Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 16  Next

Nah, nonsense. 15th century monarchs were leaders, had political leadership, and armies. They were a lot different from today's monarchies.

Todays western monarchies are nothing more than promotional.

I would not mind if Charles or William or Harry said no to the throne, but I don't care if they don't either. It won't become another war, and that is what is different from 15th century monarchies...

Please do tell, which monarchies have turned themselves into a republic lately?

   

We're pussies? Why, because you deemed it so? Please. What about the Patriotes of 1837? In fact, maybe this has escaped you, but we achieved independence WITHOUT bloodshed. That's commendable when one considers the historical narrative of self-determination.

   

So? Isn't this a thread about the Canadian context? We have a constitutional monarchy, which has little to do with Peter the Great or Louis XIV. Get a grip and accept the fact that this has little to do with ACTUAL grievances and more to do with a rather amateurish foray into Canadian politics

   

Ditching the monarchy is a near-impossibility from a constitutional standpoint, and any effort to do so risks being painfully divisive.

A possible solution (and a good Canadian-style compromise) might be to keep the monarchy but Canadianise it.

   

Aging_Redneck wrote:

I am far from being anti-american but the inconvenient truth about the American revolution was that it's leaders and many followers main motivation was not self-determination or civil liberties but more about seizing the lands of the loyalists. Most "patriot" leaders were landless prior to the revolution but were land barons after.

Example: George Washington could not have cut down his fathers cherry tree because his father never owned land.

   

Gosh..... They were Tories....

   

Wealthy people won't go away in a republic.

   

Even if they themselves disagree, it won't change the succession. That requires, at the very minimum, an Act of Parliament.

   

The above was in response to a post by Aging_Redneck which has since disappeared.

   

Kim Jong Il is an hereditary ruler.....an absolute ruler at that.

   

I'm hoping the thread's originator pops back in as i'm still curious as to whether he's actually upset about the Canadian constitutional monarchy or merely taking shots at a wealthy group of individuals.

   

I agree with Sask in the informal observation that anti-monarchists tend to also be anti-American (while not all anti-Americans tend to be anti-monarchist). In my personal experience this tends to be true.

Hating the Queen for her despotic, iron-fisted rule over Canada [/sarcasm] seems to be the hallmark of these twits and they likewise seem to hate the USA and their hatred tends to show up with regularity on 9/11 conspiracy sites and threads.

Nihilistic they may be, but the general feeling I get from them is that they simply have authority issues. Perhaps daddy didn't spank them enough or too much when they were young.

   

Not hardly. Canadians in WW1 and WW2 made practical independence from the UK inevitable and they accomplished their independence without the bloodshed that ravaged the USA during our war of independence. The American Revolution was a failure by Parliament to recognize British subjects as equals no matter where they lived. Had King George and Parliament simply given the colonies the seats in Parliament that they'd asked for then US history and Canadian history would be very similar.

That we had to spill blood to attain our rights is not something that makes us better than Canadians. Not at all.

And the comparison is simply not fair as Canadians never had to deal with the depradations of British forces occupying private homes and lands during peace time as we did. Canada did better than the USA mostly because the UK did not want to repeat the lessons they were taught at Saratoga, Ticonderoga, and Yorktown at various places in Canada.

It makes Canadians blessed that they never had these experiences. History, of course, makes it abundantly clear that Canadians are not pussies so I will not entertain nor debate that comment.

   

I find that most anti-monarchists are PRO-Republic and often quote the United States as an example of a successful government.

I'm not disagreeing to a a republic, i'm just curious as to what their reasoning is in regards to abolishing constitutional (I'm certainly not an advocate of absolutism) monarchy in Canada. So far, i've seen a lot of personal opinion, but very little in the way of persuasive objective evidence

   

Keep the monarchy, it does not affect our national sovereignty, it does not affect our effectiveness in battle, or profits in the world market and it does not affect the day to day business of Canadians.

It only bothers those few who actually get themselves all worked up over it. To them I say...

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 16  Next