I think that's a fair description of Canada but it's just bizarre to think that anyone chooses a country in which to live according to the method of selection of the head of state.

I didn't google anything - or make more than a passing reference to the history of Canada in my post. Did you actually read it?

My point is that Canadians, when they give the matter any thought at all, tend to consider that the status quo is preferable to any alternative. Some countries have a good system, others a worse system. Canada is unlikely to become a US-style "partisan presidency", because (I'd guess a majority of constitutional theorists would agree) that's the worst possible system of democratic government. While many Canadians may not be actively pro-monarchy, fewer still are actively anti-monarchy. So we muddle on.

Yet you think it's okay to move to a country while having every intention of changing its method of selection of head of state? That would get you jailed and then deported if you tried it in the USA...

If/when you become a citizen of Canada, you must take the following oath:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,
Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully
observe the laws of Canada
and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Call me picky if you like, but I take a dim view of those who lie under oath.

So long as you stick to lawful means, sure, but I can't believe this ranks in the top couple of hundred concerns for most immigrants.

If cradles had to utter that trash, there would be a lot fewer Canadians. I wouldn't pledge allegiance to some tart across the ocean.

Yeah but who would have you?

Not true! All Cadets have to swear allegiance to the Queen, therefore I would assume all serving military swear the same allegiance.

I have no problem with the Queen and Royal family, IMO they bring in millions of pounds of tourist money and I quite like the familiarity of seen Her Maj on my money.

My my you do sound very bitter and twisted Gremmie!

Shes worth every penny/cent! the cost to each member of the British public for the monarch is peanuts, compared to what she gives back to the country.

And on top of that the monarch provides the UK and to a lesser extent Canada protection against some power hungry dictator/extreme radical that may get voted into power..... as head of state all the armed forces and police swear alliegience to the crown, not the government.

Therefore if something like this ever did happen the monarch could in theory overide the government, this has never been put to the test and this may sound a bit alarmist, but how do you think Hitler came about in 1930s Germany? I notice the BNP, EDL in the UK are gaining popularity... quite scary really, so its nice to have some sort of contingency to prevent any exterme radical act these imbeciles may commit if they were in power.

Long live the Queen!

And you really think the old bat stops the above nothing about being bitter and twisted i just think in this modern world their is no place for such antiques

Have you met her to insult her personally? Insult the role of the Monarch if you dislike it but you weaken your argument considerably when your only reasons against a constitutional monarchy are that you consider a woman you have never met to be an old bat, a sponger, and an antique. Find some rational reasons and present the alternative and you may be taken seriously.

Those are my reasons for getting rid of the Queen/ Monarchy the whole family is a drain of tax payers money.

The military does what they are told, average citizens do not have commanding officers. How do you suppose that Liz, Chuck, Bill and Co are millions in tourist dollars to Canada?

So are those on welfare, do we get rid of those as well

So how much would a President cost? Who would fund that?

Have you considered how much money that tourist interest in the Monarchy brings in?

Do you really think that around a pound per tax payer per year is a drain??

The anti monarchists always have that same argument....a drain on tax payers money....a very weak argument, there are far bigger "drains on the tax system" than the monarch at a very expensive pound a year! like the welfare fraudulents...who have never done a days work in their life.

Its just the "oh they have more than me bitterness", not what the monarch actually does for the country, the Queen herself has commited her whole life to Britain, she has never put a foot wrong, unless you count the Diana crisis, and then she was adhereing to protocol. It was the people around the public that had changed, and given chance so did she.

In anycase what is the replacement? a president? what would that exactly do for Britain or Canada? it would also be an end of over a 1000years of an uninterupted monarch. For what?

If its not bitterness then why personally insult someone they have never met.