was seized during the Norman invasion remains in the hands of aristocrats.
Lord Grovenor, Duke of Westminister is the wealthiest British person, worth £7.3bn ($11.2bn), virtually all of it accumilated from land seized during the Norman invasion. I am ambivilent about the monarch, but would be quite happy to see this spanker's land confiscated and sold to private bidders pro bono publico.
I'm down with that. Death to the monarchy! Automatically Appended Next Post: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, whenever Brits and/or Europeans have commented on threads about the 2nd amendment, you've always threatened to unleash an army of wieners on us. This is a thread about British monarchy, so I'm warning you to keep your Texas loving, Nancy Reagan loving, weak American beer loving, John Wayne loving nose out of our business!!
Do you think a weiner dog is a match for one of the queen's corgi dogs? Do ya??
No no, I'm not commenting on the efficacious ness of monarchy vs. republic. I'm just the guy with a box of popcorn on the sidelines shouting FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!  
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:[
Not having a go at you personally, but the thing about unwritten constitutions is that they are, er, unwritten!
Your average American can point to their constitution and amendments, but the average Brit? What have we got? European conventions? English Common law?
That is misleading, on my side, we call it unwritten but it is written, just not codified. Britain's laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention and more recently E.U law.
15594
Post by: Albatross
 Ratbarf wrote:
Also, it's not like the royals haven't used their powers in good ways either, I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of Britain by King George the VI. I don't remember an election for the position ever being held after the downfall of Chamberlain.
That's more of a function of how our parliamentary system works - the PM is directly elected, the party with the overall majority forms the government, with the party leader assuming the role of Prime Minister. Upon Chamberlain's resignation, Churchill assumes the role of PM. All PMs have to formally ask permission from the monarch to form a new government, which in Churchill's case was a coalition. Chamberlain was still part of it before his illness forced him to step down, incidentally.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Huh, I thought it was more along the lines of, "Hey this Churchill fellow is a badass who loves gunboats and believes in the Empire, lets make him the next PM." kind of deal instead of being the next in line in the party succession.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
There was a three day period where Churchill almost wasn't prime minister, and English will was looking pretty flimsy and weak. Halifax was the prime contender (possibly for the PM job... or he was just the big organizer for the opposition to Churchhill, can't remember the details right now) for the other spots and his primary idea was to hide behind the Royal Navy and hope the Germans got bored and left as opposed to taking the fight to them else where like in North Africa.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Ratbarf wrote:Huh, I thought it was more along the lines of, "Hey this Churchill fellow is a badass who loves gunboats and believes in the Empire, lets make him the next PM." kind of deal instead of being the next in line in the party succession.
It wasn't a 'line of succession'-type deal, he was selected by his party.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I'm fairly certain Churchill just walked in to Parliament and started telling people what to do, and by around 1945 got bored and wandered off.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ratbarf wrote:As to the poster who was aghast at the monarch or her representative having a veto power over a bill, it's no different then the President having a veto.
Well, y'know, except that the President is elected by the people...
34390
Post by: whembly
azazel the cat wrote:Ratbarf wrote:As to the poster who was aghast at the monarch or her representative having a veto power over a bill, it's no different then the President having a veto.
Well, y'know, except that the President is elected by the people...
Technically... that's not right... Our President is elected by the state's delegates.
But it's generally the same thing, so your point stands.
Oh, Az... did you know Canada ration healthcare? Just checking! 
52872
Post by: captain collius
BryllCream wrote:Worth noting that much of the land that was seized during the Norman invasion remains in the hands of aristocrats.
Lord Grovenor, Duke of Westminister is the wealthiest British person, worth £7.3bn ($11.2bn), virtually all of it accumilated from land seized during the Norman invasion. I am ambivilent about the monarch, but would be quite happy to see this spanker's land confiscated and sold to private bidders pro bono publico.
Funny you should mention that there are plenty of descendants of the Norrmans who have nothing. Like me.
For those who are curious I am descended from....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo,_Earl_of_Kent
So theoretically speaking I could be your King and wouldn't that be terrible. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote: Ratbarf wrote:
Also, it's not like the royals haven't used their powers in good ways either, I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister of Britain by King George the VI. I don't remember an election for the position ever being held after the downfall of Chamberlain.
That's more of a function of how our parliamentary system works - the PM is directly elected, the party with the overall majority forms the government, with the party leader assuming the role of Prime Minister. Upon Chamberlain's resignation, Churchill assumes the role of PM. All PMs have to formally ask permission from the monarch to form a new government, which in Churchill's case was a coalition. Chamberlain was still part of it before his illness forced him to step down, incidentally.
Thanks for the enlightment!!!
British change of power procedure has always confused me. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also to the Earlier comments about France. Their Palaces are gorgeous. Most of Englands best are residences. 
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Albatross wrote: Soladrin wrote:
At least our Queen is better then the brits, she at least waves.
Our Queen has nukes, yours has Edam.
But thanks for playing.
You forgot about the drugs.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Gitzbitah wrote:As an American, I definitely favor a monarchy. I feel like life long rulers tend to be more stable, and less drawn to crowd pleasing laws and movements in the pursuit of reelection.
I think Monarchies has to be one of the worst systems around, basically when the king or queen die there oldest child rules and that child could have no qualities that make for a good leader when there could plenty of brilliant non royals out there that would a be more qualified ruler.
18024
Post by: Velour_Fog
I've got nothing against the monarchy. They're little more than a tourist attraction nowadays and I'm sure they bring in more money than we give them.
I'm sortof interested in all the pomp and ceremony from a historical point of view.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
I'm both for a canadian Republic and an independant Québec Republic. Needless to say, I don't see the point in the British Monarchy in itself, even less in our affairs.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 KamikazeCanuck wrote:The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.
That's incorrect. The Governor General is the direct representative of the Queen. In the Queen's absence (which is admittedly about all the time), the Governor General is the one who exercice the Queen's constitutionnal powers.
Remember how the Tories almost lost the government when the Libs, NPD and Bloc where talking about allying? The decision was finally taken by the Governor General, ergo, by the Queen's representative.
Yes, that's an incredibly rare situation which we probably won't see again during our lifetime. But power to decide who is the rightfull government is nonetheless power. The Queen still holds her royal prerogative.
10347
Post by: Fafnir
It would have been nice for the GG to use that power to block that ridiculous omnibus bill.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Kovnik Obama wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote:The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.
That's incorrect. The Governor General is the direct representative of the Queen. In the Queen's absence (which is admittedly about all the time), the Governor General is the one who exercice the Queen's constitutionnal powers.
Remember how the Tories almost lost the government when the Libs, NPD and Bloc where talking about allying? The decision was finally taken by the Governor General, ergo, by the Queen's representative.
Yes, that's an incredibly rare situation which we probably won't see again during our lifetime. But power to decide who is the rightfull government is nonetheless power. The Queen still holds her royal prerogative.
And what is that constitutional power?
Also, the GG is a Canadian appointed by the Canadian government that has nothing to do with the Queen. It used to be the Queen and GG couldn't appear in the same place because the GG was supposed to represent The Queen in her absence but they've even stopped that custom.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Kovnik Obama wrote: KamikazeCanuck wrote:The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.
That's incorrect. The Governor General is the direct representative of the Queen. In the Queen's absence (which is admittedly about all the time), the Governor General is the one who exercice the Queen's constitutionnal powers.
Remember how the Tories almost lost the government when the Libs, NPD and Bloc where talking about allying? The decision was finally taken by the Governor General, ergo, by the Queen's representative.
Yes, that's an incredibly rare situation which we probably won't see again during our lifetime. But power to decide who is the rightfull government is nonetheless power. The Queen still holds her royal prerogative.
But she also did that on the advice of the government, and the last time that the GG did something that was contrary to the advice of the Government Byng got martyred and the GG's power gutted. So really her decision was simply a continuation of a tradition set by the GG not doing what the government in power wished.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Wikipedia wrote:Per the Canadian constitution, the responsibilities of the sovereign and/or governor general include summoning and dismissing parliament, calling elections, and appointing governments. Further, Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent, and orders in council. But the authority for these acts stems from the Canadian populace and,[5][6][7] within the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign's direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited, with most related powers entrusted for exercise by the elected and appointed parliamentarians, the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from amongst them, and the judges and justices of the peace.[5] The Crown today primarily functions as a guarantor of continuous and stable governance and a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power,[5][8][9] the sovereign acting as a custodian of the Crown's democratic powers and a representation of the "power of the people above government and political parties."
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Also, the GG is a Canadian appointed by the Canadian government that has nothing to do with the Queen.
Being the representative of the Queen is somewhat ''something to do with the Queen'', regardless of the fact that this relationship hasn't been particularly relevent in the last few decades. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ratbarf wrote: But she also did that on the advice of the government, and the last time that the GG did something that was contrary to the advice of the Government Byng got martyred and the GG's power gutted. So really her decision was simply a continuation of a tradition set by the GG not doing what the government in power wished.
So she took advice from the current government that said current government shouldn't be overthrown, and just said, feth it, that sounds like a great advice! Needless to say, she took more in account.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
GG's are not supposed to be political players. And proroguing parliament is not the same as saying it the government should not be overthrown, they simply ended the session, the Coalition could have pressed their case after Parliament came back and there wouldn't be much that Harper could have done, short of ask Jean to dissolve parliament.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Correct, she's a neutral member of the government, but deciding where layed the Chamber's sovereignty wasn't a partisan question. It was simply a question of filling a gray area of the constitution, which is exactly in her power.
And proroguing parliament is not the same as saying it the government should not be overthrown, they simply ended the session, the Coalition could have pressed their case after Parliament came back and there wouldn't be much that Harper could have done, short of ask Jean to dissolve parliament.
No, it was pretty much the same thing. She could've, in the wake of the Torie's election tactics scandal, dissolved the government (which could've lost the majority if those circonscriptions had been lost), or she could've simply sworn in the coalition governement. The fact that she didn't opt for these were good signs she wouldn't accept a coalition government without elections.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
You do realize that that's almost the exact same situation in which GG Byng found himself don't you? Except he said eff it, let the coalition have a go, and then he got politically crucified. The GG is supposed to take the advice of government currently in power, regardless of whether or not it's a minority government or not. The Byng affair set the precedent, and while the choice is indeed theirs, there is a strong historical reason why they should just take the advice of the PM. The Coalition really should have triggered an election instead of simply attempting to grasp power several years after the fact, but that is another thread and I would encourage limited discussion on that subject in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the Coalition wasn't in response to the election tactics scandal, it was in response to a bill that would have stripped federal campaign funding from all parties, something which would have benefitted the Tories immensely as they have by far the strongest grass roots fund raising capabilities and would have effectively neutered both the NDP and the Bloc, as well as put significant hurt on the Grits. They chose the coalition route because they didn't want an election as it would have looked bad to trigger an election over seemingly wanting more taxpayer money.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
The GG takes no advice from The Queen and is obviously not part of the Royal Family. You can go on being silly demanding our independance from the English Throne Kovnik, the rest of Canada moved on quite a while ago.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
I'd rather have the current Royal family then any of the alternatives - especially any politicians as a President - merely look at France or Europe to show what we avoid....
My preference would be for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to take the Throne after Queen is lost to us.
57874
Post by: strybjorn Grimskull
I am a republican, the sad thing is that it is most due to PAST events rather than PRESENT events.
Don't get me wrong i have nothing against the queen, it is when you go a bit farther back and notice that a certain king divorced his wife asked for a new one, pope said no so the kingadopted a new religous stand point to get a nwe wife, which he then beheaded. The treatment of Mary Queen of Scot's also disappoints me. But hay, that was then and this is now.
My main objection i suppose is that you shouldn't be born into a family and immediatly be more important than others.
18698
Post by: kronk
KamikazeCanuck wrote:The Monarchy has no power in Canada. It just lets us use the word "royal" in stuff we feel like.
That's funny! Here, the only time I hear the word "Royal" is in regards to: 1. Kansas City Royals baseball team. They suck. 2. Royal Crown. Sucky bourbon. 3. Somethings a 'royal pain in the butt', meaning it sucks. I'm not knocking royalty or anything. It's just an amusingly different usage.
15594
Post by: Albatross
 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:I am a republican, the sad thing is that it is most due to PAST events rather than PRESENT events.
Don't get me wrong i have nothing against the queen, it is when you go a bit farther back and notice that a certain king divorced his wife asked for a new one, pope said no so the kingadopted a new religous stand point to get a nwe wife, which he then beheaded. The treatment of Mary Queen of Scot's also disappoints me. But hay, that was then and this is now.
My main objection i suppose is that you shouldn't be born into a family and immediatly be more important than others.
Are you against inheritance?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Keep yer queen lads. Getting a republic didn't do the southern portion of Ireland much good. At least she's dignified when meeting foreign heads of state and brings in tourist revenue.
57874
Post by: strybjorn Grimskull
Albatross wrote: strybjorn Grimskull wrote:I am a republican, the sad thing is that it is most due to PAST events rather than PRESENT events.
Don't get me wrong i have nothing against the queen, it is when you go a bit farther back and notice that a certain king divorced his wife asked for a new one, pope said no so the kingadopted a new religous stand point to get a nwe wife, which he then beheaded. The treatment of Mary Queen of Scot's also disappoints me. But hay, that was then and this is now.
My main objection i suppose is that you shouldn't be born into a family and immediatly be more important than others.
Are you against inheritance?
Ok i don't want to turn this into a thing again but here is my answer.
Inheritence is good, to a certain extent, it is ok getting some money or a house, but the moment that you get a country as your inheritence, with millions of people under you i start to have a problem.
