The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 06-25-2016, 02:49 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I see, so the events (or lack of them) between 1921 and the 70's explain the indigenous feeling of - shall we say - adherence to the GC and QEII rather than the Canadian government?
Um... this is going to sound a bit jaded, but I actually think the adherence to the GG and QEII is more to do with forcing the Canadian government and public to acknowledge the situation. It's such a tricky situation that Canada is very good at ignoring - we like to think that don't have the race problems seen in the US because we don't have black men being shot by the police appearing on the news with any regularity... we completely ignore the unreported issues the Aboriginal population faces, or the lasting legacy of colonialism in Canada. Doing things like protesting outside of Rideau Hall forces the press to report it and the public to acknowledge it - which in turn puts pressure on the government to address it.

The Numbered Treaties signed by the Government of Canada actually covered most of the before then un-treatied Canada - a map here shows the historic treaties between the British/Canadian governments and Aboriginals in Canada. Newfoundland wasn't a part of Canada in 1921. Quebec didn't have treaties under a British or Canadian government. The white space in Northern Canada is owing to the fact that there was little settlement in those areas (European settlement and resource grabs were a big motivation for the Numbered treaties), and the white space in BC is owing... well to pure racism and a refusal on the part of the British Columbian governments to negotiate.

In addition to this, it seems to me that as the Numbered treaties were done at a time when Canadian racism and segregation was at its worst. They were signed with the idea of taking the land away from the Aboriginal populations, forcing them into reserves and taking their children away to send them to residential schools. By the 60s/70s, though things were changing - I think one of the legacies of the American Civil Rights movement was that in Canada the Quebecois and Aboriginals were able to embark on their own rights movements. The post 1970s gains the Aboriginals have had have been because of determination on the Aboriginals' parts and a slow and gradual recognition on the part of the general public and government that the past treatment of Aboriginals has been wrong.

In the 1960s Quebec began looking into its hydroelectric resources, and in 1971 the Quebec Association of Indians sued the government for doing so without consulting them and won - forcing the government to negotiate an agreement with the Aboriginals before they were allowed to proceed with any hydroelectric development. That kind of set things off; even though part of the ruling was overturned, it was still established by the Courts that there was a legal requirement that Quebec negotiate treaties with its Aboriginal populations. The treaty was signed fast too - the first agreement was signed in 1974, the final one in 1978.

Similar cases were being held elsewhere - in BC, the Nisga'a sued the government in 1968 on the issue, and in 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled at least partially in the Nisga'a's favour. The federal government of Canada began negotiating with the Nisga'a in 1976, but the provincial government of BC didn't enter into the negotiations until 1990, and the agreement wasn't signed until 1998.

A map here shows the modern treaties. A big difference in how they get handled is I think owing to what the provincial government is getting out of it - in Quebec, the government needed to sign a treaty fast because of the James Bay Hydroelectric Project. In BC, the government didn't have anything going on in the Nass River Valley, so they didn't have any motive to resolve things quickly (or even come to the table). The Northern treaties are done somewhat easier owing to the fact that there aren't any provincial governments to deal with (and considerably smaller non-Native populations).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 06-25-2016, 02:59 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,624
Thank you, Ish, for your very informative and detailed reply.

So to sum up, the Canadian governments didn't begin to address the issues with indigenous people until more or less forced to? And until the current government only pretty reluctantly.

That certainly explains why the indigenous people address the GC and the BRF - there are/were no one else, apparently.

I read this chilling article in the Guardian about murders, killings and presumed killing as well as missing of some 1.200 (perhaps 4.000!) indigenous women, which seems to have been largely ignored: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ld-number-4000

What's the latest on that?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 06-25-2016, 03:05 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
It would be nice if the younger royals developed a better relationship with Canada. The royals that seem to visit Canada much more often in the Wessex's and Princess Anne.

I'm just saying if the Indigenous people wanted a more defined role with the crown, it would be nice of the new generation of royals played small part in this.
I'm not going to disagree with the idea that it would be nice for the younger royals to develop a better relationship with Canada. Personally, I think this is something that the younger generation fails at with all the Commonwealth Realms. But some of that is owing to the Realms themselves - members of the BRF only go go the Realms at invitation (and expense) of the Realms themselves.

