• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Crown

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
4,621
Points
1,160
Mods: please merge this if there is something appropriate.

It seems we might get into the "old-crown new-crown" business after all, if John Ivison is correct in the National Post: John Ivison: Federal government strips religious symbols from crown adorning Royal Coat of Arms

"People who have seen the design say it replaces all Christian and religious symbols (crosses and fleur-de-lis) with maple leafs, snowflakes and stars ... [and] ... “In essence, it is akin to a new national flag being raised on Canada Day, with no consultation or debate, developed in secret by those who wish to advance their personal vision of the country.”"
 
I see nothing wrong with it, updating the crown to be a Canadian crown (something that has been discussed here before). I'll reserve final judgement until I see the final artwork.
 
I guess the question is while we wait for this new crown, when has anything the government "remade" turned out better?

Also I wonder how many people in the PMOs office had been loosing sleep over the religious symbols found on the crown. I imagine most at this point would just consider it aesthetics.
 
I see nothing wrong with it, updating the crown to be a Canadian crown

Even though the crown is a sign of colonialism?!

And don't get me started on the maple leaf! That terror symbol represents the violation and theft from trees without their consent.

Finally, stars. You know what other flag has stars? The Confederate flag. No thanks.
 
Interesting... Seeing as the Tudor Crown features heavily on the official Canadian Coronation emblem designed and approved by the Canadian Heraldic Authority....FB_IMG_1683070209794.jpg
 
And don't get me started on the maple leaf! That terror symbol represents the violation and theft from trees without their consent.
I prefer the traditional interpretation, where the Maple Leaf symbolizes the eternal domination of Canada by the founding provinces over those other, western and northern, provinces where sugar maples do not grow.
 
Mods: please merge this if there is something appropriate.

It seems we might get into the "old-crown new-crown" business after all, if John Ivison is correct in the National Post: John Ivison: Federal government strips religious symbols from crown adorning Royal Coat of Arms

"People who have seen the design say it replaces all Christian and religious symbols (crosses and fleur-de-lis) with maple leafs, snowflakes and stars ... [and] ... “In essence, it is akin to a new national flag being raised on Canada Day, with no consultation or debate, developed in secret by those who wish to advance their personal vision of the country.”"
 

Attachments

  • cam120408_banana_rep5.jpg
    cam120408_banana_rep5.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 2
Mods: please merge this if there is something appropriate.

It seems we might get into the "old-crown new-crown" business after all, if John Ivison is correct in the National Post: John Ivison: Federal government strips religious symbols from crown adorning Royal Coat of Arms

"People who have seen the design say it replaces all Christian and religious symbols (crosses and fleur-de-lis) with maple leafs, snowflakes and stars ... [and] ... “In essence, it is akin to a new national flag being raised on Canada Day, with no consultation or debate, developed in secret by those who wish to advance their personal vision of the country.”"

To stir the pot . . . it's taking the traditional Canadian approach of changing buttons and bows rather than dealing with the uncomfortable truth that the head upon which the crown is to be placed is not would not be first choice as absentee head of state if choice was given.

Or has opinion changed in ten years.

The Brits are, of course, free and able to do as they please, but in my opinion, given his well documented propensity to meddle in UK political/bureaucratic affairs based upon his "birthright," Charles is unfit to be king of any of the dominions, especially, given these views, of Canada which has a very large Catholic population.

The Parliament of Canada should pass a resolution (which is a non-binding but still uniquely and Constitutionally powerful sort of thing, as I have explained a few times in this thread) saying that Canada does not believe that the Act of Succession of 1707 is compatible with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, therefore, Canada cannot be bound by it. That will, politely but officially, tell HM and Charles that on the sad day when HM dies Charles cannot assume that we will proclaim him as our sovereign.
 
To stir the pot . . . it's taking the traditional Canadian approach of changing buttons and bows rather than dealing with the uncomfortable truth that the head upon which the crown is to be placed is not would not be first choice as absentee head of state if choice was given.

Or has opinion changed in ten years.

To be honest the king likely has more potential power in Canada than the UK. He can appoint the senate which is the equal to the house of commons. He can appoint the governor general who can approve or deny any law. He can appoint judges. Ultimately there is a substantial amount of power in his hands, he just chooses not to exercise it.

This is also why the PM is able to run amok due to him just accepting all the recommendations from the PM instead of using the controls we have in place properly. Some would call it a constitutional crisis if he were to use his powers and deny things from the house of commons, though in reality it would be using our system as designed.
 
To be honest the king likely has more potential power in Canada than the UK. He can appoint the senate which is the equal to the house of commons. He can appoint the governor general who can approve or deny any law. He can appoint judges. Ultimately there is a substantial amount of power in his hands, he just chooses not to exercise it.

This is also why the PM is able to run amok due to him just accepting all the recommendations from the PM instead of using the controls we have in place properly. Some would call it a constitutional crisis if he were to use his powers and deny things from the house of commons, though in reality it would be using our system as designed.

The last King Charles who thought he could do as he pleased had his head cut off.
 
Back
Top