Jump to content

Head Of State Declaring The Games Open


mr.x
 Share

Recommended Posts

Prince Philip, Her Majesty's husband opened the Melbourne Games.

Things are a lot different now, Canada is an independent sovereign country and it would be unthinkable to have a member of the House of Windsor to open our games. VANOC can't claim these are Canada's games when a Brit is opening them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I sincerely hope that Lizzie won't do the job and leave it to Michaelle Jean. She's probably the hottest head of state in the whole world, so it would be a pity if she hadn't her share of the Olympic spotlight.

Only one one condition....that she brings back her afro hair:

jean_michaelle050803.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protocol will probably require ER 2 gets a formal invite...though some behind the scenes shuffling might mean it's politely declined.

If the Queen declines, it will be the Govenor General, whomever holds the role in 2010.

I'm a republic and abhor the idea of monarchy. But see no value acting like an eejit or brat about it. At some point we will probably find some version of our own head of state. Until then, tradition leads....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protocol will probably require ER 2 gets a formal invite...though some behind the scenes shuffling might mean it's politely declined.

If the Queen declines, it will be the Govenor General, whomever holds the role in 2010.

I'm a republic and abhor the idea of monarchy. But see no value acting like an eejit or brat about it. At some point we will probably find some version of our own head of state. Until then, tradition leads....

That's very gracious. As a Brit, I'd also find it odd if the Queen opened your games. It wouldn't sit right with me either even though technically she is your head of state.

A polite decline of an invite is probably the way to go, I agree. It'd be a shame if this was blown out of proportion and an arguement develops, not that I'm suggesting it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Liz decided to open Montreal but declined to open Melbourne, Calgary and Sydney? Maybe she was afraid her corgis would be exhausted by the trips :lol:

These are Canada's Games and a Canadian should open them IMHO.

P.S. - I remember the poor Governor General who opened Calgary. I felt so bad for her - she was so flustered!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this problem is going to surface so long as you retain a Head of State who resides in another country more than 3,000 miles away!

Someone asked the question earlier if Canada retains the British monarchy mainly because it symbolises your distinctiveness from your all-powerful neighbour to the south.I'd be interested to hear from the Canadians on here if they agree with that observation? If so,surely there must be other symbols to assert Canada's distinctive nature??

As a Brit,I am continually astonished that proud,independent countries like Canada,Australia,New Zealand etc. continue to keep the Queen as your Head of State.I understand that she is there mostly because none of you can agree on an acceptable way of replacing her (as yet).But where there's a will...there's usually a way isn't there?

Personally,I wish you'd all give her the boot as politicians here are fond of using her multi-monarch role of various Commonwealth countries as an excuse to delay implementing some long overdue reforms to the monarchy and its role here in the UK.Well its too difficult,they say,because we would have to get the consent of all the other Commonwealth monarchies first...blah blah blah!

Bullshit! Get your own Head of State so we can start bringing our's more up to date and we don't have to have any more discussions like this about whether she should be opening your Olympic Games!!! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ontario's motto is Loyal She Began, Loyal She Remains and there is a lot of history within Canada that reflects the loyalty to the Monarchy because of a lot of events.

After the American Revolution, a lot of American English and idisisms and slang from the South was becoming more prominent. This resulted in the bringing over of Scottish school masters so that the colonial British kids would become proper British citizens. Around the same time thousands of loyalist British and other 'Americans' that didn't want to live in that system came into Canada (to which I am a descendant) that came to Canada because of the connections to the British.

The War of 1812 were we fought to maintain ourselves and maintain our connection.

The World Wars and fighting and dieing for the British (though also getting slaughtered because of British incompetence in command)

Our histories are always there.

And than there is the political structure of this country, the Liberals and Conservatives don't care and the NDP only want to make superficial changes.

I personally want a Republic of Canada, I am a strong federalist and republican. I also hate the NDP's idea to get ride of the senate and would rather have a elected senate similar to the US, equal representation for the 10 provinces and some representations for the territories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reforms, what sort of reforms?

Oh,for starters:

1. Ending the link between the monarchy and the Church of England.(Only a small minority of British people now profess to being practicing Anglicans so this link is now an historical anomaly).

2. Allowing the monarch the same freedom of religion as the rest of us and so abolishing the present ban on members of the royal family becoming or marrying Catholics (although actually they can but they lose their place in the succession if they do).This is a logical consequence of getting rid of 1.

3. Ending male-discriminated succession so that hard-working types like Princess Anne don't keep getting pushed down the line of succession in favour of free-loading younger brothers and every other boy baby they happen to pop out! Sexual equality is becoming the norm in the rest of Britain so why should the royals be exempt??

4.Transferring the monarch's residual constitutional powers to Parliament,such as the command of the Armed Forces and the right to declare war etc.Yes I know these powers are,in practice,exercised by the Prime Minister on her behalf but they should now be the prerogative of our elected representatives in name as well as deed!

There are others but I don't want to stray too far from the topic of this thread.But every time some back-bench MP tries to initiate change or even discussion on the above lines the government keeps coming back with the excuse that it's all very complicated and would require the assent of every other Commonwealth monarchy before they could do anything blah blah blah! Which is why I want to restrict dealings with the monarchy to the country on whom it has the most relevance....ie.the UK!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Liz decided to open Montreal but declined to open Melbourne, Calgary and Sydney? Maybe she was afraid her corgis would be exhausted by the trips :lol:

These are Canada's Games and a Canadian should open them IMHO.

P.S. - I remember the poor Governor General who opened Calgary. I felt so bad for her - she was so flustered!

The reason why Liz probably opened Montreal was Princess Anne was one of the competitors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our histories are always there.

Of course,but history should never be allowed to get in the way of change.

I personally want a Republic of Canada, I am a strong federalist and republican. I also hate the NDP's idea to get ride of the senate and would rather have a elected senate similar to the US, equal representation for the 10 provinces and some representations for the territories.

So,do you think it will be a big issue for most Canadians if the Queen or some other royal is invited to open the Vancouver Games? Maybe not or it wouldn't even have been talked about,would it? (Just trying to bring the discussion back on topic)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around the same time thousands of loyalist British and other 'Americans' that didn't want to live in that system came into Canada (to which I am a descendant) that came to Canada because of the connections to the British.

The War of 1812 were we fought to maintain ourselves and maintain our connection.

The World Wars and fighting and dieing for the British (though also getting slaughtered because of British incompetence in command)

Our histories are always there.

I personally want a Republic of Canada, I am a strong federalist and republican. I also hate the NDP's idea to get ride of the senate and would rather have a elected senate similar to the US, equal representation for the 10 provinces and some representations for the territories.

Meh. The War of 1812 also had to do with forcing U.S. sailors into the British navy, being pissed at British restraints on trade, anger at British military support for Indians defending lands from American settlers - as well as territorial expansion desires on our part.

However, almost 200 years later it doesn't really make much difference with regards to the current system.

Yes, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. have a special relationship and a lot of history. But Canada has been pretty independent, especially since the days of Trudeau. Guess I don't understand why a Republic of Canada - for that matter a Republic of Australia, etc. hasn't occurred before now. The days of the British Empire are long over.

But - none of my business really.

However, we would be happy to take Alberta and the Northwest Territories off your hands if you like. You can have Michigan and then you'd get Detroit back ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us retain these ties because it is easier just to keep them and make them purely symbolic than to go into the political nightmare of creating our own head of state - it would require huge constitutional changes and every ethnic, political and community group in the country would be in a tizzy.

Liz was invited by Pierre Trudeau to open the Montreal Games...apparently he didn't even consult with COJO'76, but GG Jules Leger had suffered a stroke a few years earlier and had impaired speaking abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So,do you think it will be a big issue for most Canadians if the Queen or some other royal is invited to open the Vancouver Games? Maybe not or it wouldn't even have been talked about,would it? (Just trying to bring the discussion back on topic)!

I think it will be a big issue if the Queen is invited. It will become an even bigger issue if the Queen is invited, declines, and then sends one of her family members instead of the GG. I don't think any issue would be made if the GG was the person picked to do the job. Maybe the monarchists, but the true die hard monarchists are a minority when compared to the masses who see the country as not being a serfdom of the Queen of England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us retain these ties because it is easier just to keep them and make them purely symbolic than to go into the political nightmare of creating our own head of state - it would require huge constitutional changes and every ethnic, political and community group in the country would be in a tizzy.

Liz was invited by Pierre Trudeau to open the Montreal Games...apparently he didn't even consult with COJO'76, but GG Jules Leger had suffered a stroke a few years earlier and had impaired speaking abilities.

And that's the rub. Poll after poll in Australia has shown a clear majority here in favour of a Republic _ but it's what it would be replaced with that they can't get any clear consensus about. And in truth, it is a nice, clean system that works _ it's really only when we get into the whole symbolism aspect of nationhood that problems arise.

With Labor in power here, and many opposition honchos now also in favour of a republic, I expect the issue will arise again here soon, but I suspect it's going to be the death of Liz that will be the real circuit breaker in the dominions for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. The War of 1812 also had to do with forcing U.S. sailors into the British navy, being pissed at British restraints on trade, anger at British military support for Indians defending lands from American settlers - as well as territorial expansion desires on our part.

However, almost 200 years later it doesn't really make much difference with regards to the current system.

Yes, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. have a special relationship and a lot of history. But Canada has been pretty independent, especially since the days of Trudeau. Guess I don't understand why a Republic of Canada - for that matter a Republic of Australia, etc. hasn't occurred before now. The days of the British Empire are long over.

But - none of my business really.

However, we would be happy to take Alberta and the Northwest Territories off your hands if you like. You can have Michigan and then you'd get Detroit back ;)

Manifest Destiny and the British blockade to stop American support to France during the Napoleonic Wars were the causes, not much else and it was mostly Canadian dwelling soldiers, French and natives that fought in the War of 1812 too, the British navy and army were more concerned with Napoleon at the time.

We'd also take Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wester New York and Upstate New York, Northern Minnesota and Wisconsin and the Alaskan panhandle too. Oh a parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania too.

Americans already own Alberta.

I do hear a lot that Canada shouldn't have a president we'd be just like the states, but the majority of countries have a presidential head of state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manifest Destiny and the British blockade to stop American support to France during the Napoleonic Wars were the causes, not much else and it was mostly Canadian dwelling soldiers, French and natives that fought in the War of 1812 too, the British navy and army were more concerned with Napoleon at the time.

We'd also take Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wester New York and Upstate New York, Northern Minnesota and Wisconsin and the Alaskan panhandle too. Oh a parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania too.

Americans already own Alberta.

I do hear a lot that Canada shouldn't have a president we'd be just like the states, but the majority of countries have a presidential head of state.

Meh. Well I guess we all have our versions of the cause of the war.

O.K. - you can have them. But we also want BC and Saskatchewan. Why you want Wisconsin and Minnesota I don't know but - go for it. You can't have Alaska. We bought that fair and square. Oh, and we also want Quebec. Only because it would piss them off. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Well I guess we all have our versions of the cause of the war.

O.K. - you can have them. But we also want BC and Saskatchewan. Why you want Wisconsin and Minnesota I don't know but - go for it. You can't have Alaska. We bought that fair and square. Oh, and we also want Quebec. Only because it would piss them off. :P

You didn't buy the panhandle, the Brits sold us out on that because they wanted American support against the Germans.

Parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine at one time were British Canada possessions.

Ya know, speaking of all this, I am a little surprised NA has been able to stay in 3 states for so long, in Europe and Asia most large countries/empires etc. fell apart, but Canada, the US and Mexico have stay together, despite large regional differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't buy the panhandle, the Brits sold us out on that because they wanted American support against the Germans.

????? :huh:

Parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine at one time were British Canada possessions.

I never knew that! :o

Ya know, speaking of all this, I am a little surprised NA has been able to stay in 3 states for so long, in Europe and Asia most large countries/empires etc. fell apart, but Canada, the US and Mexico have stay together, despite large regional differences.

That's because there are historically many more countries in Asia and Europe and most of them have stayed largely intact except for the multi-ethnic empires like Austria-Hungary which were split up as a result of World War 1.Most of the large ones are still with us although 'large' is a relative term.For instance,France,Spain and the UK count as large countries by European standards and each have remained nation-states for centuries (despite some growing regional tensions).In North America there were only ever 3 nation states to begin with and,like most large European and Asian countries,they have managed to overcome regional tensions and wars to stay together (so far)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In North America there were only ever 3 nation states to begin with and,like most large European and Asian countries,they have managed to overcome regional tensions and wars to stay together (so far)!

Don't tell that to First Nations/American Indians. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

????? :huh:

I never knew that! :o

That's because there are historically many more countries in Asia and Europe and most of them have stayed largely intact except for the multi-ethnic empires like Austria-Hungary which were split up as a result of World War 1.Most of the large ones are still with us although 'large' is a relative term.For instance,France,Spain and the UK count as large countries by European standards and each have remained nation-states for centuries (despite some growing regional tensions).In North America there were only ever 3 nation states to begin with and,like most large European and Asian countries,they have managed to overcome regional tensions and wars to stay together (so far)!

Russian Alaska did not technically include the panhandle, to solve the dispute a commission of 3 Americans, 2 Canadians and 1 Brit was used to resolve the dispute, the British at the time were trying to gauge the Americans in support if the need arose, the 1 British delegate sided with the Americans, even though historically and up until that point the land was de facto Canadian and part of Yukon/BC.

The border that was given as part of the concessions for losing the American Revolution cost parts of of the southern regions of the territories at the time. It cost parts of Upper and Lower Canada to gain more control of the Great Lakes Basin. when the Western Border was settled, BC did have some claim to Washington, Oregon and Idaho, but because of the Columbia River exploration and the agreements, the claims were never resolved/it never came to a head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Well, how long does Jean has in her term as Governor-General? If I am right, then she will not open the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. Unless, there is some change in the rules that would allow her to do so. Otherwise, it will be someone else that is ENGLISH-SPEAKING. Besides, one so-called "righteous sovereigntist" used the "N" word to describe her last week. Lovely, isn't it? <_< Even more of the sick sarcasm about "freeing Quebec from Canadian Communism." :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...