Should Canadians cut its ties with the monarchy? and why?

Question

just curious... =)

Answer 1

A terrible idea! Even if our governance has its faults, most but not all of them may be laid at the door of the few politicians who have sought to marginalise the monarchy in Canada, for whatever reason. Still, the best-governed countries in the world are constitutional monarchies, not republics; and we have one of them.

It is a very-seldom invoked, but nonetheless very real and lawful, power that the sovereign possesses; and we should rejoice in it. It is the royal power that protects the rights and powers of the people against lawless incursion by political adventurers such as we may hope never to have to endure in our cherished country. Consider the case of many a former dominion, now an independent republic within our Commonwealth. Pakistan is only the most recent example: think how fortunate they would be, just now, to have reputable sovereign, as we have, to send their dictator packing. But they surrendered that, and for what benefit? There are other similar cases: Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, to name a few. Perhaps we are just lucky, because we are white and rich and so deserving!

I have no wish to demean one of Her Majesty’s reliable allies, namely, the American republic, with whom we share a long, more-or-less undefended border. There are many more good things than bad that can be said about the Republic, when compared to the world, at large. However, many in that country appear dissatisfied with the state of their democracy; and some will think that they have far greater reason to be so, than we will likely know in our own country, so long as we choose to remain distinct.

In recent years, Australians had to consider the alternatives. They have been distressed and let down, as we have been, by some of the news concerning younger members of the royal family, who should know better; and many, no doubt, have sought suitable ways to symbolise their displeasure. In the event, they conducted a plebiscite in 1999 on a proposal to institute a republic, in order to demonstrate their feeling.

This proposal failed because of a three way split: (1) Some, of course, wished to preserve the existing constitutional monarchy. (2) Some wished to replace it with a political head of state. (3) Still others wished to replace it with a non-political head of state, chosen in similar fashion to that by which the governor-general is now nominated, but without royal sanction.

If the prime minister, the monarch’s principal advisor, under our current system, were to nominate his brother or his horse, and there were an outcry from opposition parties, the monarch could, in fact, delay or withhold royal sanction, without losing the favour of public sentiment. If we are un-accustomed to such outrage, it may be because we have a safeguard against them, that we’ve not really had to think about very much.

The disadvantages in scheme (3), above, are that some felt it not radical enough; and that it would place the appointed president in the pocket of the prime minister. To whatever extent care was taken to preserve the tradition of a non-political presidency, it is thought by some that it might erode in favour of the second scheme, namely, a political presidency.

Scheme (2) - having an elected president with his own mandate, as in France or in America - would produce a head of state with political debts to his supporters and constitute a rival to the elected parliament, thus weakening that body. In the Irish Republic, probably the best-governed of the world’s republics, there has been a recent constitutional shift from the third scheme to the second; so far, we have heard of no outrages in the machinery of state. May Irish good nature and good luck preserve them!

Scheme (1) - the existing arrangement - did not conform to the mood for change which some in Australia desired; and if people lose their affection for the monarch, she will lose in practice her ability to intercede for them, in those rare cases where constitutional government is endangered. It is evident that the second and third schemes differ from one another, about as much as either differs from the first. In consequence, no change was adopted in Australia in 1999; we have still to see whether the bonfires will be lit again for a brave, new world. Perhaps they got it out of their system, and perhaps not.

I feel that Canadians should not be timid about making changes that we have carefully considered. Changes that are gradual, reversible, and broadly agreed are the ones least likely to divide the country, and are the ones most likely to achieve genuine progress in the long run. Changes that are ill-considered, however, are likely to have un-foreseen consequences; those that are successful are done democratically and soberly.

Answer 2

If we quit the monarchy would we Canadians authomatically lose a long weekend in May as a result?!  Better think carefully on that one.

Answer 3

Your question is basically a matter of opinion, so any answer is simply a matter of preference.  The monarchy is part of Canada's heritage and there is no need to beak with the long established relationship.

best of luck to you!

Answer 4

no they are part of the commonwealth

Answer 5

Canada's ties with the monarchy have been cut in all but the most symbolic senses.