Canadian Monarchy Debate Rekindled: Should We Dare to Depose Our Foreign Head of State?
Thursday, November 12, 2009 13:59Yesterday I raised the matter of the continued role of the British monarchy in Canada as a potential church-state separation issue for the Centre for Inquiry. The monarchy debate has been rekindled in part because of an 11 day visit to Canada by Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, which ended this week.
For those unfamiliar, Queen Elizabeth II continues to reign as our nation’s head of state while her representative the Governor General acts as her proxy for ceremonial and constitutional duties. In a farcical display, the Prime Minister of Canada, an elected official who leads the government, advices the Queen on whom to appoint to this position. No one votes on the Queen’s representative, Canada’s ceremonial spokesperson, who serves, as it’s often described, “At Her Majesty’s Pleasure.”
The Navigator polling firm recently discovered that over 60% of respondents felt the monarchy was outdated in Canada. This prompted Brian Tobin, former premier of Newfoundland, to say: “It looks silly… that Canada has a head of state who’s born in another country.”
I decided to poll an admittedly more biased audience, so I put the question up on my facebook wall last night: “Should a secularist organization take a formal anti-monarchy position?” and received about 30 comments by the morning. I have to admit I thought this would be a slam-dunk, but feelings were mixed.
The greatest reason to oppose the monarchy from a secularist point of view is that the Queen of Britain is also the head of the Anglican Church. As Citizens for a Canadian Republic points out, the US has proven a modern secular democracy can elect a Black head of state, yet here in Canada we will never have a non-Anglican head of state. The Movement Laique du Quebec (Quebec Secularist Movement) has a formal anti-monarchy position due to this dual political/religious role. Actually, the US offers an even better reflection. In the US the head of state must be US born, while in Canada the head of state will likely never be Canadian born. Odd.
On the other hand, many felt the issue was outside our scope and that pragmatically constitutional monarchies are secular political systems. I can’t help but point out in that regard that during his visit the heir apparent, surrounded by cohort of political dignitaries and Anglican church VIPs, attended an Anglican church service, a tradition when monarchs visit Canada, last occurring in 2002 when Queen Elizabeth attended service during her Golden Jubilee Commonwealth tour.
I think the general consensus view was that we take an indirect approach, opposing the dual role of the monarch as head of state and church, and especially we should take issue with the notion of the divine right of kings. The catch is that throughout history kings have always claimed authority by allying themselves with the priestly class. In the middle ages, the concept of the Great Chain of Being made this explicit. A chain descended from the source of all authority, God, progressing down to angels, demons, stars, the moon, then kings, princes, nobles, and finally common men just above the animals and the inanimate world. There’s just no way to separate the religious justifications from the political power granted an unelected head of state.
So while this is not a major issue worthy of great resource dedication, I will continue to push for a solid and clear position, and we will explore the issue further with a Cafe Inquiry panel discussion in Toronto to include reps from the Monarchist League, Citizens for a Canadian Republic, and it’s my hope our allies the Canadian Secular Alliance.
Loading ...
Elspeth says:
November 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Royalty is a lot like the caste system in India. Your ancestry, your genetic heritage, decides your place in life. For the royals, they get a guaranteed career, beautiful homes, all kinds of servants. They can abdicate, but usually they don’t . Ever hear of a royal being fired from their job? I haven’t.
The caste system in India is supposed to be illegal, but in practice it goes on.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091109/crossette
The idea that someone gets a guaranteed high-life and career, (or guaranteed misery), due to genetics is quite horrific.
Elspeth says:
November 12th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
This looks interesting:
http://open.salon.com/blog/jason_d_hill/2009/04/02/the_british_monarchy_must_go_1
Also, there are plenty of Brits who want to end the monarchy: http://www.republic.org.uk/Who%20we%20are/index.php
Fraser H. says:
November 12th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
The Monarchy provides the basis for all our laws, changing it would be very difficult constitutionally. And I really don’t get upset by anything the Monarchy does. Our country was given complete, effective, autonomy without the need for a revolution. Also the Monarchy gives us a firm tie to the U.K. and Europe for free. We don’t have the social distrust towards Europe as seems to be prevalent in a lot of American’s minds.
If we’re going to complain that royals get a free ride in society, they are really getting that free-ride from the British, not us. It is up to them to decide whether the Royals are worth supporting or not. I think it’d be cool if the royal family was tax-paying and had all the same rights/responsibilities as any other Briton, but that’s not Canada’s decision.
The Governor General, in one way or another, has earned her place. Like our Senators she gets a cool job after having done great things. I didn’t know the GG had to be Anglican, that’s the real only thing that bugs me about the position.
I really don’t see much reason to change. And I think we have a lot to lose by changing.
French Canadians probably have a much stronger reason for wanting change, because it is a symbol of how our government flows from Britain, not France. But I don’t see why we should support francophone skeptics by taking the same position as they do on the Monarchy.
I’d like to see Quebec language law repealed. To me that’s more important than having a non-Anglican GG.
Jeff K says:
November 12th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Man this is dumb. The kings employ people like me who know something about logical thought and wither those like you who fail on the semantics of Schopenhauer.
Look out Justin, the light is either red or it is not red, now wait a minute you were looking too far down the street. See you in hell.
Royalist says:
November 13th, 2009 at 7:29 am
“… the US has proven a modern secular democracy can elect a Black head of state …”
Yeah, right, but what about the cost? Last year’s election campaign cost more than $ 1 billion. The next election campaign in 2012 will be even more expensive. The inauguration of Barak Obama in 2009 cost more than the Queen’s coronation in 1953. Did anybody get discriminated either in Canada or in the UK because the sovereign is head of the Anglican church? None!
Elspeth says:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Hey, Jeff, but then there’s Shroedinger’s cat! I learned about that on the TV show Flash Forward. So now I’m an expert? Anyway if you cover the traffic lights, they are both red and not red at the same time! Well,OK according to the video here; http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html Shroedinger was commenting on the absurdity of quantum mechanics.
Bertha says:
November 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Shroedinger’s cat , sounds alot like a tree falling in the forest, although
i wasn’t there, so i’m not sure if there was a sound at all!!LOL
Republic Tuesday: a week’s worth of republicanism in the media « Suffolk Coastal Republic says:
November 17th, 2009 at 7:48 am
[...] Canadians ever choose to depose the monarchy? Probably the only thing that is stopping them is their apathy. The main reason Cdns [...]
Jeff K says:
November 21st, 2009 at 12:28 am
Elspeth, it was an inside joke. Read Justin’s bit in the December Skeptical Inquirer. The joke was reverse-engineered from his Power Point presentation that the school kids were roasting him over. Follow their example when he comes to your school. Push him on his definitions, he hates that.