International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Is the Queen of Canada really just a figurehead? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333627)

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 01:03 PM

Is the Queen of Canada really just a figurehead?
 
The vast majority of Canadians would tell you the Queen has no real power. The Royal Family is just a holdover from earlier times and its role is primarily ceremonial.

However, the Constitution, the fundamental Law of the Land makes crystal clear that the Queen has power over and above our elected politicians.

Article #9 in the Canadian Constitution states in full:
"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Article #15 states in full:
"The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Those two clauses alone tell the story. Some will admit that she does have the power, but never exercises it. That's because they never see it being exercised. The media is not privy to closed door meetings between the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada) and politicians or bureaucrats.

As if any family that has held untold wealth and power for many generations would ever simply relinquish their power without a lot of blood being shed.

This is a good example of how real power hides behind front men. In this case, hiding in plain sight.
It's a good example of how the public can be so easily bamboozled.
It shows that politics and elections are just window dressing to give the public the illusion that they have a voice. But every elected MP or MPP must swear allegiance to the Queen - they do not swear any allegiance to Canadians, even the ones that voted for them.

Belz... 4th December 2018 01:05 PM

Yes.

Information Analyst 4th December 2018 01:20 PM

And?

Ziggurat 4th December 2018 01:35 PM

No, she isn't just a figurehead. Only the true Queen can lift the curse from Elsinore Brewery. I saw a documentary about it once.

theprestige 4th December 2018 01:35 PM

Starts out with the potential to be an interesting analysis of the Commonwealth system of constitutional monarchy, but veers sharply into conspiracy theory before anything interesting actually happens.

dudalb 4th December 2018 03:01 PM

Last real power the UK had over Canada ended in the 1920's when they gave Canada full power to conduct it;'s own foreign policy. It has has pretty much total control over it's domestic affairs since the 1870's.
The Queen has as much actual political power in Canada as she does in the UK..next to nothing.
Even if the quotes the OP gives are correct, they fall in the category of "Dead Letter Laws" obsolete laws which are not enforced.
But the whole "Queen of England has vast hidden power" crap sounds like it was swiped from notorious nutcase Lyndon La Rouch, who has been pushing the diea the Queen Lizzie is behind the international Drug Traffic for some time.
Iichy Boy is also pushing Anti Vaccine crap so buyer beware....

lobosrul5 4th December 2018 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12523399)
Last real power the UK had over Canada ended in the 1920's when they gave Canada full power to conduct it;'s own foreign policy. It has has pretty much total control over it's domestic affairs since the 1870's.
The Queen has as much actual political power in Canada as she does in the UK..next to nothing.

I do believe that either parliament (UK or Canadian) can tell her to go pound sand anytime they want.

Norman Alexander 4th December 2018 03:43 PM

Her Maj, QE2, has "vast hidden power"?? What, this 90-plus year old woman is actually a Power Ranger? Or the Hulk? So what is Phillip...Robin to her Batman?

You do know that it is not just Canada that has the Queen as their Head of State? So seriously, this sort of "Queen has hidden superpower" stuff is silly talk. And that's coming from an Australian Republican, actively working to replace the Queen as HoS here in Australia. Not because of any superpoweredness. But because we don't believe we should have a citizen of another country as OUR HoS. Simples.

dudalb 4th December 2018 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12523457)
Her Maj, QE2, has "vast hidden power"?? What, this 90-plus year old woman is actually a Power Ranger? Or the Hulk? So what is Phillip...Robin to her Batman?

You do know that it is not just Canada that has the Queen as their Head of State? So seriously, this sort of "Queen has hidden superpower" stuff is silly talk. And that's coming from an Australian Republican, actively working to replace the Queen as HoS here in Australia. Not because of any superpoweredness. But because we don't believe we should have a citizen of another country as OUR HoS. Simples.

Lyndon LaRouch, one of America;s most infamous Conspiracy kooks, has been pushing this crap for decades. Most ifamous was his accusing the Queen of being behind the international Drug Trade.
We used to have one of LaRouche's followers as a member.He provided much amusement.

dudalb 4th December 2018 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 (Post 12523405)
I do believe that either parliament (UK or Canadian) can tell her to go pound sand anytime they want.

That has been the case in the UK since 1688.....

Norman Alexander 4th December 2018 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12523512)
Lyndon LaRouch, one of America;s most infamous Conspiracy kooks, has been pushing this crap for decades. Most infamous was his accusing the Queen of being behind the international Drug Trade.
We used to have one of LaRouche's followers as a member. He provided much amusement.

Yeah, I know. The raving monarchists here accuse us of being in league with this sort of crazy (in reality, they are just about as crazy as each other). They are hilarious, aren't they! You can hear their eyeballs swiveling from here. :rolleyes:

Border Reiver 4th December 2018 06:53 PM

Absolutely - the Queen is for all practical purposes a figurehead.

A monarch wanting to be a more dynamic head of state has the potential to wield a fair amount of residual power in theory - in practice, the level of pushback that would happen would likely be substantial enough to see the clan Windsor back to their regiments and asking the colonel if they needed a Duty Officer because they could use the work.

The main reason Canada, and I would hazard a guess for Australia, New Zealand, etc keep the monarchy is because of tradition, a level of laziness in that it would be quite a time consuming and expensive exercise to eliminate HMTQ - rename a variety of organizations, reissue lots of badges, flags, etc and revamp the entire political structure, and quite simply the system is working for us now and there is no pressing need to change what isn't obnoxious.

TragicMonkey 4th December 2018 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12523457)
Her Maj, QE2, has "vast hidden power"?? What, this 90-plus year old woman is actually a Power Ranger? Or the Hulk? So what is Phillip...Robin to her Batman?

Don't be silly. She's more like Sailor Moon--she's an ordinary mortal until she transforms into her other forms, one for each of her countries. In her Canada Queen form, Liz wields the Maple Star Crystal and utilizes ice magic, hockey skills, and her mystical caribou sense.

Philip's not so much a sidekick as he is a mascot or pet. Like Snarf on Thundercats, or that purple monkey the Wonder Twins had.

Damien Evans 4th December 2018 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12523237)
The vast majority of Canadians would tell you the Queen has no real power. The Royal Family is just a holdover from earlier times and its role is primarily ceremonial.

However, the Constitution, the fundamental Law of the Land makes crystal clear that the Queen has power over and above our elected politicians.

Article #9 in the Canadian Constitution states in full:
"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Article #15 states in full:
"The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen."

Those two clauses alone tell the story. Some will admit that she does have the power, but never exercises it. That's because they never see it being exercised. The media is not privy to closed door meetings between the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada) and politicians or bureaucrats.

As if any family that has held untold wealth and power for many generations would ever simply relinquish their power without a lot of blood being shed.


This is a good example of how real power hides behind front men. In this case, hiding in plain sight.
It's a good example of how the public can be so easily bamboozled.
It shows that politics and elections are just window dressing to give the public the illusion that they have a voice. But every elected MP or MPP must swear allegiance to the Queen - they do not swear any allegiance to Canadians, even the ones that voted for them.

You may want to look up the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

Ziggurat 4th December 2018 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12523590)
Don't be silly. She's more like Sailor Moon--she's an ordinary mortal until she transforms into her other forms, one for each of her countries. In her Canada Queen form, Liz wields the Maple Star Crystal and utilizes ice magic, hockey skills, and her mystical caribou sense.

Philip's not so much a sidekick as he is a mascot or pet. Like Snarf on Thundercats, or that purple monkey the Wonder Twins had.

The purple monkey isn’t just a pet.

Norman Alexander 4th December 2018 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Border Reiver (Post 12523589)
The main reason Canada, and I would hazard a guess for Australia, New Zealand, etc keep the monarchy is because of tradition, a level of laziness in that it would be quite a time consuming and expensive exercise to eliminate HMTQ - rename a variety of organizations, reissue lots of badges, flags, etc and revamp the entire political structure, and quite simply the system is working for us now and there is no pressing need to change what isn't obnoxious.

