From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen and de Gaulle (was Re: Monument to de Gaulle)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:29:26 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <SBO.92Jul28123644@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:35:08 GMT, CZ94000 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> said:
>  > Nntp-Posting-Host: vm1.mcgill.ca
>
>  > In article <SBO.92Jul27175236@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>  > >
>  > >God, ride us of the stupid Queen!!!
>  > >(No offense intended Dave.)
>  > >--
>
>  > I don't like the system of monarchy on principle, so I'd like to
>  > see the monarchy abolished in Canada.  I'm not sure exactly
>  > what we should replace it with.
>
>Good!
>
>  > That said, I don't think a comparison between the speeches of
>  > de Gaulle and the Queen is apt.  De Gaulle was here as a foreign
>  > head of state.  His comments on the internal affairs of his hosts
>  > were inappropriate, to say the least.  Furthermore, he was free to
>  > say whatever he wanted, so he was responsible for his words.
>
>Free he was!
>
>  > The Queen cannot say whatever she wants.  For the most part, she
>  > reads speeches written for her by government officials.  If she came
>  > to Canada and read speeches written by the British government in
>  > favor of either Canadian unity or Quebec independence, that too
>  > would be unacceptable foreign interference in our internal affairs.
>  > But her speeches in Canada are written by the _Canadian_ government.
>  > They're just a reflection of that government's policies.
>
>Therefore the qUEEN is forced to say what the government
>wants? Mon oeil! If she does not want to say something she
>can choose. Is there a law that makes the qUEEN say what the
>government wants? What's the wording of that law? Who wrote
>the recent speech? Is anyone able to dig for this
>information?

There's not law that says this, but it is a very well-established
convention.  It's part of the "unwritten constitution."  I suppose
its origin dates back to the Glorious Revolution of 1689 (not sure
that's the exact date), and the convention has grown stronger with time.

It's probably impossible to find out who wrote the speech.  Some
anonymous functionary in Mulroney's office, I'd guess.  I imagine
someone on the Queen's personal staff reads over the speech before
she delivers it, and discusses any details she might object to
(for example, if the speech advocated torturing puppies, I suppose
she could refuse to read that part).  But there's not doubt that
speeches by the Queen generally reflect the government's position,
not her personal position.  Governments are generally careful
not to use the Queen in a blatantly partisan manner.
>
>  > If the Levesque government had invited the Queen to read the Speech
>  > from the Throne at the opening of the Quebec National Assembly,
>  > they could have got her to make a speech in favor of Quebec
>  > independence.
>
>Tu crois reellement ce que tu dis?

If they had invited her, she probably would have found an excuse
to decline the invitation, in order to avoid controversy.  But
in Britain she makes speeches saying one thing when the Tories are
in power, and the opposite when Labour is in power.
>
>  > When you refer to the "Stupid Queen", are you referring to the
>  > institution or the person?  If it's the former, I'll agree with
>  > you.  If it's the latter, I'd ask what's your source of information
>  > on her IQ.
>
>L'institution, naturellement. I can't really comment on the
>person.

This is one of the problems with monarchy.  People tend to confuse
the institution and the person.  You mean to say "God rid us
of the stupid monarchy," and I'd agree with you.  But many
people will tend to see your words as a personal attack on the Queen,
and get upset.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA