ELIZABETH, CHARLES … vs nobody
Monday, September 26, 2022
I’ve felt inundated, as most of us have, about monarchy lately – about pomp and circumstance and the legacy of Queen Elizabeth II, queen of England, Queen of Canada, and many other countries still part of the Commonwealth.
She’s the only monarch I’ve known in my lifetime, a head of state in name and in law – in many ways, an archaic construct that underpins democratic government in the UK and Canada.
After that ‘funeral day,’ that media inundation ceased – thankfully – and then some calmer reflection got busy in my brain …
Each Commonwealth country – and in Canada too, our nation and provinces have a head of state representative of the monarchy. That delegated/appointed representative signs off to proclaim legislation, orders in council and other formalities of a democratic government doing its business.
I’m no scholar, but I know enough to appreciate how ingrained this tradition is woven into so many elements of our society in Canada, as it would also be in the countries where the Queen (now King Charles III) is the head of state. But, as we saw the swift change from Queen to King, from Court of Queen’s Bench to Court of King’s Bench, we will see similar changes in laws and regulations on the books, faces on money and stamps, legal descriptions of property that speak to property ownership and rights, but subject to her (now his) Majesty, in right of Alberta.
The monarchy is a huge part of our history – and the charter granting rights to a Company of Adventurers trading into Hudson’s Bay (now HBC – Hudson’s Bay Company) by Charles II on May 2, 1670 – and throughout our history, our independence, our new constitution and transference of authority from Britain to Canada, we are, whether we like it or not, subjects of a monarchy.
I won’t delve into ‘what would have to happen’ if our country chose to disconnect from Britain (our neighbours to the south did in 1776) in favour of being a republic because there are twists, legalese, consequences and problems for which solutions have yet to be proposed ….
But what if?
What if we disconnected from, disavowed and discarded our connection with Britain?
Would that be so bad?
Would it be good?
Whatever your view on what should happen in the future, whether or not you like the monarchy, you have to love Queen Elizabeth II – her charm, dignity, history, wisdom and ability to be influential without voicing any partisan opinion. Who among us has that skill set, that temperament, and that ability to silence our angst and rage over issues we have strong feelings about.
Queen Elizabeth II set a standard few in the past have come close to, and I doubt we will see anyone soon who rises to that level of international stature, respect and reverence.
My view is that a ‘non-monarchist’ government in Canada, a non-monarchist democracy, is not a property-rights and independence decision, but one of ‘staying connected’ or not.
When I attended first grade, on the first day, I saw two framed colour photos – portraits of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip above the blackboards at the front of the class.
That day began with a ritual singing in the classroom of God Save The Queen. This was repeated every morning in nearly every classroom in the country. That practice of singing ‘the Queen’ has been long discontinued, so I wonder what first informs children about monarchy these days?
I never learned about the monarchy at home as a pre-schooler – at a time of colonial largess, long before Commonwealth replaced British Empire. History ticked along as countries and governments transitioned.
Today, a wealthy British family with a dodgy history of over 1,000 years still retains a position of cultural and historical influence in the UK – with fervent admirers and anti-monarchist detractors worldwide. Still, who would turn down an invitation to meet a Queen? Or now, to meet a King?
In the early days of Charles’s marriage to Diana, they visited Edmonton – and at a Northlands function during Klondike Days festivities, with sluice-juice accompanying breakfast at the racetrack; we were all decked out in ‘Klondike era garb’ in keeping with Edmonton’s summer exposition theme in those days. I was fifteen feet from them while they hand-shook their way through a dignitaries’ reception line.
Before then, and since, I’ve never felt close to the monarchy or been a philosophical fan of the archaic notion from a time of feudal lords, high priests, kings and queens who ruled many countries in times we now view as comic relief to some degree, as we recognize the sheep-like following of populations behind a revered shepherd of our collective future …
The fairy tales come true for few, the recognition of its importance in a country’s culture and the rules of society prove to us – as we’ve seen in the outpouring of praise, pause, reflection and admiration of a Queen whose reign is done. A mourning period, a media-frenzy-fueled simultaneous coverage of hundreds of hours, a funeral, a burial, and an end. THE END.
The new king, King Charles III, became the monarch upon his mother’s death without a vote cast, without a law passed – it was automatic, as it will be again one day when his crown will pass immediately upon his death to the next in line to succeed him.
I expect that will continue in the UK, and the monarchy’s continuation, or not, will follow the collective will of UK citizens who wish to keep or reject its role. Many other European countries had monarchies and ended them, and the families and their descendants still sport hereditary titles. Their influence today is negligible.
So here is the question for Canadians – do we want to continue as a constitutional monarchy with a formal yet powerless head of state, or do we wish to evolve into a government in Canada by Canadians without the UK/monarchy/head of state?
The answer, of course, begs many questions – like, if not the crown, who? Would a Prime Minister or President be equivalent to a king or queen, would there be anyone or any formal body of government (i.e., a Supreme Court) to provide oversight, guidance or control over that elected head of state? Most countries that call themselves free are republics – do not have a ceremonial head of state.
They do not avoid turmoil or controversy, but it’s their turmoil, their controversy – their country.
I regard and respect history and the monarchy in the UK. But, I think it is time for Canada to transition to true independence. We can do this without cutting ties to any alliances. We can do this holding our heads high. Some of us are from the UK or descendants of others – those who were here first and those who came later from every corner of the world to call this country home, our True North, Strong and Free.
I wonder if we have the constitution for it?
Sorry – I had to lighten the mood with some wordplay. And we need to take a matter seriously without taking ourselves too seriously.
We have often, in our history, twisted around and debated/protested and agonized over things that seemed less important than the headline-du jour, but to good effect. These are Canadian things – they have nothing to do with the UK, and we can and ought to be very proud of them:
- Despite differences on many fronts, our confederation has stayed together
- We have a national railway, a trans-Canada highway, a flag, an identity, the toque, the canoe, the Grey Cup, maple syrup, Medicare, truth and reconciliation, resources,
- We have a history of immigration and welcoming immigrants and refugees, a place to work and live in freedom and safety
- We have a history of helping others, fighting to defend freedom in wars overseas and keeping the peace with our troops acting as blue-hatted UN Peacekeepers