The Institution of the Monarchy for Canada

Introduction

Since watching the coronation May 6th, I decided to write a blog about what the institution of the monarchy meant for Canada. I wasn’t sure exactly where I would come out on the question. With my British heritage (my father emigrated to Canada from England when he was 30; he met my mother, a young Irish lass on board ship in the mid Atlantic as every summer she was to-ing and fro-ing from an early age between Canada and Belfast), I was naturally immersed in all things British, including of course the monarchy. 

My parents sat in a special box during the Queen’s coronation in 1953. Listening to her annual Christmas message on the radio was obligatory for me and my three sisters. So I had some biases and certainly leaned toward being a monarchist. 

But as in all my blogs, I just wanted to gather information, be as objective as possible and see where the chips would fall. I also wanted to put some distance from the coronation, for objectivity, so I’ve waited a month before I wrote this.

Ken’s family survey, responses and consumer research

Right after the coronation of Charles III on Saturday, May 6, I conducted a survey of our family – our children and nephews and nieces and their spouses – 19 in total. Curious as to their predilection to things royal, I asked two questions. The first to find out if they even watched the coronation proceedings, and to what extent.

My second question was what was their political governance predisposition (and knowledge?). So I asked whether you consider yourself: 

1. A constitutional monarchist (which I defined as favouring “a situation that allows for democratically elected governments to rule the country, while a monarch performs ceremonial duties”), or
2. A republican (small “r”)

The results were a mixed bag, and as it turns out, reasonably representative of the public at large. The range was from fully involved with the King as “my monarch” to “I forgot all about it” or “I really don’t give a damn”.

Specifically some of the comments were:

• The British monarchy and institution is an anachronism, and antiquated in an age in which equality is the defining principle of British society
• Couldn’t the money Canada spends on our governor-general and the lieutenant governors find a more needed home tackling some of the many current social ills facing Canada?
• Doesn’t having a head of state in Buckingham Place make Canada seem like a colony?
• Perhaps we can shrink the symbolic presence of the crown
• I watched most of it; I’m definitely a constitutional monarchist

The results, as I said, reflected recent consumer research. Canadians generally are split on supporting the Royal family. A Leger survey found 56% agreed the country should “reconsider” its ties” to the monarchy now that there’s a new sovereign. (In Quebec the number was 71%.) People in Ontario (53%) and BC (52%) were more likely than other regions to say King Charles and his heirs should maintain their current role in our system. 

Almost three in five Canadians support (36%) or somewhat support (20%) Canada cutting ties with the monarchy and having the PM serve as both the head of government and the head of state, thus replacing the King and his representative in Canada, the governor-general.

Most just don’t think about the Royal Family all that often. 67% feel “indifferent” to Charles’s new role. Only 12% said it’s “good news” that he’s Canada’s new head of state. 80% say they’re not “personally attached” to what Leger describes as the “British” monarchy. 

John Fraser, the founder of the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada, was quoted as saying, regarding Charles’s relatively poor showing in the Leger poll, that “It doesn’t surprise me that Canadians are indifferent because we haven’t seen much of him. These opinion polls are dependent on proximity to the person. He hasn’t been here much in the last five years so, to Canadians, he feels distant and that’s legitimate.”

In the UK according to YouGov, a pollster, almost half say they were unlikely to watch the coronation, yet everyone has been talking about it for weeks. According to the National Centre for Social Research, the number of Britons considering the monarchy to be “very important” has fallen from 65% in 1983 to 29% today.

And so I did some digging. I examined materials from, and the websites of, the Monarchist League of Canada, the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada, Heritage Canada (the federal department that looks after all things royal), the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, the Assembly of First Nations (who see Canada as a treaty partner), Citizens for a Canadian Republic, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation, Republic (a UK abolition pressure group), newspaper and magazine reports and recent public opinion surveys.

The Coronation

Before I provide my assessment, I want to comment on the coronation.

