Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a story that back in 1976, as Prime Minister and head of government Pierre Trudeau personally invited the Queen to open the Montreal Olympics, at the behest of the Premier of Quebec. It was a bit of a touchy situation and Premier Bourassa later balked at the decision because he realized it may have been unpopular with Quebeckers. As Queen of Canada, she is the official head of state and entitled to do the job. But of course, she is also Queen of the UK, Queen of NZ, Queen of Australia, and other realms and she lives in London. Trudeau never had the best relationship with or respect for the the monarchy (he previously twirled behind the Queen and then caused a minor controversy by not wearing socks in the Royal Box at the Olympics). Also at the time, the GG (de facto head of state), Jules Leger, had suffered a stroke in 1974. He was partially paralyzed to the point that his wife often read his speeches for him, including the 1976 Throne Speech.

So to me, all this points to GG Jean opening the Olympics. BC Premier Gordon Campbell may be trying to land the Queen for his own personal ego purposes, but I think it best to have a resident Canadian do the job.

Either way, it also looks like Canada will be the only country to ever have all its Olympics opened by a woman...if not the only country to ever have a woman do the job. I can't think of any others???

There was some type of mind game with it because it Trudeau had indeed taken the duty he would have been booed wildly by Montrealers and Quebecers .

The man refused to provide any federal government money beyond security and the host broadcaster and crown corporation the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Trudeau also pulled the Banning of Taiwan from the games in supporting the One China theory as Taiwan wanted Nationalist China or something in the title of their country . Main Land China did not appear in the Games until Los Angeles 1984 so Trudeau was just up to his socialist communist ways .

Jim jones

Link to post
Share on other sites
We didn't want some Bloody Pom coming in and taking our glory!

That said, our GG hardly impressed with his articulateness!

As a Canadian, I want a Canadian resident. Madame Jean is a classy lady. I feel no affection for the cold, old, and distant Queen.

... that is interesting - are these signs of the end of a monarchy in Australia and Canada?

Link to post
Share on other sites
... that is interesting - are these signs of the end of a monarchy in Australia and Canada?

To be honest its a mystery to most Brits why the queen is still head of state of these far off lands with which we have less and less in common. Its just an historic anachronism. Its clear that Britain's future is with Europe, and Canada with the US, economically and culturally.

I guess Australia and NZ will eventually become more allied with south east Asia and China. There's very few people who give two hoots about the Commonwealth, its a total irrelevance today and is just a glorified charity that dispenses aid and technical help to third world members. When the Queen dies, the Commonwealth is likely to die with her. Margaret Thatcher once said that the Commonwealth was made up of countries with nothing in common and no wealth... I think she hit the nail on the head.

The fact of the matter is that there's nothing the Queen, Britain or the monarchy in general can do to resolve these quirks of history. Its up to the people of AUS, Can and NZ etc to make their own choices at a time which suits them....meanwhile we just have to wait until they get their sh1t together and have the courage of their convictions.

Edited by Ripley
Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest its a mystery to most Brits why the queen is still head of state of these far off lands with which we have less and less in common. Its just an historic anachronism. Its clear that Britain's future is with Europe, and Canada with the US, economically and culturally.

I guess Australia and NZ will eventually become more allied with south east Asia and China. There's very few people who give two hoots about the Commonwealth, its a total irrelevance today and is just a glorified charity that dispenses aid and technical help to third world members. When the Queen dies, the Commonwealth is likely to die with her. Margaret Thatcher once said that the Commonwealth was made up of countries with nothing in common and no wealth... I think she hit the nail on the head.

The fact of the matter is that there's nothing the Queen, Britain or the monarchy in general can do to resolve these quirks of history. Its up to the people of AUS, Can and NZ etc to make their own choices at a time which suits them....meanwhile we just have to wait until they get their sh1t together and have the courage of their convictions.

ouch! take no prisoners ripley!

Link to post
Share on other sites
ouch! take no prisoners ripley!

LOL! Well I'm not trying to upset anyone... but I think in the long term what I've said is true. I think that there's no point in focusing on the queen or the monarchy as a problem; these countries have their destiny in their own hands and they need to get on and resolve the fact that they have a foreign head of state, to their own satisfaction. I can totally respect the fact that they want their own head of state to open Olympics or whatever and I agree that having a Governor General representing a country is a bit "second best". But its not about "rejecting" the British monarchy, its about choosing something which works for them....and to be honest they all seem a bit lost for ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Easier said than down, it would require a constitutional change, something Canadians don't want.

Well I think thats unavoidable, however, a move to an Irish style presidency would not be such a huge leap and will preserve Canada as a parliamentary democracy. I've never understood why Australia has failed to make that change. I know these things are never straight forward but it would seem like a natural progression from a constitutional monarchy to having an elected, largely non-political head of state.

I really don't see how Canada will change all that dramatically by ditching the Queen as head of state, or why Canadians need to be concerned about such a change; unless its more about fearing US cultural, political and cultural domination...in which case I think that jig was up some decades ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada has tried to re-open the constitution one two previous occasions, both with disastrous results. To change our political system from a constitutional monarchy to a Republic would require a) a referendum that is passed by a super majority (either 55 or 60%) nationally and in each province, B) legislation passed by each provincial and territorial government and c) support from the PMO and passing in both the House of Commons and the Senate. This would require 30 different sets of requirements to become a Republic. Something that will not happen, especially when Quebec has never signed the constitution.

Edited by Faster
Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada has tried to re-open the constitution one two previous occasions, both with disastrous results. To change our political system from a constitutional monarchy to a Republic would require a) a referendum that is passed by a super majority (either 55 or 60%) nationally and in each province, B) legislation passed by each provincial and territorial government and c) support from the PMO and passing in both the House of Commons and the Senate. This would require 30 different sets of requirements to become a Republic. Something that will not happen, especially when Quebec has never signed the constitution.

Sounds like you've tied yourselves up in a whole lot of red tape there.... good luck! Maybe the Queen could make it easier for you by punching a Mountie, kicking a beaver and spitting on a maple leaf on prime time TV... just a thought! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Truthfully I think the death of the Queen will result in the death of the monarchy in Canada. She is very popular and well liked in Canada, but Charles and William aren't, either one will spell the end to the monarchy in Canada. Its only a matter of time but there needs to be a push.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question in all these Commonwealth realms is always "what do we replace it with?" and only a few have actually done that. But I think what may happen is that Britons eliminate the crown before the remaining Commonwealth realms do. Or at least they simply relegate it to a role like other European monarchies have done. It is mostly just a ceremonial and traditional role. And none of the countries remaining under Elizabeth II has had any kind of major revolution and social upheaval that results in the end of the monarchy. They have all evolved instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question in all these Commonwealth realms is always "what do we replace it with?" and only a few have actually done that. But I think what may happen is that Britons eliminate the crown before the remaining Commonwealth realms do. Or at least they simply relegate it to a role like other European monarchies have done. It is mostly just a ceremonial and traditional role. And none of the countries remaining under Elizabeth II has had any kind of major revolution and social upheaval that results in the end of the monarchy. They have all evolved instead.

I really don't see the monarchy being replaced in the UK...its not on the political agenda at all and "in general" there's no appetite among the public at large for any change. The British monarchy has no real power and essentially fulfills the same role as any other constitutional monarchy around Europe, whether that be Spain, Sweden or the Netherlands. Its not about the personalities involved, its having a benign institution which denies absolute power to everyone else, whether that be the military or politicians.

For Canada and the other "Dominions", the challenge is to maintain that status quo but at the same time to put some distance between the realities of today, and the perceived stigma of political and /or cultural inferiority towards a country, thousands of miles away, with little in the way of political or cultural leadership to offer in the modern world... and no desire to be in that position in any case, despite our silly escapade into Iraq.

I just think that you should just do it and stop kidding yourselves that how much you like the person wearing the crown has anything to do with it. Its the institution and the role it plays in your society in maintaining stability that you need to concentrate on. I suppose there's a lot to loose if you get it wrong, so you shouldn't be distracted by how much you like or dislike the Queen or her heirs and focus on what you put in place of the monarchy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as an Aussie Republican, it's always been a subject dear to my heart. I'd really say that at the moment, indeed , even when we had our referendum on the Monarchy in 1998, a clear majority here are in favour of ditching the Monarchy. the sticking point was and is _ what do we replace it with? That's a hard thing to get general agreement on. As faster said, Constitutional Change is something most people are always wary of, especially when the system you have works well for the most part. While a change to a republic might seem more of a symbolic issue, I appreciate that it does open a can of worms.

I do think, though, that the Gumleaf Monarchy Down Under will only last as long as the Queen does. As Faster again said, while there's still some affection for her Elderly majesty, I just can't see it sticking through with Charles, id he makes it.

Edited by Sir Roltel
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't see the monarchy being replaced in the UK...its not on the political agenda at all and "in general" there's no appetite among the public at large for any change. The British monarchy has no real power and essentially fulfills the same role as any other constitutional monarchy around Europe, whether that be Spain, Sweden or the Netherlands. Its not about the personalities involved, its having a benign institution which denies absolute power to everyone else, whether that be the military or politicians.

For Canada and the other "Dominions", the challenge is to maintain that status quo but at the same time to put some distance between the realities of today, and the perceived stigma of political and /or cultural inferiority towards a country, thousands of miles away, with little in the way of political or cultural leadership to offer in the modern world... and no desire to be in that position in any case, despite our silly escapade into Iraq.

I just think that you should just do it and stop kidding yourselves that how much you like the person wearing the crown has anything to do with it. Its the institution and the role it plays in your society in maintaining stability that you need to concentrate on. I suppose there's a lot to loose if you get it wrong, so you shouldn't be distracted by how much you like or dislike the Queen or her heirs and focus on what you put in place of the monarchy.

Its a very sensitive issue, it always is and its tired to the wars. Also there is an apathy towards the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't see the monarchy being replaced in the UK...its not on the political agenda at all and "in general" there's no appetite among the public at large for any change. The British monarchy has no real power and essentially fulfills the same role as any other constitutional monarchy around Europe, whether that be Spain, Sweden or the Netherlands. Its not about the personalities involved, its having a benign institution which denies absolute power to everyone else, whether that be the military or politicians.

For Canada and the other "Dominions", the challenge is to maintain that status quo but at the same time to put some distance between the realities of today, and the perceived stigma of political and /or cultural inferiority towards a country, thousands of miles away, with little in the way of political or cultural leadership to offer in the modern world... and no desire to be in that position in any case, despite our silly escapade into Iraq.

I just think that you should just do it and stop kidding yourselves that how much you like the person wearing the crown has anything to do with it. Its the institution and the role it plays in your society in maintaining stability that you need to concentrate on. I suppose there's a lot to loose if you get it wrong, so you shouldn't be distracted by how much you like or dislike the Queen or her heirs and focus on what you put in place of the monarchy.

Personally I'd, and many people with me, do like the British monarchy so much because of the traditions. I think it's one of the few monarchies still using ancient traditions. What do the British people think about renewing old traditions like the Coronation, State opening of parliament, trooping the colour etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Queen does open parliament. And its hard to have a coronation when there is no one to crown. The coronation of either Charles or William will be a very grand occasion

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Queen does open parliament. And its hard to have a coronation when there is no one to crown. The coronation of either Charles or William will be a very grand occasion

Well, she doesn't get round to opening HER parliamants in the Dominions that often. Actually, a question to our UK members - does she always do the duties when, say, the new Scottish Parliament is opened? Or is she only a regular at Westminster?

