Many years ago one’s loyalty here in Canada was to God, Queen and country. But times have changed, so is this still the case?
We recently celebrated Queen Victoria’s birthday (which is a statutory holiday here in the land of Canada), but if you asked the scholars in school these days who she was and what she was known for during her reign, I am sure you get quite a few blank stares. For most, this holiday marks the beginning of summer, a weekend to open up the cottage or to plant (I have heard the rule of thumb being its safe to plant after the long weekend in May as there will not be any frost past that date.)
And during the last few weeks, the Queen and Prince Philip have been touring the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to mark their 100th anniversary as a member of Canada. There have been many that have taken the opportunity to see her in the flesh. Well, good for them! But as for the younger generation, are we still interested? Do we really want Camilla to be our next queen? I really don’t think so. Perhaps it is time for us to let go of the umbilical cord and become a nation on our own? But are we prepared for that? Could we defend ourselves as a nation if we had to? I really don’t believe we could. And with the problems that the two newest submarines that we bought recently from England seem to be having it is highly unlikely.
So where does that leave us? Do we continue to ask for support from other nations (do the US really care about their neighbours to the north?) (Are we or is England more of a hindrance to us?) or is it time we stand on our own two feet?
Article comments
1 - CanadaQuestion
"Many years ago one’s loyalty here in Canada was to God, Queen and country."
Yes, but if the top monarch in the UK is a King, then isn't this loyalty to God, King, and country.
I always understood it that the ceremonial head of state in Canada is the top monarch in the UK, not necessarily whomever is Queen. If there is a King, then that person is the ceremonial head of state of Canada.
2 - Eric
>Many years ago one’s loyalty here in Canada was to God, Queen and country. But times have changed, so is this still the case?<
The Queen is just a puffed-up symbol of nasty old colonialism. The poor old dear goes on the occasional walkabout to view her "subjects", reads from prepared scripts (guaranteed hogwash) and then toddles off back to jolly old England.
As for loyalty to God and country, well that used to be grade school, morning assembly stuff. Does it even happen now?
Canadians are materialists. They live in a capitalist democracy. Making more money, buying bigger homes and new cars are their main concerns. After that they cherish their universal healthcare and quite a few pay lip service to protecting the environment.
3 - sydney
The queen's tie to Canada is merely symbolic at this point. No use holding on to it... all she does for Canada is send a huge bill everytime she visits.
And besides, CAnada doesn't rely on England for anything anymore anyway. IT's not like they support Canada in any way, economically or millitarily.
But I'd sooner invest my intersts in other world issues than the queen issue.
4 - Dennis
I don't know why there is so much discusions on Canada having a Royal has head of state.If it wasn't for the british we would all be speaking French and not english, but i guess some people think that was a part of our history and its stays there. While i have to fight for my rights has a minority because i didn't come from a war torn country and im not Black. I dont think i should keep my mouth shut because its going to upset somebody somewhere.I have my views,and should have freedom of speech but thats only happens when it doesn't go against what the canadian goverment thinks is PC.The Queen is my head of state, God is my guidence.There is a law that states if try to hurt mame,kill the Queen or heir or even imprison them you are a traitor.These are Canadian laws not British Laws. There are way to many people in this country putting down the Royals say we don't need them,The Queen pays Taxes in England She was the one that said that royals should pay taxes just like everyone else in the country & when she comes to Canada ,the canadians don't pay for it.If anything its the British people that pay for her trips because they pay her wages.And i've found alot of these peoples families are from other countries which don't have a King or Queen,If you don't like it leave.We are a Commonweath Country and we do have a Queen.God save the Queen.
5 - Graham McKnight
As is the case in Britain; the monarchy is nothing but an irrelevent layer of bureaucracy these days. Canada has nothing to lose in ridding itself of its colonial past completely. Britain does not contribute anything in the way of economic assistance or security to Canada and nor does Canada need such aid.