BTW what's your oppinion on inheritence since "technically" Kim-Jong-Un inherited North Korea because it runs in the Kim-Jong family line.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Bit of a difference since the "people" chose our Hanoverian overlords, and they have quite a few limitations on what they can and cannot do, as well as not much of a private or personal life once they actually inherit the throne. Elizabeth the Second has something around 2 or 3 events per day for the entire year. That doesn't exactly leave a lot of alone or family time outside of holidays.
15594
Post by: Albatross
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
Inheritence is good, to a certain extent, it is ok getting some money or a house, but the moment that you get a country as your inheritence, with millions of people under you i start to have a problem.
That's probably because you have a very simplistic and childish perception of the situation, in all fairness. Our Monarch doesn't inherit a country, they inherit a constitutional position as head of state for which they are groomed from birth, benefiting from the very finest education and centuries of familial experience in the discharge of a monarch's duties. They don't just stick a crown on a random posh person's head and let them get on with it.
BTW what's your oppinion on inheritence since "technically" Kim-Jong-Un inherited North Korea because it runs in the Kim-Jong family line.
I find it offensive that you would seek to draw a crude equivalency between that fat, pathetic, fantasist megalomaniac and a fine lady who has dedicated her whole life to serving her people, as opposed to starving them. Do better.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Yeah, comparing Elizabeth to Kim Jong Un is ridiculous.
For a start, she has balls.
27391
Post by: purplefood
I agree with Albatross and Whitey...
The Queen could totally beat the gak out of Kim Jong-Un...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Ratbarf wrote:You do realize that that's almost the exact same situation in which GG Byng found himself don't you?
Not exactly the same affair, given that Byng's intervention was requested after allegation's of corruption, that Byng had already made King aware that he would refuse a dissolution of government many months before the request was made, and had simply told him that he should resign. A dissolution would've been even worse given that an election had just happened, after the scandal broke, and that it would've given King's government another round at the majority it wasn't so far off. Except he said eff it, let the coalition have a go, and then he got politically crucified.
''Politically crucified'' is a nice flourish, but it isn't true. The Tories held majority and were backing Byng. The vote of confidence for the Tories was lost by one voice. The Statute of Westminster was only a natural consequence of the situation, and it's only since then the whole 'taking advice from the government'' actually became relevent. It's also not a situation in which there was a coalition government. King's cabinet after the election was solely made of Libs. He was relying on the Progressists to support him, he didn't name any of them to any ministry.
Also the Coalition wasn't in response to the election tactics scandal, it was in response to a bill that would have stripped federal campaign funding from all parties, something which would have benefitted the Tories immensely as they have by far the strongest grass roots fund raising capabilities and would have effectively neutered both the NDP and the Bloc, as well as put significant hurt on the Grits. They chose the coalition route because they didn't want an election as it would have looked bad to trigger an election over seemingly wanting more taxpayer money.
No argument there, I only mentionned the election tactics scandal because it was a popular topic back then, which could've costed some credibility to the Cons. That rapidly disappeared from our radars, tho. Incorrect, it's one of the duties of the Governor General to maintain ''constant'' communication with the Queen : I doubt they only chat about the weather. and is obviously not part of the Royal Family.
... obviously...  You can go on being silly demanding our independance from the English Throne Kovnik, the rest of Canada moved on quite a while ago.
We are independant from the British Monarchy, I never contested that. But we still have remnants (and a hell of a lot of them) of the old political structure, which are either useless or open for potential abuse. There are also various mouvements for a Canadian Republic throughout Canada. The irony of being told to get on with the times because I oppose monarchism....
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
You want to talk about stupid, useless, political structures in Canada it's absolutely not the Monarcy it's The Senate. Great republican institution there.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
KamikazeCanuck wrote:You want to talk about stupid, useless, political structures in Canada it's absolutely not the Monarcy it's The Senate. Great republican institution there.
The Senate is useless in its current form and composition. The idea is great, but using it as a retirement home for friends of the party doesn't breed a strong upper House.
Personnal opinion here ; it should be reserved for retired judges, constitutionnalists and the likes, and should be nominated by the GG or the Ombudsman.
Anyway, this criticism is 55 years late, we abolished our provincial upper House in 1968 and the Bloc has been a strong supporter of it's abolition on the federal level since forever.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
I'm sorry, are you saying my criticism of the Senate is 55 years late while giving your opinion on how it should be staffed?
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm sorry, are you saying my criticism of the Senate is 55 years late while giving your opinion on how it should be staffed?
No, I'm saying that critizing the most pro-republican part of your constituency because of how gakky a certain republican institution is a bit late when that constituency has already agreed, 3 generations ago, that it was a gakky and useless institution.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Alright, anyway if you had could get rid of one and only one right now would it be The Govenor General or The Senate?
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Alright, anyway if you had could get rid of one and only one right now would it be The Govenor General or The Senate?
The Senate, no doubt. It's up to 24 seats occupied by useless people (some of which are really stupid), which must cost a crapload for very little gain or reason. At the very least, the Governor General has a lot of useful responsabilities like foreign relations and stuff...
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Your the one who thinks Canadian Sovreign actually interacts with the Monarcy and does something not me. So I guess in a way your casting a vote for Monarcy...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Your the one who thinks Canadian Sovreign actually interacts with the Monarcy and does something not me. So I guess in a way your casting a vote for Monarcy...
No, I'm choosing for the least useless institution, between a choice of two. I still oppose any form of monarchism.
72900
Post by: Ardaric_Vaanes
Monarchy, it's not like they have any real power to do any damage with so they're not a threat. Plus they generate good tourism income too.
Also they're a living part of the nations heritage even if any functional role they might have had in the past is now redundant.
Don't mind having them around personally.
57874
Post by: strybjorn Grimskull
Albatross wrote: strybjorn Grimskull wrote: Inheritence is good, to a certain extent, it is ok getting some money or a house, but the moment that you get a country as your inheritence, with millions of people under you i start to have a problem.
That's probably because you have a very simplistic and childish perception of the situation, in all fairness. Our Monarch doesn't inherit a country, they inherit a constitutional position as head of state for which they are groomed from birth, benefiting from the very finest education and centuries of familial experience in the discharge of a monarch's duties. They don't just stick a crown on a random posh person's head and let them get on with it. BTW what's your oppinion on inheritence since "technically" Kim-Jong-Un inherited North Korea because it runs in the Kim-Jong family line.
I find it offensive that you would seek to draw a crude equivalency between that fat, pathetic, fantasist megalomaniac and a fine lady who has dedicated her whole life to serving her people, as opposed to starving them. Do better.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpi-iacrX5AwbvBnt0O0ukB25vj04RecyOfrqg-6GInqQSSUqWJg You're the one jumping the gun here, i asked about inheritence not about comparing a crazy dictator against someone who has "subjects". And BTW calling me simplistic and childish i thought was a bit below you, but obviously not. They royals are born into a high level of society instantly gaining all the advantages that will be missed by the people that they "serve". And if the queen has a more ceremonial role now than other monarchs had previously than what is her vital function in society.