I'd imaging the next Coronoation will be magnificent as always - if there's one thing the UK does particularly well, it's the whole traditional ceremonial things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the UK wouldn't necessarily dump the monarchy because it would have a negative impact on the tourism and tabloid industries. A lot of World of the News and tea towels would go unsold if not for an old queen, a dead princess, and a couple of young men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I'd, and many people with me, do like the British monarchy so much because of the traditions. I think it's one of the few monarchies still using ancient traditions. What do the British people think about renewing old traditions like the Coronation, State opening of parliament, trooping the colour etc?

It makes for a colourful spectacle but it doesn't really have much relevance or interest for most people,well not for most of those in my acquaintance anyway.I never hear anyone talking about or expressing any interest in the monarchy but most would continue to support it simply because they despise most politicians even more and are wary of transferring any of QEII's traditional responsibilities to some ambitious,grubby little power-seeker.This is especially the view of younger people.

Much of the pomp and tradition will go when QEII dies as she is definitely the last traditional monarch of the old school.

Charles talks a bit too much and has a lot of cranky ideas.He is still seen as a bit of a joke but he does have a few modernising tendencies and wants to simplify the coronation procedure and become Defender of ALL Faiths rather than just Defender of Faith (ie.the Church of England).A lot of people already think he's too old and are looking past him to William although God knows how William will handle it all.Suspect a lot of changes by the time HE comes around but,as I say,most people take them for granted,see them as rather boring and don't express much interest in their activities!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, she doesn't get round to opening HER parliamants in the Dominions that often. Actually, a question to our UK members - does she always do the duties when, say, the new Scottish Parliament is opened? Or is she only a regular at Westminster?

The Queen always opens each of the three UK parliaments but only the Westminster opening is done with the full panoply of ceremony.The opening of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies are much simpler affairs with the Queen dressed in ordinary hat and skirt.At the Scottish parliament,the Scottish crown is laid on a table in front of her but she doesn't wear it unlike at Westminster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the UK wouldn't necessarily dump the monarchy because it would have a negative impact on the tourism and tabloid industries. A lot of World of the News and tea towels would go unsold if not for an old queen, a dead princess, and a couple of young men.

I'm sure the Queen does attract some tourists to the UK... god knows its not the weather... but I don't think the royal family are any more figures of intrigue than say Barrack Obama and the "first family". Maybe we take our history and tradition for granted in the UK because we're constitutionally so stable/secure. As far as the Queen goes she fulfills her role and holds the country together as a figure to rally around in tough times. She leaves the country to democratically govern itself and make its own decisions... without the distractions of having constitutional upheaval....what more could you ask for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say: Forget the Queen. I'm perfectly happy if Michaelle Jean opens the Games. I mean, she's hot! And it's unbelievable that she's already 51. She looks at least ten years younger.

And look what a nice couple she and President Obama are:

4106.jpg

I know, I'm slobbering. But wouldn't you, too, if your most prominent female politician looked like this?

0,1020,399751,00.jpg

No! They do not make a nice couple. He is married. (Germans)

That is just a horrible picture of Merkel. Don't feel to bad. On the inside I think Germany has a better deal.

On a side note, would the German president do something if Germany every gets the Games again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Much of the pomp and tradition will go when QEII dies as she is definitely the last traditional monarch of the old school.

Charles talks a bit too much and has a lot of cranky ideas.He is still seen as a bit of a joke but he does have a few modernising tendencies and wants to simplify the coronation procedure and become Defender of ALL Faiths rather than just Defender of Faith (ie.the Church of England).

Sorry to be pedantic, but that's not correct. Prince Charles (King George VII) wants to become 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of the Faith'

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure the Queen does attract some tourists to the UK... god knows its not the weather... but I don't think the royal family are any more figures of intrigue than say Barrack Obama and the "first family". Maybe we take our history and tradition for granted in the UK because we're constitutionally so stable/secure. As far as the Queen goes she fulfills her role and holds the country together as a figure to rally around in tough times. She leaves the country to democratically govern itself and make its own decisions... without the distractions of having constitutional upheaval....what more could you ask for?

couldn't have put it any better Ripley!

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...