It is not the role of people who do not live in Canada, who do not have any real relationship with Canada, and who do not know anything about the history of Canada's Aboriginals to solve the issue. And that's not what the Aboriginals are trying to get - asking the GG to go to the Queen is a publicity stunt intended to draw public recognition to what the greater message is, not an actual appeal to the Queen. The Queen doesn't have the power to fix the problems, and the Aboriginals know it.

I do think there is likely a bit of a commentary on David Johnston at play as well. Michaëlle Jean was known for her attention to the Aboriginals of Canada, Johnston is not. In fact, Johnston has deliberately chosen not to participate in talks between Aboriginals and the Government of Canada, while not finding a way to ease the situation, because he felt that doing so was too political.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 06-25-2016, 04:01 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,294
The Queen and Canada: Residences, Governor General, etc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Thank you, Ish, for your very informative and detailed reply.

So to sum up, the Canadian governments didn't begin to address the issues with indigenous people until more or less forced to? And until the current government only pretty reluctantly.

That certainly explains why the indigenous people address the GC and the BRF - there are/were no one else, apparently.

I read this chilling article in the Guardian about murders, killings and presumed killing as well as missing of some 1.200 (perhaps 4.000!) indigenous women, which seems to have been largely ignored: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ld-number-4000

What's the latest on that?
Different governments have addressed it differently - but yes, turning a blind eye has been a big, reoccurring theme. I do think one of the bigger problems is the provincial governments - Aboriginal affairs are a federal issue, so the federal government is always having to deal with the issues to some extent or another, but the provincial governments can get away with turning a blind eye while still being necessary in addressing the issues.

The thing with the missing women is that Aboriginal women make up a disproportionate number of homicide victims - so something like 10% of female homicide victims are Aboriginal women, but only 3% of the population of Canadian women are Aboriginal. There's an ever bigger portion of missing women who are Aboriginal -in Saskatchewan, I think it's something like 60% of missing women are Aboriginal.

There were a lot of demands leading up to the election last year to undertake an official inquiry on the issue that were dismissed by the then Conservative government. One of promises made by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals during the election was that an official inquiry would take place, and the first phase of that was launched in December.

There is evidence that there have been/are serial killers in Canada who target women people don't care about - prostitutes, drug addicts, homeless, runaways, etc, which are disporportionally Aboriginal. So, for example there are the Highway of Tears murders in which an acknowledged 19 women have been murdered (with Aboriginals estimating more than 40 victims). 10 out of 19 of the acknowledged victims were Aboriginal. Bobby Jack Fowler was linked to 3 of the murders, possibly up to 20, and was only caught after killing women in Oregon (he never faced formal charges for the women he's accused of killing in Canada). Another man, Cody Legebokoff, was found guilty of killing 1 of the victims and another 3 victims. Unrelated to the Highway of Tears, Robert Pickton has been found guilty of killing 6 women, linked to the deaths of another 20 women, had the remains of more than 30 women found on his property, and is believed to have actually killed closer to 50 women. His victims were primarily prostitutes taken from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, and about half of them were Aboriginal women. But they weren't women the public cared about, so the police didn't prioritize the investigation.
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 06-25-2016, 04:29 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,624
Thanks again, Ish. Great reply.

These are shocking figures!
Proportionally speaking Native Indian women on average must face a genuine risk of becoming the victim of murder or what else can happen to them. I presume that since no one really cares about murders, rape and abuse must be virtually ignored.
If these figured applied to non-natives there would be an uproar I imagine!

How has that been allowed to happen? It's a scandal!
Why isn't the Canadian press crucifying those responsible?
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 06-25-2016, 08:10 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,294
Thank you, Muhler. You've posed some really interesting questions that I've enjoyed answering.

If this was happening to non-natives... You know what, honestly. This wouldn't be happening if it wasn't the type of people it was happening to. Not all the victims of the Highway of Tears are native, but since the women were all hitchhiking, they all behaved in "risky" behaviour, so they get faulted for their deaths. Similar with Pickton's victims - they were prostitutes, so the police had little interest in investigating it and the public didn't care.

The press is rather fickle in how it handles things in this... It should be noted that most of Canada's newspapers are owned by one of 5 or 6 corporations, and there are only about 4 major TV networks which offer the news - one of which is owned by the government. It makes it easy for stories about missing prostitutes and hitchhikers from rural areas to get overlooked.

