ForumGarden

Odie;1290199 wrote: I just have no use for the queen, never have, she's never done anything for Canada accept cost us a fortune each time she visitsWho would you choose to be Canada's Head of State instead, Odie? Should it be hereditary? Would you prefer to vote for one independently of your Parliamentary elections?

They could have a cardboard cut-out. Not only is it more economical but it can be suitably decorative when the need arises and is easily stored when not required.

If any political party were to confiscate her estates and those others still held by the descendants of medieval warlords they might just get more votes. She should **** off back to germany and take her greek refugee husband with her.

She should **** off back to germany and take her greek refugee husband with her.


Ummmm.................. who are you talking about?:-3:-2

It's very unspecific negative responses so far, nobody's offering answers to my question. It's difficult to see a preferable state of affairs from where I'm sat. Does nobody have concrete positive suggestions?

I'm having an uphill time with this thread, aren't I.

Here's a suggestion to get things moving perhaps. There wasn't just a single representative of Canada's Head of State on the platform at the opening ceremony of the 2010 Winter Olympics, there were actually four other North American Heads of State present. The Queen was represented by the Governor General but there were also the heads of four Independent Nations whose territory also form part of Canada. It's a wonderful example of the same ground being occupied by several populations each of which has sovereign rights. The First Nations of the traditional territories had their own Heads of State there.

If Canada really does want to switch to a Head of State who is at least resident rather than living in London I see no reason why the position shouldn't be switched, say every five years, between those four band leaders on a rotating basis. It avoids having a Head of State with anything more than constitutional legitimacy. It would provide a shining example to the world at large that Independent Nations can indeed co-exist within the same national boundaries. As a framework for a settlement of Israel's problems it would be an interesting model.

spot;1290366 wrote: It's very unspecific negative responses so far, nobody's offering answers to my question. It's difficult to see a preferable state of affairs from where I'm sat. Does nobody have concrete positive suggestions?


there's not that many canadians around to discuss it with could that be the reason? Or australians either come to that. Maybe broaden it out to whether we should have a monarchy when he present queen snuffs it. they're going to have problems with charles as the unco guid in the C of E will object to a divorcee being head of the church and he seems to be generally unpopular anyway.

posted by fuzzywuzzy

Ummmm.................. who are you talking about?




Queen Victoria's husband albert's family name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The royal family changed their surname to Windsor during WW1 and it seemed a good idea to gloss over the fact that the royal family was a foreign, germanic, import. Prince Philip was one of the greek royal family turfed out in the 1920's the british royal family being one of the few to survive in the upheavals of that period. It's a one liner designed to annoy royalists who enthuse about the british royal family. Although spot is not rising to the bait.

gmc;1290429 wrote: there's not that many canadians around to discuss it with could that be the reason?


I started the thread to ask Odie her opinion. Maybe she's not opened it yet.

gmc;1290429 wrote: It's a one liner designed to annoy royalists who enthuse about the british royal family. Although spot is not rising to the bait.


I'd not describe myself as Royalist at all. I'm for the status quo inasmuch as I'd hate to see a Head of State either in the UK or indeed across the English-speaking Commonwealth who had an elected legitimacy to interfere in governance.

If you asked me what I'd like to see ideally it would be one World Government, a worldwide tax system, total transparency of government, no State secrets or laws hidden behind executive Presidential orders, no unitemised governmental expenditure, no national residency rules, no visas, an active policy of equalizing incomes across the globe, rigorous detection of crime and a guarantee that all offenders are prosecuted. Short of that, in a national context, I'll settle for a constitutional monarchy thank you.

spot;1290441 wrote: I'd not describe myself as Royalist at all. I'm for the status quo inasmuch as I'd hate to see a Head of State either in the UK or indeed across the English-speaking Commonwealth who had an elected legitimacy to interfere in governance.

If you asked me what I'd like to see ideally it would be one World Government, a worldwide tax system, total transparency of government, no State secrets or laws hidden behind executive Presidential orders, no national residency rules, no visas, an active policy of equalizing incomes across the globe, rigorous detection of crime and a guarantee that all offenders are prosecuted. Short of that, in a national context, I'll settle for a constitutional monarchy thank you.


Should we let England have independence do you think? We've been carnying them them for all these years maybe it's about time we let them see how miserable and pathetic they would be without the celtic nations.

gmc;1290447 wrote: Should we let England have independence do you think? We've been carnying them them for all these years maybe it's about time we let them see how miserable and pathetic they would be without the celtic nations.


I've consistently advocated an English Regional Assembly and the abolition of the Westminster tier of government in favour of the European Parliament. That covers your suggestion, doesn't it?

spot;1290448 wrote: I've consistently advocated an English Regional Assembly and the abolition of the Westminster tier of government in favour of the European Parliament. That covers your suggestion, doesn't it?


Not really. A European state would tend to be centralist and over controlling convinced they know best-like gordon brown micromanaging from the centre how much salt councils should put on the roads as if those who have been doing it for years don't know what to do. It's a delusion politicians suffer from that no one else is as competent as they.

Came across a brilliant comment from a scot living at the time of the union of parliaments. To paraphrase-when asked if he thought it a good idea he replied no because it would be too far away to throw stones at the members and that was not a good thing as they would forget who were the masters.

posted by spot

as I'd hate to see a Head of State either in the UK or indeed across the English-speaking Commonwealth who had an elected legitimacy to interfere in governance.


Inclined to agree with you there but i would like to see a parliament that remembers they have the power and not the PM.

gmc;1290477 wrote: Inclined to agree with you there but i would like to see a parliament that remembers they have the power and not the PM.
Perhaps a quote from Terry Pratchett would be apposite?This has annoyed a number of people who [...] want a monarch instead, thus replacing a man who has achieved his position by cunning, a deep understanding of the realities of the human psyche, breathtaking diplomacy, a certain prowess with the stiletto dagger, and, all agree, a mind like a perfectly balanced circular saw, with a man who has got there by being born.

[...] A third proposition, that the city be governed by a choice of respectable members of the community who would promise not to give themselves airs or betray the public trust at every turn, was instantly the subject of music-hall jokes all over the city.

Unseen Academicals, p.9

Sorry, been watching a bit of Rugby.

I'm a Constitutional Monarchist. Now, if I was an Absolute Monarchist I'd go along with Terry Pratchett completely. Until we can select our rulers by a currently unknown system that gets the best person to the appropriate governing position better than currently occurs, I'm in favour of a system that trains the unfortunate prisoner of birth to the role from the momnt that unfortunate is born. It keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians, celebrities and politico-celebs of the sort we are increasingly seeing.

I'll pause here for abuse. :-6