Queen Elizabeth of England dead at 96.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone who had to swear allegiance to her twice (I am Canadian and she is our head of state), when I was called to the Bar of the Law Society of Upper Canada and when I was hired as a government lawyer, I wish I could say I was released from that oath. Unfortunately, you are made to swear allegiance to her heirs and successors. So King Charles III automatically becomes my (and Canada's) new head of state. Without any input from Canadian citizens. It's time this holdover from our colonial history went into the dustbin. I do not say this from any sense of bitterness or anger toward our former monarch. I'm sure she was a delightful person as all have described. I also believe she carried out her responsibilities as a ceremonial head of state scrupulously. All of that is beside the point for me as a Canadian. I would much rather have a Canadian as our head of state. It would be nice to have some say in that process, rather than submit to some feudal institution that dates from the 9th century and determines some person who had 3rd cousins as his parents (because they belonged to inbred European royal families) by "divine right" (which I don't believe in as an atheist), is the person I owe allegiance to as our head of state. And if you think I am being overblown, you should check out any Canadian TV channels. Except for dedicated sports channels, there is no escaping this relentless and wall to wall coverage.
 
Queen Elizabeth II was supposed to have "decolonized" many British Colonial holdings in Africa and Asia. Some local TV channels here are already are questioning if King Charles III will return Las Malvinas.. ???
 
joftoronto said:
As someone who had to swear allegiance to her twice (I am Canadian and she is our head of state), when I was called to the Bar of the Law Society of Upper Canada and when I was hired as a government lawyer, I wish I could say I was released from that oath. Unfortunately, you are made to swear allegiance to her heirs and successors. So King Charles III automatically becomes my (and Canada's) new head of state. Without any input from Canadian citizens. It's time this holdover from our colonial history went into the dustbin. I do not say this from any sense of bitterness or anger toward our former monarch. I'm sure she was a delightful person as all have described. I also believe she carried out her responsibilities as a ceremonial head of state scrupulously. All of that is beside the point for me as a Canadian. I would much rather have a Canadian as our head of state. It would be nice to have some say in that process, rather than submit to some feudal institution that dates from the 9th century and determines some person who had 3rd cousins as his parents (because they belonged to inbred European royal families) by "divine right" (which I don't believe in as an atheist), is the person I owe allegiance to as our head of state. And if you think I am being overblown, you should check out any Canadian TV channels. Except for dedicated sports channels, there is no escaping this relentless and wall to wall coverage.
Click to expand...
Tell King Justin.
 
joftoronto said:
As someone who had to swear allegiance to her twice (I am Canadian and she is our head of state), when I was called to the Bar of the Law Society of Upper Canada and when I was hired as a government lawyer, I wish I could say I was released from that oath. Unfortunately, you are made to swear allegiance to her heirs and successors. So King Charles III automatically becomes my (and Canada's) new head of state. Without any input from Canadian citizens. It's time this holdover from our colonial history went into the dustbin. I do not say this from any sense of bitterness or anger toward our former monarch. I'm sure she was a delightful person as all have described. I also believe she carried out her responsibilities as a ceremonial head of state scrupulously. All of that is beside the point for me as a Canadian. I would much rather have a Canadian as our head of state. It would be nice to have some say in that process, rather than submit to some feudal institution that dates from the 9th century and determines some person who had 3rd cousins as his parents (because they belonged to inbred European royal families) by "divine right" (which I don't believe in as an atheist), is the person I owe allegiance to as our head of state. And if you think I am being overblown, you should check out any Canadian TV channels. Except for dedicated sports channels, there is no escaping this relentless and wall to wall coverage.
Click to expand...

1. Could be worse. At least you're a sovereign nation. Australia still has a governor-general, with the authority to depose the elected government.
2. Third cousins isn't a problem. In terms of the risk of birth defects, it's not significantly different from marrying someone totally unrelated.
3. If you make it to 96, you got your money's worth.
 
joftoronto said:
As someone who had to swear allegiance to her twice (I am Canadian and she is our head of state), when I was called to the Bar of the Law Society of Upper Canada and when I was hired as a government lawyer, I wish I could say I was released from that oath. Unfortunately, you are made to swear allegiance to her heirs and successors. So King Charles III automatically becomes my (and Canada's) new head of state. Without any input from Canadian citizens. It's time this holdover from our colonial history went into the dustbin. I do not say this from any sense of bitterness or anger toward our former monarch. I'm sure she was a delightful person as all have described. I also believe she carried out her responsibilities as a ceremonial head of state scrupulously. All of that is beside the point for me as a Canadian. I would much rather have a Canadian as our head of state. It would be nice to have some say in that process, rather than submit to some feudal institution that dates from the 9th century and determines some person who had 3rd cousins as his parents (because they belonged to inbred European royal families) by "divine right" (which I don't believe in as an atheist), is the person I owe allegiance to as our head of state. And if you think I am being overblown, you should check out any Canadian TV channels. Except for dedicated sports channels, there is no escaping this relentless and wall to wall coverage.
Click to expand...
You're a lawyer. What's your alternative model? How would it work. Be specific and detailed please. What risks does your model run? How would you mitigate them?
 
sergio said:
Tell King Justin.
Click to expand...
He is our Prime Minister, not our head of state. Our parliamentary system is quite different from the US (or Argentina's) federal republican model. Our democracy is based on the Westminster model. That being said, without disclosing my political leanings, I have never voted for him. I don't have the extreme distate that many of my more right wing compatriots hold for him, but from the moment he declared his candidacy for leadership of the Liberal party (which made him PM when the Liberals won the 2015 election), I was appalled that he was chosen, essentially, riding on the coattails of his father's name and legacy as PM. Being the son of a former PM is not an acceptable qualification for the job of heading the government of this vast, diverse and complicated country. His elevation to power, essentially as a result of the hereditary principle, was something I had hoped this country would have the good sense to avoid (there were plenty of well qualified other candidates for the leadership of the Liberals, but they lacked his name). But he is our PM and those of us who thought someone with more qualifications than a failed drama teacher and silver spoon trust fund at his disposal should be Prime Minister have had to bear it through gritted teeth for the past 7 years. And I do not vote for the Conservative party of Canada; we have more than 2 choices at the election box unlike our neighbours to the south.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top