| Author |
 Replies: 45 / Views: 5,674 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2426 Posts |
Personally, I feel the Monarchy is way over rated! No disrespect to the Monarchy, however, they may and or do disrespect others!
Edited by darryldarryl
11/07/2011 2:37 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3352 Posts |
Long Live "King Chuck"
... but it would be awesome if they followed suit similar to the 1935 Series, where they had all of the members of the Royal Family on the numerous paper notes, because then we'd get to see the whole lot of them => Charles, William & Kate, Harry, etc ...
=> maybe we would even get to see a $50 Pippa Middleton, NSF
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2426 Posts |
 Thats funny |
|
Valued Member
Canada
123 Posts |
Is it a bad sign that I laughed at an 'No Shoulder Fold' joke...?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
"... a $50 Pippa Middleton, NSF"
- that works for me; where do I place my order ?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Germany
1064 Posts |
Actually this is not as clear as people make it out to be. Even if Charles becomes king that does not mean he will be King Charles III. He could be King Arthur, some say he might become King George VII because the name George has meant good monarchs, while Charles means getting your head cut off and running away to France.
William may also not be William V.
The queen is looking good for her age, she will probably live to more than 100 like her mother, she looks after herself well. I doubt she will step down, she has already given more duties to William and Charles but remains queen nonetheless.
Charles is next in line and there isn't much anyone can do about it other than Charles himself. If he chose to abdicate then that is that, but and a big BUTT, he has spent 60 odd years waiting to be king, he would not then give it up.
But, Victoria died and then her son reigned for what, 9 years, Charles will probably die soon after his mother, William will be 40 something or 50 something.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
You never know, a majority of Canadians may choose for their Country to be a Republic instead. Therefore, no Monarch.
Nevertheless, why not a Monarch as Head of State?
Good Queen Bess is the official (but strictly ceremonial) Head of State of Australia. Personally, I would like that to remain. Why be ashamed of your heritage?
On the name of the Successor to Lizzie, there is a small possibility that we have no idea who the name of the next Monarch may be. When Edward V11 abdicated, the next in line Albert, his brother, became King. As we all know, he was not King Albert, but King George V1.
I don't think there will be ANY need for Charles to abdicate. There is currently a Bill before the British Parliament for the Monarch to be allowed to marry, or to be married to, a Catholic. Nothing wrong with that. There have been plenty of Catholics as Head of State in other Countries.
Do I like Charles myself? Not really. But that does not matter much.
Edited by sel_69l
11/08/2011 03:58 am
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
114 Posts |
@ neweden-"Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth of nations(Dont you read your history books),"
no I read sci-fi. but of course I know we're a member of the commonwealth. and just because we're entitled to isn't a reason why. and yes I know our coins are beautiful. this doesn't answer any of my questions. you just sound rude. and what are the exited states?
what I was trying to say is I think that we should keep the queen on one coin and display other important canadian figures on the others. like our paper money. there are lots of important, influential, historical figures that we sould be honoring as well. I'm just curious if anyone knows why the government or the mint chooses not to. I you know or have an oppinion please take a stab at it. if you want to try to make me feel dumb for asking a question, then dont bother. it wont work.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1051 Posts |
tevlon, the best answer I have heard to date is: would Stephen Harper on our coins be any better? I'd rather see Bill Reid artwork, scenes of Canadian places or animals on our coins, but I don't expect things to change any time soon. The reverse sides of or coins are going on 75 years old too, there does not appear to be a lot of innovation happening with basic circulating coinage.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
114 Posts |
Hah! Harper on the coins. that'll be the day I stop collecting.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3352 Posts |
Hey, I'll trade ya 2 Stephen Harpers for your Jean Chrétien error coin!? You idiot, that's not an error, that's just the way his mouth is, they're all like that. Really? ... oh, so I guess this Mulroney with the big chin isn't an error coin either, eh? (rats). => Hey, that "important canadian figures" idea has real merit!?  |
|
Valued Member
Canada
114 Posts |
Come on. There are a lot of important historical Canadians. I wasn't talking about the natural errors. Edited by tevlon
11/09/2011 08:52 am
|
|
Moderator
 Canada
10458 Posts |
Very true tevlon, I would exclude most politicians from that list.
"Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert OppenheimerContent of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_USMy eBay store
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16842 Posts |
Quote:
im just curious if anyone knows why the government or the mint chooses not to. I you know or have an oppinion please take a stab at it. It is primarily the force of tradition that keeps the monarch's portrait in pride of place on Canadian coinage, but in any event, it's not up to the Mint to decide what the coinage designs are. The Mint can advise the government on such matters, but can't act unilaterally. Coinage design in Canada is governed by the Royal Canadian Mint Act, the relevant parts of which being Section 6.3 "The Minister may determine the design of any denomination of a non-circulation coin." and Section 6.5 "The Governor in Council may determine the design of any circulation coin to be issued.". So for NCLT, in theory, only the Minister (of Finance) has to sign off on it. But for circulation coin designs, the entire Cabinet has to sign off on it and the Governor-General has to ratify it. I would imagine the latter individual, in particular, would have to have a very good reason for disposing from the coinage the very monarch they're purporting to represent. I don't know what it's like in Canada, but here in Australia, any discussion of removing the Queen from the coinage is usually met with shouts of "Republicanism by stealth" from the monarchists. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
114 Posts |
I'm not saying remove the royals. I like being a part of the commonwealth. I like tradition. I am just comparing our coins to our notes. We have Elizabeth on 2 bills but the others feature Borden and Laurier and makenzie etc. We could continue with tradition and still honor 5 more historical figures. I know it won't happen. I just think variety would be nice and there are lots of people who deserve our respect as well. I was just curious what others thought about it.
|
| |
Replies: 45 / Views: 5,674 |
First Page
Posted 11/07/2011 4:29 pm