Nope, none of that is relevant or even necessary, actually. Simply change our constitution to make our Governor General as now where the buck stops (let's call him First Cobber, eh? ;)) and not reporting to HMTQ, and all is done. The rest is already in place and operational and has been for a long time now.

About the only reason we haven't done this here at least is that most Australians sort of believe, for all intents and purposes, it has already been done! Their awareness of our constitutional law is...thin, to say the least. The changes of stationery, organisational names and flag, etc. can be done as and when needed. Or keep them as mementos, doesn't matter. We changed from pounds, shillings and pence to dollars and cents in 1966, and our world didn't cave in then. A bit of legalese modification is hardly going to make a difference now.

BobTheCoward 4th December 2018 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12523399)
Last real power the UK had over Canada ended in the 1920's when they gave Canada full power to conduct it;'s own foreign policy. It has has pretty much total control over it's domestic affairs since the 1870's.
The Queen has as much actual political power in Canada as she does in the UK..next to nothing.
Even if the quotes the OP gives are correct, they fall in the category of "Dead Letter Laws" obsolete laws which are not enforced.
But the whole "Queen of England has vast hidden power" crap sounds like it was swiped from notorious nutcase Lyndon La Rouch, who has been pushing the diea the Queen Lizzie is behind the international Drug Traffic for some time.
Iichy Boy is also pushing Anti Vaccine crap so buyer beware....

Government structure aspects are dead letter laws? The US is a totally weird place where any unused portion can be invoked regardless of age.

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 07:52 PM

It's impossible to prove how, when, or if, the Queen exercises her power. Therefore I don't really want to debate that aspect. It's neither provable nor disprovable.

But whether she exercises her power or not, the point here is to show that she does have the power and there's nothing stopping her from exercising it if she wishes.

Some of you are disputing that point, despite clear proof it is so.

dudalb: You're suggesting the two articles quoted from the Constitution fall under 'Dead Letter Laws' ? Even if such a thing were possible in the foundational legal document of the nation, DLLs are still on the books and therefore legally enforceable. Therefore, the DLL argument has no merit on that basis alone.

lobosrul5: Back when I was researching this, I remember reading that Canada could abolish the monarchy with a unanimous vote by federal and provincial parliaments. But that's smoke and mirrors because every member of those parliaments must swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. What are the chances they're all going to break their oath? I'd say chances are nil.

We're told that in a Constitutional Monarchy, which is Canada's form of gov't, the Constitution defines and limits the monarch's powers. To those who believe she has no power, can you point to anything in the Constitution that limits her power?
Can you point to any document that limits her power and that has the force of law behind it?

If the Queen had no power, then articles #9 and #15 wouldn't need to be there.
The Queen would not have to give Royal Assent before any law or bill is passed by Parliament. MPs, MPPs, RCMP would not have to swear allegiance to the Queen.
Every bill would not start with, "Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:"
See, it's "Her Majesty" doing the enacting of the law.

Are legal documents worded willy-nilly? Is it the case that, sure, the Constitution says this or that, but we can simply ignore what it says?

Then we have the fact that the Queen is not subject to the laws the rest of us are.

In the face of all that, it amazes me that anyone can insist the Queen has no real power. The exercise of that power is another matter, true. But common sense tells me there's no way she wouldn't wield the power enshrined to her by the Constitution.

Norman Alexander 4th December 2018 08:02 PM

You have NO idea what "figurehead" means in this context, do you. ;)

Try looking up the word "titular". No, it's not soft porn. Oh all right, I'll do it for you. Titular

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien Evans (Post 12523603)
You may want to look up the following:

I did. Despite "Bloodless Revolution" redirecting there (something to do with vegetarians?) both those accounts involved armies and blood.

BobTheCoward 4th December 2018 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12523629)
Some of you are disputing that point, despite clear proof it is so.

dudalb: You're suggesting the two articles quoted from the Constitution fall under 'Dead Letter Laws' ? Even if such a thing were possible in the foundational legal document of the nation, DLLs are still on the books and therefore legally enforceable. Therefore, the DLL argument has no merit on that basis alone.

lobosrul5: Back when I was researching this, I remember reading that Canada could abolish the monarchy with a unanimous vote by federal and provincial parliaments. But that's smoke and mirrors because every member of those parliaments must swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. What are the chances they're all going to break their oath? I'd say chances are nil.

