I also believe that Italy was one of the only modern and democratic constitutional monarchies that abolished itself.
I also believe that Italy was one of the only modern and democratic constitutional monarchies that abolished itself.
Sorry, I misread your statement. I actually did some searching last night and found numerous more examples too.
Interesting bottom quote from 'FreeGeeks', let me try my hand at it.
I will respond case by case to arguments 6-12:
6)
I would disagree with you assertion at least in regard to Canada ( I am not familiar witth Australia aboriginal situtation.) The first nations in Canada do not seem to have any bones to pick with Her Majesty. Indeed, she was welcomed quite warmly to Nunavuut on the inauguration of their legislative assembly at which she personally gave the speech from the Throne/Speakers chair. The historical situation in Canada is much different in Canada than in the US. Indeed many US 'Indians' (as did many black persons) fled to Canada in search of protection from the genocidal tendencies of the US government, and for the many of them they found protection. There was discrimination no doubt but their lives were no longer in jeopardy so in that sense the Monarchy and the Queen's Peace symbolised safety. Indeed Canada has grown to be a far superior country than the US in the fields of liberties and good governance and I think the loyalist tradition and the rejection of the American revolution played a significant role in that growth, as it still does today. (Canada seems to remain even more loyal to the Queen than the British, most likely because they can see the bitter fruits of republicanism and revolution by merely gazing south of the border. A Queen is better than a Bush!) Funny you forgot to mention New Zealand (probably because it would undermine your case). In New Zealand the Maori have reputation of strong support for the Monarchy. This is because of the Treaty of Waitangi which was a personal agreement between the Queen (Victoria at the time) and the Maori Chiefs. The treaty is regarded as sacrosanct by many New Zealanders in much the same way that the US constitution is considered sacrosanct in the US. And since it was between the Queen, her heirs and successors and the Chiefs any moved towards a republican status would be regarded as potentialy undermining the treaty. Indeed in 2002 when the Clark government (Clark was a Maoist in her youth by the way, charming lady eh?) moved to abolish appeals to the Queen in Council (the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, probably one of the finest judicial bodies the world has ever seen. Compared to the Jurists on the Privy Council the Justices of the Supreme Court are political hacks and nitwits!) the Maori opposed it on the grounds that the however symbolic the term "Queen in Council" it was still important in enforcing the treaty provisions. In light of these facts, your assertions made on point 6 are unfounded.
7.
Not much to say here as religion is covered on point 8. However I will say this, since the formation of the UK in 1801 Queens have reigned over the UK for a total of 116 years whilst Kings score in at 87 years. Since Canadian confederation in 1867: Queens: 86 years, Kings: 51 years. Sonce Australian federation in 1901: Queens: 52 years, Kings: 51 years. So far things seem rather balanced. In contrast, the Presidents of the US: Men: 214 years, Women: 0 years. In practice its a bit more balanced than the US system. Oh well, there was an Indian author who visited the US in the 1920s and upon returnin to India, he wrote a book about his experiences there titled 'Uncle Sham', quite witty eh?
8.
The Papacy question: a rather complex one. No comprimises should be made until the Pope relinquishes his claim as the suzerein of Kings as any such move before then would jeopardise the independence of the Monarchy from the Papacy by rendering the Monarch a vassal of the Pope. And since Roman Catholicism requires one to be part of the Holy See, nothing should be considered until the claim suzereinity is dropped. Why should the Parliaments compromise on succession if the Church refuses any compromises on suzereinity? The British Sovereign is the vassal of no man!
9.
Well if the states feel it violates secular views they are free to abolish the Monarchy if they wish.
10.
In Canada I don't see a problem with this for the last half millenia years since the arrival of the French Canada has been a Monarchy with the Sovereign far away. It makes things so much more special when there are visits. On a practical level:
the bill for the monarchy is footed by the British. The Canadian foot the Vice-regal bills but the Vice-regal officers allow for more flexibility. Indeed, it is quite possible that the Governor General could be nominated by plebicite rather than by the Prime Minister without making any constitutional changes as the Constitution makes no mention of the nomination of Vice-regal officers. All it would require is the Prime Minister initiating a plebicite and submitting the name of the winner to Her Majesty. Very flexible indeed.
11.
I have little knowledge of this situation so a shall not presume so by making any arguments.
12.
This is a result of the 1927 Royal Titles Act and the Statute of Westminster, 1931 that replace the singular Crown of the British Empire with multiple Crowns for the UK and the Dominions. As a result, actions taken by the Crown in one Realm have no pertinence on the Crowns of the others. In example, when Britain went to war in 1914 all the Dominions were at war autimatically because they were part of the British Crown, however in World War II all the Dominions of the British Empire declared war seperately for each of their respective Crowns, with the exception of Ireland; which was the only country in the British Empire that was not at war. So the Queen of Great Britain is at war with Iraq by the advice of her British ministers, while the Queen of Canada is not at war with Iraq by the advice of her Canadian ministers. The Queen is the Head of State in 16 commonwealth countries and she is the Head of the Commonwealth, which consists of 54 countries. It's nice to have an international monarchy in the age of the 'Global Village' as it has the potential to inspire much international unity (which it does already, especially in Africa it seems) if we are willing to back off and give it a chance. Funny that many people who advocate internationalism somehow forget about it when they advocate abolishing that 'foreign' Queen! The international nature of the Monarchy is what most impresses me and I feel it has as much relevence to the future as it did in the past because of this fact. This aspect alone makes the whole thing worthwile. It shows too that the British did do good in the world. And it is a testament to the fact that the British Empire was the only empire in the world that came apart peacefully and amiciably (for the most part). It is this legacy of peace and friendship that is so important and necessary in today's world.
I will respond case by case to arguments 6-12:
6)
I would disagree with you assertion at least in regard to Canada ( I am not familiar witth Australia aboriginal situtation.) The first nations in Canada do not seem to have any bones to pick with Her Majesty. Indeed, she was welcomed quite warmly to Nunavuut on the inauguration of their legislative assembly at which she personally gave the speech from the Throne/Speakers chair. The historical situation in Canada is much different in Canada than in the US. Indeed many US 'Indians' (as did many black persons) fled to Canada in search of protection from the genocidal tendencies of the US government, and for the many of them they found protection. There was discrimination no doubt but their lives were no longer in jeopardy so in that sense the Monarchy and the Queen's Peace symbolised safety. Indeed Canada has grown to be a far superior country than the US in the fields of liberties and good governance and I think the loyalist tradition and the rejection of the American revolution played a significant role in that growth, as it still does today. (Canada seems to remain even more loyal to the Queen than the British, most likely because they can see the bitter fruits of republicanism and revolution by merely gazing south of the border. A Queen is better than a Bush!) Funny you forgot to mention New Zealand (probably because it would undermine your case). In New Zealand the Maori have reputation of strong support for the Monarchy. This is because of the Treaty of Waitangi which was a personal agreement between the Queen (Victoria at the time) and the Maori Chiefs. The treaty is regarded as sacrosanct by many New Zealanders in much the same way that the US constitution is considered sacrosanct in the US. And since it was between the Queen, her heirs and successors and the Chiefs any moved towards a republican status would be regarded as potentialy undermining the treaty. Indeed in 2002 when the Clark government (Clark was a Maoist in her youth by the way, charming lady eh?) moved to abolish appeals to the Queen in Council (the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, probably one of the finest judicial bodies the world has ever seen. Compared to the Jurists on the Privy Council the Justices of the Supreme Court are political hacks and nitwits!) the Maori opposed it on the grounds that the however symbolic the term "Queen in Council" it was still important in enforcing the treaty provisions. In light of these facts, your assertions made on point 6 are unfounded.
7.
Not much to say here as religion is covered on point 8. However I will say this, since the formation of the UK in 1801 Queens have reigned over the UK for a total of 116 years whilst Kings score in at 87 years. Since Canadian confederation in 1867: Queens: 86 years, Kings: 51 years. Sonce Australian federation in 1901: Queens: 52 years, Kings: 51 years. So far things seem rather balanced. In contrast, the Presidents of the US: Men: 214 years, Women: 0 years. In practice its a bit more balanced than the US system. Oh well, there was an Indian author who visited the US in the 1920s and upon returnin to India, he wrote a book about his experiences there titled 'Uncle Sham', quite witty eh?
8.
The Papacy question: a rather complex one. No comprimises should be made until the Pope relinquishes his claim as the suzerein of Kings as any such move before then would jeopardise the independence of the Monarchy from the Papacy by rendering the Monarch a vassal of the Pope. And since Roman Catholicism requires one to be part of the Holy See, nothing should be considered until the claim suzereinity is dropped. Why should the Parliaments compromise on succession if the Church refuses any compromises on suzereinity? The British Sovereign is the vassal of no man!
9.
Well if the states feel it violates secular views they are free to abolish the Monarchy if they wish.
10.
In Canada I don't see a problem with this for the last half millenia years since the arrival of the French Canada has been a Monarchy with the Sovereign far away. It makes things so much more special when there are visits. On a practical level:
the bill for the monarchy is footed by the British. The Canadian foot the Vice-regal bills but the Vice-regal officers allow for more flexibility. Indeed, it is quite possible that the Governor General could be nominated by plebicite rather than by the Prime Minister without making any constitutional changes as the Constitution makes no mention of the nomination of Vice-regal officers. All it would require is the Prime Minister initiating a plebicite and submitting the name of the winner to Her Majesty. Very flexible indeed.
11.
I have little knowledge of this situation so a shall not presume so by making any arguments.
12.
This is a result of the 1927 Royal Titles Act and the Statute of Westminster, 1931 that replace the singular Crown of the British Empire with multiple Crowns for the UK and the Dominions. As a result, actions taken by the Crown in one Realm have no pertinence on the Crowns of the others. In example, when Britain went to war in 1914 all the Dominions were at war autimatically because they were part of the British Crown, however in World War II all the Dominions of the British Empire declared war seperately for each of their respective Crowns, with the exception of Ireland; which was the only country in the British Empire that was not at war. So the Queen of Great Britain is at war with Iraq by the advice of her British ministers, while the Queen of Canada is not at war with Iraq by the advice of her Canadian ministers. The Queen is the Head of State in 16 commonwealth countries and she is the Head of the Commonwealth, which consists of 54 countries. It's nice to have an international monarchy in the age of the 'Global Village' as it has the potential to inspire much international unity (which it does already, especially in Africa it seems) if we are willing to back off and give it a chance. Funny that many people who advocate internationalism somehow forget about it when they advocate abolishing that 'foreign' Queen! The international nature of the Monarchy is what most impresses me and I feel it has as much relevence to the future as it did in the past because of this fact. This aspect alone makes the whole thing worthwile. It shows too that the British did do good in the world. And it is a testament to the fact that the British Empire was the only empire in the world that came apart peacefully and amiciably (for the most part). It is this legacy of peace and friendship that is so important and necessary in today's world.
You should have because its not a very good one.
In 1976 (I believe) Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government and appointed the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister until new elctions were held several months later. Malcolm Fraser's Liberal party won the elections in a landslide victory. The dismissal was the result of Gough Whitlam's inability to move the suply bills (the budget) through the senate thus the risk that the government would run out of money and shutdown. This may be acceptable in the US where deadlock is the norm but it is totally unacceptable under the Westminster style constitution in Australia. The Governer General, who himself was nominated by Whitlam a couple of years earlier, attempted to push Whitlam to compramise so that the suply bills could be passed, Whitlam however, refused. Kerr, worried that Whitlam would recommend that the Queen sack the Governor-General, moved forthwith to dismiss him and established a caretaker government that was able to pass the supply bills several hours later. On the House of Representitives then dispatched the Speaker of the House to inform Her Majesty of the happenings and to ask her to dismiss Kerr and reappoint Whitlam as the Prime Minister. The Queen responded that she felt she could not intervene unless absolutely neccessary and informed the Speaker that would continue watching the situation closely. Kerr erred in his belief that he risked instant dismissal if he were to threaten Whitlam with the sack, as a result he acted hastily and clumsily. The Queen however was right not to intervene because the instutions were still functioning and the constitution was in no danger. This was indeed a controversial episode in Australian politics but so rash and biased as to call it crazy. A simular situation happened in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago when the President and PM were at loggerheads, but unfortunately the republican constitution that was substituted for the Monarchy by replacing her with a president had not the means to deal with the situation and as a result the crisis was far more nasty and protracted than the one in Australia. All systems systems have flaws but I believe the Monarchical system is far sturdier than the republican systems that replace it, and it is for that reason that the republican referendum in Australia was defeated, not because they liked having a Queen but they to not wish to sacrifice the stability of the system.
Firstly: Socialism and Facism are mutually exclusive one is on the eft and the other is far right.
Secondly: Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada because:
Excerpts from the Constitution Act, 1867 (Formerly the British North America Act, 1867)
The preamble:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:
Section 9:
The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Section 17:
There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
Also as far as abolishing the Monarchy:
Constitution Act, 1982:
Sections 41, 41a:
An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
Translation: Unanimous consent = damn near impossible.
Oh, and for CanOWorms who likes to ramble on about Quebec, Quebec would probably veto any such move because it vetos everything when it comes to the constitution in order to coerce the other provinces to accept its proposed distinct society clause! However most parts of the constitution require only 7 out of 10 provinces for amendment.
Thank you for bringing up the Treaty rights of the natives.
Since those were signed by the queen's representative, much of the legal justification for upholding them derives directly from the monarchical nature of our system. It was the actions of the goverment of Canada (and the Provinces) which denied them their legal rights, in violation of these treaties. In the past 20 years, these actions have been more and more often found to be illegal by the courts. One of the major avenues the aboriginal peoples are asserting their rights and a key ingredient in their hope for rebuilding their societies.
Since it is unlikely that the majority would accept renewing the treaties if we were to overhaul our constitution from the ground up (I cite the recent referendum in BC), our ties to the Queen are vital to the interests of the Aboriginal peoples.
Since those were signed by the queen's representative, much of the legal justification for upholding them derives directly from the monarchical nature of our system. It was the actions of the goverment of Canada (and the Provinces) which denied them their legal rights, in violation of these treaties. In the past 20 years, these actions have been more and more often found to be illegal by the courts. One of the major avenues the aboriginal peoples are asserting their rights and a key ingredient in their hope for rebuilding their societies.
Since it is unlikely that the majority would accept renewing the treaties if we were to overhaul our constitution from the ground up (I cite the recent referendum in BC), our ties to the Queen are vital to the interests of the Aboriginal peoples.
Why didn't you respond to the others?
Well, my points aren't applicable to every single country. If the Maori are fine with it (which I haven't looked up), then ok.
Why are you talking about this in regards to #7? I simply stated that the law prefers males over females. It's sexist and discriminatory.
JFK wasn't controlled by the pope. OMG, John Kerry is a Pope Zombie! So, you're only talking about Catholics here. What about every other religion? Are you going to come up with this mind control zombie theory again?
It's sad how you're trying to justify discrimination.
good job - they can get rid of it if they want to! What a great argument. South Africa COULD have gotten rid of apartheid much earlier if they wanted to! Let's forget about equality and all that.
Thanks for your opinion.
this has already been addressed and I stated that it's a pretty weak point anyways
Well, my points aren't applicable to every single country. If the Maori are fine with it (which I haven't looked up), then ok.
Why are you talking about this in regards to #7? I simply stated that the law prefers males over females. It's sexist and discriminatory.
JFK wasn't controlled by the pope. OMG, John Kerry is a Pope Zombie! So, you're only talking about Catholics here. What about every other religion? Are you going to come up with this mind control zombie theory again?
It's sad how you're trying to justify discrimination.
good job - they can get rid of it if they want to! What a great argument. South Africa COULD have gotten rid of apartheid much earlier if they wanted to! Let's forget about equality and all that.
Thanks for your opinion.
this has already been addressed and I stated that it's a pretty weak point anyways
Yes, I already know the background of this situation. The GG couldn't even live in Australia since he was the most hated man in Australia. I brought it up because it is an example of the Monarch's minions using their power without the will of the people's government.
I'm sure there are positives to having a Monarchy, but it's still a barbaric custom that should be eliminated. The South African apartheid system probably had some positives such as less crime, but it was a barbaric custom that was thankfully eliminated.
Nobody is better than anyone else. There is no equality with a monarch. It's a horrible caste system that should have died out with seppuku.
I suggest first abolishing all powers that the monarchs have (like Japan).
Then you officially disassociate them with the government and country - just make them ordinary citizens with no government recognized titles. Give them like 5 years in advance so that they can be prepared. Then they move out of palaces and other buildings as they should belong to the country. Tourism won't be hurt too badly as these historical buildings will belong to the government now.
So, the now-deposed royalty are normal members of society, no better or worse than anyone else. They'll be equals. Discrimination will be out of the government with their departure. If they want to go around calling themselves royalty then that's fine, but the government won't officially recognize them as so. They'll just be like celebrities.
Nobody is better than anyone else. There is no equality with a monarch. It's a horrible caste system that should have died out with seppuku.
I suggest first abolishing all powers that the monarchs have (like Japan).
Then you officially disassociate them with the government and country - just make them ordinary citizens with no government recognized titles. Give them like 5 years in advance so that they can be prepared. Then they move out of palaces and other buildings as they should belong to the country. Tourism won't be hurt too badly as these historical buildings will belong to the government now.
So, the now-deposed royalty are normal members of society, no better or worse than anyone else. They'll be equals. Discrimination will be out of the government with their departure. If they want to go around calling themselves royalty then that's fine, but the government won't officially recognize them as so. They'll just be like celebrities.
My main problem with your basic argument, although you have given a few good points in your more detailed discussions, is that you try to draw analogies between a system that in practical terms has very few drawbacks (we've ended up ok) with systems like apartheid that were designed to systematically exploit entire groups of people, denying them basic human rights.
You must admit that that is an overstatement.
Anachronistic, and arguably obsolete, does not equate with evil.
You must admit that that is an overstatement.
Anachronistic, and arguably obsolete, does not equate with evil.
It is an overstatement. I'm just saying that it's a barbaric custom that should be eliminated along the lines of things such as apartheid, caste systems, seppuku, etc. Constitutional monarchies themselves are against the very fundamental beliefs of many societies - that everyone is equal.
One of the first actions of the Afrikaaner Nationalist party was to abolish the machinery of the monarchy in order to move forward with apartheid. In 1950, appeals to the King-in-Council were abolished to easier facilitate the new apartheid laws, since the JCPC often sided with minority voting rights as afforded by the 1908 South Africa Act. They then in 1959 put the Monarchy itself in their target sights. Their opposition to the monarchy was on nationalist grounds (they saw the British and anglophones as their oppressors). However the power of the Queen to dissallow laws within one year of passage posed a particular threat. The majority of the Queens subjects at that time were of african descent and she made no secret of her distrust of apartheid. Their worry was that the Queen might refer a new apartheid law to the JCPC and use the judgement as grounds to disallow the law. So she had to go. Of course the othere Commonwealth countries took advantage of this to prevent South Africa from reentering the Commonwealth. (kudos to Canadian PM Diefenbaker and Ghana PM Nkrumah for spearheading this action.) This just goes to show that many of the opponents of the 'foreign' monarchy tend to be dangerous nationalists.
Kudos to the Queen for her role in diffusing a simular apartheid system in the rebel colony of Rhodesia in 1980. (She put pressure on Thatcher to see it through.)
Kudos to the Queen for her role in diffusing a simular apartheid system in the rebel colony of Rhodesia in 1980. (She put pressure on Thatcher to see it through.)
So now the Queen does have a lot of political influence and power? You (royalists) can't have it both ways.
How am I trolling my ass off in a thread made specifically for me? I'd think the creation of the thread may constitute as trolling with his call-out against me.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
How am I trolling my ass off in a thread made specifically for me? I'd think the creation of the thread may constitute as trolling with his call-out against me.
Yeah, cuz monarchy is ALL about you.
End of replies, sorry i didn't mean to, i slipped. now back into the shadows.
I will not feed the troll anymore, whiskey got the better of me i guess, heh.
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
How am I trolling my ass off in a thread made specifically for me? I'd think the creation of the thread may constitute as trolling with his call-out against me.
Yeah, cuz monarchy is ALL about you.
End of replies, sorry i didn't mean to, i slipped. now back into the shadows.
I will not feed the troll anymore, whiskey got the better of me i guess, heh.
JFK was a President, not a king, there is no precedence of feudal homage to the pope with respect to the office as there is with a king. However it is quite alarming to see that bishops of the United States are putting pressure on the Catholic congressmen and politicians to tow the official line of the church and vote accordingly on pains of excomunication. This meddling in the affairs of state is totally unacceptable and shows the practical risks of allowing the King to be a vassal to the Pope. The king is free to hold Catholic beliefs as Henry VIII still did after the break with Rome and as many high-church Anglicans do today. He cannot however submit to Papal suzereignity, which until the Pope relinquishes this claim precludes him from being an 'official' Roman Catholic. The reason the controversy is so muted is because the Pope and clergy recognise this and do not wish to bring up as it could easily snowball and force the Papacy into accepting reform, espacially now at a time when there is already much pressure for Papal reform.
What about non-Catholics then? Why can't you have a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim?
I believe the UK monarch can't even marry a Catholic.
You're talking as if Catholics are zombies. :roll:
Fuuny you keep on bringing up apartheid because as I have pointed out the first stage of apartheid was to abolish the machinery of the Crown that posed a threat to the implementation of these laws!
(by the way: crime was higher due to the increased number of offences listed as crimes and guerilla actions by anti-apartheid groups.)
(by the way: crime was higher due to the increased number of offences listed as crimes and guerilla actions by anti-apartheid groups.)
She does. And I feel that is quite proper for use in emergency situations to protect the constitution. I the consider apartheid matter to be a textbook example for when it is prudent and right for the Queen to exercise her powers in defence of her subjects.
Wow, so the position with so much power as you believe, is determined by a caste system. No requirements except for birth. Excellent.
The point is that the machinery of Crown often serves to protect liberties against overzealous politicians.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter