9 ms·

As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held

by giarc 4y ago

As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but just wondering why? :)

bombcar 4y ago
I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Some say we already have ...
- kergonath 4y ago
  > I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Lol. No offense to the memory of Queen Liz, but she could not have done a thing had the US decided to do something stupid like that. That said, just the notion is preposterous. The US would have lost much more than the Queen’s approbation, in the grand scheme of things.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Maybe the Queen was the only thing holding back an invasion of the US … I saw a documentary about that once called Canadian Bacon I think.
    - kergonath 4y ago
      Yeah, that was satire (for those who don’t know the movie).
      - bombcar 4y ago
        This whole comment thread was satire (for those who can't recognize it on the internet).
        fakedang 4y ago
        To be fair, we all mostly thought the Russian exercises in January and early February in Donetsk and Crimea were just grandstanding, and now look where we are...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  This is one of the most absurd things ever written on this website.
bluepizza 4y ago
Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.
- visiblink 4y ago
  Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That is, by definition, not a monarchy
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - true_religion 4y ago
      I wanted to disagree with you and say that is simply not a hereditary monarchy, but after a moment I think you are right. Monarchy connotes the existence of some sort of elite class and even in cases the monarch was elected it was always from the aristocracy, founding families, or royal family. The idea that a leader chosen randomly from the general population is a monarch feels like it would muddy the meaning of monarchy to the point of uselessness.
    - throw0101c 4y ago
      Contrary to Monty Python, you can actually vote for king: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
- kergonath 4y ago
  Yeah. Choosing your head of state should be opt-in, rather than opt-out at best (or, more realistically, no opt at all).
alex_c 4y ago
>I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state Genuinely curious what those would be? I think it's far from the most urgent issue our country is facing right now, but most of my objections to the monarchy would be moral or philosophical. For one, in moral terms there is a lot of... let's say "historical baggage" that comes with the monarchy. For another, I don't think a hereditary system of governance is compatible with modern Canadian society (or at least what we would like to think it should be). Not something that keeps me up at night, I don't think it will be removed any time soon mostly due to inertia, but I would definitely not be opposed to removing it.
- petre 4y ago
  > Genuinely curious what those would be? You don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US. I'm a republican (not a US republican, but merely favour republics) but I don't see how relinquishing the British Crown would change anything for the better for Canada or Australia? Canada would probably need to become a parliamentary republic like Germany or Greece, where the president has a ceremonial role.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > You [Canadians] don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US. Yet?
lm28469 4y ago
> I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state For them for sure, especially financially wise
- happyopossum 4y ago
  Really? Do you have any references for how much money the Royal Family takes from Canada?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cfcf14 4y ago
Couple reasons come to mind: 1) The institutional apparatus required to maintain the monarch as head of state is reasonably complex and expensive, both from a legal point of view and in a financial sense. The governor general is an unelected official whose power technically exceeds any democratically selected person in our government, and they make almost $300k/yr to do essentially nothing but administrative ceremony. I know that in the big scheme of things, $300k (plus whatever other perks/bonuses they get, along with their staff) is just a drop in the bucket, but it feels a bit like theft from Canadians given this role doesn't need to exist at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada 2) The royals do have a bit of a history of interfering in the politics of past colonies - the recent reveal a few years ago that Charles (I think...?) influenced the selection of high ranking Australian government officials in the 80's was a bit of a shock to many. Apologies, I can't find the right combination of phrases to yield anything in google except tabloid nonsense as a source. In any case, there is at least some evidence that the royals, either through wealth, old-school power politics, or direct action do play about with the politics of other countries, even when they explicitly should do not that. I detest this. 3) I really do not like what the royals stand for. Monarchism, colonialism, genocide, general crumminess. Spending £12 million to pay off one of the women Prince Andrew allegedly sexually assaulted as a minor, using public money, is an atrocious act and one I still cannot believe got so little media coverage here. Then there's all the general petty money issues: Prince Charles doesn't pay inheritance tax (why? Because, that's why). The royal family is except from all sorts of laws pertaining to wealth transfer actually, in some cases literally because it's coded into the laws themselves that Her Majesty is excluded. It's ridiculous. And here in the UK you still are not legally allowed to protest the monarchs. I mean - you can, but you can also be arrested for it. Just in the last 2 days there's been outcry as 2 people were arrested for anti-monarchist protest signs. https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding- https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-... https://www.thenational.scot/news/21319718.protester-arreste https://www.thenational.scot/news/21319718.protester-arreste... https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403?t=8V0-dyU2FEZoUjVG54pBgw&s=19 https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403?... It's time to let go of the past, try to build a future for ourselves that doesn't centre around the absolute worst parts of our collective histories.
felipellrocha 4y ago
I think the main benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that you split the job of appearance of propriety away from the job of actual governance. Look at the US for example, the selection of a president is both trying to figure out who can do the best job for the country but also who can look the best at it. Presumably, with a monarchy, the monarchy takes care of looking good, and the PM takes care of governing. This works specially well for the UK since the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends (Due to mostly tourism) and you have a setup that works for most everyone. The negative I see, is that you always have in the back of your mind the possibility that one of these monarchs might, from time to time, want to exceed the powers given to them. Not saying I agree with the system, nor do I have a fight into this, I'm Brazilian living in the US so I've never been under such system, but this is my impartial, look at this system.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  > the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends Only with very creative accounting, typically favoured and repeated by pro-monarchists (including the government). People would visit the palaces without the royal family in them, and we'd be able to charge £20 a ticket to look around inside. (See: Versailles, or the Tower of London.) See https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism
- CrendKing 4y ago
  How would delegating any important job of a state (e.g. takes care of looking good) to a group of people you can't replace any good? Sure, there's always good kings and queens scattered in the history to be good or even great persons, but it's not guaranteed. When it's no longer the case, what's the plan then? I thought our civilization came this long way to realize the importance of being republic.

by giarc 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Some say we already have ...

kergonath 4y ago
> I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Lol. No offense to the memory of Queen Liz, but she could not have done a thing had the US decided to do something stupid like that. That said, just the notion is preposterous. The US would have lost much more than the Queen’s approbation, in the grand scheme of things.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Maybe the Queen was the only thing holding back an invasion of the US … I saw a documentary about that once called Canadian Bacon I think.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    Yeah, that was satire (for those who don’t know the movie).
    - bombcar 4y ago
      This whole comment thread was satire (for those who can't recognize it on the internet).
      - fakedang 4y ago
        To be fair, we all mostly thought the Russian exercises in January and early February in Donetsk and Crimea were just grandstanding, and now look where we are...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hammyhavoc 4y ago
This is one of the most absurd things ever written on this website.

bluepizza 4y ago

Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.

visiblink 4y ago
Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That is, by definition, not a monarchy
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - true_religion 4y ago
    I wanted to disagree with you and say that is simply not a hereditary monarchy, but after a moment I think you are right. Monarchy connotes the existence of some sort of elite class and even in cases the monarch was elected it was always from the aristocracy, founding families, or royal family. The idea that a leader chosen randomly from the general population is a monarch feels like it would muddy the meaning of monarchy to the point of uselessness.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    Contrary to Monty Python, you can actually vote for king: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
kergonath 4y ago
Yeah. Choosing your head of state should be opt-in, rather than opt-out at best (or, more realistically, no opt at all).

alex_c 4y ago

>I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state Genuinely curious what those would be? I think it's far from the most urgent issue our country is facing right now, but most of my objections to the monarchy would be moral or philosophical. For one, in moral terms there is a lot of... let's say "historical baggage" that comes with the monarchy. For another, I don't think a hereditary system of governance is compatible with modern Canadian society (or at least what we would like to think it should be). Not something that keeps me up at night, I don't think it will be removed any time soon mostly due to inertia, but I would definitely not be opposed to removing it.

petre 4y ago
> Genuinely curious what those would be? You don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US. I'm a republican (not a US republican, but merely favour republics) but I don't see how relinquishing the British Crown would change anything for the better for Canada or Australia? Canada would probably need to become a parliamentary republic like Germany or Greece, where the president has a ceremonial role.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > You [Canadians] don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US. Yet?

lm28469 4y ago

> I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state For them for sure, especially financially wise

happyopossum 4y ago
Really? Do you have any references for how much money the Royal Family takes from Canada?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

cfcf14 4y ago

Couple reasons come to mind: 1) The institutional apparatus required to maintain the monarch as head of state is reasonably complex and expensive, both from a legal point of view and in a financial sense. The governor general is an unelected official whose power technically exceeds any democratically selected person in our government, and they make almost $300k/yr to do essentially nothing but administrative ceremony. I know that in the big scheme of things, $300k (plus whatever other perks/bonuses they get, along with their staff) is just a drop in the bucket, but it feels a bit like theft from Canadians given this role doesn't need to exist at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada 2) The royals do have a bit of a history of interfering in the politics of past colonies - the recent reveal a few years ago that Charles (I think...?) influenced the selection of high ranking Australian government officials in the 80's was a bit of a shock to many. Apologies, I can't find the right combination of phrases to yield anything in google except tabloid nonsense as a source. In any case, there is at least some evidence that the royals, either through wealth, old-school power politics, or direct action do play about with the politics of other countries, even when they explicitly should do not that. I detest this. 3) I really do not like what the royals stand for. Monarchism, colonialism, genocide, general crumminess. Spending £12 million to pay off one of the women Prince Andrew allegedly sexually assaulted as a minor, using public money, is an atrocious act and one I still cannot believe got so little media coverage here. Then there's all the general petty money issues: Prince Charles doesn't pay inheritance tax (why? Because, that's why). The royal family is except from all sorts of laws pertaining to wealth transfer actually, in some cases literally because it's coded into the laws themselves that Her Majesty is excluded. It's ridiculous. And here in the UK you still are not legally allowed to protest the monarchs. I mean - you can, but you can also be arrested for it. Just in the last 2 days there's been outcry as 2 people were arrested for anti-monarchist protest signs. https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding- https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-... https://www.thenational.scot/news/21319718.protester-arreste https://www.thenational.scot/news/21319718.protester-arreste... https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403?t=8V0-dyU2FEZoUjVG54pBgw&s=19 https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403?... It's time to let go of the past, try to build a future for ourselves that doesn't centre around the absolute worst parts of our collective histories.

felipellrocha 4y ago

I think the main benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that you split the job of appearance of propriety away from the job of actual governance. Look at the US for example, the selection of a president is both trying to figure out who can do the best job for the country but also who can look the best at it. Presumably, with a monarchy, the monarchy takes care of looking good, and the PM takes care of governing. This works specially well for the UK since the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends (Due to mostly tourism) and you have a setup that works for most everyone. The negative I see, is that you always have in the back of your mind the possibility that one of these monarchs might, from time to time, want to exceed the powers given to them. Not saying I agree with the system, nor do I have a fight into this, I'm Brazilian living in the US so I've never been under such system, but this is my impartial, look at this system.

Symbiote 4y ago
> the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends Only with very creative accounting, typically favoured and repeated by pro-monarchists (including the government). People would visit the palaces without the royal family in them, and we'd be able to charge £20 a ticket to look around inside. (See: Versailles, or the Tower of London.) See https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism
CrendKing 4y ago
How would delegating any important job of a state (e.g. takes care of looking good) to a group of people you can't replace any good? Sure, there's always good kings and queens scattered in the history to be good or even great persons, but it's not guaranteed. When it's no longer the case, what's the plan then? I thought our civilization came this long way to realize the importance of being republic.