The other thing to note about Aboriginals in Canada is how misunderstood/misrepresented they are within mainstream society. We're taught in schools about the horrors of pre-Confederation colonialism, smallpox blankets and the such, but we're not taught about the post-Confederation horrors that were imposed upon them, or how many Aboriginals are still struggling with what the government, the church, the mainstream society has done to them.

Instead there is a depiction of Aboriginals as being one of three or four things; they're sometimes the "Noble savages" still, the people who are so much more connected to the earth than white Canadians and wouldn't destroy it like white Canadians have. More often though, they're seen as either having embraced Western culture, assimilated, and are good, or are guilting the white man for acts done by ancestors to ancestors and not letting go of the past (and financially benefiting from it), or else they're alcoholics and drug addicts living in squalor, who can't take care of themselves, so freeload off of the rest of Canada.

That's how they get depicted, and when coupled with the fact that in mainstream society when someone gets murdered it's most likely by someone they know... It becomes very easy to blame the Aboriginals for their problems and wash our hands of it.

The problem, of course, is that the atrocities committed against the Aboriginals weren't committed 150 years ago and never again. The Canadian government was actively pushing Aboriginals onto the reserves throughout much of the 20th century, and making sure that the reserves were situated on the worst possible land (the good land going to the white settlers). They were taking Aboriginal children away from their families right up until the end of the 1980s, and sticking them in residential schools where they were stripped of their culture and physically and sexually abused. Something like 30% of native children were sent to these schools, and something like 65% of the survivors are believed to suffer from PTSD. And we're only a generation away from that. And that's without recognizing that in parts of Canada, the land was never ceded by territory (which was a requirement by British law well before Canada became a country, and was recognized as a requirement by the British North America Act), and that the historic treaties that do exist were written by people who did not have the best of intentions at all, as made clear by the actions of the British and Canadian governments after the treaties were signed.

Oh, and the idea that the "drunk Indians" are the ones who are killing their women? Not based in fact. Aboriginal women are 3 times more likely to be killed by a stranger than non-Aboriginals.
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 06-26-2016, 03:05 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,594
From reading your very informative posts, Ish, I think you could very well take out Canada and replace it with USA in many of the points that you have made with regards to the Native Americans (of the continent and not just the US).

Its nature's way that the white European settlers came, saw, wanted and conquered what they wanted for themselves and in the interest of "betterment" imposed their civilized ways and society on those they saw as "savages" and different from them.

One thing I'd like to point out too is that the idiom of "drunk Indian" as a slur against the indigenous Americans as a race has a genetic reason behind what is seen as an alcohol problem.

"Unlike other cultures that have ingested alcohol for thousands of years, the relationship between indigenous Americans and alcohol is relatively new. Native Americans have had fewer centuries to develop the genetic tolerance to alcohol that is present in other ethnic groups. Mix in poverty and living with ongoing oppression, and alcohol contributes to a state of emergency on many reservations."

Alcohol: It’s Different for Native Americans
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 06-26-2016, 03:17 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,624
And thank you, Ish, for very detailed, most informative and easy to understand replies.

It's so typical isn't it?
As long as it doesn't' happen on your doorstep, there is no problem...
And if there is the standard reaction is: Now, let's not dwell in the past, but look forward and think positive.

And sadly enough, much of the mess was probably done with the best possible intentions. - That has been the cases in some of the most disastrous decisions made by DK in the colonial policy (because that's what it was) towards Greenland and the Greenlanders. All in the name of progress.

I did some Wiki'ing. Canada's population is around 36 million. The indigenous peoples constitute close to 5 %. If we assume that about half have social issues or are indirectly affected by social issues, that amounts to about 900.000 people. Many if not most living in rural areas. - So it has been possible to sweep the whole issue under the carpet and pretend there is no real problem, certainly not a racial one, good heavens no!
- Because it's not a question of the indigenous people having various social issues on a massive scale but instead 900.000 individual cases of people with social issues who happens to have an indigenous ethnicity... - Or am I being too cynical here?
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 06-26-2016, 03:32 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
From reading your very informative posts, Ish, I think you could very well take out Canada and replace it with USA in many of the points that you have made with regards to the Native Americans (of the continent and not just the US).

Its nature's way that the white European settlers came, saw, wanted and conquered what they wanted for themselves and in the interest of "betterment" imposed their civilized ways and society on those they saw as "savages" and different from them.

One thing I'd like to point out too is that the idiom of "drunk Indian" as a slur against the indigenous Americans as a race has a genetic reason behind what is seen as an alcohol problem.

"Unlike other cultures that have ingested alcohol for thousands of years, the relationship between indigenous Americans and alcohol is relatively new. Native Americans have had fewer centuries to develop the genetic tolerance to alcohol that is present in other ethnic groups. Mix in poverty and living with ongoing oppression, and alcohol contributes to a state of emergency on many reservations."

Alcohol: It’s Different for Native Americans
And that problem includes the Greenlanders here in DK as well.

Their tolerance to alcohol is low as well, as you described.

In the 60's and 70's in particular there were lots of alcoholic Greenlanders in the streets in the major cities.
The sad thing is that they ended up at the bottom of society because of good intentions.

In the 50's it was decided to propel Greenland that at the time was basically a hunter/fisher society into the 20th century.
So Greenlandic children and young were to be educated in DK and also be introduced into a modern industrial society.
Sometimes children were forcibly removed from their families if there were social issues, and shipped to Denmark to get a proper upbringing and education. - With the best possible intentions for the children in mind.
It's hardly surprising that young people and children who suddenly found themselves in a strange country and basically an alien culture, far away from anything they knew and with little if any contact with their families, ended up having issues.
Combine that with a low tolerance for alcohol and a more promiscuous sexual culture (for the time) and you have the recipe for ending up on the bottom of society.
It has been estimated that about half became alcoholics...

Of course many did fine, got an education, some also settled in DK, but the price was high!
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 06-27-2016, 04:54 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,200
I sometimes despair of whether or not our mutual issues will ever be settled. There is ongoing racism on both sides and there is also the issue of corruption of leadership within aboriginal communites (the "reserves"). One local chief, for example, left his own reserve go without road maintenance while his own properties were beautifully paved. It was federal money used for private purposes. Because of the residential school system, there are/will be generations of children who weren't parented well who became parents who don't parent well. I know an aboriginal lady who worked in Head Start on a local reserve, and she kept seeing children of the children she taught being enrolled. (The children have to be referred by the local Social Services.)

There is a desire among many to look to the future and stop teaching victimization to the younger generation; to say, "You can do it; stay in school and go to college and make a real difference to your people." But there are also the drug dealers and others who make money on corruption.

I certainly don't think that there'll be full reconciliation in my lifetime, but positive things are happening.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Instead there is a depiction of Aboriginals as being one of three or four things; they're sometimes the "Noble savages" still, the people who are so much more connected to the earth than white Canadians and wouldn't destroy it like white Canadians have. More often though, they're seen as either having embraced Western culture, assimilated, and are good, or are guilting the white man for acts done by ancestors to ancestors and not letting go of the past (and financially benefiting from it), or else they're alcoholics and drug addicts living in squalor, who can't take care of themselves, so freeload off of the rest of Canada.
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 06-29-2016, 05:10 PM
eya eya is online now
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 8,049
Parting Ways with the Queen · thewalrus.ca
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 06-29-2016, 06:13 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by eya View Post
An interesting article. I look forward to our Canadian members' views.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 06-29-2016, 06:26 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,905
Lovely prose there; I wish I has coined "historical inertia." The Trump comment is precious and I've always thought Canada was "grown up." I'm not Canadian, but still appreciate the share.
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 06-29-2016, 06:33 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by eya View Post
Pure leftist crap, as I expected.
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 06-29-2016, 06:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,558
In the words of Justin Trudeau after he took office, 'HM remains an integral part of country's progress and future'

Neither the Liberal Party, nor the Conservative Party are republican. Monarchy in Canada enjoys about a 70-75 percent approval.

Unless there is open revolution, abolishing the monarchy for a president is not a priority for most Canadians
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 06-29-2016, 11:12 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,294
How can 73% want a Canadian born head of state, if in the same poll only 4 in 10 want to abolish the monarchy?

I wouldn't call it "leftist crap" as I don't agree that republicanism in Canada is really a left/right issue; there are the typical more left wing issues of monarchies being outdated, but there are also the more right wing issues of nationalism at play.

Funnily enough, some of the firmest monarchists that I know in Canada are also huge supporters of our more left wing parties. None of the official federal parties, at least not outside of Quebec, support removing the monarchy at this time, and the one party in Quebec... Well, they're the Quebec separatists.

