The Queen and Canada: Residences, Governor General, etc...

[Osipi]

Perhaps it's time for the younger members of the royal family to get more involved with the indigenous people and their affairs.

If I remember right, when Will and Kate toured Canada not long after their wedding, there were several occasions where they met with and interacted with the indigenous people of various areas. Getting more involved with their affairs I think would be deemed too political and best left to the government and the politicians.

 

[Ish]

Perhaps it's time for the younger members of the royal family to get more involved with the indigenous people and their affairs.

I might be on board with this if the younger members of the royal family had anything to do with Canada as a whole. But they don't, not really. William has made 1 trip to Canada in the last 16 years, and stayed for a week. Harry's been 3 times, but the first two were for military training, and the last 1 he stayed for a day.

I am a Canadian monarchist and yet I still would feel like William, Kate, and Harry were foreigners trying to interfere in Canadian politics if they got involved in this issue at this point. They have to actually build a relationship with Canada before they can get involved with an issue like this.

The Governor General of Canada can, and I have rather mixed feelings about how David Johnston has done so - although, I'm self aware enough to realize that I'm biased here, as I'm a fan of Michaëlle Jean's, and she was noted for her attention to Canada's Aboriginals. Johnston has been faced with a few tricky situations that he's handled a bit awkwardly, notably the Idle No More movement. I think a big part of the difference between how he handles Aboriginal issues and how Jean handled them is owing to the fact that he is an older, white male born in Canada appointed to his position under a Conservative government, while Jean is a younger, black woman who came to Canada as a refugee and was appointed to her position under a Liberal government. It'll be interesting to see who is chosen to replace Johnston, although I believe he's expected to remain in position until September 2017.

 

[Dman]

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.

 

[Rudolph]

I don't want any royal, other than our head of state, to get involved with Canadian internal affairs, including aboriginal issues.

Anyway they need to be invited to Canada by the government, as Heritage Canada picks up the tab.

 

[Dman]

I don't want any royal, other than our head of state, to get involved with Canadian internal affairs, including aboriginal issues.

Anyway they need to be invited to Canada by the government, as Heritage Canada picks up the tab.

Isn't the aborigines saying they want to work The Queen and not government?

 

[Mermaid1962]

I agree with Rudolph. The whole point of the Crown is that it stands for all the people of Canada, in the same way that the national flag stands for all the people of the United States of America. Once the Queen or other members of the Royal Family get politically involved, that's the end of the Crown's neutrality.

 

[Ish]

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).

 

[Muhler]

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/2...-indigenous-women-in-canada-could-number-4000

What's the latest on that?

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Ish]

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/2...-indigenous-women-in-canada-could-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.

 

[Muhler]

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?

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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

 

[Muhler]

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?

 

[Muhler]

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!

 

[Mermaid1962]

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.

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.

 

[Roslyn]

Parting Ways with the Queen · thewalrus.ca

An interesting article. I look forward to our Canadian members' views.

 

[AdmirerUS]

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.

 

[Cris M]

Parting Ways with the Queen · thewalrus.ca

Pure leftist crap, as I expected.

 

[Rudolph]

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

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[gerry]

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

 

[Muhler]

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?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Stephen Marche writes this in his very stupid, ridiculous, incorrect and very rude article:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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''.

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.

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[Ish]

Because it's such a non-issue politically speaking that people feel they can safely vote for "republican" parties?

There aren't "republican" parties, not in the way (I think) you're thinking.

There are 5 main parties in the federal sphere - the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Green, and Bloc Québécois.

The Conservatives and Liberals are the two powerhouses, and it's always one or the other that forms the government (typically with the other being the Opposition). The NDP are the socialists, the Green the environmentalists. The NDP is the only one that would be an obvious republican party, but they don't actually have a republican platform. The Green have never had more than 5 seats in Parliament, and I don't believe have a republican platform either.

The Bloc Québécois have a republican platform (I believe), but they're the Canadian equivalent to the SNP, and unlike the SNP have been declining in power for the past 20 years.

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.

I disagree that Canadians and Australians are in the same boat. The Aussies have a clear republican movement. This movement routinely gains support and is a basis for politics within Australia. However likely or unlikely it is to succeed, it's clearly there.

Canada does not have a clear republican movement. The major, non-separatist parties in Canada don't have republican platforms, and there is very little clamour for there to be such a movement. People sometimes fuss about the "foreign" queen, but for the most part they accept the status quo.

I don't know about constitutional reform in Australia, but I do know that in Canada it's a massive can of worms. We weren't even able to get all 10 provinces to sign the constitution, and we would need all 10 provinces in agreement to change it. Politicians in Canada go to lengths to avoid having to do that for a reason.

 

[gerry]

There aren't "republican" parties, not in the way (I think) you're thinking.

There are 5 main parties in the federal sphere - the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Green, and Bloc Québécois.

The Conservatives and Liberals are the two powerhouses, and it's always one or the other that forms the government (typically with the other being the Opposition). The NDP are the socialists, the Green the environmentalists. The NDP is the only one that would be an obvious republican party, but they don't actually have a republican platform. The Green have never had more than 5 seats in Parliament, and I don't believe have a republican platform either.

The Bloc Québécois have a republican platform (I believe), but they're the Canadian equivalent to the SNP, and unlike the SNP have been declining in power for the past 20 years.




I disagree that Canadians and Australians are in the same boat. The Aussies have a clear republican movement. This movement routinely gains support and is a basis for politics within Australia. However likely or unlikely it is to succeed, it's clearly there.

Canada does not have a clear republican movement. The major, non-separatist parties in Canada don't have republican platforms, and there is very little clamour for there to be such a movement. People sometimes fuss about the "foreign" queen, but for the most part they accept the status quo.

I don't know about constitutional reform in Australia, but I do know that in Canada it's a massive can of worms. We weren't even able to get all 10 provinces to sign the constitution, and we would need all 10 provinces in agreement to change it. Politicians in Canada go to lengths to avoid having to do that for a reason.

Agree: republicanism in Canada is a non-issue I would add to the above the relationship between the Crown and First Nations as yet another reason why the Crown retains its importance in Canada, even though I agree with a previous poster that the relationship needs to be clarified and foregrounded as many Canadians are not aware of this special sense of belonging between Crown and First Nations.
Interestingly, the Prince of Wales is establishing an ever increasing presence in the Canadian consciousness. His charities have created a Canadian office; his various patronages include many Canadian organisations and his website even includes the Canadian family link for the Duchess of Cornwall! In this way, I believe the Prince is slowly preparing for the future that will include Canada for the BRF.

 

[wbenson]

I don't think it's surprising that republicanism has more support in Australia. Canada and Australia both started out as federal collections of British territories, but their national identities developed very differently. Unlike Canada, Australia developed in relative isolation, with Britain as the only really influential power, so people who sought to create a more distinct Australian identity only really had one thing to differentiate themselves from. Canada, on the other hand, has always had a powerful neighbor with a strong cultural influence. In 1867, there was still a very real fear of American military power too. So its national identity was driven by being not-American just as much as (if not more than) it was by being not-British.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Royal Norway mentioned about finding it odd that Canada should have a foreign Head of State. Although I can see why you'd find it that way, Royal Norway, I think you'd find that Canadian monarchists don't think of the Queen as a foreigner. Yes, she speaks with an English accent, and she lives across the ocean from us; but she seems to enjoy being here so much, and we're so used to seeing her, that she seems to be one of us. She's simply our Queen.

 

[Curryong]

As regards the article in the link above, by a Canadian republican.

Well, Jeffrey, I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by referencing Julia Gillard as your role model PM. She was, at the end of her term, deeply unpopular with the Australian electorate, which is why the Labour parliamentary wing dumped her. As far as her republicanism went, she had far too many other things to worry about than the Queen of Australia, and I say that as a lifelong Labor supporter!

As for not curtseying, most Aussies haven't curtsied (or bowed for that matter) for over thirty years or so when royals visit us including our Queen. However she's still our Head of State and Julia's gone.

By the way, does Jeffrey know that the 'tall and graceful' Ms Gillard was such a republican PM that she attended William and Kate's wedding in 2011 with her partner Tim, and stood in line with other Commonwealth leaders at the reception? Saw her there, looking as pleased as Punch.

Also he obviously doesn't know that she was featured in the Australian Women's Weekly of June 2013 with a photo of her knitting a woolly Kangaroo, which according to the magazine was a gift for the Royal couple's baby due to arrive that month. The article was entitled 'Julia's Royal gift'. She was laughed at for this piece of desperate opportunism, but it's hardly a very republican sort of thing to do. Is it, Jeffery?