I’m probably the only monarchist New Democrat in the country – certainly in Quebec – but oh well, we queens must stick together.
I like the monarchy. I figure it’s a good idea to have a non-partisan figure as head of state, and as long as we’re going to have a figurehead, they might as well be an interesting figurehead. The monarchy is interesting. It’s a little bit like having one of your branches of government be a great big museum.
I know it’s not modern, the monarchy, and in some ways it’s inappropriate. But just because a building is old and luxurious and a bit cramped doesn’t mean you tear it down, or even necessarily that you move out. I think it gives a certain aura and grandeur to affairs of state that I think would be lost in a republican system. Having part of our state that’s a thousand years old provides a certain sense of continuity, stability, being part of a bigger picture.
Besides, I can’t think of any prime ministers who look half as fetching on a stamp.
I like this idea. Screw winning Lotto, I can be the Sovereign of The Commonwealth Of Australia and her Dependent Territories! With Blackjack, and Hookers! And don’t Forget being Sovereign!
In all seriousness, though, I don’t want Australia to become a Republic. When I became a Citizen here, I took an Oath of Loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs, and Successors- not some local wannabe-El Presidente.
A Republic of Australia is not a Republic of Australia that I’m likely to want to live in- unless I get to be President For Life, of course.
I’m a great admirer of Her Majesty. Her father did a good job too. Phil the Greek’s nowhere near as bad as people say - much of it’s an act - it’s his schtick. I dread Charles becoming King, and it’s too early to say with William. Fortunately, the women of the line seem to be very long-lived - Victoria, Alice, Elizabeth the QM, and Elizabeth II - so there’s a good chance Charles won’t rule long if at all.
As for the monarchy itself, limited by parliament as it is, it has served us well these past 350 years or so, and it’s been far better than any of the alternatives. Give me something better and I’ll go for it, but right now, the monarchy is the best thing out there.
That’ll put the fear of God into those savages!
[/QUOTE]
Slight hijack on passorts …
As a 'Merkin I really, really admire that language. The Empire yet lives, majestic in its pompous disdain of all the lesser regions of the world.
By contrast, my US passport issued in 1999 says “The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen / national named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid & protection.” It then repeats the same in French(!).
Talk about bureacratic obsequious snivelling. Even the Governor-General of New Zealand sounds more awe-inspiring / threatening.
I think it would be fun to get our Rabid Right into a frothing frenzy about there being French on our passports; give then something else to think about besides making our disastrous foreign affairs even worse.
I’m with my favourite queen, matt_mcl, on this. Although I will admit I don’t put much thought to the monarchy of Great Britain and its former Empire, since moving to the US. They aren’t really on my radar much (although I will say that there seem to be a lot of people here seemingly obsessed with the monarchy).
I just looked on my passport (Canadian) and it says that if I have lost my passport while in foreign lands, I can go to a Canadian consulate, but if there isn’t one I may go to the British. I never even thought to look until I read the wordings in the Australians’ passports noted above. It says nothing regarding the Governor General of Canada or the Queen.
Some interesting replies here. If I can inject a mixed GQ/GD question here, what is the proper role of the queen today? As you may or may not know, the movie The Queen was about the pressure put on QE2 to break tradition, bend to the popular will (at least as whipped up by the media – there’s some debate about that), and do a couple things to help the public grieve over Diana’s death.
Now, I’m not a royal-watcher, but I’ve always had the impression that the British monarch is kind of the secular equivalent of the pope: safe-guarder of some core British truths and traditions, impervious to popular will, leader of the country, etc. If that is true, shouldn’t the royals have stuck to their guns over the proper way to acknowledge Diana’s death? Or is it not true – is the monarchy supposed to adapt itself to popular opinion, change with the times, adapt, modernize, etc.?
Ditto. And I like her hats. Why don’t people wear hats anymore?
Hey, does anyone else sometimes take a few pennies and line them up to watch the Queen grow older?
I’m French-Canadian, and to me May 24th is still the “Fête de la Reine”, no matter how often the Quebec government tries to get me to call it something else.
Yes it does, right on the inside of the front cover
“The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary”
Issued in 2005, but my old one from 1996 is nearly identical:
“The Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada requests, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary”
The passport itself says that if there’s no Canadian consulate or diplomatic office we can go to a British one, but I’m pretty sure the “before you travel” pamphlet that came with the passport also says that, failing access to a British office, we can go to any office of the Commonwealth for emergency assistance. Kind of cool to have all those cousins out there to help take care of us
The Civil List is paid ONLY to the Queen who then decides as to what it will be spent onTthe R.F. has voluntarily agreed to give up all its revenues from the Crown estates to the treasury in exchange for the Civil List payment while in power.
