Why does Canada need the queen as head of state?

[gitRdone]

Why does Canada Need the Queen as Head of State?


So we don't end up with this guy's weasel head on our stamps:

[mynameishuynh]

This prick was as usefull as the Queen, didnt need him either.

The majority of the country felt differently than you do, Roy. He was elected through the democratic process four times.

with the helped of the media.

[dpwozney]

According to Wikipedia, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a state that was created on 1 January 1801 by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a merger of the former Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707) and the Kingdom of Ireland. It ended upon Irish independence in 1922 when the Anglo-Irish Treaty created the Irish Free State.".

That is almost right: The Irish Free State came into existence on December 6th, 1921. Then in 1927 the United Kingdom's name was revised and formally styled: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” is not and has never been recognized by the British North America Act, 1867 which has been amended many times.

According to the British North America Act, 1867, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the “Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

People have the freedom to recognize a present-day existence of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” if they so choose.

I do not believe that you would claim that the geographic area represented by “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” is the same as that represented by the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

[Ipberg2]

does canada still need the british queen as head of state?

She doesn't cost us a penny except when she visits here.

[Dacre]

Besides what would we do in circumstances that that require pomp and ceremony? There is just so much class and history and heritage and in times of crisis it is a wonderful rallying point. What would we as Canadians do to fill that void? Without the ties to the crown we would be sorely lacking. I can just imagine what we would do as a replacement that would unite us. It would be a politically correct cartoon. As was mentioned earlier it is well received in the military. We've lost or should I say given up too much of our countrys' history and heritage already. Call me a fool but I've always felt a surge of pride with military and monarchy and they are a great package.

[Ipberg2]

Besides what would we do in circumstances that that require pomp and ceremony?

India, the world's most populous democracy created their own own pomp and ceremony after gaining its independence in 1947. And though India is now a republic with it's own head of state (a President), it remains a member of the British Commonwealth. If India can do it so can Canada.

[fourhorses]

We'll see what everyone says if the Price and the Camel Queen take the helm.

[Ipberg2]

We'll see what everyone says if the Price and the Camel Queen take the helm.

THANKS FOR A LIFETIME OF INDULGENCE ON
THE ROYAL GRAVY TRAIN, SUCKERS!

[Dacre]

Ipberg writes

India, the world's most populous democracy created their own own pomp and ceremony after gaining its independence in 1947. And though India is now a republic with it's own head of state (a President), it remains a member of the British Commonwealth. If India can do it so can Canada.

But India also has a history that is ancient. They have much to work with.

[goldhound]

does canada still need the british queen as head of state?

She doesn't cost us a penny except when she visits here.

You best do some homework on that statement. The Governor general is the Queens useless silly figurehead and often costs us 40 million a year.
Look harder and you may find some other "royalties".

[rbacon]

Because of the hybrid useless Westminister system that we have in Canada the PM is the elected Monarch and the GG and the so called Queen of England are his rubber stamps. The Queen is his crone.

[sturmgeshutz]

Before I joined the military - didn't give a sht about the royalty.
After - it means everything to me, and i'll do everything i can to keep this country under the crown, we need to hold onto anything that reminds of our true roots, instead of the train from makaresh.

[Regnans-in-excelsis]

Before I joined the military - didn't give a sht about the royalty.
After - it means everything to me, and i'll do everything i can to keep this country under the crown, we need to hold onto anything that reminds of our true roots, instead of the train from makaresh.

While my love for the monarchy preceded my military service, I second sturmgeshutz's enthusiams for the Crown.

Frank

[Ipberg2]

Ipberg writes

India, the world's most populous democracy created their own own pomp and ceremony after gaining its independence in 1947. And though India is now a republic with it's own head of state (a President), it remains a member of the British Commonwealth. If India can do it so can Canada.

But India also has a history that is ancient. They have much to work with.

Having only a few hundred years of history did not stop the United States of America from creating its own pomp and ceremony within a few years of declaring independence.

[Ipberg2]

does canada still need the british queen as head of state?

She doesn't cost us a penny except when she visits here.

You best do some homework on that statement. The Governor general is the Queens useless silly figurehead and often costs us 40 million a year.
Look harder and you may find some other "royalties".

Canada could combine the role of Head of State (Queen) with the office of Governor General into one position.