The durable monarchy

By Jim Wilson

The recent visit of Prince Charles has raised the predictable chorus in Quebec to abolish the monarchy. Certainly there is a raft of arguments to support the view that Canada has little need to maintain a head of state who is neither a resident nor a citizen of this country. However, for once the defense of the French language could not be invoked by the protesters. After all, the royals do speak French...

Despite its many critics, the monarchy has proven to be an incredibly durable institution, which has lasted over 1,000 years, and English has not always been the language of the English monarch. Following the Norman conquest of the 11th century, English kings spoke French, not English, a practice that lasted for almost three centuries. In the 18th century, basing its decision entirely on religion affiliation, Parliament invited German speakers imported from Protestant Hanover to occupy the throne. It is from these German ancestors that Charles has inherited his claim to be the next king. 

The British themselves show no great reverence towards the institution; not by the goonish behaviour of throwing eggs, but by satire. Witness the TV hit show Spitting Images where the royals, along with leading politicians, were unmercifully lampooned via grotesque caricatured puppets. Maybe it is nothing more than the royals deserved, for over the centuries the monarchs have been a motley crew. Over that period they have been embroiled in all kinds of mayhem, including murder, religious persecution and a wide range of nefarious activities. A more recent king, Edward, the Queen’s uncle, was a Nazi sympathizer. The present royal family could, at best, be described as dysfunctional. Fortunately, today’s monarch is just a figurehead, with no real power. The real power is held by Parliament, given to it through the ballot box. So in these modern times why not just abolish such an anachronism, surely it would not be missed? However, that may be tempting but there may be a very good reason to give Canadians pause.

Just within the past few days, Jacques Parizeau has reappeared with a new book. Maybe he should be renamed “Jacques in the Box” given his penchant for continually popping up. He repeats his line that Quebec needs to reassert its demand to secede from Canada and form a new country. What could provide Parizeau and his followers with a better excuse to reopen the constitution debate than to promote the abolition of the monarchy? The constitution would need to be rewritten if we are going to replace the present head of state. Remember the Charlottetown and Meech Lake Accords? Remember those referenda? These were hardly events that bound the wounds and brought the country together; quite the contrary in fact.

Maybe we should be focusing on Parizeau’s arguments, rather than being diverted by the debate on the role of the monarchy. The former premier’s reasoning seems to go unchallenged. Yet his arguments for Quebec’s secession are weak at best. He rightly chastises the French public school system for producing so many dropouts, and contrasts it with the much better results in the English system. He fails to demonstrate how a system which is entirely under the jurisdiction of the provincial government can be improved by being run by exactly the same people if they worked in an independent country as opposed to a province.

Moreover, the present constitution allows provincial governments to wield significant powers. Along with education, they also run the health care system; and have jurisdiction over their municipalities. How does secession improve the situation and help the average citizen? Parizeau does not tell us. Replacing the monarchy would be an excuse to formulate a long shopping list of demands. If any would be refused, it would provide a perfect platform for more secessionist propaganda.

Who would be the new head of state, and how would we proceed to appoint or elect that person? Would their powers be merely symbolic; if so, why are we bothering? At least the monarch is above the political fray, could we say that about a replacement? Maybe the Brits can resolve the issue. Given their antipathy towards the present heir to the throne maybe they will abolish it for us.

In the meantime, I doubt that the majority of Canadians would be willing to replace the country’s Queen, if in doing so we were to witness the coronation of a different kind of royalty; who could well be Emperor Jacques of Quebec, or a Canadian version of a President Palin.