I made a lighthearted point... now you're going all semantics on us, and it's still not really the case. An uninterrupted bloodline to me would imply a straightforward patrilineal descent, which didn't happen. Deposition, usurpation, murder, illegitimacy and tenuous claims supported by military force were rife from Henry II through the Lancastrian/Yorkist battles; Henry Tudor's claim was hardly legitimate; William of Orange launched an invasion (albeit he was invited to do so by some dissidents) to depose James II and nix the legitimate Jacobite succession; while the Act of Settlement in 1701 disallowed at a stroke several stronger claimants (including the Jacobites) in favour of the Hanoverian dynasty.

I don't disagree with your premise that the Monarchy is the least-worst option for the head of state in the UK and those Commonwealth nations that choose to keep it - but I don't think you can justify your "1000 years of an uninterrupted monarch" claim without wriggling enough to get a job as a circus contortionist.

Pretty much says it all really... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...dians-628.html

It seems the Queen has arrived in Canada. I wonder if she brought some proper bacon with her.

And baked beans and Bisto and orange squash and....................

... and the rain ...

This excerpt from the article sums up how I feel about the monarchy in Canada.

Most Canadians just don't care about the monarchy," said Freda, whose non-profit group wants Canada's head of state to be an elected governor general from Canada instead of a "non-resident monarch."

"It doesn't make sense in the 21st century for a country of Canada's stature to share its head of state with another country," Freda said in an interview.

"It's a symbol of Canada's subservience. It's a symbol of Canada's lack of ability to stand alone in the world as an independent nation."



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...#ixzz0sB08L9zE

It's more of a reminder of Canada's political and economic reality.

That "from Canada" is problematic, it rules out the incumbent and a great chunk of the population. If it was open to anymore that might work, the Queen would likely still be head of state but elected without campaigning.

Anyone who is sufficiently militant to agitate for the removal of their Head of State and then have them replaced by a democratically-elected candidate is showing a startling niavety at the chances of an "ordinary citizen" ever having the resources to get elected. Not to mention having very low ambitions as a revolutionary.


"Lizzie, Lizzie, Lizzie, Out! Out! Out!"

"Political Puppet To Lord Over Us, In! In! In!"


How very Canadian.

read up a bit.

She's obviously just waiting to get fitted to the base unit . . .

Yes I hear what your saying, and this point has been rasied many times before, and could well be true, however these claims have never been proved, DNA testing wasnt a big thing back then!

...and Im Im sure even if there was proof it would be kept a closely guarded secret in the vaults of British intelligence, so without proof it will only ever be speculation.

So Long live the Queen and her heirs!

Just so you know, the Federal Court thinks it's OK. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/...anlii3453.html

Are there any published figures for the cost of the Queens visit to Canada?

I see the Popes visit is going to cost the UK taxpayer 14m GBP, excluding police costs.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100705...t-6323e80.html

cornmatthew - have you been reading a different document? Most of the appellant's claims were thrown out, and he was given 30 days leave to resubmit more particular claims. As was pointed out, he is (or was not at the time of his action) a citizen, and thus had no charter rights!