Monarchy or Republic?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The GG takes no advice from The Queen

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....

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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?

**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...

**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...

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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"

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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

**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 ??

**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.

**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...

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**KamikazeCanuck**

Who even knows what a lieutenant-governor does? Pretty sure we can get rid of those guys immediately.

**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

**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.

**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.