1. It received far more enthusiasm than was expected, even with the rain. My guess is that it’s a sign that the country has a growing affection, or at least respect, for Charles (and his Queen). The entire event was watched by 20 million people in Britain (although that was nine million lower than the number who watched the Queen’s funeral last September).
2. It went off really without a hitch, which is amazing for such a complicated endeavour. The “Big Lunch” far exceeded expectations: 67,000 picnics and street parties had been registered for the long weekend, far exceeding the 27,000 arranged for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. (Perhaps detaining dozens of protestors under a recently adopted Public Order Act helped minimize disruption, which allowed the police to arrest those who were being a “public nuisance”. Was this overreacting; did it misinterpret the new Act?) 
3. King Charles went out of his way, prior to the coronation, to meet Indigenous leaders from Canada and his other realms, including special audiences for Governor-General Mary Simon and leaders from the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as Indigenous leaders from Australia and New Zealand.
4. The Coronation seems old fashioned because it is. It dates back a 1,000 years. And it’s an Anglican service, with its centuries old liturgy. 
5. Representatives of every major faith took part, even while the King swore to protect the Protestant ascendancy. It was the first time leaders of other faiths were not just welcomed into the Abbey but were also given a special greeting by the sovereign. The King also refers to himself as “defender of faith” instead of “defender of the faith.” However while an attempt was made to broaden it’s scope, in reality it was very religious and remained replete with the words and symbols of Anglicanism.
6. It was the first time the governors-general of the King’s realms were not only invited to attend but were similarly acknowledged and greeted. 
7. Good additions included the gospel choir (they really got into it). Plus Dame Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, reading the gospel, making her the first female bishop in Church of England history to participate in a coronation service.
8. It was the first time persons of colour were featured in all roles, from clergy on through.
9. It was the first time a Hindu prime minister read a lesson from a Christian Bible. It was the first time a Sikh tenor was in the choir stalls.
10. The invited congregation consisted of more commoners than peers.
11. It was the first time a queen (divorced) has been crowned to a divorced king since Henry VII’s second bride, Anne Boleyn, managed the deed in 1533. (OK, she did lose her head three years later.)
12. As the Globe & Mail said on May 6, “it may seem arcane in our secular, post-colonial, democratic country to accept the eldest child of a dynastic European family as our king, and to watch as he is swathed in robes, anointed with oil and topped with an expensive piece of jewelry.” A bit bitchy.
13. It was grand and excessive theatre: pomp, protocol, crowns and robes, choirs and singing, dramatic setting in a high ceiling church, with loads of history.
14. Prince Harry was at the Abbey (if you really cared). He was even shielded from view by Princess Anne’s hat (by design?) Also Prince Andrew was there – in the same row (he’s resigned from all public posts; in my opinion a good man caught up with some faulty judgements).

Conclusions regarding the value of the crown

With all that, here are my conclusions regarding the value of the crown in our Canadian political process:

1. The Crown is a useful legal entity that underpins our constitution. It’s not really the individual that wears it. The monarchy is not the Windsors and their offspring. It is an institution that represents centuries of history and tradition, over which time an absolute monarchy has evolved into the servant of a democratic parliament. The Royal family embodies that steady march toward democracy; they can be seen as both antiquated and modern.

2. The current system works, quite well in fact; Canada has a long and solid democratic system. The Globe & Mail called our system “a fluke work of genius” (July 19, 2017).The empirical evidence is our long history. Canada is by global standards, quite old; the same political order has been evolving in place since the Royal Proclamation in 1763. Canada is the oldest continuous democratic federation in the world (since 1848, thanks in great part to Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine). Few counties in the world can brag about “Responsible Government” like we can. Ask an immigrant about revolution vs peaceful evolution. 

3. Having an unelected head of state as ceremonial and who stays out of politics, but is anchored in continuity and tradition, is stabilizing. Often republics that elect both their head of government (say in the form of a prime minister), and their head of state (in the form of a president), wind up entangled in power struggles between the two offices. Elected politicians come and go in regular cycles while there is continuity in the ceremonial role. What Canada has is a virtual monarchy. While all the laws and acts of government are notionally done in the name of our monarch, they don’t live here nor visit often.

4. Constitutional monarchies, being non-political, are more transparent than alternatives, according to the watchdog Transparency International. They can represent everyone and are outside the polarization of elections.

5. There is merit in the relevance of traditions that date back nearly 1,000 years. The oaths the King swears – to uphold law, justice and mercy – are relevant. Just look at Ukraine where people are fighting and dying to win back the rule of law. 

6. Many of the most prosperous, stable and progressive countries in the world today have hereditary monarchs that serve as their heads of state (Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg). Of the 22 countries ranked as full democracies by The Economist in 2022, 10 were constitutional monarchies. (As well, three constitutional monarchies – Japan, Britain and Canada – were among the world’s top 10 biggest economies in 2022 when measured by gross domestic product.) 22% of the world’s countries still have a hereditary ruler as their head of state. (This is a little padded, as Charles is sovereign of 15 countries.) Yes, there are many republics – the US, Germany, France, Italy – that are as prosperous (if not always as conflict free) as many constitutional monarchies. But the point is that it is wrong to call something anachronistic when it is very much part of the modern world. (For definitions of “Types of Monarchies” see https://powellponderings.com/attachment-1-types-of-monarchies/.)

7. The monarchy costs less. That’s right. According to a historian for the Institute For the Study of the Crown in Canada, the cost of replacing the monarch to become a republic would quadruple. (Even if there was no monarchy in Canada, there would be costs associated with replacing the monarchy with a Canadian head of state.) The combined cost of the governor-general and lieutenant-governors in Canada ($59 million, which according to the Canadian Monarchists League amounts to $1.55 per Canadian) is just half of what the British taxpayer forks out for the British monarchy ($80 million), which in turn is significantly less than presidents cost in France ($200 million) and Italy ($400 million).

8. The role of Queen or King of Canada has been made independent of the same rather elitist role in Britain. In Canada the monarchy was maintained, but it became more abstract. In the years after WWI, Canada asked the Crown to stop issuing British titles to Canadians, effectively ditching aristocracy on our shores. In Britain they kept the whole apparatus of monarchy – aristocrats, a class system, a Royal Family and its various hangers-on, including a retinue of journalists to cover it. Canada kept only the Crown.

9. The person representing the crown has performed meritoriously – and at a distance. Queen Elizabeth II performed as selflessly as one could possibly hope for in her 70 years. She embodied duty and responsibility. One of her strengths was sponsoring important causes. The Queen provided steadiness in a world that seems to remake itself every few months. (She was on her 12th Canadian prime minister when she died!)  She was a matriarch that provided stability and a bit of reassurance – a certain solid persistence. (Note: other royals do solid work too.)

10. There is good reason to expect similar competence and commitment in the current king. King Charles is certainly aligned with the fundamental priorities of Canadians. He is seriously interested in reconciliation, is a strong environmentalist, and is involved in disadvantaged youth issues. He went to Gordonstoun School, an independent boarding school in Scotland, obtained a bachelor’s degree from Trinity College at Cambridge University, earned a Masters degree from Cambridge in 1975 while serving in the armed forces from 1971 until 1976, trained as an aviator and flew planes for the RAF and a helicopter for the Royal Navy. 

He is acutely sensitive to evolving public opinion about the Royal Family. He has survived a bad marriage, a brother and a son both gone off-course, and a long drawn-out succession. He has expressed a willingness to expose the monarchy to harsher political scrutiny in a way the Queen would never have contemplated. He has, for example, welcomed an examination of the monarchy’s ties to slavery and vowed to “deepen his own understanding” of the matter. He has opened the Royal Archives to an independent researcher who is working on exploring “the links between the British monarchy and the transatlantic slave trade during the 17th and 18th centuries.” In short, he has a strong conscience and is no slouch!

11. Constitutional monarchies have a better record of protecting the property rights of businesses and individuals than republics do. This was from a 2018 study done by a professor at the Wharton School in Pennsylvania. This is important to our economic prosperity.

12. Very few Canadians can make an informed decision about ditching the monarchy. Most have no idea what Canada’s constitution and government would look like without the monarchy, or even simply what is a constitutional monarchy. While this is not a particularly strong reason for a monarchy, it does suggest that the general population may not be the best judge of what our current system provides vs alternatives. It’s also a caveat to any intelligent reading of the public opinion research carried out of the general population. (I know; I know – that’s not democratic, but it’s true.)

13. The world enjoys (craves?) theatre. I equivocated in adding this point, as it seems frivolous as a reason for the value of the Crown, and more particularly, the coronation and the pomp and ritual that go with the Crown. But there is a certain truth in the fact that the world loves theatre, and temporary immersion in a world that most can’t fathom. It inspires an enduring fascination.

14. We have been gradually finding a 21st century balance and shrinking the symbolic presence of the monarchy in Canada. This has been happening inexorably for years. We sing “O Canada” before sporting events, not “God Save the Queen/King”. Our own unique maple leaf flag replaced the Royal Union Flag (the Union Jack) in 1965. The St. Edward’s Cross that has been part of the Coat of Arms since 1957 will be replaced by a new design created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the body responsible for granting coats of arms in this country. It replaces all Christian and religious symbols (crosses and fleur-de-lis) with maple leafs, snowflakes and stars. 

There is some agitation for dropping the mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the monarch required for many government officials, and quite symbolically, for all new Canadians who go through the the citizenship ceremonies. (Ironically, it is those new citizens who likely better understand the symbolism of that oath than the vast majority of the Canadian public. It is they who have been instructed in the nuances of what the monarchy represents to Canada, even if may seem strange swearing an oath to a crowned head an ocean away!) As an aside, one of the hallmarks of our country is freedom of speech, conscience and political organization. So when a new citizen takes an oath to be faithful to the King, they are really promising to be faithful to a Constitution that guarantees their rights – including, of course, the right to work for the removal of the oath, or the end of the monarchy.

