I will disclose I am a Monarchist, but assuming your question is genuine and not rhetorical, I’ll try to answer it.
Quebec has the right idea.
Quebec as a Province, has the right to make that decision. The Provinces formed Canada in Confederation. Territories don’t have that independence.
Why the hell do elected politicians in a democracy have to swear loyalty to a foreign hereditary monarch?
Charles is the King of Canada too, so he’s a domestic monarchy.
This “head of state” excuse sounds like a relic of the past to appease British sentiments.
Our whole government is set up with our head of state at it’s core. While I acknowledge the pain and trauma many associate the Charles and his family, the Crown is legally how the Government of Canada is represented in many ways. Even if everyone involved supported moving to change that entity, the legal hoops would be extensive.
I am honestly kind of flabbergasted by that declaration. If you don’t mind me asking (seriously tell me no if you don’t want to open the discussion), in what way? Like do you believe that monarchy is the best form of government or believe in hereditary rule? Sorry if that is a really basic question, but I have never encountered someone declaring themselves a monarchist.
Just to clarify, I’m using the term Monarchist in the Canadian context, as opposed to someone who wants to remove the Royal Family as Head of State, often called a Republican (though I know some Canadians don’t like that given it’s other meaning . . . nearby). I don’t a Monarchy is a good idea, I just like the Westminster System of Government. I just think that part of our current system works pretty well, and I don’t think the other options are all that appealing (a different Head of State, either elected or appointed, or one person who is both head of State and Head of Government).
However, I also acknowledge that I am biased. I’m a white person whose who lineage is all from the UK, some of it only a couple generations back. I grew up listening to the Queen’s Christmas broadcast and hearing stories about the adventures of my ancestors who served throughout the empire. I don’t have any of the trauma mentioned in this story.
Even acknowledging that he plays a legal role in how Canada operates (technically) its still ridiculous that anyone would have to do this, or get in trouble for refusing. An oath to obey the laws of a country, sure, but swearing loyalty to an unelected monarch seems like it should be optional at the least.
There are Irish republicans who refuse to swear allegiance to the king/ queen and are unable to take their seats in Westminster. This doesn’t trigger a by-election though.
There’s a difference between him, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, and the Crown, King Charles III and all his heirs. As Head of State, King Charles is pretty core to the Government of Canada, so I think it would take a lot to make another option. Pretty much every oath for the Government of Canada (and Dawson City draws its powers from the Yukon Territory, which in turn gets its powers from the Government of Canada) involves the King, such as the Oath of Citizenship.
Im just saying it would be nice to have the choice between the traditional oath and a non-royal version for whatever personal reason. “I promise to be loyal, steadfast, and obey the laws of Canada” (etc). Seems like that wouldnt negate the technical role of the monarchy, I dont know.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining, I guess I jumped to conclusions. I’m just so used to people assuming that changing things is quick and easy when there’s actually a lot of legal wrangling.
I completely agree with you. Similar to how witnesses in court doesn’t have to swear in on a bible, there should definitely be alternatives!
I don’t know about Canada, but the UK has “the Crown” at its core. The Crown is not the same as the actual monarch. Property owned by the King and property owned by the Crown are not the same thing, for example.
Quebec has the right idea. Why the hell do elected politicians in a democracy have to swear loyalty to a foreign hereditary monarch?
This “head of state” excuse sounds like a relic of the past to appease British sentiments.
I will disclose I am a Monarchist, but assuming your question is genuine and not rhetorical, I’ll try to answer it.
Quebec as a Province, has the right to make that decision. The Provinces formed Canada in Confederation. Territories don’t have that independence.
Charles is the King of Canada too, so he’s a domestic monarchy.
Our whole government is set up with our head of state at it’s core. While I acknowledge the pain and trauma many associate the Charles and his family, the Crown is legally how the Government of Canada is represented in many ways. Even if everyone involved supported moving to change that entity, the legal hoops would be extensive.
I am honestly kind of flabbergasted by that declaration. If you don’t mind me asking (seriously tell me no if you don’t want to open the discussion), in what way? Like do you believe that monarchy is the best form of government or believe in hereditary rule? Sorry if that is a really basic question, but I have never encountered someone declaring themselves a monarchist.
Just to clarify, I’m using the term Monarchist in the Canadian context, as opposed to someone who wants to remove the Royal Family as Head of State, often called a Republican (though I know some Canadians don’t like that given it’s other meaning . . . nearby). I don’t a Monarchy is a good idea, I just like the Westminster System of Government. I just think that part of our current system works pretty well, and I don’t think the other options are all that appealing (a different Head of State, either elected or appointed, or one person who is both head of State and Head of Government).
However, I also acknowledge that I am biased. I’m a white person whose who lineage is all from the UK, some of it only a couple generations back. I grew up listening to the Queen’s Christmas broadcast and hearing stories about the adventures of my ancestors who served throughout the empire. I don’t have any of the trauma mentioned in this story.
Even acknowledging that he plays a legal role in how Canada operates (technically) its still ridiculous that anyone would have to do this, or get in trouble for refusing. An oath to obey the laws of a country, sure, but swearing loyalty to an unelected monarch seems like it should be optional at the least.
There are Irish republicans who refuse to swear allegiance to the king/ queen and are unable to take their seats in Westminster. This doesn’t trigger a by-election though.
There’s a difference between him, Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, and the Crown, King Charles III and all his heirs. As Head of State, King Charles is pretty core to the Government of Canada, so I think it would take a lot to make another option. Pretty much every oath for the Government of Canada (and Dawson City draws its powers from the Yukon Territory, which in turn gets its powers from the Government of Canada) involves the King, such as the Oath of Citizenship.
You are correct about this, Im not disagreeing.
Im just saying it would be nice to have the choice between the traditional oath and a non-royal version for whatever personal reason. “I promise to be loyal, steadfast, and obey the laws of Canada” (etc). Seems like that wouldnt negate the technical role of the monarchy, I dont know.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining, I guess I jumped to conclusions. I’m just so used to people assuming that changing things is quick and easy when there’s actually a lot of legal wrangling.
I completely agree with you. Similar to how witnesses in court doesn’t have to swear in on a bible, there should definitely be alternatives!
I don’t know about Canada, but the UK has “the Crown” at its core. The Crown is not the same as the actual monarch. Property owned by the King and property owned by the Crown are not the same thing, for example.