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.