Is there a very large republican movement in Canada? (i.e. ditch the queen. not Donald's lot). You don't hear a lot about it, even in the days of Daddy Trudeau when he was changing everything, unlike in ANZ.
There is no significant appetite in mainstream Canadian politics for any sort of constitutional change. We went through several decades of tinkering with the constitution to accommodate Quebec's aspirations in the late 20th century and with that behind us there is an aversion to having anything to do with that again. If you brought up the subject with anyone who had an idea of what would actually be involved in changing the constitution they would probably just vomit.

We've got a system of government that works, people are satisfied with that and just want to get on with solving real problems that affect people's lives instead of engaging in vanity projects.

Justin Trudeau has a strong aversion to going anywhere near constitutional change and refers to Her Majesty as The Queen of Canada and says what a great honour it is to meet with her.

The way that David Cameron handled the changes to the monarchy with respect to male/female succession before the birth of Will and Kate's first child caused us some major constitutional headaches by the way that were very unwelcome here. Even something as minor that is an absolute minefield of potential problems if not handled deftly (which Cameron didn't do). If the UK can't arrange for Her Majesty to be immortal, then FFS please make sure the transition to the proper successor is as quick and smooth as possible without anyone getting any clever ideas.

The only active group that I have heard of recently who want to get rid of the monarchy and institute a republic are the far right, neo-Nazis and the like. They were on ARRSE a few years ago trying to recruit members by the way, and we had some discussions with them then (they were not made to feel very welcome).
 
There is no significant appetite in mainstream Canadian politics for any sort of constitutional change. We went through several decades of tinkering with the constitution to accommodate Quebec's aspirations in the late 20th century and with that behind us there is an aversion to having anything to do with that again. If you brought up the subject with anyone who had an idea of what would actually be involved in changing the constitution they would probably just vomit.

We've got a system of government that works, people are satisfied with that and just want to get on with solving real problems that affect people's lives instead of engaging in vanity projects.

Justin Trudeau has a strong aversion to going anywhere near constitutional change and refers to Her Majesty as The Queen of Canada and says what a great honour it is to meet with her.

The way that David Cameron handled the changes to the monarchy with respect to male/female succession before the birth of Will and Kate's first child caused us some major constitutional headaches by the way that were very unwelcome here. Even something as minor that is an absolute minefield of potential problems if not handled deftly (which Cameron didn't do). If the UK can't arrange for Her Majesty to be immortal, then FFS please make sure the transition to the proper successor is as quick and smooth as possible without anyone getting any clever ideas.

The only active group that I have heard of recently who want to get rid of the monarchy and institute a republic are the far right, neo-Nazis and the like. They were on ARRSE a few years ago trying to recruit members by the way, and we had some discussions with them then (they were not made to feel very welcome).
Surely Trudeau is right when he refers to The Queen as the Queen of Canada? Here in Australia, she is the Queen of Australia.

There’s no significant movement in Australia either. Sure, there are plenty Republicans, but it’s not a significant enough issue to feature as a core election manifesto pledge in the way that Brexit was.

I don’t think much will change when Charles hits the throne.
 
There is no significant appetite in mainstream Canadian politics for any sort of constitutional change. We went through several decades of tinkering with the constitution to accommodate Quebec's aspirations in the late 20th century and with that behind us there is an aversion to having anything to do with that again. If you brought up the subject with anyone who had an idea of what would actually be involved in changing the constitution they would probably just vomit.

We've got a system of government that works, people are satisfied with that and just want to get on with solving real problems that affect people's lives instead of engaging in vanity projects.

Justin Trudeau has a strong aversion to going anywhere near constitutional change and refers to Her Majesty as The Queen of Canada and says what a great honour it is to meet with her.

The way that David Cameron handled the changes to the monarchy with respect to male/female succession before the birth of Will and Kate's first child caused us some major constitutional headaches by the way that were very unwelcome here. Even something as minor that is an absolute minefield of potential problems if not handled deftly (which Cameron didn't do). If the UK can't arrange for Her Majesty to be immortal, then FFS please make sure the transition to the proper successor is as quick and smooth as possible without anyone getting any clever ideas.

