NationStates Jolt Archive

Today just so happens to be the Victoria Day holiday here in Canada, and as always, I question the entire purpose of celebrating the birthday of a dead British queen. :confused:

I think its about time that Canada ditched the monarchy and adopted a republican system of government. As Citizens for a Canadian Republic put it, "We're not bees, why do we need a queen?"

What do you guys think? Do you think Canada (or any other nation under monarchial rule) should keep the monarchy or become a republic? :cool:

I believe in the right to secession. Either way, Canada is an independent country. It should do as it pleases. If the majority wants to keep the Monarchy's jurisdiction over it, it should do so, since it is a democracy after all.

I think it makes very little difference really. Some countries in history have benefited from becoming a republic and some by becoming an empire/monarchy. The roman republic->empire is a very good example.

There's currently not much to complain about the British monarchy, so it's not really worth replacing.

I think it makes very little difference really. Some countries in history have benefited from becoming a republic and some by becoming an empire/monarchy. The roman republic->empire is a very good example.

There's currently not much to complain about the British monarchy, so it's not really worth replacing.
All very true. It's up to the Canadians in the end, they should do as they please.

As for Canada, I don't see why it would even matter, you are a Constitutional Monarchy. The Queen has no real power and serves only as a ceremonial figurehead outside the UK. "The Queen reigns but does not rule."

As for absolute monarchies, power should not rest with one person alone.

Today just so happens to be the Victoria Day holiday here in Canada, and as always, I question the entire purpose of celebrating the birthday of a dead British queen. :confused:

I think its about time that Canada ditched the monarchy and adopted a republican system of government. As Citizens for a Canadian Republic put it, "We're not bees, why do we need a queen?"

What do you guys think? Do you think Canada (or any other nation under monarchial rule) should keep the monarchy or become a republic? :cool:
ah, i wondered what victoria day was about. we seem to have that here too. yes, why do we celebrate vic's birthday and no other british monarch's birthday (except for the current one)? there's little reason for canada to retain the queen as head of state. the only reason i can give for retaining her in britain is for tourism. having said that, versaille manages to pull in tourists without any royalty living in it anymore. maybe we should viciously execute the royal family... that'd generate some extra interest, maybe more so than retaining them.
infinite revolution does not condone any gratuitous acts of violence against any persons, royal or otherwise. the above post is intended to be humorous :P.

British monarchy has no power at all. So ditch it if you want, i guarentee England won't give a damn.

We need the queen. She's the strongest safegaurd our democracy has.

Been talks here in NZ that we may become a Republic.. Meh, I don't care.

We need the queen. She's the strongest safegaurd our democracy has.

That's funny.

Liasia']That's funny.

It's true.

It's true.

You can just see her, standing alone against the Hordes of communism and facism, her handbag her only weapon.
The queen pWns, mortal Kombat style.

Well... the way I see it...

the queen is just symbolic, her role as the queen was not elected but was given through birthright, and Canadians/Australians/NZers/British/etc. have to owe allegiance to her? doesn't make any sense to me.

and... I dunno if many people know this but Canadians pay tax money to support the role of the governor-general who represents the queen in Canada. which again, makes no sense because she's on a completely different continent and its such a waste of our hard-earned money as all the gov-general does is... well I dunno what she does most of the time...

and... yes, we are a constitutional monarchy, but wouldn't it make more sense if the country's head of state was elected, in this case, a Canadian chosen by Canadians for Canadians? its like... having the United States being ruled by a Russian head of state, who's home is in Russia...

and... the comment about the queen being a safeguard for our democracy... Canada won't lose its democratic values if we ditched the monarchy, in fact, Canada will be just that, it'll be Canada... a democratic republican nation with a Canadian head of state.

:D

Well... the way I see it...

the queen is just symbolic, her role as the queen was not elected but was given through birthright, and Canadians/Australians/NZers/British/etc. have to owe allegiance to her? doesn't make any sense to me.
Symbols are but symbols. Not a good enough reason. If the majority of the nation approves of the status quo, it need not change.

and... I dunno if many people know this but Canadians pay tax money to support the role of the governor-general who represents the queen in Canada. which again, makes no sense because she's on a completely different continent and its such a waste of our hard-earned money as all the gov-general does is... well I dunno what she does most of the time...
A valid argument. Again, up to the majority.

We need the queen. She's the strongest safegaurd our democracy has.
just out of curiosity, how does a hereditory figurehead with no executive power safeguard democracy?

and... I dunno if many people know this but Canadians pay tax money to support the role of the governor-general who represents the queen in Canada. which again, makes no sense because she's on a completely different continent and its such a waste of our hard-earned money as all the gov-general does is... well I dunno what she does most of the time...

*snipped*

and... the comment about the queen being a safeguard for our democracy... Canada won't lose its democratic values if we ditched the monarchy, in fact, Canada will be just that, it'll be Canada... a democratic republican nation with a Canadian head of state.

:D

The governor general has the important job of stepping in if a PM violates the constitution. That's how she's a safegaurd.

Well... the way I see it...

the queen is just symbolic, her role as the queen was not elected but was given through birthright, and Canadians/Australians/NZers/British/etc. have to owe allegiance to her? doesn't make any sense to me.

and... I dunno if many people know this but Canadians pay tax money to support the role of the governor-general who represents the queen in Canada. which again, makes no sense because she's on a completely different continent and its such a waste of our hard-earned money as all the gov-general does is... well I dunno what she does most of the time...

and... yes, we are a constitutional monarchy, but wouldn't it make more sense if the country's head of state was elected, in this case, a Canadian chosen by Canadians for Canadians? its like... having the United States being ruled by a Russian head of state, who's home is in Russia...

and... the comment about the queen being a safeguard for our democracy... Canada won't lose its democratic values if we ditched the monarchy, in fact, Canada will be just that, it'll be Canada... a democratic republican nation with a Canadian head of state.

:DStates tend to like having a head of state, and Lizzy doesn't do too badly as a head of state, let alone a head of state who's just had her 80th birthday.

I hear she visits Canada fairly frequently to do all sorts of head-of-statey stuff. Myself being British I'd much prefer to have the queen as head of state rather than a Blair, Major or Thatcher. I don't know how it is for the rest of the commonwealth. The Germans and the Italians seem to have a fairly decent system though.

who cares, eh?*

*use of the word eh does not make me Canadian. If you think otherwise, you are believing a STEREOTYPE

The governor general has the important job of stepping in if a PM violates the constitution. That's how she's a safegaurd.

okay... we spend MILLIONS of money for her traveling, wine and dining. don't you think thats a waste of resources?

and lets be honest, what are the chances that a violation of the constitution will occur if the opposing parties in partliament go against it and vote it down, thats why there is debate on issues. and especially right now when we have a conservative minority gov't.

okay... we spend MILLIONS of money for her traveling, wine and dining. don't you think thats a waste of resources?

and lets be honest, what are the chances that a violation of the constitution will occur if the opposing parties in partliament go against it and vote it down, thats why there is debate on issues. and especially right now when we have a conservative minority gov't.

Yes, because we're always going to have a minority government. :rolleyes: A crazy political leader could take over. It's happened in other places.

A crazy political leader could take over. It's happened in other places.

You're talking about Canada right, lemme get that straight? In Canada? A crazy political leader would come to power and dismantle democracy....

Ok....

You're talking about Canada right, lemme get that straight? In Canada? A crazy political leader would come to power and dismantle democracy....

Ok....
It's happened before it could happen again.

you know whats cool?

a quote... yes that right, a quote from my new favourite movie... V for Vendetta (starring Natalie Portman, and Hugo Weaving)...

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."

I'm awesome and you know it! :cool:

Liasia']You can just see her, standing alone against the Hordes of communism and facism, her handbag her only weapon.
The queen pWns, mortal Kombat style.

You have forgotten the pack of rabid corgies straining at the leash

okay... we spend MILLIONS of money for her traveling, wine and dining. don't you think thats a waste of resources?

No, because you get a free ambassador, as well as the queen bringing in money from tourism and also the fact that she donated millions in crown property etc.

You're getting a pretty good deal, all things considered, and a monarchy does add a degree of stability to a country.

just out of curiosity, how does a hereditory figurehead with no executive power safeguard democracy?

Look at Canada at the moment.

Look at America at the moment.

The comparisons are both enlightening and striking.

Incidentally, I think it's up to the Canadians. I myself am a rabid monarchist, but I respect the right of our fraternal commonwealth companions to make their own path in the world.

Just remember who set it all up in the first place, hmm?

You're getting a pretty good deal, all things considered, and a monarchy does add a degree of stability to a country.

The Nepali monarchy being an excellent example.:D

The Nepali monarchy being an excellent example.:D
They are quite evil. Queen Elizabeth is quite alright.

I hear she visits Canada fairly frequently to do all sorts of head-of-statey stuff. Myself being British I'd much prefer to have the queen as head of state rather than a Blair, Major or Thatcher. I don't know how it is for the rest of the commonwealth. The Germans and the Italians seem to have a fairly decent system though.

*Slaps* But if there were a President (Horrid name, revive the Protectorate!) Thatcher, Major or Bliar, they'd be elected by the People or Parliament, and so would only be head of state with the people's support!

However, I prefer the Irish system, where a President is directly elected, but has next to no partisan executive power, although I'd ensure that MPs are not in the nomination process (I think Irish TDs are, somehow)

They are quite evil. Queen Elizabeth is quite alright.

Elizabeth is OK, but (to me) having a Head of State based on birth is absurd. But that's just my opinion.

Elizabeth is OK, but (to me) having a Head of State based on birth is absurd. But that's just my opinion.

She doesn't really use her powers, and at least you know what you're getting with a monarchy rather than "oh cripes, it's president Nick Griffin! Run!".

She doesn't really use her powers, and at least you know what you're getting with a monarchy rather than "oh cripes, it's president Nick Griffin! Run!".

But if a majority of British people want that prick as a president, why should we stop them? And in any case, in an election people would know that they would get a neo-fascist/racist tard if they voted for him. You don't with the next monarch. And it doesn't matter anyway, because they're not elected.

Aragh! My brain is already melting...

Thoust dare to uprise against thy mighty empire!!!

*Slaps* But if there were a President (Horrid name, revive the Protectorate!) Thatcher, Major or Bliar, they'd be elected by the People or Parliament, and so would only be head of state with the people's support!

However, I prefer the Irish system, where a President is directly elected, but has next to no partisan executive power, although I'd ensure that MPs are not in the nomination process (I think Irish TDs are, somehow)Have you ever heard of the two faces of power? The first is decision making. In that power is exerted when someone forces someone else to make a decision against their best interests. The second is agenda setting. You are given a free choice, but from a selected range. Power is exerted by taking away choices that the power-broker does not wish to be chosen. Such an example is witnessed in first past the post systems in the US and UK where it is appears not to be viable to vote for anyone other than the main parties.

My preference for a presidential system would be to have the president elected in much the same way that the French president is elected, but for that president to have much the same power as the Italian or German president.

But if a majority of British people want that prick as a president, why should we stop them? And in any case, in an election people would know that they would get a neo-fascist/racist tard if they voted for him. You don't with the next monarch. And it doesn't matter anyway, because they're not elected.

Aragh! My brain is already melting...Why, because as a system of government Democracy persistantly comes up with crap leaders as opposed to other systems ocassionally coming up with an absolute gem of a leader.

Have you ever heard of the two faces of power? The first is decision making. In that power is exerted when someone forces someone else to make a decision against their best interests. The second is agenda setting. You are given a free choice, but from a selected range. Power is exerted by taking away choices that the power-broker does not wish to be chosen. Such an example is witnessed in first past the post systems in the US and UK where it is appears not to be viable to vote for anyone other than the main parties.

That generally seems to depend on the electoral system used, and in a single-winner election, FPTP is only one of a number of methods. Using a Runoff method (France/Louisiana), Instant Runoffs (Oz) or a Cordorcet method (Used in 1 US state ages ago) doesn't encourage 'two candidate' politics, since they use ranked methods, or a second ballot.

My preference for a presidential system would be to have the president elected in much the same way that the French president is elected, but for that president to have much the same power as the Italian or German president.[/QUOTE]

Which is basically what the Irish model is, except the Irish President is elected with Instant Runoffs, not a normal runoff.

(link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system))

Why, because as a system of government Democracy persistantly comes up with crap leaders as opposed to other systems ocassionally coming up with an absolute gem of a leader.

Just because you think the government is crap and the queen is, doesn't mean everybody does. Yes, Blair is crap, but that doesn't mean I have to want to put up with the Queen either, or the next monarch, who could be crap for all we know.

Voting came up with Churchill, and monarchy came up with mad George III, so it can be any way around.

That generally seems to depend on the electoral system used, and in a single-winner election, FPTP is only one of a number of methods. Using a Runoff method (France/Louisiana), Instant Runoffs (Oz) or a Cordorcet method (Used in 1 US state ages ago) doesn't encourage 'two candidate' politics, since they use ranked methods, or a second ballot.

Which is basically what the Irish model is, except the Irish President is elected with Instant Runoffs, not a normal runoff.

(link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system))
Oh, so that's what that system is called. My Student union uses that system, but refers to it as preferential voting. Problem is a fair few people are idiots and we get a lot of spoiled votes. Despite there being clear instructions and examples and a RON option if people didn't like any of the candidates. *sighs*

I still felt I was voting the best of a bad bunch when I voted for president. There was the BNP wanabee, the hippy who wanted to put shishas in the union building despite a public smoking ban coming into place in 2007, the chair-guy who runs for fun, and the blairite. Oh, and there was the sexy RON, he got my first vote.

Now leave me to rot in my disillusionment of democracy and humanity in general.

Just because you think the government is crap and the queen is, doesn't mean everybody does. Yes, Blair is crap, but that doesn't mean I have to want to put up with the Queen either, or the next monarch, who could be crap for all we know.

Voting came up with Churchill, and monarchy came up with mad George III, so it can be any way around.Churchill was far from great. Besides, war time leaders don't count, they spend most of their time involved in wars rather than leading the country in peace time (which I believe to be harder).

Churchill was far from great. Besides, war time leaders don't count, they spend most of their time involved in wars rather than leading the country in peace time (which I believe to be harder).

10 Greatest Britons
# Winston Churchill (1874–1965), Prime Minister during World War II
# Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859), engineer, creator of Great Western Railway and other significant works
# Diana, Princess of Wales (1961–1997), first wife of HRH Charles, Prince of Wales (1981–1996) and mother of Princes William & Harry of Wales.
# Charles Darwin (1809–1882), naturalist, originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection and author of The Origin of Species.
# William Shakespeare (1564–1616), English poet and playwright, thought of by many as the greatest of all writers in the English language.
# Sir Isaac Newton, physicist
# Queen Elizabeth I of England, monarch
# John Lennon (1940–1980), of The Beatles, musician
# Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, naval commander
# Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons) and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/greatbritons.shtml.

Churchill was crap in peacetime, but the point is a Monarchy could crap out any old leader, good or bad. I'd rather have a bad leader people have chosen than a one we haven't. Regardless, Churchill was a good leader, and would be perfect for a non-executive Head of State.

Now leave me to rot in my disillusionment of democracy and humanity in general.

Election => Genuine right to moan and loathe!

God save the Queen

Churchill was crap in peacetime, but the point is a Monarchy could crap out any old leader, good or bad. I'd rather have a bad leader people have chosen than a one we haven't. Regardless, Churchill was a good leader, and would be perfect for a non-executive Head of State.

But if you look at the monarch at the same time as Churchill, King George VI, he was about as much as a duffer as you could get: He was never expecting to be king so he wasn't trained or prepared for it and didn't want it, he had such a nervous disposition that there was talk of skipping over him in the succession. And despite all that he probably did as much as Churchill to buoy morale in Britain when it was under threat.

10 Greatest Britons
# Winston Churchill (1874–1965), Prime Minister during World War II
# Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859), engineer, creator of Great Western Railway and other significant works
# Diana, Princess of Wales (1961–1997), first wife of HRH Charles, Prince of Wales (1981–1996) and mother of Princes William & Harry of Wales.
# Charles Darwin (1809–1882), naturalist, originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection and author of The Origin of Species.
# William Shakespeare (1564–1616), English poet and playwright, thought of by many as the greatest of all writers in the English language.
# Sir Isaac Newton, physicist
# Queen Elizabeth I of England, monarch
# John Lennon (1940–1980), of The Beatles, musician
# Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, naval commander
# Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons) and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/greatbritons.shtml.

Churchill was crap in peacetime, but the point is a Monarchy could crap out any old leader, good or bad. I'd rather have a bad leader people have chosen than a one we haven't. Regardless, Churchill was a good leader, and would be perfect for a non-executive Head of State.

Election => Genuine right to moan and loathe!If you look at the list of the top 100 you'll find that 10 were monarchs and only 3 were PMs. *is very quiet about the length of time that the monarchy has existed compared to a powerful parliament*

The rate that some people go on about democracy you'd think elections ment that you had no right to complain about your leaders as they'd been elected by you.

You're probably right about Churchill being a goos president. He was an excellent orator after all. Quite the diplomat. However I believe the same is true of Lizzy. Can't say the same for her son, so perhaps it's time to end the monarchy once Elizabeth dies. It'd be nice for it to end on a high note.

Hmmm, I reckon Ted Heath would have made a good president. Too bad he's too old to take on such a position when Elizabeth dies.

I guess the problem with electing a head of state would be that of the commonwealth. Would each country elect their own head of state, or would they jointly elect a common head of state? Hmmm... the latter idea sounds quite romantic, but probably unfeasible.

10 Greatest Britons
# Winston Churchill (1874–1965), Prime Minister during World War II
# Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859), engineer, creator of Great Western Railway and other significant works
# Diana, Princess of Wales (1961–1997), first wife of HRH Charles, Prince of Wales (1981–1996) and mother of Princes William & Harry of Wales.
# Charles Darwin (1809–1882), naturalist, originator of the theory of evolution through natural selection and author of The Origin of Species.
# William Shakespeare (1564–1616), English poet and playwright, thought of by many as the greatest of all writers in the English language.
# Sir Isaac Newton, physicist
# Queen Elizabeth I of England, monarch
# John Lennon (1940–1980), of The Beatles, musician
# Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, naval commander
# Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons) and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/greatbritons.shtml.

I question the validity of that; why? Primarily because it comes from Wiki, but more importantly because it puts idiot Diana ahead of the woman who forged the Empire's bases. :rolleyes: Had it not been for Elisabeth, you would still be a petty little island nation.

Why, because as a system of government Democracy persistantly comes up with crap leaders as opposed to other systems ocassionally coming up with an absolute gem of a leader.
Don't preach to the mindwashed. As long as their precious leader is elected, (or even if they are) not a Monarch, then it's all good. Monarchy died with human intelligence. Bottom line: if you are elected, being as twisted as Hitler is excusable. If you're a Monarch, just try and get away with throwing someone in jail, and you'll be decapitated.

hmm... yes... good arguments, all of you.

I still think a monarchial government sucks plenty and that we should get rid of the queen... get rid of her face on our currency, her name on our citizenship oath, everything!

CANADIAN REPUBLIC, NOW!!!!! mwahaha!!!

:D

hmm... yes... good arguments, all of you.

I still think a monarchial government sucks plenty and that we should get rid of the queen... get rid of her face on our currency, her name on our citizenship oath, everything!

CANADIAN REPUBLIC, NOW!!!!! mwahaha!!!

:D
If the majority wants it (however deluded it may be), sure. Otherwise, no. :)

hmm... yes... good arguments, all of you.

I still think a monarchial government sucks plenty and that we should get rid of the queen... get rid of her face on our currency, her name on our citizenship oath, everything!

CANADIAN REPUBLIC, NOW!!!!! mwahaha!!!

:D

Yeah, go Canada! Enjoy having a Canadian Head of State, eh?

Yeah, go Canada! Enjoy having a Canadian Head of State, eh?

yes, a Canadian Head of State sounds mighty good.

the latest Ipsos-Reid poll suggests that about 55% of Canadians support ditching the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne anyway... so it would be only a matter of time before government reform comes into play. hopefully soon. I wouldn't want to have Charles ruling over my country anyhow. :p

yes, a Canadian Head of State sounds mighty good.

the latest Ipsos-Reid poll suggests that about 55% of Canadians support ditching the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne anyway... so it would be only a matter of time before government reform comes into play. hopefully soon. I wouldn't want to have Charles ruling over my country anyhow. :p

Yeah. I suspect this won't fly till you have King Chuckles. Then it will fly like an eagle.

QEII lends you a little dignity, Charles is loathesome.

yes, a Canadian Head of State sounds mighty good.

the latest Ipsos-Reid poll suggests that about 55% of Canadians support ditching the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth leaves the throne anyway... so it would be only a matter of time before government reform comes into play. hopefully soon. I wouldn't want to have Charles ruling over my country anyhow. :p
He won't accede to the throne. William will.

Monarchies and republics both suck, but monarchies suck slightly more, at least in theory. In practice, I'm not sure the difference is all that significant.

Monarchies and republics both suck, but monarchies suck slightly more, at least in theory. In practice, I'm not sure the difference is all that significant.
Absolute/figurehead monarchies? You bet. I still think Republic suck a little harder though. ;)

I strongly support the Canadian Constitutional Monarchy.

I value Responsible Government, and think it works better than Separation Of Powers. Someone already mentioned comparing Canada and the USA, but I think the point bears repeating. Canada is a very stable country as it is. The government actually gets things done in the House of Commons, while the Senate produces some top-rate reports and does its job of "sober second thought". It is true that we spend a lot of money on the monarchy, but I think it is worth it. Really, do you think a President or Chancellor buys her/his own plane tickets? Governments spend money on their leaders. I am very glad that we have the Queen on our money, it is one of few reasons why I support us having a separate currency (Rather than adopting the Euro or the USD).

Yes, absolute monarchy is not such a good idea. The Canadian system, however, strikes a fine balance between authority and democracy.

Yes, absolute monarchy is not such a good idea. The Canadian system, however, strikes a fine balance between authority and democracy.
Trust me, the British Monarchy is completely emasculated. It's not even an authority, it's just a symbol. I support it, but it is by no means why I support non-hereditary minarchist Monarchy.

Trust me, the British Monarchy is completely emasculated. It's not even an authority, it's just a symbol.

That is exactly what is so super about the Canadian system. If we had an elected leader, s/he would want power to go with the job. Currently, the Governor General knows her place, and stays out of the way. The last time a GG did anything other than what the Prime Minister asked, he was replaced and a more agreeable one was found*. The current Canadian system is fantastic.



*If anyone cares, decades ago the PM asked for an election, and GG Byng refused to call one. The Governor General soon found himself looking for a new job.

That is exactly what is so super about the Canadian system. If we had an elected leader, s/he would want power to go with the job. Currently, the Governor General knows her place, and stays out of the way. The last time a GG did anything other than what the Prime Minister asked, he was replaced and a more agreeable one was found*. The current Canadian system is fantastic.

*If anyone cares, decades ago the PM asked for an election, and GG Byng refused to call one. The Governor General soon found himself looking for a new job.
As I said, I see no problem in you remaining under the Crown, but ultimately it's up to your majority.

Hey you know what would happen if you ask for a refurendum at the wrong time although i am a Monarchist? well for one you'd lose like in Australia but also like in Australia you'd lose because the people there don't like the government that much even though they voted them in (dnt argue bout this, this is how Democracy works :rolleyes: ). So the people in Canada would vote for the queen to stay just to make a point to the government even if they ddnt want her. But my main message to the ppl of the Commonwealth is to join with the UK and create a super state to just overthrow all the others in the world and then the nukes would b ours and there would b nothing that america could do about it muhahahahaha!

MONARCHY RULES!

edit: sorry bout that but i just had to do it.

Hey you know what would happen if you ask for a refurendum at the wrong time although i am a Monarchist? well for one you'd lose like in Australia but also like in Australia you'd lose because the people there don't like the government that much even though they voted them in (dnt argue bout this, this is how Democracy works :rolleyes: ). So the people in Canada would vote for the queen to stay just to make a point to the government even if they ddnt want her. But my main message to the ppl of the Commonwealth is to join with the UK and create a super state to just overthrow all the others in the world and then the nukes would b ours and there would b nothing that america could do about it muhahahahaha!
People have been flirting with the notion of turning the Commonwealth into a powerful economic union of the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and perhaps even South Africa. I don't see it happening, but I would endorse it. :) Only if the House of Lords gained some of its power back, and there was a better separation of powers though.

MONARCHY RULES!

edit: sorry bout that but i just had to do it.

Rock on!

Rock on!
:)

He won't accede to the throne. William will.

Why not? He's waited long enough!

Why not? He's waited long enough!
Something tells me mummy dearest doesn't want him to.

Something tells me mummy dearest doesn't want him to.

Makes sense. Charles is pretty much universally loathed in every country the could reign over (as far as I know). At William is vaguely popular.

Boo monarchy. Yay beer!

Makes sense. Charles is pretty much universally loathed in every country the could reign over (as far as I know). At William is vaguely popular.

Boo monarchy. Yay beer!
Yeah, I think young William will end up with the throne. At least he is hot. I don't care either way; none of the European royals are Monarchs in any true sense of the word.

Yeah, I think young William will end up with the throne. At least he is hot. I don't care either way; none of the European royals are Monarchs in any true sense of the word.

I'm sure the public'll get bored of William eventually, though. Everything seems to have it's natural 'lifespan' in the media, before they start trying to dig the dirt, unfortunately.

Why aren't they true monarchs, though? I mean, they still reign, wear fancy clothes, get £X00,000 a year in unemployment benefits (bah-doom tish) and are regarded by their subjects as such.

I'm sure the public'll get bored of William eventually, though. Everything seems to have it's natural 'lifespan' in the media, before they start trying to dig the dirt, unfortunately.
Too true.

Why aren't they true monarchs, though? I mean, they still reign, wear fancy clothes, get £X00,000 a year in unemployment benefits (bah-doom tish) and are regarded by their subjects as such.
National celebrities. ;) Not Monarchs. The -arch part of the word means you actually rule. They do, but only in name. Nothing more.

As most persons equate a representative democracy with a republic, I would prefer a monarchy to a republic. Why? I would rather have one person who is educated in politcal science and other social sciences as well as learning other things about how to run a country from his/her family than a group of persons who are in power because they have a nice smile and say whatever the masses want to hear.

However, I define a republic differently than a representative democracy. According to my definitions, a republic is a system in which the masses elect intelligent persons to rule over them. However, the masses are dumb and they will inevitably turn it back into a representative democracy where the masses elect leaders to represent them. But then the government is no longer a republic.

So...

republic (my definition) > monarchy > republic (common definition), representative democracy

republic (my definition) > monarchy > republic (common definition), representative democracy
Pretty much my opinion on the matter too. ;) The meritocratic Monarchical republic, in favour of all else.

Pretty much my opinion on the matter too. ;) The meritocratic Monarchical republic, in favour of all else.

Yay!!!! Someone agrees with me on political systems!!!! :)

Yay!!!! Someone agrees with me on political systems!!!! :)
:)

National celebrities. ;) Not Monarchs. The -arch part of the word means you actually rule. They do, but only in name. Nothing more.

Which is why I advocate them being resigned to a soap on the beeb.

MONARCHY RULES!

edit: sorry bout that but i just had to do it.

BUT REPUBLIC RULES MUCH BETTER! :)

Absolute/figurehead monarchies? You bet. I still think Republic suck a little harder though. ;)
And, boy, does it feel good!