Antonia ne se soucie pas quel sera le prochain roi d'Angleterre est nommé, encore nomme ses propres enfants après rois de France?

Il me semble qu'elle devrait se rendre compte que le Québec fait partie du Canada n'est pas la France et si elle veut mettre la France d'abord, puis elle devrait émigrer là-bas!

---

So it's not about French dislike of the monarchy, rather it's a test of the Canadian Constitution and the power of the provinces.

"The irony is palpable: Sovereigntists are basing a challenge to the federal government, and an attempt to shore up Quebec’s veto, on the argument that the monarch is the “Queen of Quebec.”"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/you-say-succession-i-say-secession/article12523154/

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Looks like someone has been studying how to win friends and influence people ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22878887

---

Thank God we got rid of T B-liar in time with his Republican ideals!

Oh gawd, where's me pills ...

+1

I wonder, in comparison, what it cost's a country to run a president as against a monarch. President's don't draw in tourism like monarchs do, especially where the UK is concerned. Having a British monarchy is a milk-cow for foreign revenue here, the British monarchy more than earn their keep.

+1

They always have done Nick. Only those that don't want a Monarchy in principle have a moan about the cost. Presidents also don't usually have family money to offset costs either. Buckingham palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the British state. It is not the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle which are. I assume that the White House is also owned by the USA State. The UK will never ever become a republic or Presidency because we would be culturally and financially poorer for it.

+1

Thank God we got rid of T B-liar in time with his Republican ideals!

+1

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

I wonder, in comparison, what it cost's a country to run a president as against a monarch. President's don't draw in tourism like monarchs do, especially where the UK is concerned. Having a British monarchy is a milk-cow for foreign revenue here, the British monarchy more than earn their keep.

+1

They always have done Nick. Only those that don't want a Monarchy in principle have a moan about the cost. Presidents also don't usually have family money to offset costs either. Buckingham palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the British state. It is not the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle which are. I assume that the White House is also owned by the USA State. The UK will never ever become a republic or Presidency because we would be culturally and financially poorer for it.

+1

Thank God we got rid of T B-liar in time with his Republican ideals!

---

the British monarchy more than earn their keep.

They always have done Nick. Only those that don't want a Monarchy in principle have a moan about the cost. Presidents also don't usually have family money to offset costs either. Buckingham palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the British state. It is not the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle which are. I assume that the White House is also owned by the USA State. The UK will never ever become a republic or Presidency because we would be culturally and financially poorer for it.

The costs of a State visit are borne by the treasury of the host country, i.e. the Government pays for it.

If you read the article they were lumping these costs in the the Canadian total costs for the Royal Family.

The costs of a State visit are borne by the treasury of the host country, i.e. the Government pays for it.

I wonder, in comparison, what it cost's a country to run a president as against
a monarch. President's don't draw in tourism like monarchs do, especially where
the UK is concerned. Having a British monarchy is a milk-cow for foreign
revenue here, the British monarchy more than earn their keep.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

The costs of a State visit are borne by the treasury of the host country, i.e. the Government pays for it.

The other thing to consider is how much is spent when other Heads of State visit.
That would not be a small sum, and if it was considered as the price paid for all important visitors then it should not be included in the costs of Royal Family visits.

According to the latest figures out of Buckingham Palace, while Canadians are shelling out $1.53 per capita, the British are only paying about $1.32

Now those are interesting figures RW, and on the face of it a bit perplexing. If anything one would expect the British to be paying the most. But perhaps it is because of

as well as the cost of running the offices of the Governor General and our 10 provincial lieutenant-governors—has more than doubled.

We in the UK don't have paid for provincial Governors. Each County has a Lord Lieutenant & Deputy Lieutenant who meet Her majesty on visits on behalf of the County. They are unpaid ceremomial positions. Also the British Royal family has their own private wealth which is handed down through the generations, and which is regularly used for expenditure not covered by the Civil list. The Queen also receives an income from the Privy Purse mostly from the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Prince of Wales has income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

As you can see, the state only funds part of the entire Royal families annual expenditure, and that is their official duties. Those that don't want a Monarchy will always say that it costs too much. The majority of Canadians are quite happy to have the Queen as their head of state, it's only this grumpy lot in Quebec that don't like it.

As it stands, Canadian citizens still have the right to intervene and they are exercising that right.

From what I can see, there is a difference to being heard and having ones opinions taken into account, and just trying as a minority to scupper the wishes of the majority. If Canada as a whole wants true independence, then I can't see why they can't have it, same goes for Australia.

As an outsider I would think the Queen is worth at least 1 1/2 Loonies.

OK, just a 1/2 a one more to find then.

How much would it cost to have a president and don't forget to add in the costs for ex-presidents.

As an outsider I would think the Queen is worth at least 1 1/2 Loonies.

---

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/14/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay/

From the article...
According to the latest figures out of Buckingham Palace, while Canadians are shelling out $1.53 per capita, the British are only paying about $1.32. And the Monarchist League’s own numbers show the Canadian cost is skyrocketing. Over just the last 10 years, the per capita bill for supporting the monarchist framework— including expenses incurred by the royal clan on Canadian soil, as well as the cost of running the offices of the Governor General and our 10 provincial lieutenant-governors—has more than doubled.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

$50,147,000 was spent during the 2006-07 year.

I didn't do an extensive search, but that $50 million has most certainly increased since 2007.
If Canadians are paying tens of millions toward supporting the monarchy, I think those same citizens have the right to voice an opinion.

Personally, I would rather keep the cash in Canada and agree that the Windsors can do whatever they want in their own country.
As it stands, Canadian citizens still have the right to intervene and they are exercising that right.
Franco or Anglo in heritage means nothing in this discussion because the monarchy accepts the cheques from us without questioning ancestries.

I believe the only costs borne by the citizens commonwealth countries is the costs of the Governor General.

And in the UK the income from the Crown Estates, which is paid to the Government and not the Royal Family, exceeds the costs of supporting the monarchy. The Queen gets 15% of the Royal estates income.

$50,147,000 was spent during the 2006-07 year.

I didn't do an extensive search, but that $50 million has most certainly increased since 2007.
If Canadians are paying tens of millions toward supporting the monarchy, I think those same citizens have the right to voice an opinion.

Personally, I would rather keep the cash in Canada and agree that the Windsors can do whatever they want in their own country.
As it stands, Canadian citizens still have the right to intervene and they are exercising that right.
Franco or Anglo in heritage means nothing in this discussion because the monarchy accepts the cheques from us without questioning ancestries.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

I think the Empire was certainly worth it in it's day, but those days have long gone. Then after WWII it transitioned into the Commonwealth which was also worth it in the beginning. But we have given so much of it away with granting independence, that in the last few years I'm not sure that what is left is more of a hindrance than a benefit. But if Canada and Australia are going to be awkward about the future of the British monarchy, which is non-negotiable, then we either kick 'em out or disband it.

The old Empire has been dead now for some 65 years was it worth having? Nope,
it was just a load of hassle...thank goodness it has gone. Shame Brussels
hasn't realised this fact for unless it gives up it's shackles around Europe's
neck then there's a load of hassle in store for them.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Personally I would not be unhappy to let the Irish have Ulster and NI. We could then go back to having a United Kingdom of Great Britain. But the people of Northern Ireland have decided that they wish to remain under British rule, and we have to respect their wishes. But we digress this is a Canada thread.