Friday, September 23, 2022

Above the Fray

In light of the passing of Queen Elizabeth and the ensuing ceremony and pageantry, The Frumpy Professor, aka Pipe Tobacco, has asked me about Canadian attitudes toward the monarchy.

There are 43 countries with a monarch or the equivalent as head of state. The list includes the following countries that all seem to manage fairly well:  Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Frankly, even though I am a born and bred Canuck, I don't really know what the Canadian attitude is. Until I learn differently, my opinion is that we don't share a single attitude and that, for most part, whatever opinions that we do have are mostly likely not very strong ones. Obviously, there are those loyalists who love the monarchy and those at the other extreme who repudiate it for its colonial heritage and present opulence, but it seems to me that the rest of us are bunched somewhere in the middle, between the two camps. 

Personally, if people want to have a monarch, it's fine by me. We probably are a little taken aback by just how ostentatious the pomp and ceremony is in Britain, but we accept the Canadian adaptation, which is to have a less lavish Governor General as the monarch's representative on these shores. If we or Britain were to dissolve the institution entirely, I think that I would feel a sense of loss. 

I had never thought of the institution much, and still haven't really, but the passing of Her Majesty and the resultant ceremonies have made me think just a little bit. Then, when Mary mentioned in passing that it is her opinion that a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government, I thought a little bit more. Just a little bit, mind you, for I don't want to strain the brain too much.

I think it is apparent that this queen, for I am am not convinced that I can say the same for her forebears, carried out her duties with class and dignity. In the midst of an era of rapid technological and societal change, she was always there, like a rock of stability. She was steadfast, honourable, gracious, reliable, and apolitical. While I am sure that she had her own opinions, she remained reticent about expressing them, or at least she has been for a very long time.

A constitutional monarch can carry out many honorary and ceremonial duties that might be onerous for some other political leader, for she, or now he, can remain above the fray (which is what I have just decided will be the title of this post). The monarch can go to a ribbon cutting ceremony, for example, and few will be triggered as they might be by the presence of a politician with whom they might vehemently disagree.

We had a very nasty case recently where our deputy prime minister was accosted by a very verbally abusive couple in Alberta. It was an ugly incident that was almost universally decried. For whatever reason, the couple was triggered by her politics and decided that they should vent their anger in a most foul and unacceptable way. My guess is that the presence of a neutral representative would likely not have aroused any ire at all.  

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/30/canada-deputy-prime-minister-abuse-chrystia-freeland

More practically, also consider the demands inherent in running a country. A constitutional monarch or their representative can allow a leader more time to attend to the rigours of their taxing jobs than having to expend as much time in quite so many time-consuming public appearances. Also, as noted, there could be less upset for many.

When I see how alternative types of government are being pushed beyond acceptable boundaries, I do consider that there is some value in having a titular head of sate who is steadfast, resolute, dignified, apolitical, and Above the Fray.

Meanwhile, I have asked if Mary would share her thoughts more fully, for they are likely to be more well-honed than mine. I don't know how long she has held her view that a constitutional monarchy may be the best form of government, but I am pretty sure that it has been longer than two weeks, which is what it has been in my case. If she does post something, I will let you know.


15 comments:

Patio Postcards said...

It's well known which side of this debate about monarchy I'd be on.

I know that this debate will come to us sooner than later, but I pray that we debate not argue & that we don't allow ourselves to be swallowed by the ones that can yell the loudest. It is interesting to read (still need to fact check) that although Barbados removed the Queen as head of state, it was not through a referendum of the people but through those that were elected to a position of authority & that now the people are annoyed. And I certainly would hope we would stay within the Commonwealth regardless of our decision about monarchy. Membership does have benefits.

Marie Smith said...

I admired and respected the queen but I think it is time to debate to value of the monarchy to this country. It should be a decision of the people to keep it or not.

MARY G said...

I will get it done. But I need to write it carefully and I am being an English coach this week. The gist of it is this: a constitutional monarchy is the oldest form of democracy we have and it has grown organically for some hundreds of years into the system we use here in Canada. It works and has been proven to work through some pretty weird events in GB. Some of the designed systems, like that of the USA, Israel or Denmark have pretty big flaws showing up lately. Our system is flexible enough to withstand the Bloc Q, for instance.

gigi-hawaii said...

Yes, it is nice to have stability, but only if the monarch is benevolent and not mean and hostile. We had a Hawaiian queen, who was supposed to be a constitutional monarch, but she suddenly wanted to be an absolute monarch. The USA overthrew her kingdom and annexed Hawaii, later making it the 50th state of the union.

Margaret said...

A lot depends on the monarch but I've been pondering some of those questions as we slip toward some kind of autocracy here. A benevolent queen or king would be comforting.

Ed said...

Initially, I was of the thought that it would be depressing to live under a monarchy. But with further contemplation, I think I feel a bit different with the adjective in front, in your case Constitutional instead of Absolute. In that sense, you really aren't too terribly different than our Republic and instead of a President you have a Monarch. Both can only work within the framework of their respective constitutions and both have other branches of their government to make laws and judge them.

I don't have a horse in the fight but I suspect that most citizens really aren't so introspective on the matter and there will be less nations in the Commonwealth in the coming years.

P.S. I don't follow Mary's blog but would be interested in hearing her post on the matter. I hope you link it when it get posted.

William Kendall said...

I do think a constitutional monarchy works best as a system of government.

roentare said...

Thank you for such a great piece here. I share that view to a large extent. I just keep the view to myself. The only thing I am grateful is a nice public holiday to binge watching Shameless!

The Furry Gnome said...

I have mixed views too, highly supportive of the Queen personally, but strongly against colonialism. I think Mary's point about the constitutional monarchy is true, so I look forward to hearing more.

Red said...

I hope that the monarchy system makes some changes. The monarchy system has to be smaller and come for much less money. Having said that the system serves us well as you point out. So as long as they don't rock the boat too much I'm okay with the present system. I'm not a big fan of the monarchy but it works.

Joanne Noragon said...

I had mostly respect for the queen. But the times have changed and decisions hang in the air...

Celia said...

Interesting post and comment discussions on the Monarchy. I refrain from joining in the discussion as it's not my country. My Granddad immigrated from England at 12 I believe, that's all the coin I have in the game.

Thank you for leaving me some useful instruction on operating my blog.

Kay said...

Gosh... I don't know how I feel. Queen Elizabeth was wonderful for all the reasons you cited. Would her heirs all be as dignified, stable and loved as she was?

As for the U.S., I'm sure you know who would love to be King. But I prefer to keep things as it is here... although some significant changes still need to be made.

Jeanie said...

I find it interesting that the monarchy of the present is taking a lot of heat for the actions of the past governments and monarchs. And how much power does (or did) the monarch have, even then? I think every country has actions in the past of which they are not proud but I find that hard to synch with today. As I understand it, countries can vote and withdraw as a republic and many have. So, if they are that upset, then have at it -- but I suspect it won't be all that easy going. As one from a country who did, I rather wish we had more of a constitutional monarchy system, as I understand it. Right now, our world (or at least our country) is in a vile mess and I worry greatly about the future.

MARY G said...

Finally up. I made myself stop fiddling with it.

https://themsmysentiments.blogspot.com/2022/09/peace-order-and-usually-okay-government.html