well, even though we have a Queen, i'll go for it. Our royal family would make it a priority to spread the word that Canada, contrary to what you've read/heard is not completey covered by snow, polar bears do not roam around most of this country, not all canadians love celine dion.
Sssssh. Don't tell the Yanks that, or my backyard Polar Bear Zoo scam won't work anymore..
On-topic: I was thinking a while ago that Canada could actually amend our laws of succession to allow for the second child of the sovereign (for example) to either be outright sovereign of Canada, or to have a title similar to Prince of Wales. There would be some stickiness due to them needing to be a Canadian citizen, and the Canadian gov't policy of not permitting Canadians to have titles. Could be interesting, though..
kimebear said:
I also would like to see a wealthy (and I emphasize wealthy) royal family who gives money back to the people they represent instead of being paid to represent it, and instituting and paying for educational and socially beneficial programs
Well, there are two problems with this..
1) (in reference to Britain; not sure about arrangements in other monarchies). HM The Queen is not, in fact, paid to represent the people. The money for the Civil List actually comes from her hereditary revenues as the Sovereign. Quick history:
Up until the late 18th century, much of the Government's activities were paid for (appropriately enough) out of the pockets of the Sovereign, who had large land holdings and so on. However, by the late 18th century, everyone came to realize that His Majesty could no longer do so, due to new pressures on the Treasury. Thus the Civil List was instituted, in which each successive Sovereign
voluntarily surrenders those revenues to the Government so that it may continue to provide services, in return for a living allowance, payment of all costs relating to official duties, and so on. It is a purely voluntary arrangement which each Sovereign renews at the beginning of their reign. While scholars agree that it it would be constitutionally impossible for the Sovereign to refuse to renew it, the fact remains: these are the Sovereign's revenues, and so in fact the British people do not pay for the Monarchy in any way. More to the point: the Monarchy actually generates a profit, as the income from the Crown Estates is approximately 200M pounds per year, while the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid totaly somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35M pounds/year.
2) Educational and socially beneficial programs could be seen as political interference, and in most constitutional monarchies (Monaco would be a notable exception, I think) the monarch is categorically forbidden to meddle in politics. At least in public; I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes involvement. This is why Charles was able to institute The Princes' Trust; he's not (yet) the monarch, and thus has a little more latitude. Once he ascends the throne, the Trust will continue on without his involvement.
