61–70 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
I don’t think you have the right to speak for the British people. Neither do I. Let’s see.
It's good to hear it at the end of the news but definitly not frontpage news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> explain themselves and answer for their actions Is that really what happens, though? And if so, what if the monarch isn't satisfied with the answer?
They get to tell them so. I don’t think a holder of sovereignty has to have active power. Weee human beings. Symbolic power matters. If it’s ever not enough, we’ll find another way.
As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.
Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch. The constitutional monarch is a figurehead without much of a day to day role, but who ensures that the demagogue we elect is not at the pinnacle of the political hierarchy. That's more important than most people understand. A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.
Ireland is a much better model that would largely keep things as is, by replacing the Governor General with a ceremonial presidential figurehead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s no…
Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
I find "support of a monarchy" an indefensible position. Bonus points if your only argument is "well the current monarch is kind of nice and therefore we're not in a hurry to remove him" because that's literally one rotten apple away of exploding in your face (see Spain) and by then it's likely too late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…
I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Some say we already have ...
Lol. No offense to the memory of Queen Liz, but she could not have done a thing had the US decided to do something stupid like that. That said, just the notion is preposterous. The US would have lost much more than the Queen’s approbation, in the grand scheme of things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.
Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.
That is, by definition, not a monarchy