We're not a royal nation
Published Tuesday November 10th, 2009
In a news cycle dominated by the H1N1 pandemic and the controversy over the proposed sale of NB Power, it's easy to miss the fact that Canada's future head of state is touring the country with his wife. Of course, we care whether or not we get sick and how to best secure cheap electricity for our homes and industry, but we care significantly less about the aging prince and the monarchy he presents.
Still, dutiful reporters are being dispatched to cover the royal couple on various stops along their journey, as if they were a pair of second-rate celebrities visiting a small town. Stories about Camilla's necklace, her "Canadian" heritage (a distant ancestor was from Ontario, statistically giving her about 3 per cent of his genes), Charles opening a winter fair and visiting a construction site or receiving a business card from a bold Newfoundland entrepreneur, all are worthy of a photo or at least a short fluff piece in most media.
I don't know if Charles and Camilla watch much Canadian news in their hotel rooms, but the bland coverage of their visit can't be heartening. However, they are not stupid people, and the thin crowds that turn out for these events have doubtlessly already betrayed Canada's true feelings about the monarchy to them.
A poll on Canadians' attitudes to the monarchy that became public last month offered no surprises, though enterprising journalists can usually find one or two diehard monarchists whose shattered illusion makes for a good sound byte. More than 60 per cent of those polled felt the monarchy was outdated. Only 20 per cent said they'd bother to go see the visiting prince, even if it were easy for them to do so.
Interestingly enough, 80 per cent of those polled recognized the historical role of the monarchy in Canada. In the late 19th century, a myth of Canada was created by anglophone monarchists that linked us to a worldwide empire on which the sun never sets. This wasn't simply a ploy by English Canadians to put francophones and new immigrants in their place, but like the railway running a mari usque ad mare ("from sea to sea"), it was meant to separate us from the Americans.
At the suggestion of New Brunswick's Father of Confederation, Leonard Tilley, we adopted the term "dominion" to describe our new country because, in part, it was less threatening to the Americans.
That was then, this is now. I've written before that if all that stands between us and losing our identity to America is a stern octogenarian European woman with a big shiny hat, then we're already in trouble. The Queen appoints the governor-general when the prime minster tells her to, and otherwise she's not much more than a graven face on the back of coins.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper echoed these historical ties to Canada when he met with Prince Charles last week. With his government's failure to push ahead with a meaningful agenda, let alone leadership, at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagan next month, the prime minister really is better off mentioning the past rather than the future with Charles.
As I said, the prince is not stupid, and neither is he irrelevant (in his own right, that is; not as our leader-in-waiting). He has consulted with leading scientists (and leading scientific communicators, including David Suzuki), read the materials, understands the grave danger climate change poses his country (the U.K.) as well as the rest of the world, and has taken a quiet leadership role in promoting awareness and commitment to change. Certainly not a good conversation starter for the prime minister; he was smart to stick with the historical ties and wait for the meeting to be over.
The future of the monarchy in Canada can be predicted by its trajectory over the past generation or two. The fact that the visit of Diana and Charles a quarter century ago was a sudden and short-lived blip in our interest that hasn't been repeated tells us we don't have much time for these sorts of things anymore.
We don't use the term "dominion" any more. We don't force school children to sing God Save the Queen. We make reference to "the Crown" or "Crown land" or "Crown prosecutors" without a thought of the crown these words theoretically still represent.
The monarchy has become like the wallpaper at your grandmother's house: it's old, quaint and of a bygone era, and it's so much in the background that you don't even notice it until some pollster asks you about it.
Then it's an "oh yeah" moment, followed by the thought that maybe it was nice once upon a time, but those days are gone.
Peter Smith is a teacher and writer.
Disabled
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (1)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
Canadians like to consider themselves to be nice people who respect the feelings of minorities. If a minority respects the monarchy or the Pope or the Francophonie, I'd not feel the need to belittle either.
It was the monarchy that was the common factor in setting Canada up to be one of the best in the world, along with the US, Australia and New Zealand,etc so we can't claim all the credit. They gave the minority (French) more rights than was the practice of any colony power. They put laws and bureaucracy in place that has served us well. How many French colonies can compare to the above listing? Would Que and NB simply be another Haiti? A history is what binds a country and you don't get there by demonizing the key players.