Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
we all know this is about anti-monarchical sentiment in Canada, not about the GOP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This Q is bound to confuse Americans, where "Republicanism" would mean being conservative politically. Here I believe the Q is about ditching the Queen as the theoretical monarch of Canada. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Certainly, there's a party called the Republican Party, but it has no fixed "ism" associated with it, and if it had, it wouldn't be republicanism per se. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party support a democratic republic. --Trovatore (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do say so. But look, of course you are going to find people using the term this way. It's not very common, and it's pretty meaningless, because the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a coalition of interests, not a collection of people with a common philosophy. There are parties based on some reasonably coherent shared philosophy, but they tend to be tiny and rarely win elections, and even then, you still wouldn't use the party name for the philosophy. (For example, there's a Libertarian Party, which is one of the more philosophically based ones, but the philosophy itself is libertarianism with a small ell; there is no such thing as Libertarianism.)
The only Americans I would expect to be confused by the question are the ones who are not very well informed or not very smart. As an American, I take exception to Stu's apparent implication that Americans are poorly informed and/or stupid. --Trovatore (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing as a distraction, and Trovatore is right, "republicanism" is not used, and "Bush Republicanism" is a term of convenience. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is an anecdotal, unreferenced answer, but...everyone already treats our political system as a republic anyway, thanks to watching too much American TV. The recent election, as with all elections for at least the past 20 years, have been treated as if we're electing a president. I think we know it doesn't "really" work that way, but could a typical person explain what's really happening? I doubt it. The Queen does not enter anyone's mind on a regular basis. Who could even name the current governor-general? Movements for reform are manifested in different ways (like, changing the first-past-the-post system, or creating an elected Senate) but there is no republican movement. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About whether a typical person could explain it — really? It doesn't seem that complicated. Probably less involved formally than the way Americans elect a president which, my previous comments notwithstanding, I have to admit I'm not sure a typical American could explain either.
Though I admit there is one aspect of it that never did quite make sense to me, which is how minority governments stay in power. I think Harper kept a minority going for almost the full mandate, his first time? --Trovatore (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you probably don't think much about Alexander Hamilton everytime you handle a $10 bill. I don't have any strong feelings about caribou whenever I give someone a quarter either :) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And she doesn't appear on every denomination of paper currency; I think only the $20. I suspect republicanism in Canada doesn't get much love because a) Ending the Canadian monarchy would require a considerable new settlement among Ottawa and the provinces, which given past history is unlikely, and not worth doing until b) a widespread view that it would be a good idea, which it hasn't yet. Combine that with a political system where it is harder than it is in Australia for a new party to break into the national parliament, and no galvanizing event such as Whitlam's Dismissal to bring the monarchy into question.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would require a renegotiation of Canadian federalism. From a glance at the article, it sounds like some of the proposals boil down to replacing the sovereign with a GG appointed by Parliament, a purely symbolic change, and everyone goes about their business as before. Since the GG himself is almost purely symbolic I think it's amusing that they call the GG the "de facto head of state", when the truth is that de facto he has no functions worth bothering about I wouldn't think this version of republicanism would be all that traumatic. But for the same reason it doesn't seem all that worth doing. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who does ceremonial things like going to funerals of foreign heads of state, welcoming foreign diplomats, and going to disaster scenes to say how sorry Ottawa is about the disaster? Is all of that the PM's job? Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood your question. In the current setup, they obviously have to be done, so I thought you meant someone else did them; I didn't realise that you were saying that those were functions unworth bothering about. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who appoints the lieutenant governors? Is Quebec going to want someone outside doing that? A lot of things are done in the name of the Queen. Criminal cases are brought in the name of the Queen, that changes to what? There will have to be some constitutional change, and every time that happens, either Quebec is a problem or everyone wants cash from Ottawa. Is there a big enough consensus to get this done? The Constitution Act requires an amendment that affects the Crown to be approved unanimously (all ten provinces). Short of Charles insulting maple syrup, and he's perfectly capable of that, I don't see how things get from A to B.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lieutenant governors have no functions worth bothering about either, so I don't know why it matters who appoints them (or why one needs them at all), but I suppose it could either be the GG or the provincial parliament. Quebec should be reasonably happy with the latter, I suppose? Or are you saying that that in itself would be a "new settlement"?
Criminal prosecutions could be brought in the name of "the people", the way it's done south of the border, or in the name of the GG, or the nation, or something. Why does it matter? --Trovatore (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Short of Charles insulting maple syrup, and he's perfectly capable of that," I really must protest. Insulting Maple Syrup would be his Dad's job. Charles is much more likely to talk to it, and nicely too. So there. DBaK (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's often assumed that as I'm an intelligent, educated Australian, I therefore must be a republican. Actually I'm a staunch "I don't give a damn either way, as long as we still have publicly funded universal health care"-ist. There may well be people in Canada who think this way too.
To be honest, I think living in a monarchy where the head of state is on the other side of the world is a bit of a hoot: it's like having a BBC sit-com as a key part of the constitution.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally and seriously out of date, but during a visit to Toronto in the late 1970s, several Canadians were keen to tell me that the monarchy in Canada was secure because a) it makes Canada distinct from the USA and b) it really annoys the Francophones. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most Americans with a modicum of education, when asked, "Who will be king when the queen dies?" will say, "Charles", not "America has no monarch." μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that USians still call the Queen of that foreign country they went to great pains to separate themselves from with not a little bloodshed, "the Queen", as if all that unpleasantness had never occurred and she were still the American head of state. I mean, the Queen of Denmark has to be spelt out, but not the Queen of the UK etc. Why is this so? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there seems to be a residue of longing for royalty in America. It's not an explicit thing. Very few Americans would actually support formally accepting Elizabeth as our head of state. But it's there. I think certain presidents evoke it and use it to their advantage — Kennedy was one, Obama is another. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When we took world history in 9th grade, it had two halves: Classical (The Fertile Crescent, Greece, and Rome) and pre-Revolutionary history. In the second half of the year we studied from William the Conqueror to George III, with especial attention to the Magna Carta, and to domestic English politics from the Tudors to Queen Anne. The first three Georges were left to the beginning of the first of the two required years of American History.
Seniors had the option of British History, which was very popular, but which I couldn't take due to scheduling conflicts. In that class one was required to know the name and reign and salient details of every monarch from Alfred the Great through Elizabeth II. The only anti-monarchical sentiment I have ever encountered was from either Irish immigrants or their children. My ex's father insisted that the Beatles were behind Kennedy's assassination, but that's a conspiracy theory for another day. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby killed Paul, so John killed Bobby. Then Ethel killed John, so George killed Junior. Teddy killed George (and allegedly Linda), so Ringo did what Ringo had to do. This, of course, prompted Schwarzenegger to go back in time and kill the first John. It's all explained perfectly coherently in Terminator Genisys and "Revolution 9" (if you play them backwards, concurrently, with Genesis 15 and Revelation 9 in mind). InedibleHulk(talk)06:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