We're told that in a Constitutional Monarchy, which is Canada's form of gov't, the Constitution defines and limits the monarch's powers. To those who believe she has no power, can you point to anything in the Constitution that limits her power?

Depends. But the idea that unused laws become void is a legal concept. It is called Desuetude. I'm not saying it applies in this situation...but it is an interesting concept to read up on if you haven't been exposed to it, yet.

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12523633)
You have NO idea what "figurehead" means in this context, do you. ;)

Try looking up the word "titular". No, it's not soft porn. Oh all right, I'll do it for you.

Can you show us where 'figurehead' or 'titular' are written in the Constitution or any other document that has the force of law?

Can you find a single thing that has the force of law and affects Articles #9 and #15?

If not, then what the Constitution says must stand, no?

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12523636)
Depends. But the idea that unused laws become void is a legal concept. It is called Desuetude. I'm not saying it applies in this situation...but it is an interesting concept to read up on if you haven't been exposed to it, yet.

Thanks, but you're right - it doesn't apply in this situation. And regardless of the situation, as long as a law is on the books, it has the legal standing to be enforced.

BobTheCoward 4th December 2018 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12523650)
Thanks, but you're right - it doesn't apply in this situation. And regardless of the situation, as long as a law is on the books, it has the legal standing to be enforced.

Depends on where. The Wikipedia page in that term discusses how the west Virginia supreme Court struck down a law on that principle in 1992.

Norman Alexander 4th December 2018 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12523648)
Can you show us where 'figurehead' or 'titular' are written in the Constitution or any other document that has the force of law?

Can you find a single thing that has the force of law and affects Articles #9 and #15?

If not, then what the Constitution says must stand, no?

I'm Australian. I have only just read your Canadian constitution for the first time, particularly the bit on Executive Powers. And in just about all respects, it clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law. She barely has any roles at all except for smiling and waving on visits.

Have you the FOGGIEST idea what you are talking about?

But if you are worried about anything, perhaps you might consider that the word "Queen" seems to be written right into the constitution rather than "monarch". So if/when Charles becomes king, the whole section no longer applies at all in any respect. He is "king", the wording specifically says "queen", in a couple of dozen very significant places. And you can't just go rewriting the top law of the country instantly on a whim, even to change genders.

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12523659)
Depends on where. The Wikipedia page in that term discusses how the west Virginia supreme Court struck down a law on that principle in 1992.

OK, but why are we getting sidetracked to something not relevant here?

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12523666)
I'm Australian. I have only just read your Canadian constitution for the first time, particularly the bit on Executive Powers. And in just about all respects, it clearly defines just how titular the Queen's role is in Canadian law. She barely has any roles at all except for smiling and waving on visits.

Have you the FOGGIEST idea what you are talking about?

But if you are worried about anything, perhaps you might consider that the word "Queen" seems to be written right into the constitution rather than "monarch". So if/when Charles becomes king, the whole section no longer applies at all in any respect. He is "king", the wording specifically says "queen", in a couple of dozen very significant places. And you can't just go rewriting the top law of the country instantly on a whim, even to change genders.

Yes, I've thought about the gender change issue and I don't know how that will be handled. Perhaps a constitutional amendment. But my take is that the word "Queen" essentially means the monarch. One way or another, whoever takes over, the Articles will apply to them. Or what? Will the Constitution be thrown out and rewritten?

So, do you think Articles #9 and #15 define a titular role? Can you quote anything from the Constitution that softens or alters the meaning of those clauses? Can you provide wording from the Constitution that you believe defines a titular role?

Trebuchet 4th December 2018 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12523668)
OK, but why are we getting sidetracked to something not relevant here?

Because that's what the poster you responded to does.
Meanwhile, I'm picturing Lizzie carved from wood and slung under the bowsprit of Canada.

Delvo 4th December 2018 10:16 PM

I don't pretend that those lines in the Constitution really give her any actual power, because I'm familiar with real-world governments with so-called "constitutions" not actually following them so they really don't describe how the government is actually constituted... but the fact that they're there at all really is bizarre.

Why would any one nation ever constitute itself as inherently subject to another nation? Even if it had said Parliament instead of royalty, it would still be another nation's government & orders, so you're declaring yourself non-independent. And if you don't mean to say that that other nation is still your real ruler, then why write a constitution that sounds that way?

Damien Evans 4th December 2018 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12523634)
I did. Despite "Bloodless Revolution" redirecting there (something to do with vegetarians?) both those accounts involved armies and blood.

You're so close to getting it.

Itchy Boy 4th December 2018 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delvo (Post 12523692)
I don't pretend that those lines in the Constitution really give her any actual power, because I'm familiar with real-world governments with so-called "constitutions" not actually following them so they really don't describe how the government is actually constituted... but the fact that they're there at all really is bizarre.

Why would any one nation ever constitute itself as inherently subject to another nation? Even if it had said Parliament instead of royalty, it would still be another nation's government & orders, so you're declaring yourself non-independent. And if you don't mean to say that that other nation is still your real ruler, then why write a constitution that sounds that way?

I think it's crystal clear those two clauses give her real power. Most of the Constitution is written in a difficult (for the layman) to decipher legalese.
But those two clauses are written in plain English that any layman can understand.

I draw your attention to the words "shall remain" in those two clauses.
The Constitution gave the Colony of Canada a measure of independence after it had been a colony for some time, and a generation or two of Canadian 'leaders' schooled in the British tradition could be trusted to tow the line.

So, "Executive Authority of and over Canada" belonged to the Queen before the Constitution existed. As did her position as head of the armed forces. The Constitution explicitly did not give those powers away. They "shall remain" with the Queen.

Canada did not 'constitute itself' or fight for independence. The Constitution was given to Canada to unburden the Crown from involvement in day to day affairs. It had been a colony long enough that the Canadian 'leaders' could be counted on to tow the line. And it created the illusion that "the people" have a voice and somehow the gov't represents and carries out the people's wishes.

Lukraak_Sisser 4th December 2018 11:22 PM

It's all nice and well to harp on legalese minutiae, but the main question is this:

If the Queen were to give a command that goes against what the government of Canada wants, will she be obeyed?

The answer to that seems to be a very clear no.
In which case the monarchy is a figurehead monarchy.

The clearest example in recent times I can think of of a constitutional monarch going against the wishes of his parliament is the Belgian King who refused to sign a law allowing abortion because it went against his faith. The Belgians solved it by declaring the king unable to reign for a day, sign the bill into law, and then reinstate the king.
NOT by accepting the official power of the king to nullify laws by refusing to sign, no matter that that is written in their constitution.

If the Windsors ever tried to use the powers that Canada's constitution gives them they know damn well the answer would be 'ok, republic it is'.

lionking 5th December 2018 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 12523728)
It's all nice and well to harp on legalese minutiae, but the main question is this:

If the Queen were to give a command that goes against what the government of Canada wants, will she be obeyed?

The answer to that seems to be a very clear no.
In which case the monarchy is a figurehead monarchy.

Exactly.

Itchy Boy 5th December 2018 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 12523728)
It's all nice and well to harp on legalese minutiae, but the main question is this:

If the Queen were to give a command that goes against what the government of Canada wants, will she be obeyed?

The answer to that seems to be a very clear no.
In which case the monarchy is a figurehead monarchy.

The clearest example in recent times I can think of of a constitutional monarch going against the wishes of his parliament is the Belgian King who refused to sign a law allowing abortion because it went against his faith. The Belgians solved it by declaring the king unable to reign for a day, sign the bill into law, and then reinstate the king.
NOT by accepting the official power of the king to nullify laws by refusing to sign, no matter that that is written in their constitution.

If the Windsors ever tried to use the powers that Canada's constitution gives them they know damn well the answer would be 'ok, republic it is'.

I can't speak to the Belgian situation as I know nothing about it.

