Posted                      

quote:

---

If, at the end of the First World War the Americans whilst bewitched by their own political system had not insisted in dismantling the German Monarchy with the inevitable loss of stability that entailed, then the history of the second half of the twentieth century would probably have been far less bloody.

Anyone who wants to do away with the British monarchy has only to cross the Channel to see what living in a republic would be like. Sarkozy or Hollande take anyone's fancy? President Blair? President Cameron? As for America the less said the better.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that I'd ever argued otherwise. It's quite simple for me - deciding who the Head of State shall be by a democratic process leaves open the possibility that my Head of State - the person who encapsulates and defines my whole country - will be Tony Fucking Blair or (God forbid) even David "Looks Pretty And Can Kick A Ball Well" Beckham. Keeping the monarchy eliminates that possibility. Argument over, as far as I'm concerned.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't give two craps about monarchs. I'm not against them. I just don't think they are better people than elected officials.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So in your mind, comparing "Tony Fucking Blaire" with David Beckham isn't a value judgement, and blaming the Nazis on democracy is all just weighing pros and cons?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

As to the first, I take it as a value judgment on Blair's and Labour's policies and on popularity vs fitness, not as a proposition that politicians are slimy or monarchs virtuous.

As to the second, I don't think Aumbrey blamed the Nazis on democracy. I think she blamed the fertile ground for the Nazis on an attitude of America Knows What's Best For the World. Two very different things.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Which is all well and good, Mudfrog, and I actually have no problem with anything you said. So long as governments are basically democratic, as the UK's is, who cares what fiddly bits are tacked on to it?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Come on Nick, have the charity for me that you have to strain so mightily to give Marvin and Aumbry. I didn't get my concerns from just nowhere and you know it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Sorry Zack; perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but I just don't see them saying what you're ascribing to them. As others are noting, they're talking about the relative merits of systems, not individuals who may or may not be slimy or virtuous. It's you, I think, who is reading that into the discussion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Then get over it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Where did this weird notion that America dismantled the German monarchy come from?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Where did this weird notion that America dismantled the German monarchy come from?

---

Wherever it came from, independence for Poland and evacuation of German armies from France and Belgium is "high minded drivel" there.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another good thing about a monarchy is that it is not party political. It doesn't have an agenda other than The Nation. It cannot be bought, bribed, coerced; it doesn't need to curry the voters' favour or look at opinion polls, exit polls or popularity polls. It doesn't need to get its message across or keep an eye on electability. It doesn't need to campaign or make promises.

The Monarchy is just there and a great many people trust it because it's not political.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And this is the main problem - the argument seems to focus on the personality. 'Better people?' What's that got to do with anything?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Wilson hardly invented nationalism, and the idea had plenty of traffic both before the War and since. In fact, the Balkan nations had already been independent before WWI.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Politics only enters the picture if the head of state has executive powers. If the monarch's only role is ceremonial and symbolic (as it currently is in Canada) there's no need for promises or pandering of any kind for the elected equivalent.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

True (and indeed the Balkans had been fighting each other over the boundaries of Serbia), and in fairness it's hard to see what else could have been done. But I think there's a difference between accepting a dubious but pragmatic solution, and claiming a dubious situation as virtuous.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Wilson hardly invented nationalism, and the idea had plenty of traffic both before the War and since. In fact, the Balkan nations had already been independent before WWI.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
You won't get any arguments from me that nationalism is one of the more odious inventions of the human mind. But saying it was Wilson's idea is ridiculous.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Politics only enters the picture if the head of state has executive powers. If the monarch's only role is ceremonial and symbolic (as it currently is in Canada) there's no need for promises or pandering of any kind for the elected equivalent.

---

I think that depends on the stability of the rest of the situation.

e.g. In the Czech Republic the president has very few powers, but they are supposed to step in if the government collapses. Czech politics being quite volatile, this happens quite frequently (I believe Václav Klaus swore in six governments in seven years or something like that), so the president in practice has quite a lot of power that he wouldn't have if the other politicians behaved themselves.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I might go for the "no head of state at all" line.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
One could always take the North Korean line, and have a corpse for one's head of state.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you'll read the thread, you'll see that American republicanism and the "high minded drivel" of the 14 points are said to be responsible for the fall of the German monarchy and the rise of the Nazis.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

What has this got to do with my question (in response to your statement) about who had said that nationalism was Wilson's idea?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

What has this got to do with my question (in response to your statement) about who had said that nationalism was Wilson's idea?