15. It would be very difficult and politically divisive, to try and rewrite our constitution to reconsider the role of the Crown. What is required is a constitutional amendment, and not just any amendment, but one requiring the approval of all provincial legislatures plus Parliament. The attempt would be very divisive for the country. Remember the Meech Lake Accord  in 1990? Remember the Charlottetown Accord in 1992? For certain, out there in the prairie grasses or fishing grounds or French or Indigenous peoples, significant opposition to constitutional change would emerge. (What other measures would Indigenous leaders demand in return for their support, for example?) As former Clerk of the Privy Council Office Michael Wernick said in the Globe & Mail recently “It is far easier to call for reform than it is to craft an alternative. Once you open up Pandora’s box, though, there will be widely divergent views on what the next thing should be, and no easy way to bring then together. This has been a fundamental obstacle to changing the Senate, the electoral system or the Indian Act. The same would apply to the Crown.” As he also said “Our constitutional software is imperfect and a bit old-fashioned, but it will do.”

My recommendations for Canada

1. Retain the constitutional monarchy system.

2. Improve the education of Canadians in our political system, both within the school system, as well as the general public. Many Canadians have little idea of our political system, including what role the Crown plays. Just more plain Canadian history would be important, including understanding the constitutional conferences leading to 1982. Certainly what is required to amend the constitution is important. If people do not have any idea what Canada’s Constitution and government would look like without the monarchy, they can’t make an informed decision about ditching it. Canada must invest in the tools to raise the knowledge level.

3. Shrink the symbolic presence of the crown in areas that smack of elitism and  privilege. Visits to Canada by Royals need to have a purpose. Perhaps then we can just pass on King Charles III appearing on our $20 bill. (Australia has opted for an Indigenous design for its $5 bill.) Peter Donolo, former director of communications to former prime minister Jean Chrétien, recently suggested instead that we put Lester Pearson on the bill. As former PM his government laid many of the foundations of modern Canada: our national health care system, the Canada Pension Plan and of course the Canadian flag itself – so a good candidate. 

4. Retain the Oath of Citizenship at the citizenship ceremony and expose more ordinary citizens to the substance of the ceremony which is the final step to become a Canadian citizen. Recently Alan Ingram, a friend of mine who is a retired Superior Court judge, invited me to attend a ceremony he was presiding over that was a reaffirmation of Canadian citizenship. Over 150 public school children watched as six members of the Canadian Legion carrying flags along with an RCMP officer marched in behind a piper to the auditorium of a local public school. Alan gave an inspirational talk to the kids about what it means to be a Canadian; the meaning of each of the flags was described; we sang “O Canada”; a film on Canada was presented; and quite importantly, everyone repeated the Canadian Oath of Citizenship where we all pledged our allegiance and loyalty to Canada. With our raised right hand we said (among other things) that we “will faithfully observe the laws of Canada. including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen”. It was quite moving and it appeared the kids took it seriously.

5. Offer to the Canadian public a taste of the positive, exemplary side of our new King. This can be done in his daily role as monarch. Also by, say, arranging visits to Canada but focussing on one of his passions, i.e the environment or reconciliation. The caveat should be that it be less ceremonial (and costly) and more tangible and outcome oriented. (There are those who would prefer to see his 40-year-old son Prince William on the throne, but Charles has the skills and attitude.)

6. Downplay the Royal Family soap operas. It’s mostly a press thing, but they do feed on the celebrity stalking game, which hopefully in Canada we can avoid. Currently, and in particular, the “Megxit” one is nauseous. The future of Prince Harry (who is sixth in line for the throne, for goodness sake) and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should not really be a public-policy issue. It was good that in January 2020 the Queen decided to allow Harry to remain a member of the Queen’s biological family, but would no longer be a member of the Royal Family. Before as a Royal, it would break with tradition if he wanted to live in Canada, so this solves that problem. (I have to add my opinion about Prince Harry’s tell-all book, Spare: it is full of spite, petulance, a stunning lack of self-awareness, and some humour – was his “frozen todger” after a trip to the North Pole funny or cringe worthy? As one journalist said “Spare demonstrates how writing a book armed with a grudge can be counterproductive.”)

7. Button up our Governor-General Mary Simon speculating on the future possibilities of the institution. That’s not her job; her job description has been well laid out by past holders of the position. She has rankled the Monarchists League, with her public musings on the fact that there should be “conversations” about a future without the royals – and taking note of King Charles’s unpopularity. Robert Finch, the dominion chairman of he League, said it was “unbelievable “ that Simon would question the future of the institution and the likability of the sovereign on the eve of his coronation. While stressing that now is not the time to discuss scrapping the Crown, Simon seemed to entertain the idea of a Canadian republic in the future.

I thus remain a constitutional monarchist.