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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
I agree this isn't a decision of whether the monarch will allow it, this is a decision on Canada's part.
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.
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.
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.
I look at the whole world objectively. At the core level of existence. If you do, the question answers itself.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suppose if the majority of the peoples of Canada wish it to be so then yes...if they don't then no...
by pisean282311 7 years ago
why there is so much fascination in media and general people about queen , prince and such things...is it only in uk or other countries too?
by meow48 7 years ago
What is the correct term? British or English? Scot or Scottish?okay, this may be rather silly, but to the folks from england, do you prefer to called British or English???? The same question to those from Scotland, is it Scot or Scottish?? thanks for your participation ahead...
by Solaras 2 years ago
Brexit seems to be the UKs answer to the US question: How do we get our mojo back?Donald Trump is our Brexit. A promise to take us back to simpler times, when we could rule our destiny and blah, blah blah. He is currently stumbling around Scotland, congratulating them on voting to take their...
by fishskinfreak2008 8 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201003 … ost/490080Who cares? PALIN HAS NO CREDIBILITY NOW
by SparklingJewel 10 years ago
I don't know much about it, except what I have read from others. But as it sounds like it threatens US sovereignty and safety. I am against it. And also for the very reason that I don't get to vote on it. What is the current news concerning Congress' input on this subject?
by Rupert Taylor 19 months ago
What happened to Emma Lazarus’s “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses …”?I did not think I would live to see the day when people would flee from hatred and persecution in America – again. The Underground Railroad brought slaves to freedom in Canada in the 19th century. Now,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|