---

If we're going to blame all that crap on Wilson, we might as well figure out precisely what Wilson did to cause it, eh?

I am astonished you want to argue about this rather than blaming the Nazis on American republicanism. Apparently my ideas here are even more ridiculous than that.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Another good thing about a monarchy is that it is not party political. It doesn't have an agenda other than The Nation. It cannot be bought, bribed, coerced; it doesn't need to curry the voters' favour or look at opinion polls, exit polls or popularity polls. It doesn't need to get its message across or keep an eye on electability. It doesn't need to campaign or make promises.

The Monarchy is just there and a great many people trust it because it's not political.

---

Politics only enters the picture if the head of state has executive powers. If the monarch's only role is ceremonial and symbolic (as it currently is in Canada) there's no need for promises or pandering of any kind for the elected equivalent.

And a powerless head of state wouldn't need to be elected by popular vote, either. In Canada, the monarch's representative, the Governor General, is now appointed by the queen on the advice of one person -- our prime minister. By convention, the queen has absolutely no say in the matter. How much different, functionally, would it be if our head of state were appointed by Parliament, or the Senate (itself an appointed body) or the Companions of the Order of Canada?

Heck, I'd even consider a hereditary symbolic head of state as long as they were Canadian and lived in Canada.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

No. Simply that your ideas here seem to bear little resemblance to what anyone else has posted.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I always thought that the November Revolution took place because the German powers that be thought the Kaiser had to go to satisfy the Americans but not that the monarchy itself necessarily had to go. I seem to recall that even the Social Democrats wanted a constitutional monarchy. I don't recall that in either Germany or Austria the population were never given the option to choose for a republic or to retain the monarchy. Wilhelm was a fool, but Karl was a very decent guy who did not deserve to loose his throne.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As we found out in 2008 (Stephen Harper is permanently scarred by the discovery that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that he was nor the president) the office is not simply ceremonial and never can be. Roland Michener once described his constitutional function as similar to the role of a fire extinguisher in a hall-- decorative until such time as it's needed, and then it is really needed.

---

quote:

---

Appointed, or more precisely, elected by Parliament would give us either a compromise political candidate (such as Ray Hnatyshyn) who is personally agreeable to the leaders of several parties, or one imposed by a majority party that felt like doing so (Jeanne Sauvé). We would not have had Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, who were both disliked by a wide range of politicians. The Globe and Mail's perpetual campaign to have a GG elected by the companions of the Order of Canada would probably get us (surprise!) a companion of the Order of Canada, preferably a member of the Globe's editorial board.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

True, there is some power in the position, but it's not executive power, and carries no ability to set policy, so the kind of political campaigning that Mudfrog was referring to wouldn't be needed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As we found out in 2008 (Stephen Harper is permanently scarred by the discovery that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that he was nor the president) the office is not simply ceremonial and never can be. Roland Michener once described his constitutional function as similar to the role of a fire extinguisher in a hall-- decorative until such time as it's needed, and then it is really needed.

---

True, there is some power in the position, but it's not executive power, and carries no ability to set policy, so the kind of political campaigning that Mudfrog was referring to wouldn't be needed.

quote:

---

Appointed, or more precisely, elected by Parliament would give us either a compromise political candidate (such as Ray Hnatyshyn) who is personally agreeable to the leaders of several parties, or one imposed by a majority party that felt like doing so (Jeanne Sauvé). We would not have had Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, who were both disliked by a wide range of politicians. The Globe and Mail's perpetual campaign to have a GG elected by the companions of the Order of Canada would probably get us (surprise!) a companion of the Order of Canada, preferably a member of the Globe's editorial board.

---

I'd still prefer any of these to a British monarch.

Quite simply, I'd like to see an end to any vestige of Canada as a colony.

