Jump to content
  • entries
    4
  • comments
    74
  • views
    932

The Royal Blog

Sign in to follow this  
Dodger

692 views

This may be a tad controversial and put me firmly on the radar of MI6 but I want to talk about the Royal Family. You know, the ones that live on the other side of the Atlantic but rule Canada.

Now I’ve been accused in the past of being a bit of a queen, but I’ve never been much of a royalist and I cannot see any benefit in continuing with a British Monarch as the head of state in Canada.

I won’t be fooled, I know for a fact that there’s no such thing as Kings, Queens, Princes, and Princesses. It’s all made up; they belong in Walt Disney films and fairy-tales, but they’re not real. Let’s face it, they’re just ordinary people who have been lucky enough to land a cushy number. They weren’t chosen by God as some goofballs would have you believe, they haven’t got blue blood, and they didn’t pull any swords from stones or slay any dragons either. They got to the throne by mercilessly torturing and killing anyone who dared to oppose them, including members of their own family—especially members of their own family. The present Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Henry VIII (1st Cousin 14 times removed), who relatively speaking, must surely be assured a place in the rogue’s gallery of the worlds most blood-thirsty despots. There are many other unsavoury characters in her bloodline; too many for it to be coincidental, but rather than apologise on behalf of her sadistic ancestors, she positively basks in their memory, proudly displaying portraits of these well-documented monsters as if they were Mother Teresa. 

If you add up the number of murders directly attributed to this family and the resulting wealth that they have accumulated, they may just be the most successful crime family of all time but surely in the modern world, their days are now numbered.

In the UK, their popularity has been steadily decreasing since the Diana debacle and it’s no surprise—given their list of previous—that many Brits believe that there was some sort of foul play involved in her death. Well, that’s a surprise, who would have thought?

I believe that it’s unconstitutional to have an unelected foreign head of state in Canada, and I’m not alone. According to the latest Forum Poll conducted in 2015, 73% of Canadians would prefer to have an elected Canadian as their head of state. Unsurprisingly, on a provincial level, Quebec has the highest percentage of anti-monarchists with over 90% in favour of replacing the Queen. Those figures, if correct, do not bode well for William and Kate but they only have themselves to blame. They seem completely out of touch with the ordinary people and in particular the youth who will ultimately be the ones who decide on their future.

It doesn’t help when you get married dressed like the Duke of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo. I mean really, what groom carries a sword on their hip these days? It was another bonding opportunity wasted by a family still struggling to adjust to the twentieth century, let alone this one and they wonder why young people around the world find it difficult to relate to them.

It was back to the drawing board but they know that the public love a Royal baby so the heir to the throne and his good lady have been at it like rabbits and knocking out sprogs quicker than a Catholic whore house. However, as formidable a weapon as this is in the hands of the press, poor William, bald already, just doesn’t look as if he has the spunk for this type of fight!

Seriously though, most Canadians I believe, are misinformed about the role of the monarchy in their country. They know that the Queen’s on the money—in more ways than one—but they also believe that she has no real power in Canada. Wrong! Everyone knows that the Governor-General is chosen by the Prime Minister, but that’s more of a gentleman’s agreement than a constitutional rule of law. Officially the Queen chooses that appointment to carry out her ceremonial duties as head of state and that’s the key, she is the head of state.

They may also be unaware that they are contributing to the British Royal Family from their taxes. Canadians pay $1.57 per person per year to support the Queen or just over $50 million per annum. It’s not a lot when you look at it like that, but it is when you consider that the British only pay $1.32 per person per year and they get to keep the crown jewels.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attacking the UK or the British people in any way. My mother was English, I started school there, and spent most of my childhood and some of my adult life in London. I have dual nationality and I still haven’t shaken my English accent. I’m proud of my heritage but I’m not proud of the Royal Family, who in my opinion have done precious little to distinguish themselves or justify their enormous wealth and privilege in this world.

I believe that the British monarchy has no future in Canada and that they should be replaced with a Canadian, democratically elected head of state, similar to the system that they have in France. This change should come about when the reign of the present Queen Elizabeth II comes to an end. In other words, when she’s brown bread.

I will finish with a quote from Paul Heinbecker. A prominent Canadian diplomat and policy advisor, taken from an article in ‘The Globe and Mail’.

“We should change the Oath of Citizenship to require new Canadians to swear allegiance not ‘to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors…’ but just to Canada, and to the Canadian Constitution and rule of law.”

Is this too much to ask? What do you think?

I’m not just looking for Canadian responses here but from all over the world. The USA, UK, Australia, France, and Scandinavia (I know that you also have Kings and Queens, it’s just that nobody knows who they are).

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Sign in to follow this  


23 Comments


Recommended Comments

My grandparents were English ... I'll think about this and be back with what i think. 

  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment

You have a point. I cannot say much except that a rather toothless head of state would be a fairly colorless cipher regardless of wherever the seat of power lies. But then, I've never had to take that oath, either. 

  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment

I always knew the Governor-General was appointed by the sovereign to veto any and all legislation not in the best interest of 'The Empire,' but I'm shocked to hear you say most Canadian's don't know that.... The Governor-General has unlimited power to act in the king or queen's name; it's not a ceremonial position at all, but a colonial one.

 

Also to learn that more Canadian tax dollars are siphoned off to pad the royal tax-free lifestyle than British pounds is sobering. No wonder Scotland wants out :)   

 

And lastly, your comments on Will not having the spunk reminds me of (I think a comment relayed by her butler) how Diana said openly she thought her eldest son was weak, and that Harry would make the better monarch.

 

Fascinating post. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 2

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 minutes ago, AC Benus said:

I always knew the Governor-General was appointed by the sovereign to veto any and all legislation not in the best interest of 'The Empire,' but I'm shocked to hear you say most Canadian's don't know that.... The Governor-General has unlimited power to act in the king or queen's name; it's not a ceremonial position at all, but a colonial one.

 

Also to learn that more Canadian tax dollars are siphoned off to pad the royal tax-free lifestyle than British pounds is sobering. No wonder Scotland wants out :)   

 

And lastly, your comments on Will not having the spunk reminds me of (I think a comment relayed by her butler) how Diana said openly she thought her eldest son was weak, and that Harry would make the better monarch.

 

Fascinating post. 

Thank you, AC, for your in-depth response. The figures that I've used have been well researched but it's only my personal belief that most Canadians don't know the powers of the Governor-General. Perhaps this is should be altered to 'don't care' about the Governor-General although I'm pretty sure that most people here wouldn't know who Julie Payette is. It would be interesting to do a survey if I had the time. Maybe Harry is better equipped than his brother but as interesting as this is, I think that I should keep away from this topic. :/ Thanks for reading and commenting.

  • Like 4

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, BlindAmbition said:

Dodger, You just made my day mate. You got a GIANT set of balls. Bravo! xoxo Yes, I agree.

Thank you, JP. I'm always glad to make someone's day, but they're not really THAT big! :rolleyes:

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

You do know there would be knock on effects - No more Royal Canadian Mounted Police, just plain old CMP! And what about British Columbia, you might have to rename it Canadian Columbia! Of course you would still get to walk backwards after an audience with Her Majesty, if she ever deigned to visit again after such a slight! I think she would probably tell Charles to go.

 

On the plus side you would get your country back, or most of it, because Quebec might take the opportunity to declare independence. You've already changed the flag to a Maple leaf so why not go the whole way, get rid of the Crown and save a few dollars in the process. You might regret the loss of title, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Canada and of Her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Then again maybe not!

 

I can hear Prince Philip now, telling Her Majesty over a nice cup of tea, whilst the corgis yap at their heels, "Who the bloody hell is this Dodger fellow? Send him to the bloody Tower. What a nerve!" To which she would in her indomitable fashion respond with a smile and a wave.

