Today’s the day!
Charles III, the former Prince Charles, finally got the job he could have had in 2001 if the British monarchy had the same mandatory retirement age as the Canadian Senate, which, arguably, would have made sense.
I mean, you really shouldn’t have to wait till you’re 74 years old to have your first day on a job you’ve been apprenticing for since you were in short pants!
Actually, that’s not quite right. King Charles already had the job. He qualified the moment his mom passed on. Today just makes it official, at a cost of £100 million or so.
It would appear, though, that the idea of having a British Monarch (possibly soon just an English monarch) as the King or Queen of Canada is nowadays greeted with a distinct lack of enthusiasm north of the 49th Parallel.
There appears to have been some fondness for the late Queen Elizabeth around here. For her son, not so much.
Maybe it’s just because he seems to be kind of an awkward, diffident guy, with big ears. Whatever, a recent Angus Reid Institute poll indicated 60 per cent of us Canadians thought we should do away with the monarchy altogether. Almost as many, close to half anyway, don’t particularly like the guy, and, what’s more, we don’t like his wife either.
Yes, the mood of Canada just now is definitely republican. The mood of politically Conservative Canada, nowadays, is Republican, which is something different and considerably worse, and peculiar given this history of political Conservatism in Canada.
Be that as it may, I am here to tell you that Canada needs to keep King Charles.
Here’s why: As that hero of neoliberals and other bad people, Margaret Thatcher, famously used to say about a number of ideas considerably worse than a constitutional monarchy, There Is No Alternative.
This will be self-evident if you are a genuinely patriotic Canadian – not that there’s anything intrinsically Canadian about the British Monarchy at this point in our history – and not one of those 1776 convoy fakers.
I know, I know, we could have a president as head of state. We could even elect a president and be democratic about it too.
But here’s the thing: It’s not that the optics of being subjects of a foreign monarch from a royal line that has plenty to answer for are so fabulous. It’s that when you hunker down and think about the theoretical alternatives, they’re all likely to be worse upon application.
I am in favour of keeping Canada a constitutional monarchy because, notwithstanding the sins of less-than-constitutional monarchs of the past, it is absolutely the best solution to the key constitutional problem caused by the Westminster Parliamentary system – which we are locked into for the foreseeable future by our Constitution.
That is to say, it answers the question of how to resolve a minority standoff in the House of Commons or a provincial legislature.
Were it available to us, the U.S. separation-of-powers system would leave us in the same fix as the United States, government by a sclerotic institution incapable of making a decision or instituting a reform.
That idea appeals to extreme reactionaries on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border because they understand it makes positive change difficult. That is why Preston Manning dreamed for years of a U.S.-style elected Senate to hobble the occasionally reformist instincts of the House of Commons.
It is why the United States Government is barely able to keep an agreement abroad or solve a problem at home, no matter how serious. Anyway, as noted, it’s not available to us without major constitutional reform, improbable at best and quite likely to be a disaster if attempted.
Weirdly, as a result of TINA, it’s even possible to imagine we’ll feel the need to remain a constitutional monarchy with a British monarch after what’s left of the Disunited Kingdom has become a republic, which would be considerably easier to do in a unitary state like England than a federation like Canada.
Regardless, someone is bound to say that if we have to stick with the Westminster system or something similar (not a barrier to electoral reform, by the way) we could elect a president to do the monarch’s job of resolving deadlocks after a Parliamentary election.
But an elected president would make resolving deadlocks inherently partisan and untrustworthy – which, we can assume, is why the French take to the streets every 55 years or so and smash nearly everything in sight! As a matter of fact, they seem to be doing that right now.
Alternatively, as some Canadians suggest in their sillier moments, perhaps we should have a home-grown monarchy of our own.
But who?
Our historical ties to Britain solve what would otherwise be a terrible political ordeal of its own, after which we would have an inevitably less disinterested tie-breaker.
Indeed, there is something to be said for a monarch so far away that he (or she) doesn’t really have enough of a stake in the place to get the Royal Knickers in a twist over a local issue, but near enough in this global village that he (or she) can have a little influence over our local vice-regal personages.
Nor should we forget that the land on which we live here in Alberta is Treaty Land, and that the treaties were signed between First Nations and the British Crown.
As for the currently unpopular Charles, there’s evidence that the guy is more simpatico with the fundamental beliefs of most Canadians. He’s definitely greener than your average monarch, and he’s unlikely to get all that worked up about drag queens – indeed, he’s a member of the Most Noble Order of the Garter! And no one should be punished for the size of their ears.
So maybe he’ll grow on us.
In addition, it is hardly necessary to say, Canada’s ties to the Crown are a powerful symbolic separation from our overbearing next-door neighbour that basically cannot be replaced.
Those ubiquitous crowns on nearly everything Canadian are no bad thing.
A Canadian Republic? It would be subsumed quickly in the crumbling, chaotic, dystopic, culturally imperialist train-wreck next door.
We don’t have to love this king. But if we want to keep our country, we probably need to keep him around.
So, as tepid as this may sound, Two cheers for King Charles! Long may he reign!
I could be o.k. with a constituional monarchy, but only if we can pretend the Queen is still on the throne. Its delusional but then so is all this monarchy crap. Charlie has always been a bit of a looser, not that he can help it. He’s a product of his time, his father’s insistence he go to that awful boarding school. He truly hasn’t ever held a “real” job. Couldn’t even make it in a marriage with a young gorgeous wife.
This too will pass and we’ll be on to the next King or Queen.
Having a system of government which is a Constituional monarchy is a tad better than the system the Ameericans have, they got trump out of it and a supreme court which seems to be ethically challenged.
At his age he won’t be there that long,
E.A.F.: Charles’s marriage is another story suitable for further analysis. Who broke up with whom is lost to my memory, but it was a break with the usual sordid pattern to split with the beautiful young first wife and take up with the rather plain old flame for whom he’d always carried a torch. And they do look happy, now, the pair of them. I though while reading about the Angus Reid survey that Canadians may not like Camilla because they liked Diana, which seems a bit unfair when we’re not really privy to the Windsors’ domestic situation. DJC
Keep King Charles ?? I’ve never really thought that we had a king or queen. I mean yes we have all those pictures of the queen on our money but it seemed too distant to be high up on my “things to consider for change list”. Kind of like something your grandmother gave you that hangs around from move to move but is too innocuous get really worked up about.
To your point on our dystopian neighbour – finally a genuine reason to do nothing!
After what we’ve seen of Republicans running the province of Alberta these past four years, no thanks! I want no part of the shameful American way of resolving disputes: arm every citizen with an assault rifle, then charge the ones who survive the daily mass shootings for their stay in a hospital. Killings and commerce, business as usual. Danielle Smith might see herself as the once and only president of a sovereign Alberta, but fortunately many of us in this province want no part of this megalomania. So Charles it is, saving us from the squawking flock of Manning-ites. Call it pragmatism.
Agreed, David. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” may not be the best or most inspiring vision for a political system, but I have yet to hear a good reason to change the Westminster system. And let’s not forget, the land on which we live in Alberta is Treaty Land agreed by treaty between First Nations and the Crown.
Friend: A very good point. I have added it to the piece, in pretty much the same words. DJC
Wow. Almost choked on my kippers. I agree that while some former monarchies have chosen the path of President and Prime Minister, not all have succeeded in protecting their democratic roots. Could we look to Norway or the Netherlands as examples and just skip France for now? A pox on perfidious Albion!
Pass: This may be an idea with merit, although the infrastructure costs would probably be higher than just sticking with King Charles. The Dutch Royal Family looks severely normal and, as I said to a friend recently, would fit right in here in St. Albert. The King’s face belongs on a real estate sign, don’t you think? As for the Norwegian Royal Family, I like the flower garlands, but it’s a pity the men aren’t allowed to wear them too. DJC
It is ironic how the US, which at one time was at the forefront of political evolution, has become so sclerotic in recent times. For instance, revisiting litigation on social issues that in the 1990’s we thought were resolved twenty years earlier. Not that they have made much progress in that time in dealing with a over prevalence of dangerous weapons or improving health care either.
