Sorry Liz -

Sorry Liz

Why the Queen won’t be setting foot in Quebec on her whirlwind tour of the colony


Sad news for Royal watchers and scone producers alike: the Queen ain’t setting foot in Quebec in her whirlwind tour of the colony. Pity that, this being the oldest continuously monarchical territory in North America.

A Canadian Heritage spokesthingy told La Presse that Her Majesty’s wee skip over Quebec has nothing to do with the brou-hahahahaha that erupted when Prince Charles visited last time. (Charlie, you’ll remember, was forced to use a service entrance at the Black Watch regimental hall when confronted by a roving band of angry séparatistes. Egads!) I’m positive this is true. As a good royal subject, I always take Canadian Heritage at its word.

Nor does it doesn’t have anything to do with what happened when Liz set foot in Quebec way back in 1964, I’m sure. Perish the thought.

Filed under:

Sorry Liz

  1. How fortunate the Province of Québec is to not have to see that wretched useless bit of evil…

    She is directly responsible and guilty of crimes against humanity, on her own ''subjects'' no less… She has had the final say and is ultimately responsible for the expulsion and subsequent grave suffering of the Chagossian people (see order-in-council)…

    With such profound disrespect for her own ''subjects'', we ought not waste a single penny or a single minute of our time to honour evil of the sort.

    • What a ridiculous comment. The Queen isn't even responsible for being born into a job over which she had little say. At least most of us get to choose our career. She's a constitutional monarch – which means she makes no political decisions but is forced to virtually rubber-stamp whatever policy the elected idiots present to her. Just the same as in Canada – the Governor General likewise makes no political decisions. Put your blame where it belongs.

      • Are you kidding?

        When politicians go above the political and legal spheres and come to her for her approval of Laws or Policy, she most definitively has the right to deny. In fact, she is duty-bound to stand up for, and protect her loyal subjects from crimes against humanity. Concerning the Chagossian people, she chose to turn a blind eye. She dragged her own name and title in the mud.

    • She is directly responsible and guilty of crimes against humanity, on her own ''subjects'' no less… She has had the final say and is ultimately responsible for the expulsion and subsequent grave suffering of the Chagossian people (see order-in-council).

      WTF? You're accusing the Queen of "crimes against humanity" because of a ruling made in 2006 by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords? You're obviously confused about something.

      • It amazes me that in a day and age where essentially all the world's knowledge is online, that people continue to have such bizarre ideas about things. Seems to me that we now have more conspiracy theories and wacko beliefs than ever before.

      • Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the WHOLE process.

        Aye, you can single out the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords if you wish but, when it came to Elizabeth, she turned her back on her own loyal subjects. To dismiss this, partly or entirely, is to ignore the WHOLE process.

        • Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the role of the Queen.

          She had nothing to do with it. She is a figurehead, nothing more.

          • A useless figurehead she mostly is… However, when it comes to an order-in-council, it is the one instance where this ''figurehead'' line gets blurred. There has indeed been times were such orders have been refused. The case of the Chagossian people is one such case where she ignored her ''loyal'' subjects and, consequently, undertook responsibility for the crimes against humanity committed under her name.

            Earlier, Richard Westgae made a reference to the Governor General…Though it is not the same thing (or remotely close to having the same impact), Jean has faced situations where her decision was the end all. A couple years ago, during the infamous ''coalition'' crisis, she was faced with a request for prorogation… It was her decision, one that could have gone either way, she had options. At no time was she forced into the decision she made. It would simply be wrong to say that ''she had nothing to do with it''.

            A true and complete figurehead would have no such powers. That a Prime Minister could go above a Parliament and ''force'' a monarch to make an order-in-council (without any sort of consideration on the part of that monarch) would drastically change the role and powers of a Prime Minister.

          • This is nonsense. The queen takes no part in running the govt. She is not even present during cabinet meetings when orders-in-council are made.

            Apparently you've missed the last few centuries.

          • Just for clarification, I'm not sure the Chagossian people were ever her Majesty's subjects. They resided on land under her control, for certain, but that alone does not make them her subjects (and, of course, their categorization as "loyal" subjects is another question all together).

          • They are indeed her subjects, British as Finchley they are!

