I am torn. On the one hand, the longer a good Monarch stays in power, the longer the inevitable republican revolution will be prolonged. On the other hand, anyone is better than Charles. On the gripping hand… aw shucks, she’s the Queen! Go, your majesty, go.
The Queen Elizabeth and Charles are in the same situation that Victoria and her oldest son Edward were. Charles will, in all likelihood, be a grandfather before he becomes king, since his mother is proving to be long lived. His reign will be relatively short before passing to his son.
Indeed, didn’t the future Edward 6th (or is that 5th?) say at one point: “I don’t mind praying to the eternal father, it’s the eternal mother that gets me down.”
No doubt there’s a special place in fashion hell for Norman Hartnell 
VCNJ~
Happy birthday to the Queen.
We mean it, man.
The story’s told that one day the Queen was reviewing the soldiers on horseback when a loud fart cut the air. The head soldier said “I’m so sorry, Your Majesty. It was one of the horses.” To which she (reportedly) replied: If you hadn’t said anything, I would have thought it was a horse.
Didn’t Victoria and Albert Edward hate eachother? She refused to allow him to perform royal functions on her behalf.
From Bill Maher last night: Prince Charles wished his mother a happy birthday, and one more.
Queen Quote Two: The Queen was chatting with a young lady when her (the young lady’s) cellphone went off. “You’d better answer that,” The Queen said with a smile. “It might be someone important.”
I read that she blamed him for Prince Alberts death. I think he returned from visiting Edward at Cambridge with a bout of the flu, which turned out to be typhoid, and died soon afterwards.
I think the reason she blamed him for Albert’s death had more to do with his riotous lifestyle paining his father.
Which was the reason he was visiting him in Cambridge, no?
I missed this on the day BUT a good Monarch is ALWAYS GOOD. If it wern’t for old Lizzy many of us colonial type countries would have to elect a president!
I can’t speak for happy-clam-land but I KNOW that there is no one here I wan’t as president! Having the monarchy costs less and the Queen is much more agreeable then some ex-politician!
As to Charlie…best thing he ever did was ditch the ditz and marry something more his class. Charles has worked as hard as he can (given his job description).
I personaly want the Royal family to continue. Presidents cost too much and fuck up far to often. Royals are almost harmless and save money (to us ex-colony types), besides which who else would be on the back of coins? Helen Clark?
nodnod I’m actually a bit of a rarity in my party as a soft monarchist. I rather like having the monarchy. It’s less expensive than a presidency, I think it’s a nice symbol, there’s no point in electing an apolitical head of state, and it’s interesting, which a president is not.
If everyone else were prepared to go to the trouble of changing the constitution to become a republic, I wouldn’t stand in their way; I think Canada should govern itself as it sees fit. One thing I would insist on, though, is if we had a republican head of state, we should still call them the Governor General. Mainly because I can barely say “President of Canada” without falling asleep.
Nope, Edward, Victoria’s son, became king as Edward VII.
Edward VI was the son of Henry VIII, and he died in his teens.
I’m rather ambivilent about the queen: on the one hand, there are those hats. On the other, cute doggies! And corgis are just so funny looking, so I guess my vote goes to ‘yay queen’ in this case.
[QUOTE=calm kiwi]
I missed this on the day BUT a good Monarch is ALWAYS GOOD. If it wern’t for old Lizzy many of us colonial type countries would have to elect a president!
[QUOTE]
I’m not sure I follow this - you guys (and presumably, all other previously-colonial nations) have a Prime Minister, right? Why would you need a president, too?
The Prime Minister is head of government. The PM achieves office politically, gets kicked around politically, but also wields political power as the executive of the Canadian state.
The Governor General represents the monarch, who is head of state; both carry the symbolic burden of the state.
This is not clearly elucidated in Canada; I think it should be. It seems that we are at the beginning of creating a head of state (in the form of the GG) who is uniquely Canadian–look at the heraldry of recent GGs, for example. I totally agree with matt_mcl here that even if Canada splits from the monarchy, our head of state should continue to be the Governor General. The GG could be chosen outside the regular political structure: for example, elected by the members of the Order of Canada, as the Globe once suggested.
This is one problem with the US system, IMHO: the President is both head of government (subject to all those political processes), and head of state (carrying the symbology of the USA). When you get a call from the President, are you dealing with a man or woman performing a job, or are you dealing with the majesty and history and power of the USA reflected into the world? If the President called you and asked you to do something, would you refuse?
Parliamentary systems normally have the head-of-state separated from the head-of-government.
In republican countries that use a parliamentary system, the head-of-state is normally called a President (e.g. - Israel, Germany, Austria, Italy).
In constitutional monarchies, the head-of-state is the monarch, the Prime Minister is the head of government.
The Queen is not just the Queen of the United Kingdom. She’s also the Queen of the overseas Commonwealth realms, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The monarch’s functions are carried out in each of those countries by a Governor General. If any of those countries decided to become republics, it would still be necessary to have a head-of-state, separate from the head-of-government, the Prime Minister.
And I agree with matt - “Governor General” is a long-established term in Canada. I don’t see why we would need to change the term to President.
You explained this part very well. I like having one branch of the government that embodies the dignity of the nation, and another that serves as head of the messy, grubby side of politics. Among other things, it helps to ensure that we can’t be fooled into equating opposition to the political positions of the Prime Minister with lèse majesté and want of patriotism, as certain presidents have succeeded in doing of late. (After all, it’s Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.)
Meeting with diplomats, opening Parliament, distributing the Order of Canada, giving inspirational speeches to schoolchildren and new citizens, “honouring Canadians, bringing Canadians together, and promoting Canada” are all functions that call upon the serene, timeless dignity of the nation, as represented by the Governor General. Raising or lowering taxes, cutting or funding Medicare, negotiating with the provinces - in short, government - is a matter for the brawling, transient democracy of the state, as represented by the Prime Minister. It’s good to have those functions separate, and it’s good to have a national figurehead without political mud spattered on her gown.
Thanks, Matt!
:: blush ::
This is exactly what I was trying to express. Symbology and language and the emotions of politics are important.