Perhaps at some point the dam will break and the US will suddenly move forward, but their current political system seems to now lead itself to entrenching the status quo at best. So it is ironic that an institution around a thousand years old now seems more capable of adapting and changing with the times than a supposed great democracy founded in revolution. However, that clearly is where we are now.
Being King is not so much about popularity, although you need some level of begrudging respect to continue. British monarchs have varied in popularity over the centuries, most not being as popular as the late Queen, but the institution has carried on, adapted and changed when necessary. Canada is not a fundamentally republican country and the not stellar example to our south is one big reason why we will likely remain as is. At this point it is clear the alternative does not seem better.
Spot on, old chap!!
It is my fervent dream (and I hope it is not too much to ask) the United States will formally dissolve its constitution (you know the one where a bunch of slave owners proclaimed all men are created equal) and the former colonies (now numbering 50) will once again pledge allegiance to the crown like they did before the tax revolt of 1776. So yeah, Two cheers for King Charles!
Ask Harry if he would be interested. After all, there is ample precedent for cadet branches of royal families getting “promoted”.
More seriously, a constitutional monarchy is probably the best defense against the debacle we saw in Trump.
Gerald: Does he still own that house in Kitsilano? I wonder if it could be upgraded to Kitsilano Castle? DJC
David: if I remember correctly, it was rented. There is Craigdarroch Castle (in Victoria) though. Or perhaps The Citadel in Quebec City.
Thank you David. Enlightening commentary to say the least.
Even your humour was toned to a respectful level this morning. I always look forward to your take on current events and today you shifted one of my hardline opinions. Thanks again for your thoughtful columns.
Thank you, Errol Lee. Much appreciated. My tone was probably more respectful because Charles, think of him what you will, is the head of the Canadian state. Ms. Smith and Mr. Trudeau, by contrast, are merely heads of government. This actually leads to another argument for constitutional monarchy, to wit, that having a president who is both head of state and head of government, as in the United States, encourages the disrespect for politicians that is the right of every citizen of a democracy to be transferred to the head of state, and thence to the state itself. Republican disrespect for the state, as opposed to the nation, is part of the reason for the decline of the United States that we are witnessing today. DJC
Another insightful take on this auspicious day in history. Again thank you.
Hello. I just blogged something similar myself. Its at https://adultsincharge.blog/2023/05/04/coronation/
Been hearing about abolishing the monarchy in Canada for a long time. When the discussion gets to what to replace it with, it peters out. Maybe Charlie should just resign as King of Canada. It would focus some people’s minds about the core problems with our government.
Did you mean to say “reign,” or “resign”? Either sort of works, depending on the point you’re making. DJC
Well said, David. Just because an institution has its roots in the distant past doesn’t mean that it doesn’t fulfill its functions as well as, or better, than any modern alternative. Chesterton said something once about a consideration of tradition is an admission that your ancestors’ opinions might be worth taking into account.
And distinguishing ourselves from the US is never a bad idea. The Crown has served us as a bulwark against American expansionism since 1776. As I once said to an American who wondered why we just didn’t join the Union, we’ve found it easier and more dignified to tug our forelocks occasionally in the direction of the Court of S. James than it would be to butter our bums and grab our ankles for Washington.
Lars! My goodness! DJC
Wasn’t it Mordecai Richler, who, after some political/economic brouhaha between us and the Yanks, uttered “Once again the Beaver gets bum——ed by the Bald Eagle”. DF
Made.my.afternoon. Well said!
Lars: regarding your last sentence about ankle grabbing. You may not have deep experience of living in rural Alberta. Except for a brief period under Premier Lougheed, bend over and take it has been the mode here vis a vie the US oil sector since the 1920s. If you are a farmer or rancher, the Alberta Legislature pulls your pants down in advance. The police and courts grab your neck and tell you to assume the position. They do it in the name of the Crown. Still, it is better than being forced to drink and eat the stuff like our First Nations’ peoples often are.
Kang – I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the field in SE Alta, and I know what you’re talking about.
But at least we haven’t had to put up with what just about every other country in the New World (with the exceptions of former British colonies) has had to endure. As a prominent Mexican once said, “Poor Mexico – so far from God and so close to the United States”.
Admittedly, if Danielle Smith is still Premier on June 1, this could change.
Lars: Porfirio Díaz. DJC
Thanks Lars: I agree with you, but as the Norwegians are wont to say: things are never so bad they cannot get worse.” So, a tepid two cheers for King Charles, who is a pretty nice guy who doesn’t have a lot to say.**
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/07/police-right-to-arrest-coronation-protesters-as-uk-on-global-stage-says-minister
** https://youtu.be/Mh1hKt5kQ_4
Hi DJC,
Well, exactly. Can you imagine D Smith or Poilievre being the deciding factor? Good gracious! Besides, Charles III has had some incredibly beneficial ideas about being more environmentally conscious, including ones once thought outlandish and now accepted as most appropriate. Besides, he dislikes many of the current ugly trends in architecture, although hewing a little to the traditional. Long live king Charles!
In our Westminster system voters sometimes elect a “hung parliament” so the office of head of state must discern which party will govern. Further, each bill passed into law must get “Royal Assent” whereby the head of state confirms it has been arrived at properly by a popularly elected parliament. Otherwise the office does not concern itself with the substance of the law nor the partisan position of the party it ultimately recognizes as government: it simply makes good the Sovereign’s guarantee that Canadians have a government which can act (properly) at all times.
If government can’t act—say, if the governing party “loses confidence” when it fails to pass a money bill — the head of state, as per guarantee, either recognizes another group of parliamentarians which convinces chim of its commitment to pass bills or, failing that, dissolves the parliament and refers the matter to the electorate. The Constitution enshrines His Royal Highness as occupant of this office: King Charles III of Canada who automatically assumed it the instant his mother the Queen drew her last breath.
Talk of abolishing the monarchy is trite, and pressing the holder of such a facile notion usually produces a hackneyed defence because, as is all too often true, citizens are woefully ignorant of how their governments work. 60% of Canadians polled disapprove of King Charles as our head of state, but the slightest scratching of that superficial opinion usually reveals that they don’t know what they’re talking about. The subject often doesn’t admit ignorance or try to learn better but, rather, often doubles down on cher faulty position.
The usual rationale for indifference, if not outright opposition to the King is that he doesn’t seem relevant to the subject’s day-to-day concerns—but that opinion is also a product of ignorance: obviously, if government and laws are relevant to one’s daily life, then the King, guarantor and invigilator, must of course be relevant. But in the words of Kurt Cobain, “Here we are now, entertain us!”
Yet the fact that one doesn’t often have occasion to consider the King (coronation definitely an exception—and the only reason we’re talking about him today) only confirms him as impartial, nonpartisan and political only to the extent that guaranteeing we have capable government is the only policy he must get done. That’s what we want, even if most of us don’t know it.
I’m relieved that most people are merely poorly-informed, but I rather suspect those who double down on arguments against our head of state have ulterior motive—something like the MAGA yahoos who want to foment a civil war so they can win it and take over. I shudder to think of what alternative to the Canadian office today’s increasingly polarized society would come up with, or how. Anyway, it would be impossible for an elected head of state to invigilate the constitutional operation of our eleven sovereign governments impartially. The rejoinder might be: well, no problem, we’ll just replace the Westminster parliament with one where governments cannot be toppled for losing confidence—easy-peasy! But that would surely require getting rid of the whole Constitution, too, since it’s virtually impossible to amend it in order to create an elected head of state. And so on until, at the other end of this unzipped zipper we get to civil war to decide the matter, the thing democracy is supposed to avoid. Justifying one falsehood with another and another and another seldom returns to the main road.
Enough, already, with the complaint that the King’s office is “undemocratic” because he’s not elected. Our head of state holds a unique office which must be non-elected precisely in order to preserve democracy. Oppose this arrangement at risk of appearing subversive—and, remind, that would be subverting the country which is the envy of the world. As Jean Chrétien said yesterday at the Liberal love-fest: “Vive Canada!” We may’s well add: GSTK!
I reckon many dyed-in-the-bush monarchists also hold similarly irrelevant and/or bent views about the King. They celebrate tradition, but the actual function of the office is current. Neither do its trappings or habits have anything to do with whatever salacious celebrity or notoriety or infamy the “Royal Family” gets itself into. We don’t even need to be concerned with whomever will succeed Charles, much less whatever his family is up to: they have nothing to do with governing Canada.
The King is not a “foreigner” (he is Canadian in his official capacity here). The office is not a rubber stamp: in the cases of hung parliaments (which, remind, may arise by floor-crossings, not necessarily by election result) and loss of confidence, the head of state must be abreast of political circumstances at any given time in order to discern the commitment of parliamentarians to pass bills in a timely fashion (cƒ the King-Byng crisis in 1926, British Columbia in 1952 and 2017—and maybe even Alberta in 2023: examples of the kinds of impasses the Sovereign occasionally encounters which require educated, current discernment). We avail the rules of Royal succession (wherein there is never an instant when the throne is vacant) instead of elections to appoint out head of state. How could Canada appoint an alternative family which is bound by the legitimacy of wedlock and has an extant line of succession? Heck, even the first scion of one of Canada’s most revered prime ministers don’t get no respect.
In practice, the King delegates duties to one of his representatives in each of the ten provinces and the federal government (the Governor General is not of superior rank to Lieutenant Governors: all Canada’s Governors are equal), not merely because the Commonwealth is too big for one man to attend to properly, but also to further insulate the office from partisan politics.
So unless our Constitution is amended or overthrown, we are stuck with the arrangement we have. Like Aboriginal rights, it’s not a matter of popular approval or political compromise—indeed, it is expressly designed to avoid popular and political metrics. The office even has a contingency built-in where if, goodness forbid, the whole parliament were incapacitated, say, in an asteroid strike, the Sovereign (or Governor) may govern in its stead, the priority policy then being to re-establish an elected parliament forthwith ( the provisionally- appointed cabinet would be dissolved at that point). It’s never happened, but we’re ready.
There’s a mechanism for provinces to secede and even for Canada to become a republic that—so long’s it’s done constitutionally—do not need the permission of the Sovereign. The idea that the King somehow controls Canadian policy is incorrect (except with respect the guarantee and that extraordinary, temporary contingency which has never happened) and this notion is primarily what misinforms Canadians about their head of state.
The monarchy could be “gotten rid of” by popular measure, as of course it would constitutionally have to be (the Freedumbite notion of taking over the popularly-elected government by convoy is not within the constitutional or legal purview), but hardly anybody who advocates such has given it much more thought than that. Would the Clarity Act apply? Is there a SCoC reference opinion? No part of Canada could abolish the Crown and remain in the federation—but we know the Clarity Act and the specific SCoC reference opinion (that all ten provinces and the federal government ratify a province’s secession bid) does apply here.
That said, I do have concerns: given the Sovereign and his governors are supposed to be totally nonpartisan and non-political while in office, will the present GG, Mary Simon, and the King himself, both of whom are known for their respective advocacies prior to assuming their offices, be able to—uh—put a sock in it. I was alarmed to hear what Her Excellency intended “to do” while out Governor General: the office is very circumscribed, as needs, and political activism certainly is not within this circumsription. The King is well-known for his environmental advocacy but, despite the urgency of the issue, he must now properly refrain from leaving even the perception of political involvement in whatever policies Canadians’ elected parliaments develop. Ms Simon has already breached this essential protocol—but I’ll forgive a rookie mistake. His Majesty I’m not so sure about. I’m not interested in hearing about ways to wiggle around this simple proscription. The only activism permitted must be confined entirely to the aforementioned guarantee. But what could that be outside of whether to curtsy or bow during engagements necessary in ensuring we have governments which can act at all times?
It’s not nothing. Recall that when Stephen Harper offended protocol by bullying Her Excellency Jean into granting him a prorogation in order to avoid a confidence vote his party would have lost, Canada was subsequently subjected to a shitty government which thought it could thence thwart a number of sacrosanct aspects of our nation’s sovereignty. It was only because of the paramountcy of preserving the Queen’s impartiality that the complaint wasn’t forwarded to her (and the ill-gotten prorogation stood, much to our county’s regret).
The good news is that anti-monarchist sentiment is virtually moot, but the bad news is that never seems to get caterwaulers to STFU. It doesn’t seem to matter to them the insubstantiality of their tripe or which partisanship they espouse—so long’s it’s one diametrically, or even rabidly opposed to all others. My very Victorian grandmother would (if she’d lived longer than the century allotted her) simply say: just ignore them, dear. But she died soon after the televised OJ Simpson trial which sustained her ended, and she never got to see how things have gotten so crazy ever since. I’m afraid that even the moot paean still prepares for war these days. Like, for some a these goofs, if the King don’t grant them a US-style second amendment, then he ain’t got not rat to be our president.
Alls I can say is: God Save The King! —and Vive Canada!!
DJC: You make some excellent points, but I don’t fully agree with all your conclusions. Principally, I don’t accept the premise that ditching the monarchy means we end up with a US- or France-style powerful executive President. We could instead institute a largely-figurehead State President — along the lines of, say Germany, or Israel — and copy and paste most of the Governor-General’s Letters Patent to create a job description. That individual could be elected to a fixed term of, say, six years, but without any party affiliation, or perhaps — if we really want to reduce partisanship — have them “elected” by the non-elected and increasingly non-partisan Senate.
But in my view the biggest hurdle to getting rid of the monarchy isn’t really the need for unanimous consent by both Parliament and all 10 provinces. It’s the seemingly congenital allergy amongst Canada’s political class to amending the Constitution using the process set out in its text.
Whenever anyone talks about Constitutional change in this country, they don’t talk about the 2/3-50% rule, or unanimous consent for certain provisions. Instead they insist on talking about “reopening” the Constitution, triggering the political PTSD of the Mulroney rounds of the late 1980s & early 1990s, with those stultifying First Ministers’ meetings and their obscene horse-trading — none of which are actually Constitutional requirements under Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-13.html#h-57.
If we simply followed the plain text of Part V, Section 41(a), without holding any First Ministers’ conferences, and if enough Canadians felt strongly about this matter to pressure their elected representatives to vote in favour of abolishing the monarchy, it could be done in a matter of months. In addition, nothing in Part V prevents either Parliament or any provinces from holding plebiscites of their citizenry to inform how they vote on such a resolution.
Finally, I want to discuss Treaty. Indigenous peoples and their representatives often argue that their Treaties are with the Crown, not with the government. With the greatest of respect to their perspectives and their inherent rights, I disagree.
Even during the 19th-century reign of Queen Victoria, Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy, and HM the Queen was bound to follow the advice of her Government. So, while those Treaties were signed in Her Majesty’s name, they were in fact concluded by the government of the day. Now, my historical education falls short of knowing whether they were formally concluded by the Government of Canada or that of the UK, the UK then being in charge of Canada’s foreign affairs including treaty negotiations. But regardless of whether they were signed by Westminster or Ottawa, Victoria was not an absolute monarch, and First Nations can’t really IMHO claim that her “heirs and successors according to law”, right down to new King Chuckie, are the sole party to those treaties. It was the either the nation of Canada, or the United Kingdom, that signed those treaties, and is obligated to respect and abide by them.
I share your views. I have no wish to go down the US rabbit hole, or the French, Italian etc. I don’t want a political head of state at all. By and large our LT. Governors and Governors General have been stable, reliable, and on some occasions even inspiring. It is not sufficiently broke to need urgent fixing and no one so far has convinced me of a credible attainable alternative. So yes, two cheers.
I have only lived here half my life and thus am still learning what it means to be Canadian. While I don’t mind the monarchy too much (but read in the Guardian what level of power the royals have in lawmaking!), but I can’t agree about the monarch and their lieutenants being apolitical. Does no one remember how Harper was able to prorogue parliament in 2008 because the then GG Michaelle Jean went along with his request? That gave us another six years of Harper. Does no one remember how Gough Whitlam was brought down by the Australian GG in 1975? Charles may or may not be a nice guy, but the royals and their local deputies have always sided with the forces of reaction when push came to shove.
Another reason for the monarchy that some people have put forward is no matter who is the Prime Minister ( Trudeau, Harper or Mulclair, love or loath them) one can say, “well our head of state is King Charles, not whoever is in 24 Sussex.