queen

I forgot to watch the Queen's Message to Canada on Christmas Day. It occurred to me that I've never heard the Queen speak, and my mental image of her is Scott Thompson!

So I just downloaded the Queen's Message from the CBC News website (Real Player only).

Well, very nice, Queen.

Very strange, this whole Queen thing. A figurehead monarch is a nice idea, I suppose. But a bit outdated, eh? I understand it in theory, but I'll never really understand it in my bones. Some part of me will always be American.

Speaking of royalty, has anyone seen the TV movie Wallis & Edward that CBC is running? Did you like it? I might try to catch a re-broadcast.

Comments

  1. SusanE29 December 2005 at 07:18

    I view the Queen as a kind of "Yoda" figure. She has spent her whole life in politics, so did her ancestors. Who better to offer advice and council. Seems strange to me that you can take a guy who has bankrupt every company he has ever owned/run and make him the leader of the worlds superpower. (I'm a reader on "Keeponsledding")

    ReplyDelete
  2. M@29 December 2005 at 07:28

    It's funny -- I think most Canadians agree that the monarch is a kind of pointless thing. I seem to remember some surveys a few years ago that showed that a majority of Canadians didn't think there was much point to a royal head of state. However, a majority of Canadians also opposed getting rid of the monarchy.

    Of course, a lot of it has to do with Canadians not wanting to be impolite and actually kick the queen out. As a nation, we seem to feel that if we just wait long enough, they'll leave of their own accord, and hopefully not eat all the scones before they go.

    Ironically, whereas governments are supposed to govern at the pleasure of the monarch, in our case if the Queen actually tried to interfere in our affairs, that would be the swiftest way to end the monarchial connection.

    ReplyDelete
  3. barefoot hiker29 December 2005 at 07:53

    I think M@'s comments are astute. I like the monarchy; I like our traditions. I think it lands lightly enough on Canada that even newcomers with little or no British connection don't mind it. It denies them nothing and injects just a little touch of pomp, ceremony, and something faintly storybook-uplifting into what would otherwise be a rather bland North American republic.

    The idea that the real power is vested in the Crown, and politicians have to appeal to it, is subtle, but it's there. I really do think it makes Canada a somewhat more civilized nation. Maybe it is just a fiction, but it's a useful fiction. The idea that Bush is it, some guy who was elected, always felt a little naked to me. The Queen, a little remote, reserved, someone as M@ says we don't want to be impolite to... I think that makes a difference in who we are and how we do things.

    The irony is, it would be nearly impossible for us to abandon the monarchy on our own. To do so requires the unanimous consent of the federal government and all ten provinces. The British, on the other hand, could accomplish it by a single vote in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I suppose the Queen might be required to sign it... :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. laura k29 December 2005 at 08:08

    Seems strange to me that you can take a guy who has bankrupt every company he has ever owned/run and make him the leader of the worlds superpower.

    Well, someone made him the resident of the White House. But it wasn't the majority of people in the United States. It's not so strange in context of political coups.

    Welcome to wtmc, Susan. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. laura k29 December 2005 at 08:10

    I think it lands lightly enough on Canada that even newcomers with little or no British connection don't mind it.

    Absolutely. I may not fully understand it, but I'm not bothered by it a tall.

    It denies them nothing and injects just a little touch of pomp, ceremony, and something faintly storybook-uplifting into what would otherwise be a rather bland North American republic.

    Nicely said.

    ReplyDelete
  6. laura k29 December 2005 at 08:33

    Having watched the US struggle with various questionable Presidents, I'm very fond of the idea of keeping our Head of State not only politically weak, but tucked away in a completely different country, to be trotted out for ceremonial events now and then.

    But it's a completely different concept. The US president, as the chief executive and the head of the executive branch of govt, is not a head of state in the sense you're talking. Even though there are many differences, the US president is much more analogous to the prime minister than to the ceremonial head of state.

    The US doesn't have a head of state, for better or worse. Canada's G-G is more analogous to the US vice president than anything else (again, with obvious differences).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Masnick9629 December 2005 at 08:43

    I have to say that I kinda like the idea of the Queen as a head of state. She's fancy and impartial and has a crown - kind of glamorous while at the same time like a grandmother watching out for you and telling you to keep your elbows off the table.

    ReplyDelete
  8. laura k29 December 2005 at 08:46

    while at the same time like a grandmother watching out for you and telling you to keep your elbows off the table.

    Funny you should say that! I didn't include it in my post, but the Queen reminds me of my own grandmother. It's true!

    My Nana (mother's mother) looked somewhat like Elizabeth II, and she certainly thought she was imperial. In attitude she was more like Queen Victoria, unfortunately!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wrye29 December 2005 at 10:17

    My understanding of the term is that the President is indeed the US head of state. It's a completely different division of powers, but not a completely different concept.