72909
Post by: The Swadders
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Cheesecat wrote:Don't see the point in changing it the queen's power is symbolic anyways.
Not true. Ask the Australians about the crisis in the 1960s or 1970s (not sure which decade) in which the Queen used her authority to bring down the elected government in a vote of no confidence (or something like that) Australians throw me a bone here!
And recently, in the UK, parliament is trying to get the monarch to push for a Royal prerogative on regulating press freedom in the UK. So it may be symbolic most of the time, but it stills looms in the background.
No, that didn't happen. It was Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General, who sacked Gough Whitlam. The Queen had nothing to do with it. In fact, she refused to be a part of it.
16689
Post by: notprop
strybjorn Grimskull wrote:..... royals are born into a high level of society instantly gaining all the advantages that will be missed by the people that they "serve". And if the queen has a more ceremonial role now than other monarchs had previously than what is her vital function in society.
Everyone has the advantages that their parents are able or choose to bestow on them. Some parents are harder working than others.
The Queens duties are many and it is an easy task for you to look them up. That said her most important function in this day and age is keeping the head of state position away from politics in general and the over ambitious and feckless charlatans that make up most of the political classes.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
The royals are born into a high level of society instantly gaining all the advantages that will be missed by the people that they "serve".
Same as anyone who is the child of parents who are rich and or / Famous?
Same as the children of all the Bank CEO's who ripped off half the world and then got paid off for it with massive bonuses, golden handshakes and pensions - often from our taxes...............I am far more resentful of their parents than the Royal family.
Of course you can also become a Royal by marriage - same as with any other rich and famous person........
Unless everyone earns the same amount of money - you will always have those with advantages due to their "birthright"
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
Even if everyone made the same money people would still have advantages due to their "birthright" namely their DNA as well as the positive or negative aspects of their parents parenting skills.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 notprop wrote:
Everyone has the advantages that their parents are able or choose to bestow on them. Some parents are harder working than others.
Mr Morden wrote:Same as anyone who is the child of parents who are rich and or / Famous?
Ratbarf wrote:Even if everyone made the same money people would still have advantages due to their "birthright" namely their DNA as well as the positive or negative aspects of their parents parenting skills.
Why are those statements of facts equivalent in your eyes to statement of values?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Mr Morden wrote:The royals are born into a high level of society instantly gaining all the advantages that will be missed by the people that they "serve".
Same as anyone who is the child of parents who are rich and or / Famous?
Same as the children of all the Bank CEO's who ripped off half the world and then got paid off for it with massive bonuses, golden handshakes and pensions - often from our taxes...............I am far more resentful of their parents than the Royal family.
Of course you can also become a Royal by marriage - same as with any other rich and famous person........
Unless everyone earns the same amount of money - you will always have those with advantages due to their "birthright"
If my next-door-neighbour's kids were born into affluence, that doesn't mean that they'd have a detachment of taxpayer-paid troops specifically guarding them, nor would my taxes go to pay for them to be gallavanting all over the world.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 purplefood wrote:I agree with Albatross and Whitey...
The Queen could totally beat the gak out of Kim Jong-Un...
Let's not forget that she did go skydiving with James Bond
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
azazel the cat wrote:Mr Morden wrote:The royals are born into a high level of society instantly gaining all the advantages that will be missed by the people that they "serve".
Same as anyone who is the child of parents who are rich and or / Famous?
Same as the children of all the Bank CEO's who ripped off half the world and then got paid off for it with massive bonuses, golden handshakes and pensions - often from our taxes...............I am far more resentful of their parents than the Royal family.
Of course you can also become a Royal by marriage - same as with any other rich and famous person........
Unless everyone earns the same amount of money - you will always have those with advantages due to their "birthright"
If my next-door-neighbour's kids were born into affluence, that doesn't mean that they'd have a detachment of taxpayer-paid troops specifically guarding them, nor would my taxes go to pay for them to be gallavanting all over the world.
Actually if they were children of failed Bank CEOs they might have their entire life style paid by the taxpayer with no duties or other repsonabilities.....
They are also unlikely to have any duties to perform - cermonially or otherwise.
Would they generate any toruism revenue ??
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Mr Morden wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Mr Morden wrote:The royals are born into a high level of society instantly gaining all the advantages that will be missed by the people that they "serve".
Same as anyone who is the child of parents who are rich and or / Famous?
Same as the children of all the Bank CEO's who ripped off half the world and then got paid off for it with massive bonuses, golden handshakes and pensions - often from our taxes...............I am far more resentful of their parents than the Royal family.
Of course you can also become a Royal by marriage - same as with any other rich and famous person........
Unless everyone earns the same amount of money - you will always have those with advantages due to their "birthright"
If my next-door-neighbour's kids were born into affluence, that doesn't mean that they'd have a detachment of taxpayer-paid troops specifically guarding them, nor would my taxes go to pay for them to be gallavanting all over the world.
Actually if they were children of failed Bank CEOs they might have their entire life style paid by the taxpayer with no duties or other repsonabilities.....
They are also unlikely to have any duties to perform - cermonially or otherwise.
Would they generate any toruism revenue ??
1. Canada didn't have to bail out any banks
2. If we did, that would be a decision made by our elected government; it would not be a decision bestowed upon those people by birthright. That is a very significant difference.
27391
Post by: purplefood
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: purplefood wrote:I agree with Albatross and Whitey...
The Queen could totally beat the gak out of Kim Jong-Un...
Let's not forget that she did go skydiving with James Bond
Nah, James Bond went skydiving with her...
514
Post by: Orlanth
I am glad that Dakka is now realising to dispel the myth about the costs of the Royal Family. The fact that the government takes more from the Royal estates than it gioves back in allowances is something that should be more widely known.
What really irks is that HM functions just on the interest to her own financial portfolio alone. the real costs for Royal expenditure comes from garden parties and those while hosted by the Queen are there for the government to invite people to, not the royals. Frankly Her Majesty requests extra recognition for having played host to the scum that filth like Blair wanted to host, while that grubber was happy for his party to point out royal excess. Oh and he nicked the royal jet for his own private use also.
I am also glad that some here realise that the monarchy is a placeholder that prevents a demagogue from rising to power.
Again this did not stop Blair but it did limit him. From what I hear this vexed him considerably and even now he yearns to be the UK's first president.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Orlanth wrote:I am glad that Dakka is now realising to dispel the myth about the costs of the Royal Family. The fact that the government takes more from the Royal estates than it gioves back in allowances is something that should be more widely known.
What really irks is that HM functions just on the interest to her own financial portfolio alone. the real costs for Royal expenditure comes from garden parties and those while hosted by the Queen are there for the government to invite people to, not the royals. Frankly Her Majesty requests extra recognition for having played host to the scum that filth like Blair wanted to host, while that grubber was happy for his party to point out royal excess. Oh and he nicked the royal jet for his own private use also.
I am also glad that some here realise that the monarchy is a placeholder that prevents a demagogue from rising to power.
Again this did not stop Blair but it did limit him. From what I hear this vexed him considerably and even now he yearns to be the UK's first president.
I think this sentiment, while not untrue in any way I am aware of, is not really shared by the other commonwealth states. I do not believe that Canada makes any money off of the Windsors, but I do know that we pay a disgusting amount of taxpayer dollars so they can come visit whenever they feel like it.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
azazel the cat wrote:I think this sentiment, while not untrue in any way I am aware of, is not really shared by the other commonwealth states. I do not believe that Canada makes any money off of the Windsors, but I do know that we pay a disgusting amount of taxpayer dollars so they can come visit whenever they feel like it.
And should the head moose or whoever it is running Canadaland ever want to come over to the UK, our tax money would be spent on ensuring they are kept well and safe, just like our tax money would be spent on any visit by other heads of state or notables. Sadly we even do it when the head ped... erm... pope decides to pop over for a visit.
15594
Post by: Albatross
azazel the cat wrote:Orlanth wrote:I am glad that Dakka is now realising to dispel the myth about the costs of the Royal Family. The fact that the government takes more from the Royal estates than it gioves back in allowances is something that should be more widely known.
What really irks is that HM functions just on the interest to her own financial portfolio alone. the real costs for Royal expenditure comes from garden parties and those while hosted by the Queen are there for the government to invite people to, not the royals. Frankly Her Majesty requests extra recognition for having played host to the scum that filth like Blair wanted to host, while that grubber was happy for his party to point out royal excess. Oh and he nicked the royal jet for his own private use also.
I am also glad that some here realise that the monarchy is a placeholder that prevents a demagogue from rising to power.
Again this did not stop Blair but it did limit him. From what I hear this vexed him considerably and even now he yearns to be the UK's first president.
I think this sentiment, while not untrue in any way I am aware of, is not really shared by the other commonwealth states. I do not believe that Canada makes any money off of the Windsors, but I do know that we pay a disgusting amount of taxpayer dollars so they can come visit whenever they feel like it.
I'm sure it's probably possible to calculate the financial benefit to Canada being a member of the Commonwealth, not to mention the financial and political benefits Canada has historically enjoyed as a member of the British Empire and subsequently the Commonwealth of Nations. In light of that, the monarchy is pretty good value for money, considering all you folks really have to do (and you don't even have to do that - you could become a republic if the country so desired, we're not stopping you, are we?) is roll out the red carpet every time the monarchs visit. I mean, if money's the only consideration, that is.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
 Orlanth wrote:I am glad that Dakka is now realising to dispel the myth about the costs of the Royal Family. The fact that the government takes more from the Royal estates than it gioves back in allowances is something that should be more widely known.
What really irks is that HM functions just on the interest to her own financial portfolio alone. the real costs for Royal expenditure comes from garden parties and those while hosted by the Queen are there for the government to invite people to, not the royals. Frankly Her Majesty requests extra recognition for having played host to the scum that filth like Blair wanted to host, while that grubber was happy for his party to point out royal excess. Oh and he nicked the royal jet for his own private use also.
I am also glad that some here realise that the monarchy is a placeholder that prevents a demagogue from rising to power.
Again this did not stop Blair but it did limit him. From what I hear this vexed him considerably and even now he yearns to be the UK's first president.
I'd like a source on this. Every document I've passed over on this stated that the british royalty cost about $1.30 a year for Brits, and $1.50 a year for canadian (like this ; http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/14/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay/)
It's not much, but if I have to choose between one more cup of coffee per year or some fictional protection from tyranny, I know I'll take the life brew. Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross wrote:considering all you folks really have to do (and you don't even have to do that - you could become a republic if the country so desired, we're not stopping you, are we?) is roll out the red carpet every time the monarchs visit. I mean, if money's the only consideration, that is.
That red carpet cost us about 50 millions a year.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Who even knows what a lieutenant-governor does? Pretty sure we can get rid of those guys immediately.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Who even knows what a lieutenant-governor does? Pretty sure we can get rid of those guys immediately.
http://www.lieutenantgovernor.ab.ca/ wrote:The Lieutenant Governor is Her Majesty the Queen's representative in a province.
The role of the Lieutenant Governor is steeped in history and tradition. In addition to fulfilling a key constitutional function, the office helps preserve a unique part of Canada's traditions, heritage and character.
The Lieutenant Governor's duties can be divided into three roles: constitutional, ceremonial and social.
The Lieutenant Governor's social role includes hosting members of the Royal Family and heads of state. The Office also receives courtesy calls from foreign representatives and other official visitors to the province, including high commissioners and ambassadors.The Lieutenant Governor travels extensively throughout the province to attend and speak at special events that support community service organizations.
The office plays a key constitutional role in Canada's democratic system. If for any reason the Lieutenant Governor cannot perform these constitutional functions, the Chief Justice of Alberta assumes responsibility in an interim capacity.
The Lieutenant Governor must give Royal Assent to all bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. The Lieutenant Governor acts on the advice of elected officials, but may exercise the right to deny or "reserve" Royal Assent if the bill violates Albertans' constitutional rights or infringes on Federal jurisdiction. Once the Lieutenant Governor has given Royal Assent, government bills and measures become law.
The Lieutenant Governor also signs Orders-in-Council, Proclamations, and many other official documents, giving them the force of law.
The Lieutenant Governor also summons and ends (prorogues) the Legislature, reads the Speech from the Throne at the Opening of each Session and dissolves the Legislature prior to an election.
Another important responsibility of the Office is to ensure that the Province always has a Premier. If the Office of the Premier becomes vacant due to resignation or death, or following a defeat in the Legislature or an election, it is the duty of the Lieutenant Governor to ensure that the post is filled. With the advice of the Premier, the Lieutenant Governor appoints and swears-in members of Cabinet.
The Lieutenant Governor does not belong to a political party and does not favour one party or its policies over another's.
The Lieutenant Governor is frequently invited to preside over awards ceremonies that recognize the bravery, achievement and outstanding public service
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Albatross wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Orlanth wrote:I am glad that Dakka is now realising to dispel the myth about the costs of the Royal Family. The fact that the government takes more from the Royal estates than it gioves back in allowances is something that should be more widely known.
What really irks is that HM functions just on the interest to her own financial portfolio alone. the real costs for Royal expenditure comes from garden parties and those while hosted by the Queen are there for the government to invite people to, not the royals. Frankly Her Majesty requests extra recognition for having played host to the scum that filth like Blair wanted to host, while that grubber was happy for his party to point out royal excess. Oh and he nicked the royal jet for his own private use also.
I am also glad that some here realise that the monarchy is a placeholder that prevents a demagogue from rising to power.
Again this did not stop Blair but it did limit him. From what I hear this vexed him considerably and even now he yearns to be the UK's first president.
I think this sentiment, while not untrue in any way I am aware of, is not really shared by the other commonwealth states. I do not believe that Canada makes any money off of the Windsors, but I do know that we pay a disgusting amount of taxpayer dollars so they can come visit whenever they feel like it.
I'm sure it's probably possible to calculate the financial benefit to Canada being a member of the Commonwealth, not to mention the financial and political benefits Canada has historically enjoyed as a member of the British Empire and subsequently the Commonwealth of Nations. In light of that, the monarchy is pretty good value for money, considering all you folks really have to do (and you don't even have to do that - you could become a republic if the country so desired, we're not stopping you, are we?) is roll out the red carpet every time the monarchs visit. I mean, if money's the only consideration, that is.
Ever since confederation, our partnerships with England have been historically not in our favour. Canada is resource-rich; we need nothing from England, and have a bigger, better friend next door (even if he is quite loud at times ). In any case, we are not even talking about the security costs (which I don't have a problem with, as this is a requirement for every head of state) This cost is over and above the security costs. It is literally their vacation bill. source. EDIT: And I'm not always a fan of republics; I prefer federalism, though those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive due to the varying structure of some modern republics.
15594
Post by: Albatross
azazel the cat wrote:Albatross wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Orlanth wrote:I am glad that Dakka is now realising to dispel the myth about the costs of the Royal Family. The fact that the government takes more from the Royal estates than it gioves back in allowances is something that should be more widely known.
What really irks is that HM functions just on the interest to her own financial portfolio alone. the real costs for Royal expenditure comes from garden parties and those while hosted by the Queen are there for the government to invite people to, not the royals. Frankly Her Majesty requests extra recognition for having played host to the scum that filth like Blair wanted to host, while that grubber was happy for his party to point out royal excess. Oh and he nicked the royal jet for his own private use also.
I am also glad that some here realise that the monarchy is a placeholder that prevents a demagogue from rising to power.
Again this did not stop Blair but it did limit him. From what I hear this vexed him considerably and even now he yearns to be the UK's first president.
I think this sentiment, while not untrue in any way I am aware of, is not really shared by the other commonwealth states. I do not believe that Canada makes any money off of the Windsors, but I do know that we pay a disgusting amount of taxpayer dollars so they can come visit whenever they feel like it.
I'm sure it's probably possible to calculate the financial benefit to Canada being a member of the Commonwealth, not to mention the financial and political benefits Canada has historically enjoyed as a member of the British Empire and subsequently the Commonwealth of Nations. In light of that, the monarchy is pretty good value for money, considering all you folks really have to do (and you don't even have to do that - you could become a republic if the country so desired, we're not stopping you, are we?) is roll out the red carpet every time the monarchs visit. I mean, if money's the only consideration, that is.
Ever since confederation, our partnerships with England have been historically not in our favour. Canada is resource-rich; we need nothing from England, and have a bigger, better friend next door (even if he is quite loud at times ).
He would be your master if it wasn't for the British Empire. Just saying. It's not just about money, bro.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Not really. If your referring to the war of 1812 most of the Canadian victories were pulled off by locals and the defeats were inflicted upon the British from Britain who came over in support. The advantage of fighting on your own turf and what not.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
But they did supply the naval aspect and they burned down the Whitehouse which is something we still like to claim as our own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also it was really only the threat of major British intervention that stopped the Americans from simply annexing us anyways.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Surprisingly, the Royal Navy didn't do that well. It was the failed incursions into BNA by land that discouraged the Americans. It was supposed to be a cakewalk. "They'll welcome us as liberators" and "we'll be home for Christmas" cliches applied. When it turned out to be difficult it just brought up the question of why defensive milita were being sent to invade Canada.
Anyway, we all get along fine now so it all worked out in the end.
Meanwhile back on the topic the original topic seems ill defined. Like there's a big difference between a Constitutional Monarcy and a Monarcy and I think some people are arguing for or against one without realizing it. It's pretty reasonable to be for or at least ok with a constitutional Monarcy but still against an absolute Monarcy.
514
Post by: Orlanth
azazel the cat wrote:
In any case, we are not even talking about the security costs (which I don't have a problem with, as this is a requirement for every head of state) This cost is over and above the security costs. It is literally their vacation bill. source.
EDIT: And I'm not always a fan of republics; I prefer federalism, though those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive due to the varying structure of some modern republics.
Just over a million, for a cultural event. Which is what a royal visit actually is.
What price do you put on a nations culture? What price should you put on a nations culture? I don't know what Canadians spend, but in the Uk cultural expenditures can be very large, even when catering only for small subcultures. Hell my hometown paid £200K for an Afro-Carribean writers forum, which seldom meets, and that is one English town. $1M for a royal visit is a bargain frankly, and it will help local businesses. Even if it didn't its unfair to have to list the profit/loss of such arrangements, some things are worth more than money.
I am sure the Canadian government can save plenty of money by giving mounted police 'practical uniforms' instead of red ones. Why not save a little money with a good idea? Because while saving pennies Canada itself will lose so much more.
If you want to argue against royal visits or the monarchy do so for other reasons, while the cost effectiveness of having a monarchy in the UK and elsewhere can be justified its distasteful to have to do so.
However I will end it with this: During a royal visit to the US in IIRC 1984 by Prince Charles and Diana the UK Expo trade fair which they visited had a publicity boost estimated at a billion dollars in advertising value through the depth of TV coverage of the event.. Now admittedly Diana is not Camilla, but a billion dollars. From any honest point of view in the UK the Windsors paid for themselves for live on that one event. I would very surprised if the royal visit did not generate wealth far in excess if the cost to the Canadian taxpayer. I am sure the Prince was taken to showcase events of features of value to Canadian economy, and the benefits thereof while not easily calculable, would be substantial. After all royal visits to non commonwealth countries showcase British interests, royal visits to Commonwealth countries showcase the host country.
Now in Canada admittedly some will whine anyway because the Prince is not French, so what.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
The RCMP do have practical uniforms. The red ones are dress uniforms.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Orlanth wrote: azazel the cat wrote:
In any case, we are not even talking about the security costs (which I don't have a problem with, as this is a requirement for every head of state) This cost is over and above the security costs. It is literally their vacation bill. source.
EDIT: And I'm not always a fan of republics; I prefer federalism, though those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive due to the varying structure of some modern republics.
Just over a million, for a cultural event. Which is what a royal visit actually is.
What price do you put on a nations culture? What price should you put on a nations culture? I don't know what Canadians spend, but in the Uk cultural expenditures can be very large, even when catering only for small subcultures. Hell my hometown paid £200K for an Afro-Carribean writers forum, which seldom meets, and that is one English town. $1M for a royal visit is a bargain frankly, and it will help local businesses. Even if it didn't its unfair to have to list the profit/loss of such arrangements, some things are worth more than money.
I am sure the Canadian government can save plenty of money by giving mounted police 'practical uniforms' instead of red ones. Why not save a little money with a good idea? Because while saving pennies Canada itself will lose so much more.
If you want to argue against royal visits or the monarchy do so for other reasons, while the cost effectiveness of having a monarchy in the UK and elsewhere can be justified its distasteful to have to do so.
However I will end it with this: During a royal visit to the US in IIRC 1984 by Prince Charles and Diana the UK Expo trade fair which they visited had a publicity boost estimated at a billion dollars in advertising value through the depth of TV coverage of the event.. Now admittedly Diana is not Camilla, but a billion dollars. From any honest point of view in the UK the Windsors paid for themselves for live on that one event. I would very surprised if the royal visit did not generate wealth far in excess if the cost to the Canadian taxpayer. I am sure the Prince was taken to showcase events of features of value to Canadian economy, and the benefits thereof while not easily calculable, would be substantial. After all royal visits to non commonwealth countries showcase British interests, royal visits to Commonwealth countries showcase the host country.
Now in Canada admittedly some will whine anyway because the Prince is not French, so what.
And what cultural event is that, exactly? There is NOTHING for Canadians to do during these events; no value to gain. There is no parade, no faire, nothing. Just a couple donkey-caves in a fancy car, dining at a four-star hotel. Any possible advertising revenues are the sole benefit of the individual businesses; hardly worthy of taking money away from taxpayers for.
But please, tell me about how having a group of useless mascots strut around is worth more than money. Go on. I'll wait.
514
Post by: Orlanth
azazel the cat wrote:
And what cultural event is that, exactly? There is NOTHING for Canadians to do during these events; no value to gain. There is no parade, no faire, nothing. Just a couple donkey-caves in a fancy car, dining at a four-star hotel. Any possible advertising revenues are the sole benefit of the individual businesses; hardly worthy of taking money away from taxpayers for.
But please, tell me about how having a group of useless mascots strut around is worth more than money. Go on. I'll wait.
So your argument is that you don't like royals, so they are all "useless", irregardless of any evidence to the contrary, and there is plenty to be found. And of course you assume there are never any events, just four star hotel visits that somehow come to over a million dollars for two. I think its fairly pointless wasting time trying to explain further, at least to you, clearly you can't rise above rabid bigotry. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Exactly these cost money that can be spent elsewhere if savings were all that mattered. However like with the Brigade of Guards, a lot would be lost if one did.
16689
Post by: notprop
azazel the cat wrote:.............? There is NOTHING for Canadians to do during these events; no value to gain. There is no parade, no faire, nothing. Just a couple donkey-caves in a fancy car, dining at a four-star hotel. Any possible advertising revenues are the sole benefit of the individual businesses; hardly worthy of taking money away from taxpayers for.
But please, tell me about how having a group of useless mascots strut around is worth more than money. Go on. I'll wait.
If you took the Queen to just a 4 star restaurant we would invade and kill you all, just saying. 
To the topic at hand if you don't want the Queen as head of state then all you have to do is say so and she will no longer perform that role. All you have to do is convince the thousands that come out to wave flags at her to stop. Simples.
If you do not want the Queen to come over and visit, then stop asking her over and giving her black beavers and Jebus knows what else for her and your special occasions. Simples. She luuurves the bling you see.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Orlanth wrote: azazel the cat wrote:
And what cultural event is that, exactly? There is NOTHING for Canadians to do during these events; no value to gain. There is no parade, no faire, nothing. Just a couple donkey-caves in a fancy car, dining at a four-star hotel. Any possible advertising revenues are the sole benefit of the individual businesses; hardly worthy of taking money away from taxpayers for.
But please, tell me about how having a group of useless mascots strut around is worth more than money. Go on. I'll wait.
So your argument is that you don't like royals, so they are all "useless", irregardless of any evidence to the contrary, and there is plenty to be found. And of course you assume there are never any events, just four star hotel visits that somehow come to over a million dollars for two. I think its fairly pointless wasting time trying to explain further, at least to you, clearly you can't rise above rabid bigotry.
No, my argument is that I don't like royals, and they are useless to Canada. I dislike royals because they are living avatars of undeserved entitlement and oppression (even as mostly impotent figureheads, the mere concept that someone can be born into a life-long position of authority is offensive to me).
But let me see if I understand your "argument", or lack thereof: you think that there's no point in holding a debate on the subject with me because I don't already agree with you? That's weak, man. But maybe I can help you out. Why don't you tell me about all of the magical events that the royals create during their visits which benefit Canadians. Because so far, I haven't heard of any.
Also: "Irregardless" isn't a word. Don't use it anymore. And by trying to calling a hatred of royalty bigotry, you are diluting the struggles of everyone who has had to deal with actual bigotry.
notprop wrote:To the topic at hand if you don't want the Queen as head of state then all you have to do is say so and she will no longer perform that role. All you have to do is convince the thousands that come out to wave flags at her to stop. Simples.
If you do not want the Queen to come over and visit, then stop asking her over and giving her black beavers and Jebus knows what else for her and your special occasions. Simples. She luuurves the bling you see.
I agree; I would love to see a national referrendum on the subject of removing the queen as the head of state. According to the last poll (which was quite small, admittedly)
In May 2012, a poll by Canadian Press Harris-Decima found that 51% of Canadians support the country remaining a monarchy
I think that's definitely close enough to hold a vote on it. Also of note is the fact that due ot the small sample size, the results of this annual poll varies widely, although typically the endorsement of the monarchy is somewhere around the 35% mark in most years.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
The Monarchy is more popular in Canada right now than it ever has been just like in the UK. There isn't much appetite to get rid of it I think.
I didn't really care but some comments on this thread vain of you don't realize how important the Royals are to your lives and Prince Harry is Culture! have ironically made me reconsider getting rid of them immediately.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Yeah, I still think Canada should keep the monarchy but we spend too much money when she visits so just lower that a bit (or a lot) and things should be fine, also someone said the queen is a symbol of repression I'm not sure that's entirely true I think for most modern Canadians they sort
of have this romanticized view towards royalty.
514
Post by: Orlanth
azazel the cat wrote:
No, my argument is that I don't like royals, and they are useless to Canada. I dislike royals because they are living avatars of undeserved entitlement and oppression (even as mostly impotent figureheads, the mere concept that someone can be born into a life-long position of authority is offensive to me).
ZOMG Azazel is being oppressed by the Royal family, call the human rights lawyers, claim compo!
azazel the cat wrote:
But let me see if I understand your "argument", or lack thereof: you think that there's no point in holding a debate on the subject with me because I don't already agree with you? That's weak, man. But maybe I can help you out. Why don't you tell me about all of the magical events that the royals create during their visits which benefit Canadians. Because so far, I haven't heard of any.
Check the website, I did earlier. It showed what sort of things the Prince gets up to while in Canada: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/focus/canada
Lot of plug for charities included, and for all his faults the Prince of Wales is genuinely deeply committed to his charities and does a lot for them.
Here is an itinerary of a three-day tour of Canada (2012) by Prince Charles and his wife Camilla as part of events that mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
Sunday:
7:45 p.m. AT — Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall arrive in New Brunswick at Saint John Airport.
Monday:
10:30 a.m. — Arrive at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick to participate in an official arrival ceremony that includes a royal salute, an inspection of the guard of honour, a 21-gun salute and a speech by Prince Charles.
11:05 a.m. — Visit the Prince's Operation Entrepreneur program at CFB Gagetown where the royal couple meet with military personnel enrolled in the project, which helps them start and grow their own businesses.
11:25 a.m. — Meeting with families of soldiers who have died.
11:45 a.m. — Government of Canada reception at CFB Gagetown.
1:10 p.m. — Arrive in Saint John, N.B., for heritage tour of Prince William Street.
1:25 p.m. — Arrive at Old Post Office Building for Canadian citizenship ceremony.
2:10 p.m. — Arrive at Marco Polo Cruise Terminal for Victoria Day celebration, including displays of local crafts, farm produce and choral presentations.
3:10 p.m.— Arrive at Hazen White-St. Francis School for a tour and to join in the school's fun day activities in the playground.
4:30 p.m. — Depart Saint John Airport for Toronto Pearson International Airport.
5:10 p.m. ET — Administrative arrival at Toronto Pearson International Airport.
9:10 p.m. — Arrive at Ashbridges Bay in Toronto for Victoria Day fireworks display and to meet with members of Ontario's emergency services and their families.
Tuesday:
10:10 a.m. — Arrive at Queen's Park in Toronto for Lieutenant Governor's Diamond Jubilee Medal ceremony and reception.
11:05 a.m. — Prince Charles arrives at Ryerson University for Digital Media Zone event where he meets students and young entrepreneurs who have benefited from the project.
11:05 a.m. — The Duchess of Cornwall arrives at Moss Park Armoury for her inaugural visit as colonel-in-chief of The Queen's Own Rifles.
12:05 p.m. — Prince Charles arrives at Pan/Parapan American Games Athletes' Village and meeting with Olympic and Paralympic medal winners and athletes.
12:45 p.m. — Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall arrive at a Government of Ontario reception at the historic Distillery District.
1:50 p.m. — Prince Charles arrives at Yonge Street Mission for the Prince's Charities Canada event.
3:30 p.m. — Prince Charles meets with representatives of the Assembly of First Nations at the Royal York Hotel.
6 p.m. — The royal couple arrive at Fort York Armoury for an event that commemorates the War of 1812.
8:15 p.m. — Depart Toronto Pearson International Airport for Regina International Airport.
9 p.m. CT — Administrative arrival at Regina International Airport.
Wednesday:
11 a.m. — Arrive at the Saskatchewan legislature in Regina for official arrival ceremony, presentation of six Diamond Jubilee medals to recognize outstanding service to the province and unveiling of a plaque to commemorate The Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
12:15 p.m. — Arrive at Government House to visit a Diamond Jubilee exhibit and attend the lieutenant governor's reception.
1:30 p.m. — Arrive at First Nations University to watch aboriginal performances and meet with aboriginal youths, entrepreneurs and graduates.
2:45 p.m. — Prince Charles arrives at Ground Effects Environmental Services to view the water treatment and ground remediation facility.
3:55 p.m. — Prince Charles has a private audience with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
4:30 p.m. — Prince Charles has a private audience with Gov.-Gen. David Johnston.
7:10 p.m. —The royal couple arrive at the RCMP Depot for a concert by the Regina Symphony Orchestra and a reception where the prime minister and Prince Charles are scheduled to make remarks.
8:50 p.m. — Arrive at Regina International Airport for official farewell ceremony.
Earlier in the thread you made hysterical comments that the Canadian taxpayer was paying for royals to come over for a million dollar holiday. Looks like a busy diplomatic work schedule to me, and any other fair minded person. I will all but guarantee you the 2013 itinery will be similar, if we cant see the full schedule now its because of security inplications.
azazel the cat wrote:
Also: "Irregardless" isn't a word. Don't use it anymore. And by trying to calling a hatred of royalty bigotry, you are diluting the struggles of everyone who has had to deal with actual bigotry.
It is actual bigotry. You dont hate the royals for any intelligible reason. So far on the thread you have referred to them as "oppressors", spongers coming to Canada for free "holidays". You deny them any form of merit as beneficiaries of "undeserved entitlement" when vast numbers of people in the UK and Canada alike prefer them to their own politicians and choose to honour them for what they are and do. Any fair critic of the monarchy should at least acknowledge the genuine work they do and the level at which they throw themselves into the job or working for the peoples the Crown is Head of State over, yet claims that the royals lounge around in self absorbed privilege is often the hallmark of hysterical anti-monarchists.
You hate them for who they are in your own words, the very essence of bigotry.
Be a republican if you like, its your rights and choice, but do so for honest reasons.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Orlanth, you're talking as if he were motivated by reason, as opposed to blind hatred and bitterness. You're not going to get anywhere, mate. I've already given up, because... Well, life's too short. I'd rather just leave him to it.
28848
Post by: KamikazeCanuck
Blind hatred? I think Azazel just doesn't like Monarcy. That's like, his opinion and its a perfectly valid one.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
While it's certainly his opinion most of his reasons for it are not logically valid as most of his given reasons have been debunked as false.
16689
Post by: notprop
Orlanth wrote:
...............11:05 a.m. — The Duchess of Cornwall arrives at Moss Park Armoury for her inaugural visit as colonel-in-chief of The Queen's Own Rifles............
Talk about a demoralising engagement, in the past they might have gotten Diana and they were probably hoping for Catherine instead the poor fethers get Camilla!
We have literally crippled Canada's ability to defend itself, for this I will concede Azazel's has a point.
I hope those pesky Yanks don't find out about this.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:There was a three day period where Churchill almost wasn't prime minister, and English will was looking pretty flimsy and weak. Halifax was the prime contender (possibly for the PM job... or he was just the big organizer for the opposition to Churchhill, can't remember the details right now) for the other spots and his primary idea was to hide behind the Royal Navy and hope the Germans got bored and left as opposed to taking the fight to them else where like in North Africa.
Churchill was the number one choice for PM in 1940, but after the Dunkirk evacuation, a small cabal (led by Halifax) did try and force Churchill to sue for peace with Hitler, but Churchill vowed to fight the Germans even if they were marching up Whitehall (London location of the main British government offices,)
Back OT.
Canadians moaning about the Queen make me laugh It's your own fault for stopping the American invasions in the war of 1812. That's what you get for being victorious
|
|
