The Canadian Monarchy

felltoearth · **#21** by **felltoearth** » Jun 02, 2018 7:25 pm

The Governor General of Canada (French: Gouverneure générale du Canada[n 1]) is the federal viceregal representative of the Canadian monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II.

felltoearth · **#22** by **felltoearth** » Jun 02, 2018 7:28 pm

Macdoc wrote:What a crock. She's an appointed Canadian, chosen by the the Canadian PM dealing with Canadian affairs.....period ....she has ZILCH to do with the queen beyond a rubber stamp. The role in no way interferes in our autonomy.

The GG's consent is required to prorogue Parliament.

jamest · **#23** by **jamest** » Jun 02, 2018 8:09 pm

At the risk of causing a riot, I imagine that French Canadians are pissed off with all this more than anyone?

felltoearth · **#24** by **felltoearth** » Jun 02, 2018 9:31 pm

jamest wrote:At the risk of causing a riot, I imagine that French Canadians are pissed off with all this more than anyone?

While Separatism is always there, there really isn't the appetite for it there once was.

Rachel Bronwyn · **#25** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Jun 02, 2018 10:02 pm

If the Royal Family didn't take so much of our money, I wouldn't care as they don't interfere with our governing. They don't generate income for us though. I don't know what it is they do to warrant our financial support, espescially to the tune of $40+ million CAD a year.

Meanwhile, I enjoy $100,000 CAD debt from getting my MSc without Mommy and Daddy (or anyone) helping despite the fact I worked for the duration and recieved scholarships to lessen my debt. We can afford to spend money on a family of unemployed people who don't live here or contribute to our economy but we can't cover the cost of our own resident citizens getting educations so they can be productive members of this society?

Seriously, that money could have been invested in hospital equipment or environmental cleanup efforts or foster care. $43 million CAD to fund the British Royal Family in one year though. It's pretty sick.

Or, holy shit, my high school. It was a crumbling mass of asbestos when I graduated over a decade ago. IT STILL IS. The building hasn't recieved any upgrades (though it needs to be demolished and rebuilt, not upgraded.) Not affordable though. We have to prioritise. Canadian kids can keep attending schools crumbling around them but, my god, the British Monarchy won't go without our financial support!

jamest · **#26** by **jamest** » Jun 02, 2018 10:35 pm

It's difficult for me to comprehend, but having read a brief history of the complex origins of Canada just today I'm guessing that this is a national identity issue, as opposed to the cost issue. I mean $43 million CAD (about £25+ million UK) is a lot in terms of isolated/individual financial concerns, but it's peanuts in terms of government expenditure for a country like Canada over a year.

I even wonder whether getting rid of the monarchy might actually threaten the existing unity of Canada, regards separatism? Just chewing the fat.

Macdoc · **#27** by **Macdoc** » Jun 03, 2018 12:16 am

$43 million CAD to fund the British Royal Family in one year though. It's pretty sick.

repeating nonsense doesn't make it true. :roll:

but I suppose it was a good reason for a rant. :coffee:

•••

Quebec doesn't like the Brits....they don't even operate under British Common Law as the rest of the country does....France is a republic so they might feel some kinship.....seperation not on the table ..not enough pur laine left.

jamest · **#28** by **jamest** » Jun 03, 2018 12:50 am

Macdoc wrote:
Quebec doesn't like the Brits....they don't even operate under British Common Law as the rest of the country does....France is a republic so they might feel some kinship.....seperation not on the table ..not enough pur laine left.

Get rid of the monarchy and the French contingent would surely use that to seek independence at some point soon after. Why wouldn't they, feeling themselves to have a different identity to most of you? That's a question, not a prophesy.

Afaict from the conversation here Canadians don't want to have the monarchy because it will save the Canadian government about £25+ million pounds per year. How insignificant is that if it comes at the cost of your nation itself? Do you think, for instance, that the resurrection of a 'New France' will cost a smaller Canada more than £25+ million a year?