So in actuality we’re almost certainly making a profit out of the Windsors.The Crown estates are the personal property of the monarch NOT the government.
Charlie and Camilla receive no money from the taxpayer as they live on Charlies income from the Duchy of Cornwall which is his personal property and once again NOT the property of the gov./taxpayer, but they do have their expenses paid for on official duties and their security is supplied by government as is any high profile official of state.
The Queen will not in the normal course of things veto any legislation except when the government is illegally holding on to its position by say refusing to accept the result of a democratic ballot,refusing to seek reelection after the customary duration,declaring an unnecessary state of emergency or trying to enact something of grave importance (such as nationalising the banking system)that was not in their election manifesto,this would also be the case if we were occupied by a foreign power with an appointed puppet government.
In the event what would happen is after the government repeatedly ignored the opposition and press demands for a general election,(and no doubt more then a few riots) the opposition would go to the Queen,the Queen would consult with her constitutional lawyers and then command the prime minister to dissolve parliament
.Until a new government had been democratically elected the Queen would be "on strike "and no new legislation would become law,civil servants individually and as a group would refuse to put new legislation through the process and could not be punished for their refusal,the police and armed serviceswould refuse to enforce new laws and the treasury would refuse to collect new taxes.
Finally foreign governments and their ambassadors would not recognise the government as legitimate so there could be no deals on treaties ,pacts and similar.
The beauty of the system is that all politicians of what ever persuasion know this so dont even bother TRYING to usurp power illegally.
The R.F being apolitical and not being reliant on politcal parties or even the electorate for their position can not be threatened ,blackmailed or influenced by offers of political positions,being rich and having nowhere to really spend the money they cant be financially bribed and having had so many knighthoods and noble ranks plus being made generals,air commodores and admiral of this that and the other almost willy nilly they cant even be swayed by the offer of honours.
They are as near as dammit the closest it is possible to having a genuine honest broker as Head of State.
When last I looked ;the Wiki entry on this subject had been glaringly amended apparently by extreme socialist republican party activists and contained many innacuricies too blatent to be accidental!
I dont know if this is still the case but Iwould view any “facts” on there with a jaundiced eye.
The monarchy is a relatively unimportant issue to me. The Queen and her family are really not rulers anymore; they’re professional celebrities, like Sienna Miller or Kevin Federline, and act pretty much the same way except they get saluted.
My wife met the Queen a few years ago and the Queen was very nice to her so that’s a point in my books on a personal level. I would also like to point out that Her Majesty puts her elbows on the table during a meal, and so it’s not bad manners to do so, as far as I’m concerned.
But if the institution were put to a vote and I happened to be in the polls anyway, and had to choose between “Do you want to keep the monarchy” or “Do you want to dump it,” I’d vote to dump it. My problem is less that we’re ruled by a hereditary ruler - the monarch has no power over us anyway - as it is that we’re being ruled by a foreigner. That made a degree of sense in 1867, perhaps, but today it’s an open absurdity; Canada is not a colony. It’s grown into an independent, and in many ways better, country than its parent.
But having said all that, it’s really not an important issue and I wouldn’t exert the slightest bit of effort to have that question put to the ballot in the first place.
I attended a lunchon with the Queen a few years ago and I think she’s a charming woman. She’s interesting, and very good at putting people at ease, which is good considering that the garden that the lunch was being held in was surrounded by flowering bushes, which were surrounded by soilders carring M-16s (at least, I think that’s what they were).
I don’t know what roll the Monarchy should play, but I sort of like that it’s still around.
My Great Aunt, who is 95, loves the Monarchy - she took to her bed for a week when Diana was killed.
If there wasn’t a monarchy, half the content of the Women’s Weekly magazine would be wiped in a thrice.
I don’t particularly care if there’s a monarchy over the Commonwealth or not. She’s the titular head of this particular family of nations, and it does set us apart from other international groupings. Just.
My background is English, but being born in NZ I’m not a subject of Her Majesty – just a citizen of a nation where the government has the authority to act as the Crown over national and international matters.
Whenever I see her pop up on the telly, in news etc., I’m just reminded that once the monarchy was a fairly important thing. And then I move on.
