Ben wrote, "I’ll concede this - if I was starting a brand new country with no history behind it, and I couldn’t be king, I’d push for a republic."

Hmmm…I suspect that in my heart of hearts, if I couldn’t be king I’d move & start anew elsewhere…

We started from somewhat different places and have defined ourselves in large degree in strife—the American Revolution left us with a bad taste for monarchy, & our attempts to invade Canada left them with a bad taste for our system.  We’ve luckily gotten over it (or my wife would have been born in Saskatchewan rather than California, and our kids would never have been!) but in each case, the national ethos or mythology still preserves a bit of the old rivalry, just friendlier now.

Ben. Joe’s right on my intention there. sorry i confused.

also as i said to me the king/queen is the executive…more so than a prime minister type who, to me, seems more of a ‘speaker of the house’ for lack of a better term. now, i admit i may completely misunderstand the exact nature of the prime minister sort of seat of power in a parliamentary monarchy (isn’t that the correct term? i dunno for sure). for me the queen is your executive as a Canadian as she is for an Englishman etc. and for me i see my president as the executive and the speaker of the house, or president of the senate, as just the ‘head hancho’ of those two houses in our national legislature in this country. as she is your executive and as you don’t get to elect her to be so that’s where it’d be too hard for me.

i may have an over-simplified view of it, but that’s how i see it. and if i were to just have a monarch for all the pomp and circumstance but no substance—though i would never tolerate absolute substance—i would see that as a waste of time, money and position. i want my executive to be a true executive and not merely a figurehead. and as i would want that i would always want the executive i get to have a say in electing.

as for your other comment on people who like term limits doing so because they don’t like the incumbent, i can see that. but, if i were to be thinking on that i wouldn’t be one of them. i guess i’m odd that way, though, as i see my president as my president even if i didn’t vote for him and i would want his presidency to be successful because that would mean (to me anyway) that my nation is better off. i would still work to get someone else elected if i didn’t like the guy, or thought someone else would do better, but i wouldn’t want a term limit just because i didn’t vote for him. admittedly i am a bit odd compared to most people i know, and perhaps that holds true for most of America today (i don’t know), who simply vote democrat or republican out of blind allegiance to a political party; even though i am registered as one of those i always vote in this order: issues/ideals of the candidate followed by the man, or woman, himself (his character). i never vote just because he is of party "x". to me that’s just being a lazy, or ignorant, citizen. i can’t be one of those ‘all dems or all repubs get out the vote for our side’ kind of people. but, as i said, i am odd compared to many of my friends and family in this regard.

(i should use "Odd Dennis" as my moniker here )

Donnchadh;80052 wrote:

Ben. Joe’s right on my intention there. sorry i confused.

also as i said to me the king/queen is the executive…more so than a prime minister type who, to me, seems more of a ‘speaker of the house’ for lack of a better term. now, i admit i may completely misunderstand the exact nature of the prime minister sort of seat of power in a parliamentary monarchy (isn’t that the correct term? i dunno for sure). for me the queen is your executive as a Canadian as she is for an Englishman etc. and for me i see my president as the executive and the speaker of the house, or president of the senate, as just the ‘head hancho’ of those two houses in our national legislature in this country. as she is your executive and as you don’t get to elect her to be so that’s where it’d be too hard for me.

You don’t undertand. At this point in the discussion I think it would be good to look some things up just to know the basics of partliamentary democracy. If the thing is interesting enough to discuss it is interesting enough to learn.

The Queen is the Sovereign or Head of State. Her role is largely symbolic. Executive powers are exercised in her name, but the Head of Government in Canada is the Prime Minister. In the US the Head of Government and the Head of State is the President.

One of the checks and balances in parliamnetary democracies is the idea that the government is accountable to Parliament, that is that in order to govern the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet must have the support of the majority in the House of Commons. If the PM loses this support on an important piece of legislation or a finance bill then he’she must resign and either the leader of the opposition forms the government or there is a new election.

Quote:

i may have an over-simplified view of it, but that’s how i see it. and if i were to just have a monarch for all the pomp and circumstance but no substance—though i would never tolerate absolute substance—i would see that as a waste of time, money and position. i want my executive to be a true executive and not merely a figurehead. and as i would want that i would always want the executive i get to have a say in electing.

The executive branch of governemnt are all of the government departments that adminsiter the laws and deliver the programs established through laws passed by legislatures. This is the same in Canada and the US. The head of government in Canada is the Prime Minister and in the US the President. Both have wide authority. Both are assisted by a Cabinet made up of the heads of departments. The President is also like the Queen in that he is head of state and undertakes importnat ceremonial. symbolic and representational roles. In Canada these are undertaken by the personal representative of the Queen, the Governor General. The Governor General has virtually all of the powers of the Queen.

To keep the odd part of this thread heraldic, I was in Ottawa the weekend of the new Governor General’s installation at the beginning of the month and among others had the opportunity to visit the heraldic authority.

The following photos are of the grant of arms of made to the incoming governor general by the outgoing governor general. The colours on the grant are more vibrant than the images that have circulated. The grant also includes an interesting set of differences to his children - not following the set of Canadian cadency marks but using for the most parts different ordinaries to distinguish the arms. The last photo is in the entry hall to the Chancery of Honours and includes the coats of arms of each of the Canadian Governors General. I seem to be obscuring several.

[ATTACH]791[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]792[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]793[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]794[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]795[/ATTACH]

George might have added that almost everything of significance that the Queen or the Governor General can do, she or he can do only on with the permission (quaintly called "advice") of the Cabinet ministers who are, as George says, selected by the democratically elected Parliament. The Queen cannot even appoint the Governor General except on the advice of the Prime Minister, and she must fire him if the Prime Minister says so. Unlike the President, who can pardon anyone of a federal crime of his own volition, the Queen or Governor General can’t do that in Canada; the power is regulated by law passed by Parliament and delegated to an independent board.  The Queen/GG can’t even realistically veto a bill passed by Parliament.

All the real executive power in a British-style parliamentary system resides with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, not with the Crown.

Joseph McMillan;80058 wrote:

George might have added that almost everything of significance that the Queen or the Governor General can do, she or he can do only on with the permission (quaintly called "advice") of the Cabinet ministers who are, as George says, selected by the democratically elected Parliament. The Queen cannot even appoint the Governor General except on the advice of the Prime Minister, and she must fire him if the Prime Minister says so. Unlike the President, who can pardon anyone of a federal crime of his own volition, the Queen or Governor General can’t do that in Canada; the power is regulated by law passed by Parliament and delegated to an independent board.  The Queen/GG can’t even realistically veto a bill passed by Parliament.

All the real executive power in a British-style parliamentary system resides with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, not with the Crown.

And thus representative democracy is preserved.  This is the strength of the system, not a weakness.  The rest of the arbitrary distinctions between our political systems are mere trifles.

And regarding the symbolic role of the Crown, who better than heraldists can appreciate the value of a good symbol?

Denny said, regarding term limits and/or limited terms:

Quote:

Ben. Joe’s right on my intention there. sorry i confused.

I too am sorry that I misunderstood.

God save the Queen.

BCT;80063 wrote:

And thus representative democracy is preserved. This is the strength of the system, not a weakness. The rest of the arbitrary distinctions between our political systems are mere trifles.

I hope I didn’t imply that I disagree—I meant to be supporting George’s lesson to Denny on how British-style parliamentary democracy works.  Each of our particular systems has its pluses and minuses relative to the other, but I agree that these differences are minor in comparison with the shared underlying principles.

Joseph McMillan;80064 wrote:

I hope I didn’t imply that I disagree—

No unintented implication whatsoever.  I agree that we agree.

Donnchadh;80052 wrote:

also as i said to me the king/queen is the executive…more so than a prime minister type who, to me, seems more of a ‘speaker of the house’ for lack of a better term. now, i admit i may completely misunderstand the exact nature of the prime minister sort of seat of power in a parliamentary monarchy (isn’t that the correct term? i dunno for sure). for me the queen is your executive as a Canadian as she is for an Englishman etc. and for me i see my president as the executive and the speaker of the house, or president of the senate, as just the ‘head hancho’ of those two houses in our national legislature in this country. as she is your executive and as you don’t get to elect her to be so that’s where it’d be too hard for me.

This is probably easiest for an American to understand if some history is given. In the 18th century the King was actually a ruler. The guy who actually implemented the King’s decisions was the Prime Minister. This had two great advantages for the King—the PM would get the blame for all the dirty work, and was a perfect fall guy if things didn’t work out.

As time went on more and more Kings left more and more decisions to their Prime Ministers, until they became powerless to act without his permission (called "advice").

So today the PM is the head of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. In practical terms he IS the King, but he can be removed by Parliament. The PM’s called "Head of Government," while whoever does the ceremonial crap is "Head of State." The US President has both jobs.

BTW, the Canadians are as happy with their "Unity of Powers" ad we are with the "Separation of Powers." Actually they’re probably happier then us right now, because we’re pretty pissed off.

Nick

Nick

Joseph McMillan;79958 wrote:

There is a logical difference between the right to do something without interference by the state (a freedom) and a right to some substantive benefit conferred by the state. The courts of countries (like Canada and Ireland) whose constitutions guarantee such substantive benefits (the "right" to medical care, the "right" to free education) are constantly having to find ways to distinguish between rights whose enforcement requires merely governmental inaction (freedom of speech, freedom of religion) and those for which positive governmental action is required.

In short, it does not make sense to take into account such guarantees as medical care and education when assessing "freedom." In assessing quality of life perhaps (assuming the state actually delivers on the guarantees), but not freedom.

I disagree. FDR’s four freedoms included the "freedom from want," and "freedom from fear." Both require governmental action.

You have proven the point I was driving at. Debates over which democracy is "freer" are a waste of time because reasonable people can have such strong disagreements over what the word means. They inevitably degenerate into semantic debates, with people citing dictionaries and eminent statesman (such as FDR), and nobody actually changing his mind.
Joseph McMillan;79958 wrote:

If monarchy—> stability, then you can’t account for the fact that virtually every European republic was formerly a monarchy that was overthrown as a result of some sort of serious social unrest.  Some of them (France, for example) have had several monarchies overthrown as a result of unrest and instability (1789, 1830, 1848, 1870-71).  We cannot pretend that monarchy in Spain caused stability in the 19th century or in the years leading up to 1931, that monarchy in Russia caused stability in 1905 or 1917, that monarchy in Germany and Austria caused stability in 1918-19, or that monarchy in Ireland caused stability in 1916-22.  Greece has been a lot more stable under the republic since the return of democratic rule in 1973 than it ever was under either the Wittelsbachs or the Gluecksburgs.

I did not mean to imply the statement held true for all states throughout history.

But in the 21st century there’s a strong and persistent correlation between monarchy and stability.
Joseph McMillan;79958 wrote:

Conversely, if stability—> monarchy, then you can’t account for the persistence of republicanism in such stable and successful modern states as (to name three) Germany, France, and the United States.

I would suggest that in 2010 having democratic political processes, effective governance, high educational levels, and a well-functioning market economy has a lot more to do with stability than whether a country is formally a monarchy or a republic.  Your list of stable countries would include Finland as well as Sweden; Germany, Austria, and Switzerland as well as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg; France and Portugal as well as the UK and Spain.  The many things these countries have in common have are much more important contributors to stability than the fairly trivial difference of whether the head of state wears a crown.

The Magazine "Foreign Policy" publishes a "failed states" index ever year. This is probably a better measure of stability then actual Revolutions because those are such singular events. The most failed Monarchy (Cambodia) is more stable then 39 Republics. Lesotho is next at 67th. The US is 158th, which is pretty good. More then half the countries below us are monarchies.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find an objective measure of stability that does not show there is a strong,  and consistent correlation between monarchy and stability.

Correlation != causation, but the correlation does exist.

Nick

We’ve wandered so far from the stated topic of this thread that I won’t even apologize for posting this here! 

I found the Canadian patent (grant document) that George posted (fretty with various ordinaries) most interesting.  Besides the greater-than-expected flexibility re: differencing, it showed that the royal crown frequently (usually? always?) included in grants to each new GG are an inherited part of the arms that descend to their kids.

I wonder—have there been any GG’s (since the CHA was set up) who already possessed arms prior to their appointment?  & if so, was a crown added, or just external additaments e.g. supporters, compartment, etc.?

Michael F. McCartney;80112 wrote:

I wonder—have there been any GG’s (since the CHA was set up) who already possessed arms prior to their appointment?  & if so, was a crown added, or just external additaments e.g. supporters, compartment, etc.?

Vincent Massey served as GG from 1952-1959 and was the first Canadian-born viceroy, as well as the first one not elevated to the peerage (or who was already a peer).  Most British peers would have already had arms prior to their appointment to Canada, and I don’t believe any of them had any kind of augmentation to represent their service here.

Massey’s arms were granted by the College of Arms in 1927 and then augmented by Royal Warrant in 1963.

http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/m/massey_350h.jpg

See this link to the RHSC page on his arms.

For the film buffs out there, Massey was the older brother of actor Raymond Massey.

To continue with Governors General of Canada, Massey was followed by Georges Vanier whose arms were granted by the College of Arms in 1961 - his arms had a representation of the Citadel, one of the official residence of the GGs in Quebec City (the other being the more familiar Rideau Hall in Ottawa) flying the Governor General’s flag.

http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/v/vanier_350h.jpg

There was some inconsistency until the CHA was established in 1988.  For instance, Jeanne Sauve had two coats of arms - one from the English CoA in 1985:

http://www.heraldry.ca/images/arms/sauve-coa.jpg

which was then changed in a new grant from the CHA.

http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/s/sauve_350h.jpg

But since the establishment of the CHA, the Royal Crown has been a part of all the viceregal arms.

Nick B II;80067 wrote:

I disagree. FDR’s four freedoms included the "freedom from want," and "freedom from fear." Both require governmental action.

But neither of which has ever been legally guaranteed in the United States. I don’t take presidential rhetoric, however memorable, as definitive in such matters.

Quote:

But in the 21st century there’s a strong and persistent correlation between monarchy and stability.

Only because the least successful monarchies in the West were overthrown in favor of republics between about 1870 and 1940. There is, you will have noticed, an even stronger and more persistent correlation between Western and stability.

Quote:

The Magazine "Foreign Policy" publishes a "failed states" index ever year. This is probably a better measure of stability then actual Revolutions because those are such singular events. The most failed Monarchy (Cambodia) is more stable then 39 Republics. Lesotho is next at 67th.

Actually, the next monarchy after Cambodia (score 88.7) is the Solomon Islands (score 88.6), of which Elizabeth II is the Queen. Then Bhutan (87.3), Papua New Guinea (also Elizabeth II, 83.9), Swaziland (82.8 ), and then Lesotho (82.2).

Quote:

The US is 158th, which is pretty good. More then half the countries below us are monarchies.

The FP index is not a very good measurement of stability as such, nor am I sure it’s intended to be, especially at the bottom (good) end of the spectrum. What the FP index really emphasizes is homogeneity, prosperity, and low to negative population growth, in all of which the monarchies below the U.S. on the scale have advantages. For example, it’s hardly conceivable that a country like Denmark, regardless of form of government, could score high on a metric that measures historic grievances on the part of ethnic minorities, any more than Iceland could, or that restoring the Hohenzollerns in Germany would lead to dramatically acclerated demographic growth rates.

Meanwhile, the index omits some of the most obvious metrics of stability. For example, such obvious and objective indicators as deaths from civil violence (per thousand) and average tenure of government are not included. When I see Russia with a higher (worse) score than El Salvador, Morocco worse than Armenia, China worse than Madagascar, and Brunei worse than Brazil, I have to conclude that whatever FP is measuring, it isn’t stability.

Quote:

Correlation != causation, but the correlation does exist.

Sure, but if it is merely an artifact of other, more fundamental correlations, it is meaningless. There’s a high correlation between being a white cat and drinking milk, but that doesn’t mean that drinking milk is peculiar to cats, or that it’s the milk that makes them white.

I don’t find it credible that the Czech Republic would be any more stable if it were a monarchy, or that Denmark would be any less stable if it were a republic.

The point that started all of this was the assertion that monarchy tends to lead to stability. That point remains unproven.

I question the continued usefulness of this thread. Moderator, please?

George Lucki;79936 wrote:

http://www.steveaddison.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/flogging dead horse.jpg

David, there you go…  there’s still some life in this one, but who knows for how long….

I believe it’s now done. Thread locked