6 - Nancy
Long before Liz2 the British royal family lost their influence as anything but stage dressing for what someone once termed the longest-running, most continuously expensive show on earth. Dear old Vic's uncle Bill IV was the last royal who was able to influence government by threatening to load the house of Lords with new appointees to gain his point. Even Victoria didn't have that kind of pull - altho early on in her reign, she tried, but got slapped down for it & didn't really try it again, especially after Albert trained her up to be a good Parlementarian once they wed.
Basically the royals are fancy, very expensive window-dressing for natives & tourists alike. These days, they're pretty much unique, as most other royal houses around the world have disappeared or at least gone underground to a large degree, having learnt the lesson that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down, the hard way. The only royals that really thrive popularly these days are the "democratic" royals of the scandinavian countries, who tend to rely on their own jobs & investments instead of a government handout, & ride bicycles to the office like everyone else. The hoopla surrounding the British royals is pretty unique.
What people of Canada have got to ask themselves, I suppose, is: do we want to continue to be associated with this kind of ceremonial sideshow? On the one hand, there's the cachet of thousands of years of tradition & history (most of it bad, or at least, not very edifying); on the other, that the royal family AS a Royal family is passe. They behave badly, give very little in return for millions & millions in subsidized perks & living, & are among the most spoiled & irrelevant people on the face of the earth, with the possible exception of the Japanese royals & the current incumbent in the US White House.
The trooping of the Coldstream Guards is splendid, and Windsor is unspeakably magnificent in its history & grandeur - but they'd still exist without Liz & her gang, & the ceremony can still go on - just not for the benefit of any specific undeserving individuals.
I'm not British, so I have no say, but I'd recommend my inclination, which would be to let Liz finish up her term of office, & then declare the monarchy at an end - for Canada, at least, if not Britain as well. Windsor & Buckingham Palace should revert to the public, where they rightfully belong anyway, as does the Tower, since the public has paid for them thousands of times over thru the ages. And the royal family should be reduced to living off only properties they can PROVE they bought with their OWN monies, & not with the huge privy purses they've gotten from the public domain over the centuries of their ill-gotten treasure hoarding. Yeah - that includes most of the royal jewels, too.
7 - Graham McKnight
A sincere bravo Nancy, but what is your opinion on the Thai Monarch King Bhumibol? This man weilds effective powers over his people, including the right to waiver prison sentences handed down by the law courts under his juristiction. He is one of the world's richest individuals, and is popular (according to the world's media) by his people as he invests a proportion of his riches in rural development projects.
As a democratic socialist, I would normally be in favour of stripping this man of his powers and handing them back to the people of Thailand, but if he is as popular as the media suggests, then my democratic self says 'sure why not?'
Tricky.
8 - Nancy
I'm sorry - only the first & last line of your first paragraph came through. For some reason my computer is stripping out chunks of selected text; the results are ... interesting.
As I said w/the Canadians & Brits, as long as the plurality of people WANT him, & think he does what he's paid for so lavishly, then by all means, keep him on. Humans thrive on a modicum of ceremony, pomp, & grandeur, else it wouldn't have been invented. Ditto Queen Noor & her husband, or the Monaco crew: as long as they earn their keep & keep their noses clean, if the majority of the people want them around, great. If not - hit the road. & leave those crown jewels for those who rightfully paid for them with their blood, sweat, & tears through the generations.
For the current generation of Windsors (actually, not even Saxe-Coburg but Wipper is the 'actual' family name) there is no such justification: they behave badly, are arrogant, extraneous, & do nothing for the vast amounts spent by the public to feed, house - & amuse - them. They aren't even particularly intelligent or talented, or well-educated. In that regard, I suppose they ARE representative of the bulk of the population in that they are monumentally boring, mundane, & mediocre - but that doesn't justify keeping them in the state to which they've accustomed themselves all these centuries, any longer.
Keep Liz, by all means. She's done a decent, conscientious job & has earned her retirement bennies just keeping a straight face & civil tongue at public occasions faced with the likes of Dubya, the Clown Prince. Chuck & the rest? Out.