    As for the fondness shown the Queen, I think the corresponding American tradition would be the reverence still paid to the Founding Fathers. They are, somehow, still a touchstone in US political thought and theory, in a way that is pretty inconcievable here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. laura k29 December 2005 at 10:22

    My understanding of the term is that the President is indeed the US head of state. It's a completely different division of powers, but not a completely different concept.

    Yes, you're right. I phrased that wrong, because the President is the head of state. But the office of the President is more similar to Prime Minister than anything else.

    My point was really that it doesn't make sense to compare the Queen's relationship to Canada to the President's relationship to the US.

    ReplyDelete
  11. M@29 December 2005 at 13:59

    Maybe it is just a fiction, but it's a useful fiction.

    I think this is at the heart of it, L-P. It's useful to remember that nationalism is no more than a shared myth. Politics is a system that works because we all buy into it, as a society.

    I guess the question is, in a parliamentary democracy, what continuous governmental institution could replace the monarchy? An active, useful, (possibly elected) senate, perhaps?

    Interesting topic to have brought up, Laura. The reason I started reading this blog was because it was an interesting "outsider" view of this country. (Then you put up some pics of your dogs and I was hooked.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Echomouse29 December 2005 at 19:00

    We missed the Queen's message this year for the first time ever, that I can remember anyway. The whole Princess Di debacle turned off a lot of us to the Royal Family. But she's our history so, speaking for myself only, I don't want to ditch our traditions. The British are our relatives. We're still a Commonwealth nation. I find her very out of date but I'm hoping that soon William takes over and we get to witness a grand revolution LOL

    ReplyDelete
  13. laura k30 December 2005 at 02:14

    The British are our relatives.

    Maybe this is why I haven't adopted the concept yet. I can't feel this at all.

    Perhaps in five years I'll feel differently.

    ReplyDelete
  14. James Redekop30 December 2005 at 06:28

    I guess the question is, in a parliamentary democracy, what continuous governmental institution could replace the monarchy? An active, useful, (possibly elected) senate, perhaps?

    Generally, monarchs get replaced by presidents. The republican movement in Australia, for example, would have the Throne replaced with a presidency along the lines of France, Israel, or Italy.

    It's typical for Canadians, even ones not of British stock, too look upon the Commonwealth as a bunch of cousins you see at certain times of the year; and these people need not be of British origin.

    We're a little unusual, though, in that we're one of the few Commonwealth countries without a major interest in cricket. I have a few Australian aquaintances who view this as the major failing of the Canadian national character.

    ReplyDelete
  15. laura k30 December 2005 at 09:15

    We're a little unusual, though, in that we're one of the few Commonwealth countries without a major interest in cricket. I have a few Australian aquaintances who view this as the major failing of the Canadian national character.

    LOL

    I thank goddess for it, personally. If I had to live in a country with a cricket obsession, I'd go nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. barefoot hiker31 December 2005 at 19:02

    We're a little unusual, though, in that we're one of the few Commonwealth countries without a major interest in cricket. I have a few Australian aquaintances who view this as the major failing of the Canadian national character.

    Yeah, cripes, I always thought it was one of the few undisputed things we had going for us. Move to Canada! Keep the Queen, dump the sh!tty sports! :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

sharia

This morning I see that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, is banning the Muslim religious court known as sharia . This ends months of debate about whether sharia would be legal and binding in Ontario. I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this. In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province. McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration. "I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency. "There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." The announcement prompted t
Read more

observation

This is something I've noticed throughout my Canadian odyssey, from our earliest trips to Toronto to today. I've waited a long time to mention it, to make sure I wasn't drawing a hasty generalization. Canadians seem very careful with money. Frugal. Cheap. Of course no generalization is absolute. But on the whole, people here seem very concerned with how much things cost, and with saving money. I'm not talking about people who simply can't afford things. I've been poor. I know what it is when your basic expenses outstrip your income, how wearing that is, the stress it puts you under. So we'll leave that aside. I'm talking about an attitude. A concern with spending the least amount of money possible, about avoiding or reducing costs if at all possible. An unwillingness to part with money. Phone bills. Parking. Cable TV. The garbage tags I blogged about yesterday. In the US, charging an extra dollar for garbage tags would not create an incentive to put out
Read more

can of worms

I'm opening a sticky subject here, my need to understand causing me to throw caution to the wind. It's about Alberta. Alberta vs. the rest of the Canada. The Globe And Mail runs something about Alberta's gripes every day, and I try to follow along. If it weren't for wmtc's resident Albertan , and the ensuing arguments in comments, I would've had no warning. It's not something Americans know about. As is, observing for more than a year, I have only the smallest of clues. Here's what I know. Please pardon my ignorance and oversimplification, but I have to start somewhere. The province of Alberta is rich, because it has oil. The province of Alberta is conservative, relative to the rest of Canada. Hmm. Funny how those two go together. Because of its great oil wealth, Alberta revenue helps fund services in the rest of Canada. (These are transfer payments?) Apparently many Albertans resent this. They want to keep Alberta's money in Alberta. They don't
Read more