Lamest. Protest. Evar.

OTTAWA (CP) - Questions are being raised about the Governor General - not Adrienne Clarkson's spendthrift ways or Michaelle Jean's separatist sentiments, but whether Canadians should continue to put up with an appointed head of state.

When Jean becomes the 27th Governor General in a pomp-filled ceremony Tuesday on Parliament Hill, a small knot of demonstrators plan show up calling for an end to what they see as an undemocratic vestige of the colonial past....

"If you're looking at why the issue isn't getting the attention it deserves, look at the Prime Minister's Office, that's the problem right there," says Tom Freda with Citizens for a Canadian Republic.

Freda hopes to muster about two dozen protesters whose message will be that Jean is part of a monarchistic system that a mature country should have outgrown.

Freda's attempt to get Canadians talking about choosing the head of state democratically includes a not-so-subtle reminder about who will take over from Betty Windsor.

"If something were to - heaven forbid - happen to the Queen today and Canadians woke up tomorrow, we would have King Charles III as head of state, whether Canadians like it or not."

This November Charles will be 57 years old. Assuming he lives to about 75 or so, there's only about 20 more years of King Charles III. Hell, I've been alive for 24 and just barely noticed that the Queen is our head of state. If anything, Charles will be even more of a non-entity.

Constitutional lawyer and adviser Ted McWhinney, a former Liberal MP, said an "antique, outdated system," that gives a prime minister exclusive power to appoint a head of state and commander of the armed forces is potentially dangerous.

"The powers (of the Governor General) are enormous and what would be unhealthy would be if you had an egomaniac in the job or someone with delusions of grandeur who ran amok," McWhinney said.

Oh yes. I'm sure this is the most likely of scenarios. Because there's absolutely nothing we could do if Michaelle Jean suddenly declared war on the Dominican Republic. Like, say, replace the Governor General. Of course, I'm sure the Queen wouldn't be able to pick up the phone to remove one of her officers at the request of an elected Prime Minister. Because you know how hard it can be to catch those tricky Windsors!

I've had this kind of argument one way or another for something like ten years now. I have to ask, honestly, any Canadian republicans out there: What angers you so? No British troops are killing Canadians on the streets of Montreal, Toronto, or anywhere else. The Queen has exactly zero say in Canadian politics, nor does the High Commissioner, nor for that matter does the Governor General, 99% of the time.

For this, you want to change all our money?

I don't oppose some ideas, like making the GG a Parliament-approved position, or something like that. But getting rid of the monarchy all together? Maybe - maybe - when the Brits do it first. Screw Charles III, I want to see what kind of a King William V would be! Billy IV was the last King to appoint a Prime Minister in defiance of Parliament... for now...