            As for their categorization as ''loyal subjects''… They certainly weren't disloyal (though, in retrospect, perhaps they ought to have gone down the disloyal road). It was the monarch who showed disloyalty (preferring politicians and foreign interests over the entire Chagossian people).

          • Sorry, I meant that I'm not sure that they were her subjects when they were evicted. They are NOW, but I believe their British citizenship came many years AFTER their eviction from the island, sometime this century I believe (2002 if Wikipedia is to be believed).

            Also, keep in mind that I by no means meant to imply that they were "disloyal", simply that the character of their loyalty would be a separate discussion from that of their status as "subjects".

    • Well said, the royal time is way past. Tax the bastards

    • Without the Queen, where would that weasel De Gaulle have waited out the war?

      • Uh, not that De Gaulle has anything to do with monarchy in Canada or, that the (then) Princess had anything to do with de Gaulle but…

        You appear to know very little concerning WWII, France/Free France and, de Gaulle's involvement during wartime!!!

        For example, in 1940, he was commanding troops and had some success, albeit virtually alone. Or, he was appointed to work with London by his Prime Minister and, subsequently participated in war coordination including geopolitical aspects. In short, Charles de Gaulle was hardly a tourist during those days (and certainly didn't stand/stay in one place very long). Concerning Hitler and his quest, he was quite hawkish right from the start… Unlike, say, hmmm… The UK!

  2. Quebec has dealt itself out of the federal govt in favour of yet another bun-fight within their own ranks. To each his own.

  3. It frustrates me to no end that so many Quebeckers are seemingly still upset that Napoleon lost. I for one am glad we put the little SOB in his place.

    I do sometimes wonder though if the King wasn't perhaps a bit too generous in his dealings with the French who chose to remain behind afterward. They certainly never seem the least bit grateful that the monarchy kept their entire way of life alive, and entrenched their rights in law. Perhaps Quebeckers feel they'd have been better off as a distinct society if we'd sold Quebec to the Americans like the French sold Louisiana.

    • Who's this ''we'' you speak of? Obviously, it is used in a self-inclusive way (as in you are part of that ''we'')…

      Such a petty exercise of self-aggrandizement!

      But if you do indeed want to be included in that lot, do you accept all of its actions, or just the wins?

      • Just the wins.

        • Including the epic and gritty Falklands War? (or especially the epic and gritty Falkland Wars!)

          • I do feel kinda silly calling it a "war", but it was certainly a "win".

          • Hell ya it was a win! They – I mean, you – showed those Argentinean whose land (situated in southern South America, 300 miles from the Argentinian coast, some 8000+ miles from London, England, in Europe) that is!

            I note that DPT may have fought the fight but, Andrew Windsor, that one was valiant!!! Between his heroism out there and, having endured Fergie for as long as he could, you can't find truer British inspiration!

            post-scriptum: Well, you can, if only Robert Green can get over the heartache that most Canadian lingerie models can cause.

          • Are you suggesting that geographical proximity is more important than a) the fact that the Falklands were never populated by Argentines and b) the Falklands overwhelmingly do not wish to be Argentinian.

            If that's the case, can we just seize St. Pierre & Miquelon?

          • Oh, you must be referring to the parentheses! I believe you got carried away there, I was simply pointing out the geographical location of this itty bitty island in relations to the two belligerents fighting over it (and have been for about 200 years).

          • I wasn't sure if you were trying to imply that the Falklands should belong to Argentina or if you were crowing over the military victory at such a distance (I'm a fan of the second.)

      • I agree with him, so that makes us a we.

    • Too bad everyone is a little off on their history. The transfer of New France to Great Britain was completed in 1763, long before Napoleon became an annoyance.

      • My point was more that the Napoleonic wars were the last time the French in North America had any (faint) reason to hope that they might one day again become the dominant force on the continent again, (well, OK, that, and Napoleon's name seemed more powerful for my point than Louis XV's) but point taken.

        My bit about the King protecting Quebec's culture and system of laws was indeed, as you suggest, in reference to the Treaty of Paris (1763) and not the Treaty of Paris (1815).

        You're right… I shouldn't have brought Bonaparte into it at all, lol.

    • Yes the King was "too generous" and Canada would be better off if Quebec had been assimilated like Louisiana.


      • Well of course I was being facetious, as I thought was clear from my stating "I do sometimes wonder if…" rather than "I think that…". I also think that the last sentence of my comment should make it reasonably clear that I do NOT think that Quebec (nor Canada) would be "better off if Quebec had been assimilated like Louisiana". My whole point is the exact OPPOSITE of that.

        I might be upset that you called me an idiot, except that you seem to have missed the fact that we're making the exact same point. Such is the difficulty of subtlety on the internet.

  4. Have the decency to refer to our Sovereign as "Queen Elizabeth", Patriquin, not "Liz".

    • Hear, hear.

    • Now, now. The Queen came through our little town in 1956. As the open car came by a little old
      lady on the sidewalk blurted out "Queen Lizzie! Queen Lizzie!" … the monarch noticed and gave
      her the plastic smile and royal wave. A good time was had by all.

      • I hope to be corrected, but somehow I don't believe Patriquin was really using "Liz" affectionately.

        It's one thing to be informal in an expression of love and fidelity, and quite another when it's snark.

          • In Quebec these days, even impassioned federalists and "good royal subjects" greet Her Majesty with snark. Is it any wonder that "Liz" gave la belle province a "wee skip"?

          • That was what really threw me about this post.

            It would seem that Quebeckers are upset that the Queen has chosen not to visit them, as she has thus deprived them of the opportunity to be upset that she would dare to visit them.

          • Very good point.

          • Nah. Official Quebeckers busy telling everyone else how they should think are upset, etc, etc.

          • Yeah, what's she done to deserve better than the routine snark flung at third-rate bloggers and half-wit politicians? Aside from serving in the Second World War and being a dignified stateswoman for more than half a century, that is. Aside from that, nothin'.

          • I believe the third-rate and half-wit adjectives are uncalled for. While accurate, they are also redundant.

          • Please, Dan. You flatter me. I'm fourth-rate at best.

          • Actually, I thought he was referring to the snark that you Macleans folks throw at us. I think we commenters are the "third rate bloggers" he's referring to, and he's suggesting that perhaps you should treat our Head of State with a little more respect than you treat us.

            I can't say I disagree.

          • My apologies, Martin. Only now did I realize that I mentioning "third-rate bloggers" on someone's blog invites the conclusion that the blogger at hand is third-rate. Nor did I mean the commenters here, who are actually quite civil compared to most. I simply meant the Queen deserves better than the snark that is standard fare in the blogosphere generally.

          • For the record, I'm a third-rate blogger. Heck, I don't even blog anymore. Too busy posting over here!!!

            Even if I were a first-rate blogger though, I'd still think the Queen deserves more respect than me.

  5. I can't imagine why she would want to skip over that boil on the butt of North America.

  6. To be accurate, your sentence would have to read, "Quebec is the oldest continuously monarchical territory not named Newfoundland".

    • Not that I trust Wikipedia in all things, but, Wikipedia says that Cartier claimed Quebec for King Francis I in 1534, and that Roberval became the first Lieutenant General of New France in 1541, whereas Newfoundland was claimed for Queen Elizabeth I by Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1583. This would seem to indicate that Quebec has Newfoundland beat by almost 50 years.

      • Gilbert indeed may have claimed Newfoundland for Elizabeth I in 1583, but the territory was already subject to the letters patent given under Henry VII to John Cabot in 1496 (who subsequently found the place in 1497).

        We could quibble about the definition of "monarchical territory" above. But England's admiralty laws were in full effect in and around St. John's long before Cartier even boarded a vessel. Neither Roberval nor Cartier would likely disagree, seeing as they met in St. John's harbour in 1541.

        • Huh.

          Well, would you look at us. All this teaching and learning.


        • Hats off to Mark for a very impressive short history lesson.

  7. Didn't Mr. Duceppe just send out a letter suggesting to countries around the world that they prepare to recognize Quebec as a sovereign nation and that recent polls suggested that Quebeckers were ready to leave? If that's the case, I can't imagine too many noses being out of joint at the thought of Her Majesty passing on a visit to La Belle Province.

  8. this is all so childish , he said she said bla bla bla

    its nice to see the vestiges of the British Empire trying valiantly to defend Canada's foreign monarch, yawn

    she's not coming to Quebec…double yawn