Most people don't seem to have a solid opinion on it, and as there isn't really any demand and removing the monarchy would require a huge overall of our constitution (which would require at minimum full support of all the provinces, which is pretty much impossible to achieve in Canada), it's not a change that's likely to happen any time soon.
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 06-29-2016, 11:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
How can 73% want a Canadian born head of state, if in the same poll only 4 in 10 want to abolish the monarchy?

I wouldn't call it "leftist crap" as I don't agree that republicanism in Canada is really a left/right issue; there are the typical more left wing issues of monarchies being outdated, but there are also the more right wing issues of nationalism at play.

Funnily enough, some of the firmest monarchists that I know in Canada are also huge supporters of our more left wing parties. None of the official federal parties, at least not outside of Quebec, support removing the monarchy at this time, and the one party in Quebec... Well, they're the Quebec separatists.

Most people don't seem to have a solid opinion on it, and as there isn't really any demand and removing the monarchy would require a huge overall of our constitution (which would require at minimum full support of all the provinces, which is pretty much impossible to achieve in Canada), it's not a change that's likely to happen any time soon.
Canadians support the monarchy because they watch the mess that is the US elections and gladly embrace the ''luck of the first born'" system that gives us relatively sane heads of state
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 06-30-2016, 03:10 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
How can 73% want a Canadian born head of state, if in the same poll only 4 in 10 want to abolish the monarchy?
Because it's such a non-issue politically speaking that people feel they can safely vote for "republican" parties?
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 06-30-2016, 03:46 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 2,770
Stephen Marche writes this in his very stupid, ridiculous, incorrect and very rude article:
Quote:
And yet our most enduring connection with a foreign power—the fact that our head of state is the English crown—basically comes down to historical inertia. For no good reason, Canada’s head of state is an old English lady. It’s always been pathetic. After Brexit, it’s glaringly pathetic.
I would not say pathetic, but it is a bit odd (to me) to have a foreign monarch as head of state.

Quote:
Why would Scots stay attached to an isolated nation which defines itself by its ethnicity and whose ethnicity they do not share?
What the heck is he talking about? The Scots aren't attached to anything - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together make up The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Quote:
It is time for Canada to ask itself the same question that the Welsh and the Scots have been asking.
I ask again - What the heck is he talking about? Canada has already done what the Scots have done, and with that I mean declaring yourself independent from the UK. If Scotland declares themself independent, they will still (until a possible referendum on the monarchy in Scotland) have HM as head of state. And Wales voted to leave.

Quote:
Constitutional monarchy is an amazingly successful form of government all over the world. There are worse ways to organize government than to have an arbitrary celebrity at its head. But if the head of state is to be an empty symbol then at least the empty symbolism should apply.
Yes a constitutional monarchy is an amazingly successful form of government, but (as I wrote above) I agree with him that it is a bit odd to have foreign monarch as head of state.

But is there something the Queen is not, then it is an empty symbol.

Quote:
The royal family of England makes a pisspoor symbol for Canada as it stands.
England has no royal family, and I think it is rude people like you who are pisspoor symbols for Canada.

Quote:
The Queen represents old, racist, inward-looking England whose insularity, in the most charitable phrasing, can be described as “suspicion of foreigners.”
What a awful thing to say, and you couldn't be more wrong about England.

Quote:
The explosion of racist incidents in England after Brexit looks, ironically, a lot like the worst of Continental European history. It looks a lot like simple loathing for the other.
The explosion of racist incidents in England after Brexit was and is unforgivable, but the vast majority of people in England are not racists.

Quote:
According to her official biographer, Queen Elizabeth was pro-Brexit, although of course the Palace offered denials.
The leave supporting media wanted to have the Queen on their side, and that biographer (Robert Lacey) he refers to didn't say the Queen was pro-Brexit. He wrote this in a blog for the Daily Beast website:
Why the Queen Should Oppose Brexit - The Daily Beast

And he said this to the Telegraph:
EU referendum: Queen asks guests to give her three reasons why Britain should remain in Europe
Quote:
He told The Telegraph: "She asked the question in the context of a general debate - she loves a bit of forthright discussion and this sort of remark is tossed around the dinner table like a ping pong ball. That is the way she frames her questions."
Quote:
This morning she made her first appearance since the vote to declare “I’m still alive.” Every time she appears from now until the hour of her death, the question will be for how much longer?
What is wrong with this guy? There are almost nobody who talks about the Queen's death, neither the so-called royal experts or the UK media. And thats because most people dread that day.

Quote:
Queen Elizabeth represented Britain as it was, as it recovered from the Second World War; she represented the defeat of fascism and the creation of the new world order which brought unprecedented peace and prosperity with it, the new world order England has turned its back on.
HM still represents these things and now more than more than ever, and England has not turned its back on it.

But first and foremost, she represents continuity and stability in a rapidly changing world, and most state leaders are in awe of her.

She is as Osipi wrote in another thread, a icon of stability, unity and a reassurance that there are things that are constant in an ever changing world.

And as Obama said the day after her birthday, ''As for Her Majesty, the Queen has been a source of inspiration for me, like so many people around the world. She is truly one of my favorite people. And should we be fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She’s an astonishing person, and a real jewel to the world and not just to the United Kingdom''.

Quote:
What will King Charles represent? The idiot toff lord of a small piece of an island famous for its poor weather. Canada deserves better. So does England, for that matter.
What a rude man, he remind me of Trump and Farage.

And I'm pretty sure that 'England' (which he continues to call the UK) will take Charles and William over a divisive politician.

Quote:
Nigel Farage, in one of his astonishing backtracking interviews following Brexit, claimed that England would make new international agreements, including with the Commonwealth. My feeling on hearing that remark is, you know what, Nigel? That’s quite all right. We’re fine, really. And I’m not alone. Support for the monarchy has been steadily declining in Canada as our demography has changed.
And again, what heck is he talking about? Her quotes Farage in saying that 'England' (I don't think Farage said England) would make new international agreements, including with the Commonwealth.

And then he writes, ''My feeling on hearing that remark is, you know what, Nigel? That’s quite all right. We’re fine, really. And I’m not alone. Support for the monarchy has been steadily declining in Canada as our demography has changed''.

What has that to do with Farege's comments, and Canada is actually part of the commonwealth.

Is this so-called writer drunk or something? Because this is some of the stupidest I've ever read.


Some thoughts from me:
I follows Canadian media very closely, and I have seen several polls over the last 10 years who showing that a majority of Canadians want their own head of state, but (as Ish said) I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.

Not least because of the difficulty to achieve it, and the fact that most people, politicians and canadian media don't see it as a major issue. And I think that most Canadians think the system works well. Am I right?

And support for the monarchy in Canada has increased this year, with majority in two polls.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 06-30-2016, 04:27 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerry View Post
Canadians support the monarchy because they watch the mess that is the US elections and gladly embrace the ''luck of the first born'" system that gives us relatively sane heads of state
I think Australia and Canada are in the same boat on this issue, for similar reasons. Though many of us want one of our own as our head of state rather than a foreign monarch, the US experience is more than a bit scary. The Queen doesn't interfere in the way we run things, members of the RF don't visit very often but when they do they are pleasant enough and don't frighten the horses. They provide a bit of entertainment and a chance for our upper echelons to get out their posh frocks and wear their bling, but then we pat them on the head and send them off back home and get on with life.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british commonwealth, canada, elizabeth ii, governor general, monarchy versus republic, parliament, queen elizabeth ii


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc... happy_27 Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 820 07-31-2017 11:44 PM
General Discussion about Dutch Royal Residences Tina Dutch Royal Residences 21 07-18-2017 04:01 PM
The Queen and New Zealand: Residences, Governor-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 53 02-23-2017 01:21 AM
Brazilian Imperial Palaces, residences etc Marengo The Imperial Family of Brazil 23 03-14-2015 09:01 PM
The Queen and the Caribbean: Residences, Governors-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 48 02-25-2012 04:56 AM




Popular Tags
affair albania austria belgian state visit to japan best gown september 2016 best outfit birthday countess of snowdon crown princess mary crown princess mary cocktail dresses crown princess mary fashion denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge elia zaharia fashion poll hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander lists monarchy november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week picture of the week november 2016 pierre casiraghi power prince charles princess diana lady spencer princess marie style princess mary princess mary fashion princess sofia princess sofia style queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania australia november 2016 queen rania dresses queen rania fashion romania royal wedding september 2016 shaikh zayed bin hamdan bin zayed al nahyan state visit succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara uae nature


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:09 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises