After Elizabeth II passes should the new monarch still represent Canada?

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (38 posts)
  1. ironicstar profile image60
    ironicstarposted 9 years ago

    After Elizabeth II passes should the new monarch still represent Canada?

    Do you feel that the ruler of England should be removed as a figure head of Canada after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II? Should Canada finally break free from England in this matter?

  2. profile image0
    Sri Tposted 9 years ago

    They should let them do whatever they want because it is an illusion. It is mass hypnosis. They have no power. The illusion exists through mere suggestion. It is born out of their low self worth. All kings, queens, dictators and presidents want power over others because they feel inferior on a deeper level. They are the same as everybody. They eat, sleep and fill up their time on earth with activities like everyone else. The only difference is their strong desire for the illusion of superiority and attention from others. If nobody buys into it, who are they?

    1. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'm asking this as a Canadian citizen. They have no real power on Canada and I want to know if people (mostly our citizens but others too) believe we should keep their name on the building out of respect, so to speak.

    2. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Sri T, are you saying that just because a person is born into the position, say, of King or Queen, that they are unlikely to have a very deep sense of duty and commitment to do their job honestly and without favour?   That would be very presumptuous.

    3. profile image0
      Sri Tposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      jonnycomelately, it is like the mystic Neville said, "bloodlines are for horses". If you want to bow down to such nonsense that is your choice. If you look at the situation objectively, the appearance will change. Understand the motives.

    4. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Sri T, I think you miss the point. Queen Elizabeth II has shown in the past a deep senzse of duty and commitment to being the figure head for Britain that she is. The Question is whether Canada would best be served by someone purely Canadian.

  3. profile image0
    jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years ago

    In my opinion, the first question to ask is "Why?"

    There needs to be educated, mature, well-informed discussion.   As in the case of Australia, which is in a similar (but with probably different legal ramifications) to Canada, there are historical considerations; important legal and constitutional principles to work through; and the will of Parliament to make the determinations.

    Although there are many people in Australia who are well informed enough to offer valid opinions on this matter, most of us, yours truly included,  do not have that depth of knowledge which would allow us to give reasonable opinions.

    Emotive stuff, like "We want an Australian/Canadian as Head of State," is not a sound basis for making the sweeping changes which will need to happen before the Monarch of the United Kingdom is dropped from each country's constitution.

    Also, remember that, at least in the case of Australia, we have a very stable system of government, even though it is not perfect.   Don't let's "throw the baby out with the bathwater."   Let's have a concerted effort at educating the general public, over a protracted period (say 5 years), showing clearly, and impartially, all sides of the arguments.

    1. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would like to put forward that I have no actual opinion on this matter either way, which is why I ask. I think it's a very interesting question. Canada makes all of their own decisions, and we basically only have them as a figure head.

    2. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There was one high level debate some years ago about forming an Australian republic. Like most Australians I voted against taking the first step toward a republic because I did not like the poilitics of those who were chiefly pushing for it.

  4. Seeker7 profile image85
    Seeker7posted 9 years ago

    Being a Scot my own feeling is that the Canadian people need to decide this for themselves. I think there could be pro's and con's for Canada, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to go much further. I guess it really depends on how much and how many of the Canadian people would still like to have this link with England perhaps even only for nostalgia sake or if people genuinely feel there is more benefit than gain. Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to go any further and the Canadian people are the ones who have the answers to these questions.

    If Scotland, my own country, votes for independance, then personally it wouldn't bother me that much about the Royal problem, really because Scotland would have more serious things to worry about. But having said this, I certainly don't think the present monarchy and their predecessors are the rightful monarchy of Scotland anyway. As far as I'm concerned this still belongs to the Stewarts. Other countries may also feel they want their own 'home-grown' figure head. So I do have an understanding of why other countries would not want the Royal connection to continue either.

    1. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Britain has no actual power over Canada - it is merely a traditional position of respect. Which is why the question raises if there is a point once the Queen passes along, or if we should go our own way and reform politically for a more modern take.

    2. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There are plenty of people of Scottish descent living in Canada. In the past the RCMP was full of people of Scottish descent. So Scotland and Canada have that in common.

    3. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Rod I don't think you understand. Elizabeth does not have any control over Canada, it is merely for looks. Which is why I'm wondering if there's even a point after she's gone as it is only out of respect. Our PM makes all decisions already.

    4. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The Queen doesn't have any real power over the English, does she?  Isn't she just a figurehead there as well?  The question in my mind, does Canada derive any benefit from its Commonwealth status.  Also, does that status prevent your choice of gov't?

    5. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think we're saying we'd break free completely, although some Canadians may want to, I'm just asking if people want to keep her as the figure head. I don't care either way.

    6. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I understand, ironicstar. Elizabeth doesn't have any real control over Australia, either. We too have a PM. Elizabeth doesn't even have any real control over Britain. Whether you want her as a figurehead or not is the question.

    7. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No, it's not the question. The question is - once Elizabeth is dead should we keep the new monarch as our figurehead. As we mostly kept the status as a respect for Elizabeth. My question is after her death, not now.

    8. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Same difference to me ironicstar.

  5. Maya Pillai profile image37
    Maya Pillaiposted 9 years ago

    No, Canada should break free from England and be a republic Nation. England is no longer a super power.Therefore, after Queen of England passes away, the new monarch should allow Canada to break free from England. Remember, India was once an English Colony. However, in 1947 we attained our Independence but we do not have decorative title of being under the English crown.

    1. profile image0
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "...monarch should allow..."  Queen Elizabeth is putting up no barriers in relation to Australia nor, I suspect, Canada.  She rules through Parliament..... the people decide ultimately.

    2. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree this isn't a decision of whether the monarch will allow it, this is a decision on Canada's part.

    3. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The royal family hasn't had any real power for a very long time. The last time power was exercised in Australia by the queen's chief representative, the Governor-general, was in the 1970s against Prime Minister Whitlam.

  6. Bustani13 profile image60
    Bustani13posted 9 years ago

    I don't think so. The world has moved on and my view is that the monarchy has been overtaken by events. The people of Canada should be left to choose their own leaders.

  7. Rod Marsden profile image67
    Rod Marsdenposted 9 years ago

    I don't know about Canada. Leaving the British monarchy to figuratively rule over Britain alone sounds like the right thing to do. Meanwhile Australians will be asking the same question when it comes to Australia. Do Australians need the connection with Britain and the British royal family they have at present? I think for both Canada and Australia there will eventually be change.

    1. profile image0
      Sri Tposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I look at the whole world objectively. At the core level of existence. If you do, the question answers itself.

    2. Rod Marsden profile image67
      Rod Marsdenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      How best to form a republic is the real question, Sri T. Until those who want to make changes in Australia take my interests into consideration let things remain the way they are. No doubt there are Canadians who feel the same.

  8. Ken Burgess profile image85
    Ken Burgessposted 9 years ago

    Would there be any real benefit to doing so?

    1. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It depends, since it is a matter of respect - would you respect the new leader as the face of Canada? If you're a citizen. It's just an interesting topic.

  9. point2make profile image60
    point2makeposted 9 years ago

    I think that Queen Elizabeth II will be the last Monarch that Canada has. The Monarchy has become much less relevant in the lives of Canadians and it's time has probably come. Not sure how the Constitution will handle the change but I still think change is coming

  10. GwennyOh profile image92
    GwennyOhposted 9 years ago

    I have dual citizenship for England, which is my homeland, and Canada where I now live.  I believe that much of what the figurehead Monarchy represents to Canada, likely costs us more than any benefit we receive.  It is likely that most of the cost is tied up in her visiting here from time to time. 

    That said, why has the connection been in existence so long?  Because Canadians get something from the tie-in with the Monarchy and all that it represents.  In the past, I would have been a bit more behind letting it go, but it doesn't do any harm.  And for me, it's a great way to remember a wonderful spirit - the now passed Diana... nowadays when the Monarchy comes to thought, it is her life that is brought to mind.

  11. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 9 years ago

    Beyond my comment to another comment, I agree with Seeker.  As I understand it, the arrangement with Britain is a Commonwealth of independent states, exactly form our American forefathers tried to talk the King into in 1775; he didn't like the idea then though, so Parliment decided to bring the hammer down.  That rarely works either.

    As I asked in my comment, does belonging the the Commonwealth with Britain and the other nations of the Commonwealth provide Canada and it other members with any sort of advantage(s) that might outweigh its real and nationalistic disadvantages.

    We had, and still have the same problem in the States.  The initial Confederation was a disaster, we might not as well as had a central gov't then.  Once the Constitution sqeaked by in ratification, it has been a fight, once literally, to hold the States together for the benefit of the whole.  We are still fighting seperatation sentiments today.

    I have always wondered what the land below your borders would have looked like if the 55 men in Philadelphia had failed with their radical Constitution.  My guess is a unified set of States directly below your Southeast border, a South Africa-of old group of automous states below them.  Russia, where Alaska is, or maybe Canadian; Mexico to your Southwest although you might have acquired Washington, Oregon, Montana and so on.  No telling what would have happened to the Mississippi River states after France fell; it depends on how far West the United States of New England could have pushed.  I don't think the South could have done much expansion because they wouldn't be able to agree to work under a central gov't of their own, either, Jefferson Davis had massive control problems during the Civil War.

    I wonder how much Canada would have liked this scenario?  We wouldn't have invaded you in 1812, for sure.

    1. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's not really about this at all, it's only about keeping an archaic figure-head type relationship once the respectable monarch has passed.

  12. profile image0
    Ghaelachposted 9 years ago

    Apart from Sri T, I can understand the feelings the other  hubbers as their countries had/have an involvement with the England. Scotland have maybe the biggest gripe with the English over Mary Stewart, but that's part of history from both countries.
    I wonder if Scotland became totally independent could they survive on their own in a capitalist world. We all know how Australia got started, which was hard work at the beginning. India had enough problems with all the fighting and wars while the English where there, but is it any better these days.
    Having said all that the Queen is a figure head with absolutely no powers at all. The Queen and her family are perhaps the biggest tourist attraction in the UK with people coming from the four corners of the world. When she visits Canada take a look at the crowds that flock to see her, and the same goes where ever she visits.
    Everyone has their own opinion and that's OK. Some people are born into poverty, others born to riches, and a few are born into royalty. Most of us just get on with living our lives as best we can. Nobody is going to flock to watch myself or Sri T. walk down the street, but they will if the Queen does.
    In the end the Canadian people will decide if they want the Queen as head of state. If the Canadian people don't want the Queen or next in line as head of state, does that hurt me, I think not, but I do think it would be a little damaging for Canada.
       France and England are part of the history of Canada which cannot be changed. All the west European countries have a finger in almost every country in the world. It's a fact of life that can't be changed.
    This is just my two cents worth of thought.

    1. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I have nothing against the queen, which is why my focus does not say "should we remove the queen as figure head of Canada" My question focuses on whether or not the new monarch should be given this position too, or if we should move on when she does.

  13. MJFenn profile image78
    MJFennposted 9 years ago

    All the Provinces would have to be in agreement about what would replace the monarchy. An appointee and friend of politicians would also have not remotely the standing country-wide that an impartial monarch, with the stability and strong sense of precedence, has. Actually I think talk of 'freedom' from England is itself illusory because the British government has no authority in Canada anyway.

  14. Rawila profile image61
    Rawilaposted 9 years ago

    THE answer lies with Canadians whether they want it or not.

    1. ironicstar profile image60
      ironicstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am a Canadian, and I was sort of hoping it would be Canadians who would answer.

  15. greencha profile image65
    greenchaposted 9 years ago

    I suppose if the majority of the peoples of Canada wish it to be so then yes...if they don't then no...


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)