Defending the royals

Why Canada needs the monarchy (even if it’s these two)

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, November 13, 2009 12:40pm - 126 Comments

This is hardly accidental. It has been the deliberate policy of successive federal governments of both stripes, who have done their best to belittle and diminish the monarchy—“like the urchin,” in the journalist Peter Brimelow’s immortal phrase, “secretly urinating on some shrub in the hope that it will die.” The Queen’s recent honouring of Jean Chrétien was more than a little ironic in this regard, given that the most Chrétien ever offered in the way of a public show of allegiance was the bland observation that, well, you know, it was the system we have. In most countries loyalty to the head of state—that is, to the existing constitutional order—is the first duty of citizens. Here it is a kind of rebellion, the obsession of a radical fringe group dismissively referred to as “monarchists.”

But it is not only that. If we are honest, even we monarchists must acknowledge that there is something flawed in the institution itself. If the Queen, her heirs and successors have all but disappeared from Canadian public consciousness, it may be because they are hardly ever here. Once, when Canadians felt themselves an integral part of the British Empire, it might have been possible for the Queen to remain in her present position of absentee landlord. Not so today. We can remind people all we like that she is legally Queen of Canada, not Queen of England-thus-of-Canada, but they won’t feel it. And the more that modernizers like Charles attempt to make the monarchy more relevant, by diving into issues of everyday life in Britain, the more remote he will seem to Canadians.

The problem is not the monarchy, as such. It is its delegated status. There’s an outdated colonial relic in our constitutional firmament, but it isn’t the monarchy. It’s the Governor General. If the monarchy is to be a lived reality in Canada and not merely a constitutional principle, if it is to fulfill its traditional role as a focus of allegiance—symbol, as the poet Ted Hughes has said, of the “spiritual unity of the tribe”—it can no longer fob us off with former speech writers and mid-level CBC journalists, the stuff of recent governor general appointments. We need the real thing.

At one point, years ago, it was suggested that Prince Andrew should take it upon himself to cross the pond and start a new wing of the dynasty. It’s probably getting a little late for him. But . . . well, what about Prince Harry? We know the role that William will play, once his grandmother and father have passed on, in which service he is already being trained. But Harry is looking forward to a lifetime of feckless indulgence. Doubtless that has its charms, but if he’d like to perform some more useful role, reviving the monarchy in its largest dominion would be a good life’s work.

Imagine not just a King of Canada, but a Canadian King: living here, raising a family here, his children speaking in Canadian accents, in both official languages. Perhaps Harry will take some convincing, giving up London for Ottawa. But if he cares about the remarkable institution into which he was born, he should be prevailed upon to take one for the team.

Bookmark and Share
  • Micahel

    I 100% agree with Mr. Coyne – we need our own Monarch here to embody Canadian's hopes, dreams & values & represent us abroad. It is the GG that is a colonial relic and should be done away with when HM dies. God Save The Queen of Canada!

  • Gladaman

    PLEASE! Let's petition our government to change the succession laws to allow this to take place ASAP! Thank God someone is finally saying what I have been saying for decades to deaf hears all around this country. I tried to start a political party back in college with this as my primary goal. It was called the SAVANT party because it was the same in both official languages. I also thought it was somewhat reflective of our nation and it's unrecognized potential in the world.

    I don't understand why so many people have such an aversion to royalty. I assume it is based on a misconception that royalty is all about wealth and privilege. How is this family any different from all those families that basically run the world but are not available for public scrutiny? For heaven's sake, what percentage of the public participates in the democratic process anyway. It's the rich and powerful who benefit most from any system. The great republic to the south continues to elect leaders from the same collection of families the vast majority of the time. Many of those families have ancestors who where the younger sons of British aristocrats who wanted to keep wealth and power to themselves rather than support the empire. Many of the ancestors of those families treated their workers like serfs for decades and are sometimes called robber barons for a reason. Some, like the Kennedys where bootleggers. Wheren't the Bronfman's bootleggers too?

    I would much rather have a royal family who where right up front in the spotlight, their role constitutionally mandated. In a constitutional monarchy royals are servants of the people not robbers of the people.

  • Rob Wolvin

    Canada has become an independent nation incrementally.
    http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html

    The logical, final step to achieving complete independence is to finally have our own Head of State. The easiest way and the way most consistent with our history is for us to enact a change in the succession law for Canada. This would be much easier than changing the constitution to a republican form of government. It would also allow Canadians to take full advantage of the Constitutional Monarchy form of government we already have. Not having a unique and resident Monarch has prevented Canadians from benefiting from a focal point of national unity, a check and balance on the powers of the Prime Minister, experienced, confidential and non-partisan council for new governments, trade & diplomatic ambassadors and the pomp associated with monarchy that attracts tourists and world media to our capital.

    The children of Diana are also descended from the former French Kings of Canada. I recommend Prince Harry of Wales be crowned King Henry IV of Canada, taking into account the French kings from Francis I who founded Acadia in 1534.

  • Bob Benson

    At last a professional writer that gives an unbiased account of the critical relationship that Canada has with the Crown. Regrettably most Canadians dont have a clue about the ramifications of that severance and only look at the people involved rather than the INSTITUTION.
    Thank you to Andrew Coyne.
    Perhaps DiManno can also educate herself through your article.

  • delford t louis

    the iconoclastic luminaries of sophisticated traditions of past years but in the present generation of instant gratification and political leaderlessness the present generations will be clueless of fairy tale scripted extra human people who rule with traditions of outdated pomp and ceremony…these people will not be as highly regarded as andrew coyne reveres the royal kingdoms as opposed to republics….deep down in most minds there is no royal this and royal that…. only in the royals' minds and possibly in x box games…

From Macleans