 

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
13 minutes ago, William King said:

You do know there would be knock on effects - No more Royal Canadian Mounted Police, just plain old CMP! And what about British Columbia, you might have to rename it Canadian Columbia! Of course you would still get to walk backwards after an audience with Her Majesty, if she ever deigned to visit again after such a slight! I think she would probably tell Charles to go.

 

On the plus side you would get your country back, or most of it, because Quebec might take the opportunity to declare independence. You've already changed the flag to a Maple leaf so why not go the whole way, get rid of the Crown and save a few dollars in the process. You might regret the loss of title, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Canada and of Her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Then again maybe not!

 

I can hear Prince Philip now, telling Her Majesty over a nice cup of tea, whilst the corgis yap at their heels, "Who the bloody hell is this Dodger fellow? Send him to the bloody Tower. What a nerve!" To which she would in her indomitable fashion respond with a smile and a wave.

 

Thanks for the comment William. Yes, I'm running the gauntlet here although I doubt if my discontent would rattle the well-defended Royals that much. I have actually already been locked in the Tower for real. I was working at The Tower of London a few years ago while living in London, and of course, we could only work at night when it was closed to the public. It was interesting and creepy as you would expect but that's another story.  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

You know, being me, i rather am drawn to all the tradition and ceremony, but i also am very aware of the waste and the cost to keep the Royals around. And William and Kate can say they are just ordinary folks all they like, but THAT is never going to happen. 

 

Should we have real independence? Yes i think we should. Canadians shouldn't pay for a royal family. I think both Canada and in the UK, the money we all pay could be put to much better use. 

 

Maybe Will and Kate could get jobs at Sears.... 

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Thanks, Tim, for taking the time to consider and comment, it was well worth the wait.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
Quote

I mean really, what groom carries a sword on their hip these days?

 

I can see you've never been to a military officer's wedding. :P

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, drpaladin said:

 

I can see you've never been to a military officer's wedding. :P

 

 

Yeah, I know. I don't mind all the pomp and ceremony so much but they do take themselves a little too seriously for my liking. Military officers included. He probably thought that he looked quite dashing with a sword and of course, there is a definite connection with the military but it makes them look dated and out of touch with reality and that's something that they can't afford to do. Thanks for participating.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
8 hours ago, Dodger said:

Thanks, Tim, for taking the time to consider and comment, it was well worth the wait.

LOL.. wasn't really i had to think that long, we had something important to do, you know that ordinary everyday thing...shopping for the week, and cleaning. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Well Dodger, I will wholeheartedly disagree with you :)

 

Tell you what, if you don't want to pay $1.57 out of your yearly earnings, I will happily contribute $3.14 to cover us both ;)

 

Canada, as a colony, a country is a Commonwealth Country with our official political and constitutional ties to the monarchy. I am proud of being a Canadian and my allegiance to the Queen as the reigning Sovereign of our Constitution.

 

I would challenge a couple of your statements...I would say the majority of Canadians do realize the Queen is the head of state in Canada. It is a mainly symbolic but enshrined part of our Constitution and history. Can you cite an episode where the Monarchy has overridden any legislation/constitutional change/etc from any country of the Commonwealth in Modern history? Maybe this is not known in the younger groups where they either not being taught, or they weren't paying attention to their own history. I was always very disappointed with the amount of Canadian History taught in Canadian schools. I learned more about the War of 1812 from American shows than what I learned in school :o .  I know more about George Washington than Sir John A McDonald.

 

Second, your stat. According to a major poll Last December, 53% of Canadians are in favour of abandoning the Queen as our sovereign. Not anywhere near your quoted 73%.

The fact that you quote the highest number as being in Quebec is absolutely no surprise at all, after all we are talking about the only Province/Territory in our Nation that still after 35 years (nearly 2 generations!) has never put pen to paper to sign on to the Constitution. I really wonder, eliminate these people that want all the benefits of Canadian Citizenship, but don't want to live by the rules, were eliminated from the poll, would the number reverse and the majority of people would be in favour of maintaining of the Queen as head of state? Let's face it, Quebec has always hated anything to due with Great Britain since they lost the war. Are we to be surprised?