But to address your point, it's not so simplistic. First, as I alluded to in the previous post, the gov't of Canada was set up by the Brits. Nobody reaches any high position in the system unless they've proven themselves to be of the 'right stuff' - meaning loyal to the Queen and a team player. Anyone who goes rogue is quickly discredited and ousted. The system is rigged so that the scenario you describe would never come up in Canada.

Lukraak_Sisser 5th December 2018 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12523745)
I can't speak to the Belgian situation as I know nothing about it.

But to address your point, it's not so simplistic. First, as I alluded to in the previous post, the gov't of Canada was set up by the Brits. Nobody reaches any high position in the system unless they've proven themselves to be of the 'right stuff' - meaning loyal to the Queen and a team player. Anyone who goes rogue is quickly discredited and ousted. The system is rigged so that the scenario you describe would never come up in Canada.

This would be the same British government that is unable to get it's act together with regards to Brexit? That's the government that has manipulated Canada's election to prevent anyone not of undying loyalty to the royal house to be even elected?
In that case I would not worry too much. I suspect they lost the paperwork and got the wrong people elected by now.

BobTheCoward 5th December 2018 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser (Post 12523728)
It's all nice and well to harp on legalese minutiae, but the main question is this:

If the Queen were to give a command that goes against what the government of Canada wants, will she be obeyed?

The answer to that seems to be a very clear no.
In which case the monarchy is a figurehead monarchy.

The clearest example in recent times I can think of of a constitutional monarch going against the wishes of his parliament is the Belgian King who refused to sign a law allowing abortion because it went against his faith. The Belgians solved it by declaring the king unable to reign for a day, sign the bill into law, and then reinstate the king.
NOT by accepting the official power of the king to nullify laws by refusing to sign, no matter that that is written in their constitution.

If the Windsors ever tried to use the powers that Canada's constitution gives them they know damn well the answer would be 'ok, republic it is'.

Canada is like Afghanistan and has no respect for the rule of law. Got it

SuburbanTurkey 5th December 2018 08:23 AM

I am disappointed by this thread. I was hoping for Sovereign Citizen with a monarchist twist pseudo legal nonsense. Instead I get NWO pseudo legal nonsense. 2/10, I want a refund.

Hellbound 5th December 2018 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 12524058)
I am disappointed by this thread. I was hoping for Sovereign Citizen with a monarchist twist pseudo legal nonsense. Instead I get NWO pseudo legal nonsense. 2/10, I want a refund.

Sorry, you break it, you buy it.

Wait, no, that's not right. It was already broke when you bought it, so you can't complain now.

There, that's the right one :)

3point14 5th December 2018 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12523590)
Don't be silly. She's more like Sailor Moon--she's an ordinary mortal until she transforms into her other forms, one for each of her countries. In her Canada Queen form, Liz wields the Maple Star Crystal and utilizes ice magic, hockey skills, and her mystical caribou sense.

Philip's not so much a sidekick as he is a mascot or pet. Like Snarf on Thundercats, or that purple monkey the Wonder Twins had.


Queen 19? (that's probably too many countries, but at least it rhymes)

Henri McPhee 5th December 2018 10:01 AM

There is a bit about all this, which also applies to Canada, in a book called Afternoon Light published 1967 by a former Australian prime minister Sir Robert Menzies, who was a monarchist:
I think the Queen likes to think she is a colleague of prime ministers.

Quote:

In a Monarchy like ours, the focal point is also an office, the Crown, now occupied by a woman, the Queen. Her actual powers are small; she acts on the advice of her Ministers, whose views are, on political occasions such as the Opening of Parliament, expressed by her, but not attributed to her.
Quote:

She is also part of the daily administration of the law. 'Her judges preside in court; it is 'her' writ which runs; in the criminal courts it is 'her prosecutor who prosecutes. And in the courts, certain senior counsel are appointed 'Queens Counsel'. The mail is still the 'Royal Mail'.

The focal point in a democratic Republic is therefore an office, occupied by a man. The office may be held in veneration, but the man may well be, and not infrequently is, as now in the United States, criticized or actually abused by half of the electors.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.