I'm just an observer here trying to learn something about a place I'm going to visit for several days, and although I was initially baffled by why places like Canada still uphold the British monarch as their own, I'm beginning to understand why, I think:

For the sake of stable unity. Notwithstanding the fact that ultimately it's also the best financial option.

Rachel Bronwyn · **#29** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Jun 03, 2018 6:43 am

I'm pretty sure it's because most people just don't think about it and it's a familiar convention. Aside from the Queen's head on our money, the British Monarchy just isn't present in the daily life of Canadians. When they are, it seems benign. They're just smiling unemployed people who reproduce and parade around the globe. They're not starting fires.

It's when you actually do the math that you realise we're being taken for a goddamn ride by a bunch of people who don't need our financial support. Meanwhile, a lot of Canadians who are contributing members in Canadian society struggle terribly financially. We have MASSIVE financial inadequacy all over but we prioritise hosting Kate and Will over schools and hospitals.

Most of Quebec wants more sovereignty within Canada. Only about 1/4 of Quebec is seperatist. Dumping the British monarchy wouldn't result in Quebec leaving. Too few of them want to.

Fallible · **#30** by **Fallible** » Jun 03, 2018 1:05 pm

laklak wrote:You could retain your current parliamentary system of government and just get rid of the chinless wonders. But I'm coming at it from a 'Murikan perspective - We bow to no kings!

No kings, just a flag.

Fallible · **#31** by **Fallible** » Jun 03, 2018 1:17 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:If the Royal Family didn't take so much of our money, I wouldn't care as they don't interfere with our governing. They don't generate income for us though. I don't know what it is they do to warrant our financial support, espescially to the tune of $40+ million CAD a year.

Meanwhile, I enjoy $100,000 CAD debt from getting my MSc without Mommy and Daddy (or anyone) helping despite the fact I worked for the duration and recieved scholarships to lessen my debt. We can afford to spend money on a family of unemployed people who don't live here or contribute to our economy but we can't cover the cost of our own resident citizens getting educations so they can be productive members of this society?

Seriously, that money could have been invested in hospital equipment or environmental cleanup efforts or foster care. $43 million CAD to fund the British Royal Family in one year though. It's pretty sick.

Or, holy shit, my high school. It was a crumbling mass of asbestos when I graduated over a decade ago. IT STILL IS. The building hasn't recieved any upgrades (though it needs to be demolished and rebuilt, not upgraded.) Not affordable though. We have to prioritise. Canadian kids can keep attending schools crumbling around them but, my god, the British Monarchy won't go without our financial support!

I'm a republican and want them gone, but let's not be silly. They're not unemployed. The two main ones are now pensioners, and up util recently they were both pensioners who worked. Do I think we need them opening such a thing and visiting Burkina Faso and so on? Nope. Do they just sit around all day doing nowt? Nope. The woman's - what - 90 or something? The sheer mind melt from having to sit through countless renditions of 'God Save the Queen' requires some compensation as far as I'm concerned. I mean yeah she could stop all that tomorrow by abdicating, but you know. Apparently she considers it her duty.

You couldn't pay me enough to be a member of the royal family, living my life in a gilded cage, and a gilded cage on view to the general public, with the real possibility that my scalp could be taken at any time because of the value of it to whoever managed it. I wouldn't be able to nip to the shops whenever I wanted. I couldn't just decide to go for a walk. All the money in the world can't compensate for loss of freedom. Should anyone pay for them? Nope. But they're not unemployed.

zoon · **#32** by **zoon** » Jun 03, 2018 3:33 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:If the Royal Family didn't take so much of our money, I wouldn't care as they don't interfere with our governing. They don't generate income for us though. I don't know what it is they do to warrant our financial support, espescially to the tune of $40+ million CAD a year.

Meanwhile, I enjoy $100,000 CAD debt from getting my MSc without Mommy and Daddy (or anyone) helping despite the fact I worked for the duration and recieved scholarships to lessen my debt. We can afford to spend money on a family of unemployed people who don't live here or contribute to our economy but we can't cover the cost of our own resident citizens getting educations so they can be productive members of this society?

Seriously, that money could have been invested in hospital equipment or environmental cleanup efforts or foster care. $43 million CAD to fund the British Royal Family in one year though. It's pretty sick.

Or, holy shit, my high school. It was a crumbling mass of asbestos when I graduated over a decade ago. IT STILL IS. The building hasn't recieved any upgrades (though it needs to be demolished and rebuilt, not upgraded.) Not affordable though. We have to prioritise. Canadian kids can keep attending schools crumbling around them but, my god, the British Monarchy won't go without our financial support!

I strongly agree with you that there's no earthly reason why Canadian taxpayers should fund the British monarchy to the tune of 40 million Canadian dollars, but as far as I can tell that 40 million isn't going to the Royal Family, or even out of Canada, it's almost all the expenses of the Governor General and the 10 lieutenant-governors of the provinces. An admittedly pro-monarchy piece about the monarchy in New Zealand here says that the monarchy costs New Zealanders about the same per head per year as for Canadians (approximately 1 dollar), and that none of this goes to the Royal Family except for the cost of visits to New Zealand:

The New Zealand taxpayer contributes nothing to the personal expenses of the Queen, or any member of the Royal Family, nor towards the costs of the royal household and residences in the United Kingdom. In fact, the monarchy involves only a small outlay for royal engagements and tours in this country, and the modest expenses of the Governor-General’s establishment. This figure is about one dollar per person per year.

I don't know why the Governor General is receiving so much for a largely ceremonial role. It's a Canadian decision. The Lords Lieutenant who represent the Queen in the British counties get peanuts, they certainly don't get official residencies, and I can't imagine the Queen or the UK government would object if Canada had a similar system. If Canada's head of state was not the Queen, would the Canadian government still feel there was a need for a President with a suitably impressive, and expensive, place to host international visits?

Macdoc · **#33** by **Macdoc** » Jun 03, 2018 4:13 pm

To answer your last question I don't like a head of state that is also the PM.

I like to see the GG as an roaming ambassador without a political agenda. Much of the spending on "pomp and circumstance, welcoming world leaders etc would be spend anyways as someone has to play host.

On the provincial level do you really want the likes of Doug Ford in the role

Matt_B · **#34** by **Matt_B** » Jun 05, 2018 6:16 am

Fallible wrote:
laklak wrote:You could retain your current parliamentary system of government and just get rid of the chinless wonders. But I'm coming at it from a 'Murikan perspective - We bow to no kings!

No kings, just a flag.

It has to be said that it's considerably easier to drag a flag out into the street and burn it.

Hermit · **#35** by **Hermit** » Jun 05, 2018 8:19 am

Matt_B wrote:
Fallible wrote:
laklak wrote:You could retain your current parliamentary system of government and just get rid of the chinless wonders. But I'm coming at it from a 'Murikan perspective - We bow to no kings!

No kings, just a flag.

It has to be said that it's considerably easier to drag a flag out into the street and burn it.

Last time there would have been a need to drag someone out into the street in Australia, it would have been Fraser, Barwick and Kerr. The Queen was probably unaware of what had been done in her name until it was all done and dusted. The reserve powers have been clipped as a result.

I'd prefer an Australian republic over our nominal monarchy any day, but not having one yet has not and will not cause me any loss of sleep. We have plenty of bigger problems than that.

Fallible · **#36** by **Fallible** » Jun 05, 2018 8:54 am

Matt_B wrote:
Fallible wrote:
laklak wrote:You could retain your current parliamentary system of government and just get rid of the chinless wonders. But I'm coming at it from a 'Murikan perspective - We bow to no kings!

No kings, just a flag.

It has to be said that it's considerably easier to drag a flag out into the street and burn it.

The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Re: The Canadian Monarchy

Who is online