 

Now, with the Queens ancestry, are you willing to allow someone to dig into the average Canadian's family's history to colonial days? Is it possible that someone in our families helped or profited from the mistreatment of the aboriginals by forcing them on reservations, stealing their children and placing them in indoctrinating Residential Schools? Or, did they stand by and just say 'oh well'. Don't get me wrong Dodger, I'm not saying that your family is part of this, just saying that your and my family have not had every member of our family documented, scrutinized and judged on current societal norms and ethics,  and have everything recorded in history books :)

 

To throw out the Monarchy, would open up the constitution and we still really haven't closed the last chapter since Quebec won't sign on.

 

I believe in our Constitution

I believe in our Monarchy

I believe in our Charter of Rights

I am Canadian :)

 

Now in appreciation of your opinion, which you are fully entitled to ;) I play my favourite anarchist band from across the pond :gikkle:

 

 

 

 

Still love you Dodger :hug:

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

I know Steve. I wasn't expecting everyone to agree with me. This is exactly what I wanted; a feverish debate and I was a little disappointed by how tame it was up until you joined the fray.

 

You make some good points though and I like the way you managed to squeeze the Quebecois into the argument.

 

The poll that I quoted was from 2015 and was correct but I wasn't aware of any polls from last year. I don't know how accurate these polls are after Brexit etc. but 53% would still be enough to put her out of a job over here.

 

I agree that we should teach more Canadian history in our schools and as far as I know, there has never been an episode where the monarch had overridden any legislation in Canada, but they have never had to because Canada like Australia has always towed the line. Let's face it Canadians shouldn't be paying anything at all to a foreign monarch and $50 million dollars a year can be put to better use. Don't be fooled, the Royal family are fabulously wealthy; they can easily support themselves without Canadian dollars but they're not in the habit of giving anything up voluntarily. I have a big problem having an unelected head of state and especially one that isn't even Canadian.

 

Canada is old enough now to look after itself. It doesn't need the UK to hold its hand anymore but I think sometimes that's how it looks. It's a little embarrassing because the British don't really see themselves as having much of a connection with Canada anymore, so it's totally one-sided.

 

Anyway, I guess the blog worked.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment
6 hours ago, wildone said:

Can you cite an episode where the Monarchy has overridden any legislation/constitutional change/etc from any country of the Commonwealth in Modern history?

 

Of course there is no case of the Monarch overriding legislation or constitutional change (ignoring Juan Carlos the King of Spain publically condeming the movement in Catalonia to achieve independence) either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. To do so would result in parliament revoking the Queen as head of state and de facto becoming a Republic. No member of the Royal Family is supposed to publicly espouse any political view whatsoever, in order to remain a non-political head of state and head of the Commonwealth. The Queen for the first time in her reign broke that protocol when she voiced her opinion about the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. That was brushed over!

 

It is true that a constitutional monarchy lends a certain stability to the country although I don't see other European countries being unstable because they do not have a monarch as head of state. There has always been the argument vis a vis tourism, but dispensing with the Queen as head of state does not equal doing away with the entire Royal heritage.

 

The argument is rather one revolving around wether having a non elected person symbolicly ruling the country is something we want in the 21st century. One should bear in mind the archaic tradition of swearing allegiance to this monarch rather than to your country and fellow citizen. One should also consider that in the United Kingdom everything belongs to the monarchy, it is the Queen's highway, the Royal Mail, and she is the commander in chief of the police and armed forces. The consequence of this for example is that British citizens do not have a right in law to occupy the streets because those streets are the Queen's and this may be used by the police to remove citizens from those streets. In effect without being aware the ordinary citizen lives under the Royal command. You may like that, I do not. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this comment


Link to comment
19 hours ago, William King said:

 

The argument is rather one revolving around wether having a non elected person symbolicly ruling the country is something we want in the 21st century. One should bear in mind the archaic tradition of swearing allegiance to this monarch rather than to your country and fellow citizen. One should also consider that in the United Kingdom everything belongs to the monarchy, it is the Queen's highway, the Royal Mail, and she is the commander in chief of the police and armed forces. The consequence of this for example is that British citizens do not have a right in law to occupy the streets because those streets are the Queen's and this may be used by the police to remove citizens from those streets. In effect without being aware the ordinary citizen lives under the Royal command. You may like that, I do not

 

The monarchy is not a boogey man hiding waiting to take away your rights. The fact that you bring up the streets is not very good to argue against the Queen's rule. When was the last time that the Queen banned assembly on the streets? I think you will find the United States and France and most other non monarchies have far more curfews and wide sweeping restrictions on their citizens by their elected and non-elected (police) than England or Canada. In fact, in Queen's home country, it isn't the Queen restricting large swaths of land from teens from being out past 9PM, it is local governments and councils. This is elected officials.

 

Curfews are always being instituted in the US restricting citizens from assembling on the streets, by police and government. Mostly elected officials are the ones restricting everyone rights, not a sovereign.

 

Here in Canada, 89% of land is crown land (41% federal and 48% provincial). Here is where I say I can't fit into a two party system of the US :P My conservative side says the monarchy is great and if it isn't broke, why get rid of it. The liberal side of me says I would much much much rather the majority of land in Canada under government control, aka, the Crown. Once again, the Queen isn't going to tell Canada to stop the Oilsands in Northern Alberta which are leased from the Crown, or tell us that we can't do something with a National Parks land (not that we would). The last incident I can think of restrictions of Canadian Citizens on freedom of movement on a general basis, please don't bring up the G8 Conference in Toronto as it was a closed area ahead of time, was the institution of Martial Law under the War Measures Act for the FLQ crisis back when Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister. Once again, an elected official, not the Queen.

 

The Queen and the monarchy isn't hurting Canada, so why the hate for them? It has provided us with 150 years of stable government and sound judgement and checks and balances that all seem to work. Is there reasons to improve our government; senate, election boundaries and rules, etc, yes but why throw out our great system just because some people are afraid of symbolic head of state, which in reality is more safe than any elected official. Remember, look at the last 100 years, not the previous 2000.

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

I had wished that William was gay, and that after we met, I would end up being his Prince. I guess there is still hope for Harry.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this comment


Link to comment
9 hours ago, BHopper2 said:

I had wished that William was gay, and that after we met, I would end up being his Prince. I guess there is still hope for Harry.

Harry's out of the picture now that William and Kate have children. Their firstborn, George is now third in line to the throne and his daughter Charlotte, is fourth, pushing hapless Harry back two places into fifth. It's just like the Wacky Races really but with a bit more to play for.

Edited by Dodger
  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Harry is still a prince and always will be :).

 

Prince BHopper2 has a nice ring to it :joe:

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Dodger said:

IHarry's out of the picture now that William and Kate have children. Their firstborn, George is now third in line to the throne and his daughter Charlotte, is fourth, pushing hapless Harry back two places into fifth. It's just like the Wacky Races really but with a bit more to play for.

 

22 minutes ago, wildone said:

Harry is still a prince and always will be :).

 

Prince BHopper2 has a nice ring to it :joe:

Yeah, I don't care about the throne, just the title, and Harry is kinda hot, in my opinion. Though, I would have to renounce my USA citizenship, to be Prince. It's kind of illegal for us to get one. LOL

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

I might come back to actually share my opinion of the monarchy, specially the British one. But if I might just add this piece of information, from someone that comes form a semi-presidentialist country but where the president doesn't have governing power (just the "atomic bomb" ones, dissolve and call Parliament elections; declare "war and peace" as the commander-in-chief" of Armed forces), in economic terms, some of these presidential regimes spend more money/per capita than the British monarchy (not the same absolute value, but considering that for instance Portugal has around 10 million people, and the Queen is the head of state to hundreds of millions)...

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..