Announcement

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 20:20

I don't think they get a salary. Their work is referred to as "voluntary"...

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 20:23

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Would "meddle" imply just something bad, or doing something good as well?

It means what it says. Any interference whatsoever. The only exception I would consider would be if the government were to present her with legislation either obtained via unconstitutional means or which were flagrantly unconstitutional.

Then her rejection would be in order to uphold the established democratic system.

But I'm talking of remote possibilities, like the day the Nazis grab hold of Canada in a coup.

**PLATO** · February 27, 2003, 20:24

Originally posted by Frogger
I don't think they get a salary. Their work is referred to as "voluntary"...

I believe that they set a level of compensation to meet their needs. It seems I remember a bit of a flap over Charles raising his "salary" when he married.

**PLATO** · February 27, 2003, 20:25

Originally posted by Frogger

It means what it says. Any interference whatsoever. The only exception I would consider would be if the government were to present her with legislation either obtained via unconstitutional means or which were flagrantly unconstitutional.

Then her rejection would be in order to uphold the established democratic system.

But I'm talking of remote possibilities, like the day the Nazis grab hold of Canada in a coup.

Gotcha...Totally democratic...Let the people Rule!!

**Ben Kenobi** · February 27, 2003, 20:28

Isn't that kind of a sign that alot of Canadians feel we lack a national identity? It just seems like we're clinging to scraps here.

No, I agree. We have many differences from the US, in terms of our culture, particularly in the areas you mention.

As for the Queen, she's part of that. Canada, as a former British colony has a long history of co-operation with Britain. It's as much a part of our culture, as national healthcare.

While this is less so as the country changes demographically, historically, British contribution remains.

Ha! I'd actually rather have an elected fool than an old inbred aristocrat.

I'd rather have a head of state who can actually be understood.

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 20:29

Well, you better hope that Liz lives to be 120 then, because the future don't look bright.

**Ben Kenobi** · February 27, 2003, 20:35

Indeed.

What happened to the last 2 kings named Charles?

Long live the Queen.

**DuncanK** · February 27, 2003, 20:40

Is it true that you Canadians never had a revolution because we had a revolution and you wanted to establish a national identitiy by not doing what we do?

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 20:41

That's why there weren't any Charles for 350 years.

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 20:43

Is it true that you Canadians never had a revolution because we had a revolution and you wanted to establish a national identitiy by not doing what we do?

That's as good a reason as any.

But the more accepted version is that the British realised that attempting to maintain a direct rule over their colonies in British North America would be futile. If they'd tried then they would have had a revolution on their hands in a while. So they slowly granted more and more political power to local democratic leaders.

**DuncanK** · February 27, 2003, 21:19

Wow I was just joking, but I found this in the encyclopedia.

"Ties to Britain were fostered by feelings of rivalry toward the United States."-Encarta on Canada

And 40,000 American Traitors (or British Loyalists if you are Canadian) moved to Canada after the revolution. That explains a lot.

I wish my schools would have taught me more about Canada. There is a lot I don't know.

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 21:27

And 40,000 American Traitors (or British Loyalists if you are Canadian) moved to Canada after the revolution. That explains a lot

No, what it does is demonstrate the depth of the divide in the US over the Revolution. There were as many residents of the US that actively didn't want to revolt as those that did.

And once the bloody colonial traitors (or revolutionaries, if you prefer) started their revolt they persecuted, lynched and exiled the Loyalists...

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 21:28

It also didn't help that you kept trying to invade.

**DinoDoc** · February 27, 2003, 21:30

Originally posted by Frogger
It also didn't help that you kept trying to invade.

You didn't have to fight back. We only wanted to free you from British opression.

**KrazyHorse** · February 27, 2003, 21:31

You Americans really have this problem with inventing wars to fight for other people.

Announcement

The World's Richest Leaders

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment