Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, wrapped up their Canadian tour recently after meeting with thousands of well-wishers and critics alike, including a visit to Toronto. Charles's divisive character sparked an occasionally repeated discussion on the future of the monarchy, a debate that rarely penetrates the Canadian psyche for more than a week.
Charles's stop in Montreal on Tuesday was met by protesters, perhaps the fiercest opposition to the monarchy anywhere in the country. The protest was mainly attended by Quebec separatists but the question of a Canadian republic has no doubt entered the minds of many Canadians these past two weeks. It is clear that Queen Elizabeth is a popular sovereign who holds steady in most opinion polls, but Charles, and indeed the institution of monarchy in general, continues to struggle in Canada.
Is there any real sense in keeping a head of state that resides in a foreign country, visits rarely, and probably never thinks of Canada in her daily routine? The monarchy is a hereditary institution in a society that claims to be a meritocracy, one based on the principles of equality and tolerance. In the first place, kings and queens are inherently unequal, basing their legitimacy on the accident of birth rather than actual skill or the true consent of the people. They are not impartial as they sometimes claim to be, and Prince Charles is a strong example of this, nor are they accountable.
As to the issue of tolerance, the British line of succession, which is essentially mirrored in the Canadian version, excludes Catholics or indeed any other religion other than the Protestant faith. This rule breaches the Charter and discriminates based on religion. This in a country where only 35% are Protestant, and even a smaller number are Anglicans, the branch that the royal family subscribes to. Moreover, the monarchy is gender-discriminitive, where male primogeniture favours the eldest son to the throne, even if there are older sisters. Are these the same values that we Canadians believe in?
The British monarchy -- and I stress 'British' here -- has problems even in Britain where royal support seems to be stronger than in Canada but whose republican movements are more vocal. Australia's republicans are by far the most fierce, and the country even held a defeated referendum on the issue of monarchy. Nothing comes close in Canada, except perhaps in Quebec where the issue of sovereignty will inevitably lead to a republic.
Canadians are largely indifferent to the issue, though some polls have indicated majority support for dumping the monarchy. Politicians, however, are more concerned with national unity in a country so diverse and large. You monarchists will claim here that the monarchy serves as that unifying force, but it does not seem to have any effect in Quebec, where it matters most. Our leaders are afraid to take up the divisive issue of monarchy, and so nothing is ever done about it. No debate or discussion takes place in the rooms of Parliament; instead, it is left to the media and the classrooms.
Will there ever be a right time for a Canadian republic? Or is an uncharismatic heir the thing that republicans need most?
Comments