In 1963, the historian W. L. Morton published a splendid one-volume history of Canada. The title still has the power to thrill, and to shock: The Kingdom of Canada.
At the back there is a list of all the kings and queens "sovereign over Canada."� There are 18 of them, nine French and nine English, from Francis I, who ruled at the time of Jacques Cartier's first landing in 1534, all the way to Elizabeth II. Prince Charles will one day be the 19th King of Canada, and Prince William the 20th.
So you see, we are not, as some imagine, a young country. We are an ancient kingdom, with a history of continuous monarchical rule stretching back nearly five centuries. For 20 generations it has endured, each king ascending on the death of the last"”the Conquest is the sole discontinuity"”much as 20 generations of Canadians have built upon their parents' legacy.
You either think there is something glorious in that, or else you find it a little embarrassing. You either think this country is the cumulative work of generations, or you imagine it all began yesterday.
The latter view is on parade again, in all its preening, modish finery, as it is on the occasion of any royal visit. It is a kind of custom, a ritual show of disloyalty as hoary in its way as any gathering of the Daughters of the Empire. Scarcely have the Queen or Prince Charles set foot on Canadian soil before they are greeted with a 21-gun salute of newspaper columns complaining at the outmodedness of it all. Here we are in the 21st century, and still a monarchy?
Well, yes. And while we're at it, isn't democracy getting a little long in the tooth as well? How long has it been, 2,000 years? And that system of English common law, whew, isn't it time we replaced the liner on that?
It's pointless to debate, in a way, since the monarchy isn't going anywhere. It isn't only that the position of the Queen is embedded in the Constitution, irrevocably"”or the next thing to it, given the requirement of provincial unanimity. It is that the Crown, as an institution, is woven into every line of our constitutional order. It isn't just some little old lady in London or a middle-aged gent who talks to plants. It is, as the political scientist David Smith has observed, "the organizing principle of Canadian government,"� whose "pervasive influence"�."�."�."�reaches into every area of government activity in all jurisdictions."� The Crown principle is at the root of all executive power. It is the foundation stone of our system of laws (the "Queen on the Bench"�), our courts and legislatures: the "Queen in Parliament,"� embodying the Crown, Commons and Senate. It is the common fount of federal and provincial sovereignties. It is the basis of our system of land tenure, of the Indian treaties, of an impartial civil service, with a whole body of precedent attached to it and underpinned by several centuries of political thinking. To do away with the Crown, to replace it with a republic, would require nothing less than a revolution.
The Queen is the personification of that system of laws and government, indeed of the state itself. The idea is rich in symbolism. In other systems, the State is an abstraction. In ours, it is represented by a human being: a reminder that, as much as ours is a system of "laws not men,"� it is all the same concerned with actual flesh-and-blood persons, whose welfare may not be sacrificed to any principle, however exalted. The Queen's powers being constitutional and circumscribed, not arbitrary and absolute, serves further as a reminder of the hard-fought victory of parliamentary democracy, a struggle won not, in the main, by violent revolution but by gradual reform.
At the same time, as the permanent embodiment of popular sovereignty, the Queen humbles the pretensions of democratic politicians, in possession of their temporary majorities. As it has been said, when the prime minister bows before the Queen, he bows before us. That's of more than symbolic value. In moments of crisis, as during the power struggle of the last year, when it is unclear who holds the democratic mandate, the Queen (or in this case her representative in Canada, the governor general) plays a vital role as constitutional arbiter, her powers and legitimacy serving as a bulwark against abuses or usurpations.
And yet, for all that, the Crown is in trouble in Canada. Impregnable as its position may be in law, manifold as its virtues may be in principle, it has all but ceased to command the loyalty and affection of the people"”one of its primary functions, after all, and the basis of its legitimacy in the long run. The abolitionists at least pay it the compliment of thinking it matters, most comically in the case of those fanatical nationalists in Quebec who see the Crown as the source of all their woes. For the rest of us, the monarchy inspires little more than a puzzled smile at best, as the tepid response to Charles and Camilla's tour suggests, and as poll after poll confirms.
Pages: 1 2
PreviousThe "Khadr effect"�
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.
Could any person could become King or Queen of Canada by royal decree and a parliamentary declaration of loyalty?
Also, would this new King of Queen of Canada be bound by the Act of Succession? If so, could the Act of Succession be declared unconstitutional by the Charter?
the supreme court does not have the autghority to rule against the crown as thor they would be abrogating their own oath check out the privy council I forget the latin term
A well argued piece, that could easily be summed up by Wells's first law:
In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. http://lawsoflife.co.uk/wellss-first-law/
oh, and also that other one that's popular in these parts…
The British themselves don't seem to know if there will continue to be a Monarch in Britain after Queen Elizabeth II. If there is no longer a Monarch in Britain, where will that leave Canada's Constitution?
Good question. Got an answer Mr. Coyne?
The Queen is Queen of Canada, independent of her role as Queen of Great Britain. If the British were to abolish the monarchy, it would have no bearing on Canada, its constitution, or the Canadian Crown.
I like the current arrangement just fine thank you. I am a fervent disciple of the "if it aint broke dont fix it school". The one institution in desperate need of reform is parliement. With concentration of power in the PMO, the house of commons is all but irrelevant and that is much more damaging to the public welfare than an absentee monarch.
one of the cool things about being a monarchist is the amazing display of ignorance about how our system is designed and works. Andrew is right and in point of fact it would benefit everyone who has posted here to look into the canadain Privy Council and the oath taken by almost everyone in gov't – and at almost every level of gov;t – the importance of the crown is supreme sorry folks there is no alternative, no other recourse, no referendum , in point of fact even re-opening the constitution wouldn't do it – to rid oursleves of the monarchy requires only one recourse ' Revolution ' and then the gloves are off
People forget to that the present Sovereign and her antecedents back to the Glorious (and bloodless) Revolution in 1688 reign by the will of the people as expressed in Parliament. That is how we shifted from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy in the first place. And any time we choose to go through the process, short or long as it may be, we can settle the Crown on anyone we choose. Wisdom made our political antecedents choose William and Mary in 1688, and the heirs of the daughter of Princess of Elizabeth of Great Britain by the Act of Settlement. I think they made the right choice. Our current Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, is possibly the greatest glory of our evolving constitutional and HM has never missed a step. I don't think we can say that about anybody else. Long may she reign, and when the sad moment of the accession of our next Sovereign occurs, I hope that Canadians everywhere will welcome her lawful heir and successor! Vivat Regina, Vivat Regina Elizabetha, May the Queen Live Forever (Coronation Ode, 1953, from Zadok the Priest by Handel)
Read Full Article »
