Fighting the monarchy after taking the oath

[keesio]

Emotions and hurt... all this probably not intended.

I wonder this is an issue or a non issue just coz not all Canadians (born in Canada), still a majority (surprisingly!),
don't care a hoot about the oath or what it actually means. They don't have to swear by it. Neither do they have a
"pledge of allegiance" as in the US. And, yes, the oath doesn't really affect anybody's everyday life anyway.
This will continue to remain a non issue for most people as long as it is only the new Canadians who are made to
swear and just once in their life... so let's just leave it at that.

I'd say that 40% of Canadians don't give a crap either way (including most immigrants), 40% are proud of the connection to the Monarchy, and 20% dislike it. The 40% that like it usually like it because, besides the history, it differentiates Canada from the US and associates Canada with something "bigger". I did know one woman that likes the connection simply because she likes the concepts of royalty and princes and princesses (she loves Disney even as an adult).

 

[newcanuck15]

Suppose the Governor-General was removed from the scene, for example -- how would that change behaviour? Right now, there is a person with symbolic stature, and minimal, but real, powers, that the Prime Minister answers to (sometimes). Remove that, and how does the political culture change? I thought the articles about the role of the GG in cases of a minority parliament were very interesting.

Agreed. But that need not change to become a republic like Ireland, India, Germany, etc. The republican movements in Canada, as well as Australia and New Zealand, all advocate making the Governor General the official head of state. Right now, the GG is only the de-facto head of state, meaning he or she does all the work that a parliamentary president does, yet it's still the Queen who carries the official title of head of state.

 

[newcanuck15]

I'd say that 40% of Canadians don't give a crap either way (including most immigrants), 40% are proud of the connection to the Monarchy, and 20% dislike it.

Actually, while it fluctuates year to year, a more accurate figure would be 40% abolish, 30% keep, 30% couldn't care less.

This is particularly telling:

"A poll by Ipsos-Reid, also in June 2010, found that the majority two-in-three Canadians agree the royal family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, and reported growing sentiment that Elizabeth II should be Canada's last monarch. The majority 58% of Canadians want Canada to end ties to monarchy when Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends, and the majority 62% of Canadians believe that Canada's head of state should be the Governor General, not the Queen."

 

[keesio]

Actually, while it fluctuates year to year, a more accurate figure would be 40% abolish, 30% keep, 30% couldn't care less.

This is particularly telling:

"A poll by Ipsos-Reid, also in June 2010, found that the majority two-in-three Canadians agree the royal family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, and reported growing sentiment that Elizabeth II should be Canada's last monarch. The majority 58% of Canadians want Canada to end ties to monarchy when Queen Elizabeth II's reign ends, and the majority 62% of Canadians believe that Canada's head of state should be the Governor General, not the Queen."

The sentiment has changed quite a bit since the summer of 2010. Prince William got married and Will + Kate is very popular. Majority of Canadians wouldn't mind have them as King and Queen. Charles + Camilla is not popular. People don't want Charles + Camilla.

 

[Bigudi]

Well... you lied in order to take advantage of a system to acquire to yourself the grant of a privilege.
I would say this is a clear fraud. Definitely denotes a character deviation and a twisted moral and ethics.
But legally? I'd say legally you will be fine.

 

[newcanuck15]

The sentiment has changed quite a bit since the summer of 2010. Prince William got married and Will + Kate is very popular. Majority of Canadians wouldn't mind have them as King and Queen. Charles + Camilla is not popular. People don't want Charles + Camilla.

Hmm, classic "straw man" argument there. That is quite beside the point. William isn't about to become Canada's next head of state at all, and he won't be for many decades. We first have to have Charles.

Besides, you yourself just demonstrated a belief in the democratic principle of "preference" or "choice," the foundation of the republican movement. In reality, our preference for one royal over another means absolutely nothing. On the other hand, a principle of monarchy is that we get the next person in line whether we want them or not, regardless of their qualifications or suitability for the job.

This is one of many reasons why Canada will become a parliamentary republic (essentially the same as now but only with the GG as official head of state) within 15 years.

 

[keesio]

Hmm, classic "straw man" argument there. That is quite beside the point. William isn't about to become Canada's next head of state at all, and he won't be for many decades. We first have to have Charles.

Besides, you yourself just demonstrated a belief in the democratic principle of "preference" or "choice," the foundation of the republican movement. In reality, our preference for one royal over another means absolutely nothing. On the other hand, a principle of monarchy is that we get the next person in line whether we want them or not, regardless of their qualifications or suitability for the job.

This is one of many reasons why Canada will become a parliamentary republic (essentially the same as now but only with the GG as official head of state) within 15 years.

I've already commented on this in the past on how it is foolish that Canadians (or anyone in general) think they can dictate to the Crown that they wish Charles bypassed in favor of William. They will stick to tradition. What I was commenting on here was the overall popularity of the Monarchy and how that has changed with Will+Kate (and their kids).

 

[newcanuck15]

Well... you lied in order to take advantage of a system to acquire to yourself the grant of a privilege.
I would say this is a clear fraud. Definitely denotes a character deviation and a twisted moral and ethics.
But legally? I'd say legally you will be fine.

I see it the other way. The government is forcing people to compromise their values of equality and democracy to support a system they don't believe in. I would even go so far as to call it extortion; declare your support for an elitist, undemocratic family (who aren't even Canadian, ironically), or we won't grant you citizenship.

Another irony is that the bulk of those who defend forcing immigrants to declare fealty to the monarchy are native-born Canadians who can go through their entire life without having to go through it. If every Canadian had to swear allegiance to the queen and all her descendants (which is what is required for citizenship) when they renewed their driver's license or got married, I guarantee it would be scrapped.

Australia eliminated the reference to the queen in their citizenship oath way back in the early nineties. I see no logical reason why Canada can't do the same.

 

[newcanuck15]

What I was commenting on here was the overall popularity of the Monarchy and how that has changed with Will+Kate (and their kids).

It's not the monarchy that's popular, it's the celebrity status of Will and Kate, who on any given week, have their faces plastered over every entertainment magazine, gossip rag or supermarket tabloid in the world. So sure, there's appeal for them, but roughly on par with that in the US or Germany or any other place, republics included.

Opinion polls repeatedly back this up (Google 'monarchy opinion polls canada' if you like), but for proof, compare their appeal to that of the umm ... less attractive and glamorous ... Charles and Camilla.

It never fails to amaze me that people use the popularity of William, who isn't even next in line, as proof that the monarchy is popular, yet the unpopularity of Charles, who is next in line, is no indication of its unpopularity.

 

[nope]

The Royal family is Canadian.

It's weird how this entire thread is about your outrage at having to lie, in order to join a country whose political system outrages you.

 

[keesio]

It's not the monarchy that's popular, it's the celebrity status of Will and Kate, who on any given week, have their faces plastered over every entertainment magazine, gossip rag or supermarket tabloid in the world. So sure, there's appeal for them, but roughly on par with that in the US or Germany or any other place, republics included.

Opinion polls repeatedly back this up (Google 'monarchy opinion polls canada' if you like), but for proof, compare their appeal to that of the umm ... less attractive and glamorous ... Charles and Camilla.

It never fails to amaze me that people use the popularity of William, who isn't even next in line, as proof that the monarchy is popular, yet the unpopularity of Charles, who is next in line, is no indication of its unpopularity.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/prince-george-boosts-popularity-of-the-monarchy-in-canada-provided-charles-isnt-king-poll

 

[newcanuck15]

The Royal family is Canadian.

It's weird how this entire thread is about your outrage at having to lie, in order to join a country whose political system outrages you.

The royal family is Canadian? If you really believe that, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to convince those of us who are Canadian, because I guarantee that if the public was polled, 100 percent would disagree.

Hell, I was born in the UK, and I can assure you that the majority of Brits would be surprised that the royals are Canadian, too!

Settle this now. Show me a legal document that says they're Canadian. Or direct me where to search and I promise I'll read it. They were born in the UK, live in the UK, and all of them combined can't claim enough time here to match citizenship residency. To me that says they're British.

And I suggest you brush up on your political science. Monarchy is a system of government, not a political system. There's a big difference. Ditching the monarchy wouldn't change our political system at all. We'd still be a parliamentary democracy. A better one.

 

[newcanuck15]

Thanks. that link proves my point.

 

[nope]

The royal family is Canadian? If you really believe that, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to convince those of us who are Canadian, because I guarantee that if the public was polled, 100 percent would disagree.

Hell, I was born in the UK, and I can assure you that the majority of Brits would be surprised that the royals are Canadian, too!

Settle this now. Show me a legal document that says they're Canadian. Or direct me where to search and I promise I'll read it. They were born in the UK, live in the UK, and all of them combined can't claim enough time here to match citizenship residency. To me that says they're British.

And I suggest you brush up on your political science. Monarchy is a system of government, not a political system. There's a big difference. Ditching the monarchy wouldn't change our political system at all. We'd still be a parliamentary democracy. A better one.

You seem to have a very high opinion of the public's opinion. Alternately, you could ask them the following questions: 'Does Queen Elizabeth need a passport or a visa to come to Canada? Could she be turned away at the border?" I guarantee you that 100% would say 'No' -- which means they understand that she is a citizen. Only citizens, or those on the path to becoming a citizen, have the right to enter a country.

I suggest you brush up on your logic. This whole thread started with your congratulating yourself that even though you swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, you secretly don't like her. Do you think it is possible that the person you swore to uphold as a Canadian lacks the status of Canadian citizen? The literal meaning of the Queen is that she embodies Canada. She is more Canadian than you are.

Here is a link that supports that: http://canadiancrown.gc.ca/eng/1396039196290#a1

 

[screech339]

The royal family is Canadian? If you really believe that, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to convince those of us who are Canadian, because I guarantee that if the public was polled, 100 percent would disagree.

Hell, I was born in the UK, and I can assure you that the majority of Brits would be surprised that the royals are Canadian, too!

Settle this now. Show me a legal document that says they're Canadian. Or direct me where to search and I promise I'll read it. They were born in the UK, live in the UK, and all of them combined can't claim enough time here to match citizenship residency. To me that says they're British.

And I suggest you brush up on your political science. Monarchy is a system of government, not a political system. There's a big difference. Ditching the monarchy wouldn't change our political system at all. We'd still be a parliamentary democracy. A better one.

You may want to brush up on Royal Standards of Canada: The Queen of Canada, Prince of Wales (Prince Charles); Duke of Cambridge (Prince Williams); Duke of Cambridge (Princess Anne); Duke of York (Prince Andrew) and Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward).

The Queen and her Royal Family are considered to be Canadian Royal Family from Canada's perspective. Not the same as British Royal Family. Canadian Royal Family is a group of people related directly to the Monarch of Canada, such as the House of Windsor. Most British and Canadian Royal Family are the same people but not all of them, thus there is a distinction between the two. Actually there are 5 Canadian citizens in the Royal Family. Prince Charles, Prince Williams, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, all direct descendent of the Queen of Canada.

Note that the spouses of the Canadian Royal Family not have Canadian citizenship, such as Prince Philip and Princess Diana, and Princess Camilla.