The only active group that I have heard of recently who want to get rid of the monarchy and institute a republic are the far right, neo-Nazis and the like. They were on ARRSE a few years ago trying to recruit members by the way, and we had some discussions with them then (they were not made to feel very welcome).
From friends and family in both Australia and New Zealand, there is admiration for the Queen but less so for Charles (which I think is a bit unfair). Aoteoroa New Zealand is becoming unbelievably woke and although there there is not a large republican movement, succession (in due course) will raise the spectre of an emergence from the growing Left. Constitutionally, it is a minefield to unpick the role of the Crown but I do chuckle every time I see Saint Jacinda giving a news conference with the union flag on the canton of the NZ Ensign so prominent over her shoulders.

I've spent time in both countries (both on duty and on holiday) and out there Britain seems a distant maiden aunt, a bit set in her ways, hell-bent on suicide (joining the EEC and then, paradoxically, Brexit) and a bit muddled (Covid response). There is still some anger over Britain turning it's back on the Old Commonwealth and making them 'aliens', however, London was the go-to place for young ANZAC professionals wanting to work in the City; it will be interesting to see what has happened as a result of both Brexit and the pandemic.
 
From friends and family in both Australia and New Zealand, there is admiration for the Queen but less so for Charles (which I think is a bit unfair). Aoteoroa New Zealand is becoming unbelievably woke and although there there is not a large republican movement, succession (in due course) will raise the spectre of an emergence from the growing Left. Constitutionally, it is a minefield to unpick the role of the Crown but I do chuckle every time I see Saint Jacinda giving a news conference with the union flag on the canton of the NZ Ensign so prominent over her shoulders.

I've spent time in both countries (both on duty and on holiday) and out there Britain seems a distant maiden aunt, a bit set in her ways, hell-bent on suicide (joining the EEC and then, paradoxically, Brexit) and a bit muddled (Covid response). There is still some anger over Britain turning it's back on the Old Commonwealth and making them 'aliens', however, London was the go-to place for young ANZAC professionals wanting to work in the City; it will be interesting to see what has happened as a result of both Brexit and the pandemic.
The monarchy is largely a dead issue in Australia. No-one talks about it; there are no politicians campaigning to abolish it and no major media personalities making a shout about it.

Australian politics is mostly about state. Canberra is an irrelevance to most Australians and the head of state even more so.
 
Surely Trudeau is right when he refers to The Queen as the Queen of Canada? Here in Australia, she is the Queen of Australia.
Yes, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada is a correct way to refer to her, but shoehorning the full title into the conversation when it was not a natural way of speaking indicated that Trudeau was making a point.

There’s no significant movement in Australia either. Sure, there are plenty Republicans, but it’s not a significant enough issue to feature as a core election manifesto pledge in the way that Brexit was.

I don’t think much will change when Charles hits the throne.
I think that any delay in proclaiming Charles to be officially the king would give opportunity for trouble for those who were determined to find a reason to inject whatever agenda they happen to be pushing. I would prefer to have Her Majesty continue on indefinitely, but when she does pass away it would be best to get the transition over and done with ASAP and the new situation "normalised" so that no debate about the issue has a chance to arise.
 
I think that any delay in proclaiming Charles to be officially the king..............

I think it is fairly straightforward; "The King is dead, long live the King!"
We have done it a few times in the past.
:)
 

Yarra

War Hero
The monarchy is largely a dead issue in Australia. No-one talks about it; there are no politicians campaigning to abolish it and no major media personalities making a shout about it.

Australian politics is mostly about state. Canberra is an irrelevance to most Australians and the head of state even more so.
Agreed, I think the high point of AU republican movement came during the Keating era.. even my Woke Melbourne lefty lawyer SiL (Slater & Gordon, ffs) is no longer anti-Monarch.
 

Yarra

War Hero
To give a better of how CANZUK cooperation could work, I thought I would provide some more concrete examples of current Canada-UK cooperation. /massive snip......

...../I would not be surprised if the UK were doing the same with Australia and New Zealand. Making it a four-way affair is not much of a stretch. Looked at from that perspective, CANZUK would be a continuation of existing trends rather than a radical change in direction.
I have to agree with you - more CANZUK by stealth, than any CANZUK 'big bang'.

I do think a de-facto sharing of the P5 seat would be a v good ultimate destination. But a relatively slow, iterative and nuanced convergence, across the geo-strategic spectrum, would allow a more 'assertive' CANZUK compact to form, without destabilising the essential essence of each of the individual Nations. It would also, if ultimately successful, be wonderfully perfidious. ;)
 
There is no significant appetite in mainstream Canadian politics for any sort of constitutional change. We went through several decades of tinkering with the constitution to accommodate Quebec's aspirations in the late 20th century and with that behind us there is an aversion to having anything to do with that again. If you brought up the subject with anyone who had an idea of what would actually be involved in changing the constitution they would probably just vomit.

We've got a system of government that works, people are satisfied with that and just want to get on with solving real problems that affect people's lives instead of engaging in vanity projects.

Justin Trudeau has a strong aversion to going anywhere near constitutional change and refers to Her Majesty as The Queen of Canada and says what a great honour it is to meet with her.

The way that David Cameron handled the changes to the monarchy with respect to male/female succession before the birth of Will and Kate's first child caused us some major constitutional headaches by the way that were very unwelcome here. Even something as minor that is an absolute minefield of potential problems if not handled deftly (which Cameron didn't do). If the UK can't arrange for Her Majesty to be immortal, then FFS please make sure the transition to the proper successor is as quick and smooth as possible without anyone getting any clever ideas.

The only active group that I have heard of recently who want to get rid of the monarchy and institute a republic are the far right, neo-Nazis and the like. They were on ARRSE a few years ago trying to recruit members by the way, and we had some discussions with them then (they were not made to feel very welcome).
Majority of Canadians think Royal familly 'no longer relevant.'

An article in the Guardian. I don't know how accurate it is. The G not being exactly pro Royal.
 
Majority of Canadians think Royal familly 'no longer relevant.'

An article in the Guardian. I don't know how accurate it is. The G not being exactly pro Royal.
It's the Guardian being the Guardian and they are mixing two issues together in an attempt to come to a pre-determine conclusion. There was a big scandal involving the Governor General and her abusive treatment of her staff. She has since resigned and we are looking for a suitable replacement. There is further controversy surrounding the selection process which was used to pick her, whether the government should have reacted more quickly to reports of problems, and whether the GG's pension and benefits are too generous. All of this is a made in Canada problem.

As to whether the monarchy are "relevant", they seldom visit and play no active part in the politics of the country. They aren't relevant to solving our political problems, but that isn't their role either.

It's an entirely different question though of whether Her Majesty should be head of state of the country as a whole and head of each province individually. As I said previously, there's little appetite for major constitutional change when there is no benefit to be derived from it.

The monarchy works and the country has genuine problems which need to be solved rather than pursuing a vanity project that would solve nothing while alienating a significant portion of the population.
 
It's the Guardian being the Guardian and they are mixing two issues together in an attempt to come to a pre-determine conclusion. There was a big scandal involving the Governor General and her abusive treatment of her staff. She has since resigned and we are looking for a suitable replacement. There is further controversy surrounding the selection process which was used to pick her, whether the government should have reacted more quickly to reports of problems, and whether the GG's pension and benefits are too generous. All of this is a made in Canada problem.

As to whether the monarchy are "relevant", they seldom visit and play no active part in the politics of the country. They aren't relevant to solving our political problems, but that isn't their role either.

It's an entirely different question though of whether Her Majesty should be head of state of the country as a whole and head of each province individually. As I said previously, there's little appetite for major constitutional change when there is no benefit to be derived from it.

The monarchy works and the country has genuine problems which need to be solved rather than pursuing a vanity project that would solve nothing while alienating a significant portion of the population.
I noticed the the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812-15 seemed to be a big thing in Canada with it seeming to be hardly noticed in the UK and USA. It seems to be part of their identity as Canadians. Perhaps the monarchy is part of this, being the only one on the American continent. When there is a new UK PM or US president the first thing the UK President does is head to Washington to pay tribute to the new Caesar. When the Royals produce a new wife or sprog their first overseas trip is to Canada as the senior Commonwealth country much to the envy of the luvies in New York and LA, who have to wait at the bottom of the list after Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga.

I remember when they were bringing home the North America Act in 1983 there was a lot of opposition from the 'First Nations' tribes as their treaties were signed with the British Queen.
 
I noticed the the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812-15 seemed to be a big thing in Canada with it seeming to be hardly noticed in the UK and USA. It seems to be part of their identity as Canadians. Perhaps the monarchy is part of this, being the only one on the American continent. When there is a new UK PM or US president the first thing the UK President does is head to Washington to pay tribute to the new Caesar. When the Royals produce a new wife or sprog their first overseas trip is to Canada as the senior Commonwealth country much to the envy of the luvies in New York and LA, who have to wait at the bottom of the list after Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga.

I remember when they were bringing home the North America Act in 1983 there was a lot of opposition from the 'First Nations' tribes as their treaties were signed with the British Queen.
I think it was more of a cultural media campaign put forth by the government about the war of 1812 rather than run of the mill Canadians actually giving the remotest shïte about it.
 
I noticed the the 200th anniversary of the war of 1812-15 seemed to be a big thing in Canada with it seeming to be hardly noticed in the UK and USA. It seems to be part of their identity as Canadians.
Actually, it was a hobby project for the PM of the time, Harper. He had an interest in the subject, so he promoted it.

Perhaps the monarchy is part of this, being the only one on the American continent. When there is a new UK PM or US president the first thing the UK President does is head to Washington to pay tribute to the new Caesar. When the Royals produce a new wife or sprog their first overseas trip is to Canada as the senior Commonwealth country much to the envy of the luvies in New York and LA, who have to wait at the bottom of the list after Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga.
I guess Harry really missed his chance. If he and Meghan had stuck it out another year in BC he could have had their friends in high places in Canada slip his application for the job of GG to the top of the pile when it came open. That would have been a nice salary, a free house on a big property in a very posh neighbourhood, close to good schools for the kids, security laid on free of charge, ditto for PR staff, and they would have been loved and respected back in the UK.

All they would have had to do in return was to greet the great and good of the world when they visited Ottawa, appear at major social events, and swan about the country reading speeches about the environment and racial equality that were handed to them by their staff. And they could have done all this without sullying themselves with trade.

Ah well, what a difference a year can make.

I remember when they were bringing home the North America Act in 1983 there was a lot of opposition from the 'First Nations' tribes as their treaties were signed with the British Queen.
That was a negotiating tactic, and it's not one they will give up easily. The general position of the Indians is that they negotiate with the federal government as equals not as supplicants, and they base this on these crown treaties. The reality is a bit different of course, but that's they position they take when they sit down at the table.
 
Most Canadians have no clue what a Fenian is let alone the raids. The majority don't even have a clue Canada fought in the Boer war.....
 
What's the understanding and feeling in Canada of the Fenian raids of the 1870s and another good shoeing the Yanks received?
The Fenian Raids are normally taught as a standard part of history in schools in Canada, although that may vary from province to province. Having students remember anything they heard in history class is a somewhat bigger challenge.

As taught, the significance of the Fenian raids is with respect to being an illustration of the continuing tensions with the US throughout the 19th century.

History in Canada is not normally portrayed in a triumphalist manner, but rather as a series of challenges which had to be faced and overcome. So the outcome of the Fenian Raids would not be seen as "ha! ha! We beat you again!", but rather "that was another narrow escape we just had".
 
I count myself as most fortunate indeed, to have been educated in rural South Australia during a still very colonially parochial era, the mid-50s, where as a 3rd/4th Grader we were given a small dose of European and British History, as a pre-cursor to Australian History ... all 170-odd years of it, as then acknowledged. Having lived/worked overseas I’ve had the opportunity to temper that original grounding in Colonial Supremacy with exposure to other nations’ interpretations of their history and percieved global effect. I reckon us “still-attached” (CANZUK) Colonials have got it better than those who have been cast off, notwithstanding the bleating and baying mobs who would rush to ”... cast off the Monarchical yoke ...”.
4EE5D996-C4E1-42C9-8387-38C192D32985.jpeg
 

Yarra

War Hero
I count myself as most fortunate indeed, to have been educated in rural South Australia during a still very colonially parochial era, the mid-50s, where as a 3rd/4th Grader we were given a small dose of European and British History, as a pre-cursor to Australian History ... all 170-odd years of it, as then acknowledged. Having lived/worked overseas I’ve had the opportunity to temper that original grounding in Colonial Supremacy with exposure to other nations’ interpretations of their history and percieved global effect. I reckon us “still-attached” (CANZUK) Colonials have got it better than those who have been cast off, notwithstanding the bleating and baying mobs who would rush to ”... cast off the Monarchical yoke ...”.
View attachment 551616
What Ferkin mobs? ..and I take issue with that (rather excellent) pizza; NFW would Tazzie be more burnter than Bendigo...
 

Latest Threads

Top