Petition to reinstate the RCAF and RCN
Tman1 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:31 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
so you advocate canada become a republic? canada is still a constitutional monarchy and elizabeth is queen of canada, so royal should remain a designation.
No, did I say that? Canada could still be a constitutional monarchy and still change the designations of their names. Why? Because Canada is governed by a constitutional monarchy yet her military is that of Canadas.
Tman1 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:33 pm
WBenson WBenson:
sandorski sandorski:
WBenson WBenson:
sandorski sandorski:
WBenson WBenson:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
$1:
In reality I believe that the Queen is much more a Canadian than many who are born here.
How so?
I think that she is far more aware of much of what happens in Canada, has been to more of it, and cares for its future more than some people born here. One of the few matters on which her personal views have been allowed to shine out (through a prank call nonetheless) was Canadian unity. When there was concern that in the most recent referendum on sovereignty, a majority may vote for independence, she even went so far as to say "Well, it sounds as though the referendum may go the wrong way" to the person she thought was Jean Chretien. On her most recent visit in 2005, she said, "this country and Canadians everywhere have been a constant presence in my life and work." One thing the Queen is not is a good actor. If she says something or shows a feeling she has, that is what it is.
Does this mean the Queen is exclusively Canadian? No, but neither is she exclusively British. Does it completely make sense to have a monarchy? Perhaps not, but should everything be completely sensible? If it should be, then why have we left many historical buildings in tact? Surely a more effective Parliament building could be built, or a more easily navigable Quebec City, but would we not lose part of the country's soul in the process?
I would definitely like to see more visits from the Queen and her family, but official visits are, unfortunately, a matter for the government of the day.
Briefings. Unlike the Dubyah, she can read and comprehend.
Briefings that she could choose to ignore. The fact that she chooses to read and comprehend them when she could probably very easily go without doing so says much.
Not that much. Certainly doesn't make her more Canadian than Canadians. Just a good Study.
It doesn't make her any less though, either.
Still beats your theory that she is more Canadian than Canadians born here. I still have yet to see a satisfactory answer to that. Actually, I'm kind of curious as to how you know the actions of the Queen.
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:49 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
so you advocate canada become a republic? canada is still a constitutional monarchy and elizabeth is queen of canada, so royal should remain a designation.
No, did I say that? Canada could still be a constitutional monarchy and still change the designations of their names. Why? Because Canada is governed by a constitutional monarchy yet her military is that of Canadas.
under the constitution elizabeth is the queen of canada. she is stiil the titular head of state. all other monarchies, constitutional and otherwise, retain the appelation of royal in reference to their military.
Tman1 @ Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:58 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Tman1 Tman1:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
so you advocate canada become a republic? canada is still a constitutional monarchy and elizabeth is queen of canada, so royal should remain a designation.
No, did I say that? Canada could still be a constitutional monarchy and still change the designations of their names. Why? Because Canada is governed by a constitutional monarchy yet her military is that of Canadas.
under the constitution elizabeth is the queen of canada. she is stiil the titular head of state. all other monarchies, constitutional and otherwise, retain the appelation of royal in reference to their military.
Constitutions are meant to be changed or altered as has been done several times you'll note. It can be done but won't. Merely subtracting a single word won't change much. Constitutional Monarchy is simply a style of governance, why should it change they way the military is run or read as?
ShepherdsDog @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:03 am
how would dropping the term royal change anything then?
Tman1 @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:07 am
That's what I am arguing about, it won't change anything. If I say the CS (Canadian Ship) Toronto, why should that be any indication that Canada still isn't a Constitutional Monarchy?
ShepherdsDog @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:17 am
on the converse, what difference does it make if we retain royal? the term is still the royal canadian...... or her majesty's canadian.....? people still know it's canadian.
Tman1 @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:23 am
Then it shouldn't matter if you drop the royal or the majesty.
ShepherdsDog @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:58 am
my point still remains, why bother? what point would it serve, other than save some paint?
Tman1 @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:16 am
I suppose it all comes down to opinion. There is no right answer to it. You want honorifics, I don't.
Basically all I'm saying is that all it is is a word. Even if you change it, it won't matter in our style of governance or traditions. Our military is OUR military, not that of Britain's or the Commonwealth, or the Queens, even in name only. Replace "royal" big deal, is it going to hurt anybody if we do? Our government will still be the same.
Streaker @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:19 am
By all means let's reinstate the RCAF and RCN monikers.
Having said that, I hope that someday the "Royal" will refer to a Canadianised monarchy instead of some distant, foreign one whose head deems Canada worthy of a little visit once every five years or so. 
sandorski @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:23 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
my point still remains, why bother? what point would it serve, other than save some paint?
It's already been done. Why bring it back?
WBenson @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:57 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
WBenson WBenson:
sandorski sandorski:
WBenson WBenson:
sandorski sandorski:
WBenson WBenson:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
$1:
In reality I believe that the Queen is much more a Canadian than many who are born here.
How so?
I think that she is far more aware of much of what happens in Canada, has been to more of it, and cares for its future more than some people born here. One of the few matters on which her personal views have been allowed to shine out (through a prank call nonetheless) was Canadian unity. When there was concern that in the most recent referendum on sovereignty, a majority may vote for independence, she even went so far as to say "Well, it sounds as though the referendum may go the wrong way" to the person she thought was Jean Chretien. On her most recent visit in 2005, she said, "this country and Canadians everywhere have been a constant presence in my life and work." One thing the Queen is not is a good actor. If she says something or shows a feeling she has, that is what it is.
Does this mean the Queen is exclusively Canadian? No, but neither is she exclusively British. Does it completely make sense to have a monarchy? Perhaps not, but should everything be completely sensible? If it should be, then why have we left many historical buildings in tact? Surely a more effective Parliament building could be built, or a more easily navigable Quebec City, but would we not lose part of the country's soul in the process?
I would definitely like to see more visits from the Queen and her family, but official visits are, unfortunately, a matter for the government of the day.
Briefings. Unlike the Dubyah, she can read and comprehend.
Briefings that she could choose to ignore. The fact that she chooses to read and comprehend them when she could probably very easily go without doing so says much.
Not that much. Certainly doesn't make her more Canadian than Canadians. Just a good Study.
It doesn't make her any less though, either.
Still beats your theory that she is more Canadian than Canadians born here. I still have yet to see a satisfactory answer to that. Actually, I'm kind of curious as to how you know the actions of the Queen.
I didn't say she was more Canadian than all Canadians born here, just some. Certainly there are some we'd want to disown. Wasn't there just a trial in Chicago that proved that?
WBenson @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:57 pm
Streaker Streaker:
By all means let's reinstate the RCAF and RCN monikers.
Having said that, I hope that someday the "Royal" will refer to a Canadianised monarchy instead of some distant, foreign one whose head deems Canada worthy of a little visit once every five years or so.
Having said that, I hope that someday the "Royal" will refer to a Canadianised monarchy instead of some distant, foreign one whose head deems Canada worthy of a little visit once every five years or so.
The Queen doesn't choose when visits happen, the Prime Minister does. Write to him if you want it changed.
WBenson @ Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:59 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Our current Queen is Queen of Canada.....not a foreign monarch.
Behave your self.
HOCKEY PUCK
Behave your self.
HOCKEY PUCK
Our current Queen is the Queen of Canada in name only....and a foreign monarch.
Behave yourself fuckface.
She is a foreign monarch only when acting as the Queen of a foreign country. When dealing with Canada she is the Queen of Canada. You either are or you aren't, there's no such thing as "in name only." I guess the Constitution Act is a constitution in name only, too.