[mr.x]

This is no April Fools.




Queen Elizabeth To Grace Opening Of Winter Olympic Games Hosted By Vancouver

April 2, 2009 1:57 p.m. EST

AHN Staff

London, England (AHN) - Queen Elizabeth will grace the opening in 2010 of the Winter Olympic Games to be hosted by Vancouver, the office of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on Thursday. Her son, Prince Charles, is also interested in coming along.

According to Globe and Mail, Harper's office has confirmed the monarch's visit, but the details are still being ironed out by Ottawa and London officials. To plan and work out details of the visit, Harper appointed in London on Wednesday Kevin MacLeod as Canadian Secretary to the Queen.

Aside from the royal visit, part of MacLeod's task is to chair the Diamond Jubilee Committee which will organize the celebration of the Queen's 60th anniversary as Queen on Canada in 2012.

Prince Charles planned in 2005 to visit Canada with his wife Camilla, but the prime minister then, Paul Martin, advised him against the visit because of political turmoil in Ottawa at that time.

It would be Queen Elizabeth's 24th visit to Canada when the winter games open on Feb. 12, 2010.

Harper, in a statement, said, "Royal visits demonstrate the enduring ties between the Royal Family and Canadians and offer a unique opportunity to celebrate the important aspect of our shared heritage, culture and identity."




Queen Elizabeth to visit Canada next year

OTTAWA, April 2 (UPI) -- Planning is under way for British Queen Elizabeth to visit Canada and open the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said.

Harper's office made the announcement after the prime minister met with the monarch in London Wednesday as part of his agenda of the Group of 20 summit, The Globe and Mail reported.

Plans are being made to have the queen open the Games, which begin Feb. 12, and also commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Naval Service of Canada, which was the forerunner of the current navy, the report said.

The monarch turns 83 on April 21 and the 2010 visit would be her 24th to Canada.

The Globe and Mail said Prince Charles was also keen to visit Canada before his mother's trip.

By tradition royal family members only visit by invitation and the last one to Charles in 2005 was rescinded by Prime Minister Paul Martin, who said his minority government was imperiled and the country could face a snap election.




Visits by Queen, Prince Charles in the works

MICHAEL VALPY | GLOBE AND MAIL
April 2, 2009

The Queen and possibly Prince Charles will come to Canada within the next year and a half, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed yesterday.

Although details are still being worked out by Ottawa and Buckingham Palace, speculation is that the Queen, who turns 83 on April 21, will come next year to open the Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver and perhaps mark the centenary of the navy, and Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, will come earlier.

The Globe and Mail reported in February that the Prince was keen to deepen his relationship with Canada, but was thwarted by not having been invited to the country for eight years.

By convention, the Queen and Charles, respectively head of state and next-in-line, can set foot in the country only officially and by invitation.
Print Edition - Section Front

Charles wanted to bring his wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, to Canada in 2005, soon after their marriage, but then-prime minister Paul Martin informed him the timing was not propitious because his minority government might be forced into an election.

The Prince and his staff have shown considerable interest in charitable and community work being done by a number of Canadian organizations that parallel his own interests. If he comes, he likely would use his time in Canada to spotlight achievements in education, health, organic agriculture, at-risk youth, corporate social responsibility, architecture and urban planning.

The Queen's visit will be the 24th she has made.

The Olympics open on Feb. 12, 2010. The Naval Service of Canada - subsequently the Royal Canadian Navy and then Canadian Forces Maritime Command - was created in 1910.

Overseeing the Queen's visit, and that of the Prince if he's invited, will be the civil service's long-time expert on monarchy in Canada, Kevin MacLeod, who Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced yesterday would become Canadian Secretary to the Queen.

The announcement was made just before Mr. Harper met the Queen for lunch in London, where he is attending a meeting of the G20 heads of government. Mr. MacLeod travelled there with him.

"Royal visits demonstrate the enduring ties between the Royal family and Canadians," Mr. Harper said, "and offer a unique opportunity to celebrate this important aspect of our shared heritage, culture and identity. In his capacity as Canadian Secretary to the Queen, Mr. MacLeod will play a crucial role in ensuring the success of upcoming Royal visits."

The Canadian Secretary's post has been vacant for four years. Basically, it gives the sovereign a set of astute Canadian eyes and ears.

http://news.google.ca/news?um=1&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=1325407992



Personally, I would have preferred Michaelle Jean....but, I'm not against this either. I think it's great that she's giving us attention, as the Queen of Canada.

[Rico Rommheim]

This is good news!

[Bedford_DJ]

This is good news :)

Hopefully because of the Naval Anniversary it means she'll come to Halifax since the navy's based here.

[NetMapel]

This is good news :)

Hopefully because of the Naval Anniversary it means she'll come to Halifax since the navy's based here.

Do we have a Pacific navy fleet ?

[Bedford_DJ]

Do we have a Pacific navy fleet ?

Yes we do but correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there are more in the Atlantic for some reason.

[Metro-One]

Esquimalt (sorry if i spelled it wrong) it Canada's large Pacific Naval base, its just west of Victoria and is actually quite impressive if you see it. last year when i was there they had this gigantic satellite launching frigate in dry dock, was an amazing sight to see. I think it was there for repairs (one whole side was burnt from a failed launch).

[Rico Rommheim]

Do we have a Pacific navy fleet ?

I know we have some boats, but we actually have a navy?

[MrOilers]

I don't look forward to the day the Queen dies and we all get to look forward to having Charles go to all these events and see his mug printed on all our money. :yuck:

[craneSpotter]

Esquimalt (sorry if i spelled it wrong) it Canada's large Pacific Naval base, its just west of Victoria and is actually quite impressive if you see it. last year when i was there they had this gigantic satellite launching frigate in dry dock, was an amazing sight to see. I think it was there for repairs (one whole side was burnt from a failed launch).

Yup, its a modest fleet of only 13 warships (plus several training boats) :) But hey, we also have a patrol/hunter/killer sub too! Haha Can you spot it? Here is a photo of a few Jetties in Canada's Pacific Naval Fleet home base of Esquimalt (Victoria):

http://faitaucanada.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/cfb-esquimalt-aerialid.jpg

Source (http://faitaucanada.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/top-weekly-canadian-news-140309/)

Here's a photo of Sealaunch 1 (and its command ship) in for repairs near Esquimalt's federal graving dock. It was much larger than it seems in this photo. Sealaunch 1 is a ocean based rocket launcher, mostly used for launching satellites I think. The drydock also does repairs/refits on the large ocean going cruise ships - it's quite a booming business!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1326/809762395_4e967300f8_b.jpg

source (http://www.flickr.com/photos/electrikecho/809762395/in/set-72157600820531300)


Great news about then Queen - I kinda like the old bird.

[Nathan]

I think that's great news. If she makes a speech, I hope they make sure to introduce her as Queen of Canada as that is her official title when here.

[MonkeyRonin]

I don't look forward to the day the Queen dies and we all get to look forward to having Charles go to all these events and see his mug printed on all our money. :yuck:

Once she dies we can rid of these people. :)

[Jay in Cowtown]

Once she dies we can rid of these people. :)

Get rid of them now.

This British commonwealth ass kissing is fucking pathetic.

[Commoner]

I think that's great news. If she makes a speech, I hope they make sure to introduce her as Queen of Canada as that is her official title when here.

Well, actually, she would be here as Queen of Canada, and not in any other capacity. She is one person who happens to be the Queen of a number of countries (Canada being one of them) each position in their own right (one not subordinate to the other). The Olympic rules state that the host country head of state opens the games. So, The Queen of Canada did it in Montreal in '76, and the Governor-General did it in Calgary in the '80's.

[Commoner]

This is good news :)

Hopefully because of the Naval Anniversary it means she'll come to Halifax since the navy's based here.

Quite likely, there is a fleet review tentatively planned for Halifax in 2010 to celebrate the actual 100th anniversary. The last time that they did it was for the 75th, and The Governor General of the day did the review (Sauve) accompanied by HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew)

[salvius]

Once she dies we can rid of these people. :)

And why in the world would we do that?

[Commoner]

And why in the world would we do that?

There is no need to worry about changing it anyway. It is possible that it could be changed, but it is highly unlikely. Such a change requires the unanimous agreement of the legislatures of all ten provinces and both houses of parliament. Good luck with that.

[MonkeyRonin]

And why in the world would we do that?

Why in the world would we have a hereditary, foreign monarch?

[mylesmalley]

I, for one, will welcome our imperial overlords! :D

[MonctonRad]

Quick note about the actual size of the Royal Canadian Navy.

The navy consists of 42 main naval vessels and 28 auxillary/support vessels. the navy also has 27 helicopters and 21 fixed wing aircraft, mostly used for coastal surveillance, search & rescue and anti-submarine warfare.

The main fleet has the following inventory:

Tribal class destroyers - 3
City class frigates - 12
Coastal Defense Vessels - 12
Diesel electric attack submarines - 4
Fleet supply ships - 2
Training and inshore patrol vessels - 8
Sail training vessel - 1

I believe about 60% of the navy is based in Halifax and 40% in Esquimalt.

[DHLawrence]

I, for one, will welcome our imperial overlords! :D

I as well!

[Bedford_DJ]

Quick question. Are there any navy ships in the Great Lakes/St Lawerence or up in the Artic somewheres?

We got to have something to protect us from those damn polar bears ;)

[Acajack]

One of the most interesting things I have had to do as a parent is answer puzzled questions from my wholly francophone kids, whose daily existence is wholly francophone as well, as to why some lady from England is on the back of all the coins and also on the $20 note (note I said note and not bill!).

I am sure that our resident monarchists here (and they are quite numerous I must say - I expected there'd be at least some but perhaps not so many) would have an answer I could use, but I am not sure the kiddies would find it convincing.

[Canadian Mind]

One of the most interesting things I have had to do as a parent is answer puzzled questions from my wholly francophone kids, whose daily existence is wholly francophone as well, as to why some lady from England is on the back of all the coins and also on the $20 note (note I said note and not bill!).

I am sure that our resident monarchists here (and they are quite numerous I must say - I expected there'd be at least some but perhaps not so many) would have an answer I could use, but I am not sure the kiddies would find it convincing.

France lost? :shrug:

[MonkeyRonin]

One of the most interesting things I have had to do as a parent is answer puzzled questions from my wholly francophone kids, whose daily existence is wholly francophone as well, as to why some lady from England is on the back of all the coins and also on the $20 note (note I said note and not bill!).

I'm not Francophone and I don't quite get it either (and no, clinging to any romantic notions of colonialism isn't a good enough reason). :shrug:

[Bedford_DJ]

Too soon to say whether royals will visit next year

By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau
Fri. Apr 3 - 6:04 AM
OTTAWA — No decision has yet been made about whether the Queen will visit Halifax to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Navy, senior officials say.

The Queen is planning to visit Canada in 2010, but it’s unlikely that she’ll visit twice. She decided to attend the opening of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver on Feb. 12 rather than visiting Halifax for the naval centenary.

It’s possible that Prince Charles will visit for the naval celebrations in her stead.

The anniversary of the 1910 establishment of the Navy will be celebrated on May 4. It will be marked again in July with a naval review — a sail past and inspection of the fleet.

The committee organizing the celebrations invited the Queen two years ago, but has yet to hear back.

"I suspect that we will have some clarity in the coming month or so," said a government source familiar with the process.

Kory Teneycke, spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said it is too soon to figure out where she’s going.

"I don’t know any of the details. We’re glad that she’s going to be coming to visit, but I think it’s premature to speculate on venues or anything. Many, many Canadians would like to have a chance to see the Queen."

Halifax MP Megan Leslie is one of them.

Ms. Leslie, who jokingly described herself as a closet monarchist, said she hopes the Queen will find time to visit Halifax.

"I think people in Halifax would love it," she said. "It’s the Queen. That would be pretty exciting to give her some seafood chowder and some strawberry shortcake, Nova Scotia-style. But also I think it would be cool to have the world pay attention to what’s going on in Halifax and the celebration of the Navy’s centenary."

Geoff Regan, MP for Halifax West, said it would be splendid.

"I think that it would be wonderful to have the Queen, if it’s possible, to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Navy. I think it would be fantastic. And I have no doubt in my mind that she would love to do that."

The Queen last visited Nova Scotia in 1994.

The Canadian Navy was established by then-prime minister Wilfrid Laurier on May 4, 1910, as the Canadian Naval Service.

Just so everyone knows the Chronicle Herald is infamous for getting information wrong and making up lies so I would take this article with a grain of salt. I find it odd that she wouldn't come visit us on the 100th anniversary of the navy which all of the ships are in her honour.

If she doesn't come I think we should rename the HMS acronom to mean "Halifax's Majestic Ships" or something that removes her from them.

[MonctonRad]

Quick question. Are there any navy ships in the Great Lakes/St Lawerence or up in the Artic somewheres?

We got to have something to protect us from those damn polar bears ;)

Answer #1 - The Rush-Bagot treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes.
Answer #2 - Although polar bears have very sharp teeth, they are not considered much of a military threat.

:D

[Acajack]

France lost? :shrug:

I don't really think you'll appreciate my kids' likely voting habits once they turn 18 if they get that type of answer to their intelligent questions a few times too often between now and the time they reach voting age.

[touraccuracy]

^it's a reasonable, and true answer ;)

[MonkeyRonin]

^it's a reasonable, and true answer ;)

It explains the historical reason for having the British monarchy, but does not provide for a contemporary justification.

[vid]

I think that's great news. If she makes a speech, I hope they make sure to introduce her as Queen of Canada as that is her official title when here.

I hope they make sure too. Not doing so would most likely cost someone their job and be a national embarrassment.

Once she dies we can rid of these people. :)

Yes! And replace them with people like Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien!

Why in the world would we have a hereditary, foreign monarch?

The system seems to work pretty well. How is she foreign?

I'm not Francophone and I don't quite get it either (and no, clinging to any romantic notions of colonialism isn't a good enough reason). :shrug:

Because Canada was created with a monarchy and abolishing it from our political system would be a very complex process that would likely not succeed. We can and should try periodically to do so but in its current form the monarchy poses no hindrance to our country.

That old woman from England speaks French, too, by the way.

I don't really think you'll appreciate my kids' likely voting habits once they turn 18 if they get that type of answer to their intelligent questions a few times too often between now and the time they reach voting age.

Well then they're pretty petty children.

France lost a war with Britain and its North American territory was ceded. That is why Québec is part of Canada today, and that is also why the Queen is "Québec's head of state". Not knowing this is ignorance of our country's (and your nation's) history. If they grow up knowing why Québec is part of Canada and decide that they want to change it then by all means, they should vote for the party that matches their opinion. If they're doing it out of ignorance they will be just a bunch of drones voting for whichever party's tricks are most pretty to them. And if your children grow up to not think, it won't reflect very well on you, will it?

Contemporary justification? It works. In many cases, better than republics. The separate of powers in a constitutional monarchy are probably the safest form of government humans have developed because it is stable, kept in check and virtually permanent.

What benefits are there to a Republic of Canada? Some that I can think of would be more accurate representation of our minorities as head of state (if we go down a path of appointment as we do now with the Governor General; if we go with popular vote we'll most likely see the post dominated by white Anglophone men.) and a head of state that is fully our own, and not shared among other nations, equally though overshadowed.

[MonkeyRonin]

Yes! And replace them with people like Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien!

No, (fully) replace with the Governor General.


The system seems to work pretty well. How is she foreign?

Um...the UK is not Canada. A head of state with dual citizenship or something is fine, but they should at least, you know, actually live in Canada? :rolleyes:

[vid]

Is that your biggest issue?

[mylesmalley]

The reasons for maintaining the monarchy are purely traditonal. We don't 'need' a queen. Personally, I like the fact that we keep some of our more colourful traditions alive to this day.

[Metro-One]

One of the most interesting things I have had to do as a parent is answer puzzled questions from my wholly francophone kids, whose daily existence is wholly francophone as well, as to why some lady from England is on the back of all the coins and also on the $20 note (note I said note and not bill!).

I am sure that our resident monarchists here (and they are quite numerous I must say - I expected there'd be at least some but perhaps not so many) would have an answer I could use, but I am not sure the kiddies would find it convincing.

With all due respect the majority of kids (and people in general) in BC find it puzzling that we have french written on all of our products and manuals when after English, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Spanish, German, Vietnamese, etc... are all more common in BC than French. It is just the way things are n this country. In BC we have some French attributes butting in where we really don't need it, and you have some English attributes butting in where you don't need it. It is just part of canadian History.

[vid]

Even in Thunder Bay, French is down the list. Up north, some communities have almost no speakers of either official language.

One interesting thing to note, though: Aboriginal people view their treaties as being directly between them and the Queen. What happens to them if you remove the Queen? Would they want to re-negotiate?

[touraccuracy]

^that seems like petty and opportunistic.

It explains the historical reason for having the British monarchy, but does not provide for a contemporary justification.

fully agreed.

[Boris2k7]

1) The Monarchy is a lasting symbol for a country that has and produces few

2) The Monarchy is removed from the politics of the day and thus serves as a presence that speaks to all Canadians, regardless of political stripe

3) The Queen is the Queen of Canada as well as the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Queen of Australia, etc. Canada is a sovereign, independent nation and the Government of the United Kingdom plays no role in the affairs of the Canadian government. The permanent residence of the Queen of Canada simply happens not to be in this country but rather in that one.

4) The Queen serves as a link between Canada's two founding peoples (and this is not a snub to our aboriginal population). Lest it be forgotten that the francophone settlers established their presence in this country, were subsequently defeated by the monarchy and made to form the Canadas, and have coexisted with their angolophone brethren whom established their presence in the Canadas.

5) The Monarchy costs nothing for Canada to keep.

6) The legitimacy of the Crown forms the basis for all Canadian law

7) The powers of the Queen as Head of State also can only come into play in an extreme situation where the Canadian parliamentary system would come into disrepute.

[Gerrard]

The Queen is merely a historical connection to our past. Virtually the same as why your French speaking students speak French when there really isn't a need for them to and when it would be far more advantageous for them to be English speakers in a sea of English and Spanish speaking New Worlders.

It's about respecting the history of this nation and that includes the ties that Canadian descendants of Britain have with their country of origin. It would be like asking the people of Quebec to redesign their flag because it reminds everyone too much of France of which Quebec is not a part of either.

I'm not being faecitious either. If they look at it this way, then they'll probably understand why she's on the money. I'm not a fan of the monarchy either, I think it's a dated, silly concept (as do most Brits as well -but at least in their case it costs them billions a year to maintain her -while it costs us nothing).

[MrOilers]

I still fear having to put up with pictures of Charles' face on our money after the Queen dies.

[mylesmalley]

With those big ears, we might need to move to a double-wide bill.


Could be a whole lot worse though. At least Camilla won't be on the money!

[Rathgrith]

That old woman from England speaks French, too, by the way.



Yes, but does she speak Quebecois? ;)

After she dies, I think many commonwealth countries losing the monarchy. I suspect Australia will be first. Canada on the other hand will probably be too weak to make any changes. But seeing Charles on currency might change that.

It might be a tradition, but that way the British monarchy is acting today, is not the way it acted 100 years ago. Therefore, the push to get rid of the monarchy will gradually grow stronger over the next century.

[Mister F]

^How exactly does not getting rid of the monarchy make a country 'weak'?

France lost a war with Britain and its North American territory was ceded. That is why Québec is part of Canada today, and that is also why the Queen is "Québec's head of state".
Actually Quebec is part of Canada today because it chose to join Canada in the 1860s. It had nothing to do with a war a century earlier.

[Rathgrith]

^How exactly does not getting rid of the monarchy make a country 'weak'?



'Weak' as in political will.

[Andy6]

'Weak' as in political will.


Maybe it has strong 'political will' to retain the monarchy.

[Andy6]

One of the most interesting things I have had to do as a parent is answer puzzled questions from my wholly francophone kids, whose daily existence is wholly francophone as well, as to why some lady from England is on the back of all the coins and also on the $20 note (note I said note and not bill!).

I am sure that our resident monarchists here (and they are quite numerous I must say - I expected there'd be at least some but perhaps not so many) would have an answer I could use, but I am not sure the kiddies would find it convincing.


I don't know that we need to base our system of government on the opinions of infants, charming though they undoubtedly are. You could begin by informing them that the only reason that their existence is Francophone is because the tradition that that "English lady" represents accommodated the French language and religion in Canada after the original French-speaking people of Canada were abandoned by France and has continued to do so for 250 years. You could also tell them that their supposed view has been well represented by the Liberal Party of Canada, which has stealthily removed the English lady from all banknotes of ordinary circulation other than the $20 and from virtually all postage stamps (if they know what those are) over the last 35 years. In spite of that, this thread is full of 20-something monarchists. Chairman Pierre must be spinning, or pirouetting, in his grave.

[1ajs]

thats a pretty cool awner for the van Olympics royal visits are always pretty cool

[Rico Rommheim]

I don't know that we need to base our system of government on the opinions of infants, charming though they undoubtedly are. You could begin by informing them that the only reason that their existence is Francophone is because the tradition that that "English lady" represents accommodated the French language and religion in Canada after the original French-speaking people of Canada were abandoned by France and has continued to do so for 250 years. You could also tell them that their supposed view has been well represented by the Liberal Party of Canada, which has stealthily removed the English lady from all banknotes of ordinary circulation other than the $20 and from virtually all postage stamps (if they know what those are) over the last 35 years. In spite of that, this thread is full of 20-something monarchists. Chairman Pierre must be spinning, or pirouetting, in his grave.

excellent post.

[DHLawrence]

Agreed!

[Andy6]

Agreed!

I found it a bit over the top, myself.

[MonctonRad]

In spite of that, this thread is full of 20-something monarchists. Chairman Pierre must be spinning, or pirouetting, in his grave.

I resent that.....I'm a 50 something monarchist myself. :D

[DHLawrence]

I found it a bit over the top, myself.

Yet true at the same time!

Mark me down as a 20-something monarchist too. Interesting that so many monarchists are in my age group--are we rebelling against our parents by conforming?

[salvius]

Yet true at the same time!

Mark me down as a 20-something monarchist too. Interesting that so many monarchists are in my age group--are we rebelling against our parents by conforming?

Well, it doesn't make sense to rebel against something that in both theory and practice works very well.

[MolsonExport]

I don't know that we need to base our system of government on the opinions of infants, charming though they undoubtedly are. You could begin by informing them that the only reason that their existence is Francophone is because the tradition that that "English lady" represents accommodated the French language and religion in Canada after the original French-speaking people of Canada were abandoned by France and has continued to do so for 250 years. You could also tell them that their supposed view has been well represented by the Liberal Party of Canada, which has stealthily removed the English lady from all banknotes of ordinary circulation other than the $20 and from virtually all postage stamps (if they know what those are) over the last 35 years. In spite of that, this thread is full of 20-something monarchists. Chairman Pierre must be spinning, or pirouetting, in his grave.

Bravo, to you, Sir.

[vid]

We have real problems to rebel against. The Monarchy isn't very easy to rebel against in this country because it doesn't really affect our lives, unlike in Saudi Arabia or Brunei.

[kitchener-lrt]

All of a sudden the Queen cares about Canada?
Good publicity though, I guess.

[Rico Rommheim]

All of a sudden the Queen cares about Canada?
Good publicity though, I guess.

The Queen IS Canada.

The Queen beats the shit outta Harper.

[vid]

All of a sudden the Queen cares about Canada?
Good publicity though, I guess.

She has cared for 57 years. She gets briefed on our national issues on an almost daily basis. There is probably no one in the world more well versed in global politics than the Queen.

[Acajack]

I don't know that we need to base our system of government on the opinions of infants, charming though they undoubtedly are. You could begin by informing them that the only reason that their existence is Francophone is because the tradition that that "English lady" represents accommodated the French language and religion in Canada after the original French-speaking people of Canada were abandoned by France and has continued to do so for 250 years. You could also tell them that their supposed view has been well represented by the Liberal Party of Canada, which has stealthily removed the English lady from all banknotes of ordinary circulation other than the $20 and from virtually all postage stamps (if they know what those are) over the last 35 years. In spite of that, this thread is full of 20-something monarchists. Chairman Pierre must be spinning, or pirouetting, in his grave.

Well, this comment has drawn a lot “hear-hears” here, but I hope you will appreciate that it will be difficult for me to reconcile this feel-good view of historical British magnanimity with the fact that my kids are of completely Acadian origin on one side of the family and that their ancestors were all deported by you-know-who starting in 1755. Unless people expect me to gloss that one over?

Now, since my kids are living in Quebec, I can also tell them the real history of why the place they live in is still French-speaking today, starting with the fact that the tradition the “English lady” represents was a bit antsy in the 1700s about having two revolutions on its hands at the same time in its North American colonies, so it passed the Quebec Act in 1774 to placate the denizens of New France. The next 200 years or so saw varying and alternating periods of niceness and nastiness, with niceness only emerging as the fairly dominant ethos towards the 1960s and 1970s.

[Acajack]

Yes, but does she speak Quebecois? ;)



She doesn’t speak “Canadian English” either. To her, an elevator is a lift, a hood is a bonnet, a trunk is a boot and a truck is a lorry...

[Gerrard]

I doubt the monarchy in Canada will survive Elizabeth II's reign. Not even avowed Canadian monarchist can justify Charles nor those racist little bores of his either.

[Acajack]

With all due respect the majority of kids (and people in general) in BC find it puzzling that we have french written on all of our products and manuals when after English, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Spanish, German, Vietnamese, etc... are all more common in BC than French. It is just the way things are n this country. In BC we have some French attributes butting in where we really don't need it, and you have some English attributes butting in where you don't need it. It is just part of canadian History.

Yup, I can agree and understand that completely Metro-One. My point wasn't to say "Omigod, this is oppression!", but rather that, as I mentioned in my post, I found this discussion with my kids to be "interesting"

For the record, I've also had the discussion with many people from other countries while travelling abroad who also find it bizarre that with what they know superficially about Canada (much more American than British culturally, tremendous multicultural influx from all over the world, rambunctious French-speaking "quarter", etc.), they're totally mystified that we have the Queen as head of state. It actually happened quite often when I was younger and backpacking around the world, and one of the things young people do in youth hostels is show and exchange money from their respective countries. When I pulled out Canadian coins, invariably people would ask: who's that lady on your coins?

Don't worry folks. I know Canadian history and politics as well as you all do and so I told them the official story, that she is the "Queen of Canada", not the "Queen of England" in this context, and blablabla. Yet, I'd still get people answering back: "Sure, I get all that, but still... today?"

Sure, I am not a monarchist, which will not surprise anyone here. If ever we had a vote on whether to abolish it (which I agree is very unlikely to happen) I would surely vote in favour of abolition if the question were posed to me. But as Vid said, there are greater problems to deal with than this issue, it doesn't keep me awake at night, but if you are to ask... well, that's my opinion.

I don't have anything against the Queen or the Royal Family, but I should say that although I recognize that legally it can be said to be the case, I don't consider her to be "my" Queen. No one can force me or anyone else to think (much less feel) something.

[Acajack]

Well then they're pretty petty children.

France lost a war with Britain and its North American territory was ceded. That is why Québec is part of Canada today, and that is also why the Queen is "Québec's head of state". Not knowing this is ignorance of our country's (and your nation's) history. If they grow up knowing why Québec is part of Canada and decide that they want to change it then by all means, they should vote for the party that matches their opinion. If they're doing it out of ignorance they will be just a bunch of drones voting for whichever party's tricks are most pretty to them. And if your children grow up to not think, it won't reflect very well on you, will it?



You gave an intelligent answer to an intelligent question Vid.

But note what answer I got initially: “France lost”. This is basically the Canadian equivalent to Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies. Whenever there is political/historical discussion between Canadians (usually mixing anglophones and francophones) and things start to get tight, it seems that inevitably someone will pull out the classic: “Well, France/the French/you guys lost the war, after all”, as if that’s a “game, set and match” go-for-the-jugular point to end all points.

I actually got it thrown at me this past weekend (less than 24 hours after I wrote that post about the kids) at a dinner party, and I almost fell off my chair - I couldn’t believe it!

[Acajack]

I doubt the monarchy in Canada will survive Elizabeth II's reign. Not even avowed Canadian monarchist can justify Charles nor those racist little bores of his either.

I hope you’re right but I’d say the monarchy in Canada still has a lot of kick left in it (consider how many 20-something monarchists have posted here).

There is always a public buzz about getting rid of it but there is a stronger undercurrent that favours its retention. Consider that in 1999 Australia held a referendum on becoming a republic and getting rid of the monarchy, which pretty much everyone expected to pass, yet it was quite soundly defeated.

[401_King]

another queen thread!! what a waste of my time to think about this woman...what a country

[PhilippeMtl]

another queen thread!! what a waste of my time to think about this woman...what a country

I have to agreee on this!

[Rathgrith]

It goes to show what I have been thinking all along: many Canadians still sleep with a picture of the Queen "beside" them at night.

[Acajack]

It goes to show what I have been thinking all along: many Canadians still sleep with a picture of the Queen "beside" them at night.

Along these same lines, it does have the merit of showing very clearly that the Canadian identity is not quite, as some like to proclaim, a wholly post-modern multicultural construct that is *totally* divorced from its British origins, and that its historical British attributes have absolutely no relevance in the modern Canada.

[Gerrard]

I hope you’re right but I’d say the monarchy in Canada still has a lot of kick left in it (consider how many 20-something monarchists have posted here).

There is always a public buzz about getting rid of it but there is a stronger undercurrent that favours its retention. Consider that in 1999 Australia held a referendum on becoming a republic and getting rid of the monarchy, which pretty much everyone expected to pass, yet it was quite soundly defeated.


Even so, I think there's a difference in loving or liking the Queen and liking and loving her children & grandchildren. The only reason a referendum hasn't been brought up about this is because people still have fond memories of the Queen, are indifferent (most of English speaking Canada) and of course good old Canadian political inertia. She'll be the last Canadian monarch.

[salvius]

^ of course she won't be. A change in the monarchy will require a yes vote for the abolition in ALL the provinces + feds. That doesn't have a chance in hell of passing, since the support for the abolition clocks in at 25% in the prairies and high 20s to low 30s in Alberta. Even worse, support for the monarchy is the LOWEST among the baby boomers, and, indeed, quite high among the younger segments of the population. In fact, the only province where there is a consistent clear majority for the abolition is Quebec where it clocks usually between 50-60%.

And for what, to replace the apolitical head of state with politicized posturing between the head of state and head of government (something that, really, brings the role of the head of state into disrepute)? No thanks.

[Rathgrith]

^When did you do the polling?

[MTLskyline]

Along these same lines, it does have the merit of showing very clearly that the Canadian identity is not quite, as some like to proclaim, a wholly post-modern multicultural construct that is *totally* divorced from its British origins, and that its historical British attributes have absolutely no relevance in the modern Canada.
This is true. The people that like to proclaim those sorts of things are usually Liberals or NDPers. The monarchy really is one of the only cultural institutions that old-stock Anglo Canadians have left (young or old) that ties us to our country of origin. Yes, we love Canada, but we are also attached to the land of our ancestors (just like many immigrants are). I see this being the case for another 20 years or so, until 20th and 21st century immigrants outnumber old-stock Anglo Canadians in most regions of the country. Until then, I wouldn't expect the monarchy's role in Canada to go anywhere.

Quite a different mentality than that of Francophone Canadians who appear to have little attachment to France. Time (300-400 years is a lot longer than 150-200), and sense of abandonment probably have a lot to do with it.

[Boris2k7]

This is true. The people that like to proclaim those sorts of things are usually Liberals or NDPers. The monarchy really is one of the only cultural institutions that old-stock Anglo Canadians have left (young or old) that ties us to our country of origin.

I'm really beginning to wonder what qualifies as an "old-stock" Anglo Canadian, since Anglophones can come from very diverse backgrounds and countries of origin. You won't find any dissent about the Queen among my grandfather's solidly Ukrainian family, for example (some of whom still speak the language).

[salvius]

^When did you do the polling?

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/31may2001.pdf

[Acajack]

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/31may2001.pdf

Interesting results, though these questions were asked in a vacuum without anything serious or credible on the other side of the equation to replace the monarchy. I suspect that if an alternative were on the table, and with a campaign where the issue was publicly debated, the abolitionist side would increase quite a bit. Perhaps to 75% levels in Quebec, and enough to make it close (but perhaps not enough to carry the day in most of them) in many of the provinces other than Quebec.

[salvius]

Interesting results, though these questions were asked in a vacuum without anything serious or credible on the other side of the equation to replace the monarchy. I suspect that if an alternative were on the table, and with a campaign where the issue was publicly debated, the abolitionist side would increase quite a bit. Perhaps to 75% levels in Quebec, and enough to make it close (but perhaps not enough to carry the day in most of them) in many of the provinces other than Quebec.

If by public debate you mean shouting 'regressive traditions' and 'foreign monarch' by people who have no idea about what they're talking about, then the support for a republic might inch up in certain provinces, but it would still be highly unlikely that we'd see all 10+1 provinces vote in unison on the issue.

If, on the other hand, we mean a reasoned public debate which would actually educate the people about the monarchy and various republican systems, and the distinction between the state and the government, then I think, if anything, the support for the monarchy would increase.

[vid]

It goes to show what I have been thinking all along: many Canadians still sleep with a picture of the Queen "beside" them at night.

The Queen sleeps with a painting by my grandfather "beside" her at night.

She'll be the last Canadian monarch.

Only if we decide to abolish the monarchy on her death. The moment she does die, Prince Charles "automatically" becomes the next monarch. (King George VII is the most commonly thrown around name he will take; both Kings Charles had nasty reigns but if he sticks with that he will be King Charles III.) I don't think we can retroactively say "He was never our King".

[DHLawrence]

And he may not necessarily send support for the monarchy in Canada into the negatives. Despite all the stupidity surrounding his wives, he does have some worthwhile projects that may resound with Canadians (organic farming, green energy, architecture that isn't hideous or counter-productive to sustainable communities). He's also quite interested in the Arctic and the aboriginal peoples of Canada, which will certainly aid his popularity there.

And in defence of Charles and his sons, for all we know, the Queen could have thoughts that are just as racist as theirs (and those of her husband). The difference is that she knows when to keep her mouth shut!

[jmt18325]

Seriously, getting rid of the Queen would accomplish nothing and is probably a bad idea. The Queen is above politics (as is the Governor General). The decisions they make are done on the basis of tradition and the Constitution. If we were to get rid of the Queen, she would be replaced by a figure head of some kind (it's necessary in our system to have someone above the Prime Minister) that may end up being political....and may end up costing more money than we currently pay for the Governor General. There really is no reason to do it. Sharing a head of state with 15 other countries doesn't make us any less unique....in fact, it makes us unique in our own way.

The reality is, our Parliamentary system made up of elected House of Commons, appointed Senate, and the Crown really works quite well. We live in one of the most prosperous and wonderful countries in the world. We really have very few reasons to want to make big changes. Besides...it would be lot o work (and a little sad) to have to remove the 'Royal' and 'Crown' designations from so many of our institutions.