You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Given how the Queen has been in public service for so long, I think most people who pay some attention to her and don't hate her guts have a general idea of what she stood for.
I was reading this following quote of hers yesterday or today, and I think it summed up who she viewed herself as:
She knew that as the Queen of Britain and the Commonwealth, she is supposed to remain impartial and non-political, so that is what she did publically, and she kept the personal views out of the public's eyes.
She took her duty as the Queen as the single most important thing extremely seriously, and as you have said -- she did so unrelentingly for 70 yrs literally until the day she died.
There are certainly things about the Queen that I do not agree with. But I respect her for who she is, and how steadfast she has been all her life.
I have already said this earlier, but I will say it again -- I am not a Royal watcher, but I am profoundly sad that the Queen has died.
Not being facetious but from a place of ignorance knowing nothing about the monarchy, but what exactly are the official duties of the Queen in her reign?
I thought it was more of a figure head/formality with no real powers or responsibility? If that's the case, in my mind the stability and neutrality she provided was just for show?
I am truly having a tough time understanding what her role was truly accountable for and what she did so well with that accountability that gets her so much love (and hate)?
Advertisement
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyxx
Sonick is a genius. I won't go into detail what's so great about his post. But it's damn good!
2010 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - Wifey's Daily Driver
2009 BMW 128i - Daily Driver
2007 Toyota Rav4 Sport V6 - Sold
1999 Mazda Miata - Sold
2003 Mazda Protege5 - Sold
1987 BMW 325is - Sold
1990 Mazda Miata - Sold
As far as the Canadian perspective is concerned, because Canada is part of the Commonwealth and recognizes the Queen as the Head of State, she -- well, the British monarch, really -- is basically woven into our Canadian constitution. In theory, all of our laws need to be approved (given Royal consent) by the Queen, although the Governor General is her representative in Canada.
When news of the Queen being placed under medical supervision came out, there were already more than a few murmurs (here in Canada) whispering how she ought to take the monarchy with her (out of Canada) to her grave. In practice, that is extremely difficult to do because it would require unanimous consent from all provinces and terrorities and basically re-write the Canadian constitution.
In the UK, there is of course a lot of ceremonial and official duties that the Queen needed to do. When other world leaders (or important figures for whatever event it may happen to be) attend major events in Britain, the Queen is supposed to act as the host to these guests because it is "her country" they are visiting. Remember the London Olympics, and how the Queen did a video for the opening ceremony with James Bond / Daniel Craig? But this following incident from last year is actually something I like and remember better, and it is from one such event (G7 summit, I think?):
The Royal Family as a whole may share some of these duties. In particular, they are supposed to do a lot of charity / humanitarian work. You may recall that Princess Diana was especially well known (and respected) for working / lobbying to have landmines banned internationally. And then there was this really, really well-known photo of Diana shaking hands with an AIDS patient without wearing gloves. It was an absolutely remarkable gesture for the era.
IIRC, Prince Charles have maintained a strong interest and continual support for green farming.
As far as stability is concerned, I would say this one might really only apply to Queen Elizabeth because she has been the reigning monarch for so long. For a ton of people -- probably at least 60 - 70% of the world's population? -- she is the only Queen of Britan that people knew. Politicans come and go, but the Queen has always been a constant. For some people, having that stability is reassuring, esp when she has always been that benevolent leader and public face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonick
Not being facetious but from a place of ignorance knowing nothing about the monarchy, but what exactly are the official duties of the Queen in her reign?
I thought it was more of a figure head/formality with no real powers or responsibility? If that's the case, in my mind the stability and neutrality she provided was just for show?
I am truly having a tough time understanding what her role was truly accountable for and what she did so well with that accountability that gets her so much love (and hate)?
Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth
Quote:
The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.
A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.
Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures.
Revealed: The Queen or Prince Charles have vetted more than 1,000 laws using procedure of royal consent before they were approved by MPs in parliament
Quote:
More than 1,000 new laws have been vetted by The Queen or Prince Charles before they were approved by Parliament, it was claimed yesterday.
The procedure, known as Queen’s Consent, has been used on Bills ranging from social security issues to the Article 50 law allowing Britain to leave EU.
Some of the wide-ranging legislation also affected her powers, wealth and personal property such as her Balmoral and Sandringham estates.
In a list compiled by The Guardian, at least 1,062 parliamentary bills have been subjected to Queen’s consent.
Revealed: police barred from searching Queen's estates for looted artefacts
Quote:
Police have been barred from searching the Queen’s private estates for stolen or looted artefacts after ministers granted her a personal exemption from a law that protects the world’s cultural property, the Guardian can reveal.
Buckingham Palace and the government are refusing to say why it was deemed necessary in 2017 to give the Queen an exemption that prevents police from searching Balmoral and Sandringham.
ABC News’ Amy Robach claims network ‘quashed’ Jeffrey Epstein coverage on hot mic
Quote:
The “20/20” co-host then rails about how “the Palace” found out about Roberts’ accusations that she was underage when she had sex with Prince Andrew. The Palace, Robach says, “threatened us in a million different ways.”
Queen to help pay for £12m Prince Andrew settlement
Quote:
The Duke of York will pay his accuser more than £12million using money from the Queen, The Telegraph can disclose.
It was announced on Tuesday that Prince Andrew, 61, had reached an out-of-court settlement with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, meaning he will no longer face a jury trial on claims that he sexually abused and raped her on three separate occasions when she was 17.
As far as the Canadian perspective is concerned, because Canada is part of the Commonwealth and recognizes the Queen as the Head of State, she -- well, the British monarch, really -- is basically woven into our Canadian constitution. In theory, all of our laws need to be approved (given Royal consent) by the Queen, although the Governor General is her representative in Canada.
When news of the Queen being placed under medical supervision came out, there were already more than a few murmurs (here in Canada) whispering how she ought to take the monarchy with her (out of Canada) to her grave. In practice, that is extremely difficult to do because it would require unanimous consent from all provinces and terrorities and basically re-write the Canadian constitution.
In the UK, there is of course a lot of ceremonial and official duties that the Queen needed to do. When other world leaders (or important figures for whatever event it may happen to be) attend major events in Britain, the Queen is supposed to act as the host to these guests because it is "her country" they are visiting. Remember the London Olympics, and how the Queen did a video for the opening ceremony with James Bond / Daniel Craig? But this following incident from last year is actually something I like and remember better, and it is from one such event (G7 summit, I think?):
The Royal Family as a whole may share some of these duties. In particular, they are supposed to do a lot of charity / humanitarian work. You may recall that Princess Diana was especially well known (and respected) for working / lobbying to have landmines banned internationally. And then there was this really, really well-known photo of Diana shaking hands with an AIDS patient without wearing gloves. It was an absolutely remarkable gesture for the era.
IIRC, Prince Charles have maintained a strong interest and continual support for green farming.
As far as stability is concerned, I would say this one might really only apply to Queen Elizabeth because she has been the reigning monarch for so long. For a ton of people -- probably at least 60 - 70% of the world's population? -- she is the only Queen of Britan that people knew. Politicans come and go, but the Queen has always been a constant. For some people, having that stability is reassuring, esp when she has always been that benevolent leader and public face.
Thanks for the reply, but all of those are still mostly ceremonial things that she needed to do just because she was the Queen but not actually anything she is accountable for or contributed to.
Unlike Princess Diana as you mentioned wbo did a ton of good with her position with charity and AIDS which in that case I get the adoration for. And also Prince Charles. I'm not curious about the monarchy or the Royal family, just the queen herself.
And as for the creation of the laws, I remember that from school but then again it is still mostly a "ceremonial" position and not truly any sort of authority where the Queen herself would actually have lower to decide to make or break laws for Canada. She just kind of gave it her ceremonial blessing but doesn't actually mean anything.
Still don't get what Queen Elizabeth specifically actually DID besides being the queen and just living a long time? Like without the actual authority like the PM, is the leadership she merely exemplifies simply because she was appointed the queen and people look up to her?
Maybe I just don't get it, but clearly she meant a lot to a lot of people.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyxx
Sonick is a genius. I won't go into detail what's so great about his post. But it's damn good!
2010 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - Wifey's Daily Driver
2009 BMW 128i - Daily Driver
2007 Toyota Rav4 Sport V6 - Sold
1999 Mazda Miata - Sold
2003 Mazda Protege5 - Sold
1987 BMW 325is - Sold
1990 Mazda Miata - Sold
If the crown is a relatively accurate representation of how the Royal family is represented in govt. matters, basically they are consulted and kind of told how things are going to go but don’t have much say in any actual chance or legislation.
I know it’s a fictional show but I wouldn’t doubt how they are dealt with there likely isn’t far off from actuality
__________________
Dank memes cant melt steel beams
We are a constitutional monarchy, so formally, the Queen/King of England gives Royal Assent (final signature/approval) to all laws passed by provincial and federal legislatures. In practice, the monarchy is represented by the Governor General or the Lieutenant-Governor (provinces) and those figures technically represent the British monarch's interests in Canada.
Of course in reality, the British monarchy has no real authority over the governance of Canada, particularly once we received our own Constitution in 1982.
Nevertheless, that's why the Queen is on our money and that is why we swear allegiance to the Queen/King of England.
Cutting ties with the monarchy is a non-starter because that would require an amendment to the Constitution. Who would replace a Governor General with? Unless you're talking a full blown transition from Westminister style of government to a Presidential system, which would require a complete amendment to the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution is virtually impossible politically in Canada given the lack of unanimity of the provinces. We tried it twice in the 80s and 90s when there was greater respect among the public for politicians across the country and amongst politicians themselves for institutions. What makes one think it could work today?
I wouldn't say the GG / LG are completely useless or powerless. In recent memory, some of the incidents when the GG / LG mattered were the time when Harper asked Michaelle Jean to prorogue government, as well as the feeble attempt that Christy Clark tried to ask the LG to dissolve the government or something so that voters can go to the polls again (bcos Clark / BC Liberals lost). IIRC, I disagreed with Michaelle Jean's decision to grant Harper's wish of proroguing government, and the Christy Clark incident was much easier find a side to support.
Bear in mind that the GG / LG are the representative of the Queen here in Canada, but clearly, they don't enjoy the level of respect and admiration that the Queen commands.
To try and answer Sonick's question again of why the Queen commands so much admiration and respect from people, I would say her unrelenting dedication to her country is definitely one of the reasons why people admire her. To be actively involved in nothing but public service for nearly 365 days a year for 70 years, and not reveal one ounce of her personal dissatisfaction about any of that work, at least not directly -- even if the things she does are only ceremonial, it deserves a tremendous amount of respect.
Not to pick on Harry or anything, but if you look at the grumblings and complaints he has had about being a Royal, and compare that against what the Queen has said, the sense of duty just isn't that same.
Of course the Governor General doesn't enjoy the same level of respect - they're appointed by prime ministers, whereas the Queen/King serves indefinitely until death or the day they abdicate the throne.
The Governor General still retains an important role in our parliamentary system. People accuse the prime minister for having too much power; well, as we have seen at various times in Candian history, the GG has stepped in to curb political actions that are too cynical and manipulative. Take that away and you have a PM who would be completely unchecked. But hey, as long as that PM is not someone named Trudeau, it's all good, right? /s
I wouldn't say the GG / LG are completely useless or powerless. In recent memory, some of the incidents when the GG / LG mattered were the time when Harper asked Michaelle Jean to prorogue government, as well as the feeble attempt that Christy Clark tried to ask the LG to dissolve the government or something so that voters can go to the polls again (bcos Clark / BC Liberals lost). IIRC, I disagreed with Michaelle Jean's decision to grant Harper's wish of proroguing government, and the Christy Clark incident was much easier find a side to support.
Bear in mind that the GG / LG are the representative of the Queen here in Canada, but clearly, they don't enjoy the level of respect and admiration that the Queen commands.
To try and answer Sonick's question again of why the Queen commands so much admiration and respect from people, I would say her unrelenting dedication to her country is definitely one of the reasons why people admire her. To be actively involved in nothing but public service for nearly 365 days a year for 70 years, and not reveal one ounce of her personal dissatisfaction about any of that work, at least not directly -- even if the things she does are only ceremonial, it deserves a tremendous amount of respect.
Not to pick on Harry or anything, but if you look at the grumblings and complaints he has had about being a Royal, and compare that against what the Queen has said, the sense of duty just isn't that same.
This I can get behind, nicely put!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyxx
Sonick is a genius. I won't go into detail what's so great about his post. But it's damn good!
2010 Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - Wifey's Daily Driver
2009 BMW 128i - Daily Driver
2007 Toyota Rav4 Sport V6 - Sold
1999 Mazda Miata - Sold
2003 Mazda Protege5 - Sold
1987 BMW 325is - Sold
1990 Mazda Miata - Sold
To try and answer Sonick's question again of why the Queen commands so much admiration and respect from people, I would say her unrelenting dedication to her country is definitely one of the reasons why people admire her. To be actively involved in nothing but public service for nearly 365 days a year for 70 years, and not reveal one ounce of her personal dissatisfaction about any of that work, at least not directly -- even if the things she does are only ceremonial, it deserves a tremendous amount of respect.
She was being paid 100 million a year to do it. Who wouldn't take her job for that type of money.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
The demands are growing in Jamaica to get Britain to pay up and offer reparations for slavery. Anti-monarchy sentiments, protests and calls for reparations made for an uncomfortable visit for Prince William and Kate through the Caribbean last week.
Listen to Nothing is Foreign
Jamaica's prime minister said the Commonwealth realm is looking to "move on" from the monarchy and become an independent republic. One of its most urgent demands — reparations for slavery — has been decades in the making but is now gaining momentum as more Jamaicans say the intergenerational trauma of slavery has shaped the nation in a way that must be rectified.
We take a closer look at Jamaica's push for reparations, the long legacy of resistance against colonialism in the country, and the Royal Family's connection to the slave trade.
Jamaica wants 7.8 billion pounds in reperations.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
In an Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News in March 2021, two in three Canadians, or 66 per cent of respondents, said the Queen and the Royal Family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, as they are “simply celebrities and nothing more.”
Also, Canada already has a real queen.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
Yah and Canada should sell all crown lands, every Canadian should sell their house and reparation payment all the first settlers here. Manic’s uncle is gonna have to dig deep, but at least he can collect on the Crown Jewels sale after.
Then that harlet Eve, bit the damn Apple and put us all on this infernal rock in the first place… you better believe she’s gonna make reparations…
And don’t even get me started on the case the dinosaurs have against unabated climate change and Darwin. Nevermind the plundering of their graves for oil. Trillions! Throw in compound interest and inflation… zillions even!
Manic, you are really not doing yourself any favours if you suggest that she is the real Queen of Canada.
Also, you haven't been keeping up with her status. She has been self-promoted to become the Queen of the World now.
Get on with the program, man lol~
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic!
She was being paid 100 million a year to do it. Who wouldn't take her job for that type of money.
Also, a quick Google search indicates that the Privy Purse received ~£20M in 2018, which is roughly ~Cdn $30M. But you are quite right that even if I was paid Cdn $100M/yr, I still wouldn't want her job. 365 days of work a year, all under the watchful eyes of the public, with essentially no private life at all, and pretty much cannot express your own personal views on different matters? And worst of all, you're not allowed to drive anywhere outside of your own estate? I definitely wouldn't take her job even if I was paid $100M a year.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