---

You watched too much American TV as a kid. Evolution does not mean revolution. Schoolhouse Rock should have been banned in Canada by the CRTC.

Quebec hasn't been under French authority for 250 years as still uses French civil law, not to mention the language. The Canadian Forces' uniforms are British-inspired, head to toe. The Army proudly wears its red coats for its full dress uniform; the RCMP wears Red Serge for a reason.

Lawyers in Superior Court still gown as barristers.

Growing up does not mean abandoning your family or denying your roots. I like the monarchy. Nations don't die when they are overthrown; they die when people stop believing in them. The monarchy is a great mix of ceremony, emotion and tradition that lets people believe in the nation. Politics is what the Crown does, and for that we have the Crown's advisors, the Government.

EVERY country has pomp and ceremony, it's part and parcel of being a country.

I like Augustine's idea of saying the Act of Union and the Act of Settlement are subject to the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

Just get Harry to marry a beautiful, very Catholic Quebecoise, preferably a traceable descendant of Les Filles du Roi (The King's Daughters). Not literally the daughters of Louis XIV, but women gathered in France to relieve the man-heaviness of Nouvelle France.

For full effect, said Quebecoise should have an ancestor who was a Seigneur or Army Officer who demonstrably kissed Louis XIV's arse. What? That's how things were done back in the Ancien Regime.

They can raise fluently bilingual children, split their time between Rideau Hall in Ottawa and La Citadelle in Quebec City and whatever private retreat they can find (let's assume somewhere in BC).

Long live the House of Windsor-Rideau!

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As we found out in 2008 (Stephen Harper is permanently scarred by the discovery that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that he was nor the president) the office is not simply ceremonial and never can be. Roland Michener once described his constitutional function as similar to the role of a fire extinguisher in a hall-- decorative until such time as it's needed, and then it is really needed.

---

True, there is some power in the position, but it's not executive power, and carries no ability to set policy, so the kind of political campaigning that Mudfrog was referring to wouldn't be needed.

quote:

---

Appointed, or more precisely, elected by Parliament would give us either a compromise political candidate (such as Ray Hnatyshyn) who is personally agreeable to the leaders of several parties, or one imposed by a majority party that felt like doing so (Jeanne Sauvé). We would not have had Adrienne Clarkson or Michaelle Jean, who were both disliked by a wide range of politicians. The Globe and Mail's perpetual campaign to have a GG elected by the companions of the Order of Canada would probably get us (surprise!) a companion of the Order of Canada, preferably a member of the Globe's editorial board.

---

I'd still prefer any of these to a British monarch.

Quite simply, I'd like to see an end to any vestige of Canada as a colony.

---

You watched too much American TV as a kid. Evolution does not mean revolution. Schoolhouse Rock should have been banned in Canada by the CRTC.

Quebec hasn't been under French authority for 250 years as still uses French civil law, not to mention the language. The Canadian Forces' uniforms are British-inspired, head to toe. The Army proudly wears its red coats for its full dress uniform; the RCMP wears Red Serge for a reason.

Lawyers in Superior Court still gown as barristers.

Growing up does not mean abandoning your family or denying your roots. I like the monarchy. Nations don't die when they are overthrown; they die when people stop believing in them. The monarchy is a great mix of ceremony, emotion and tradition that lets people believe in the nation. Politics is what the Crown does, and for that we have the Crown's advisors, the Government.

EVERY country has pomp and ceremony, it's part and parcel of being a country.

I like Augustine's idea of saying the Act of Union and the Act of Settlement are subject to the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

Just get Harry to marry a beautiful, very Catholic Quebecoise, preferably a traceable descendant of Les Filles du Roi (The King's Daughters). Not literally the daughters of Louis XIV, but women gathered in France to relieve the man-heaviness of Nouvelle France.

For full effect, said Quebecoise should have an ancestor who was a Seigneur or Army Officer who demonstrably kissed Louis XIV's arse. What? That's how things were done back in the Ancien Regime.

They can raise fluently bilingual children, split their time between Rideau Hall in Ottawa and La Citadelle in Quebec City and whatever private retreat they can find (let's assume somewhere in BC).

Long live the House of Windsor-Rideau!

---