The Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, 1953-2022.
Canada has a queen because the founders of Confederation were determined to govern the country under the system that most of them had known since birth. Indeed, under rule by either Britain or France, second born (the term I use for European colonists-First Nations Canadians I call first born, and yes, it is the truth to also say the word colonizers to mark the ruling powers sending people over in the first place), there had always been a crowned head and ruling aristocracy calling the shots back in the mother countries. There was, of course, a marked journey toward something resembling our modern elected representatives, especially in Britain under the House of Commons (and to a lesser extent, the Burgh Commissioners in pre-Union Scotland). By the time Canada had become a unique Dominion within the British Empire in 1867, elected representatives made up the bulk and most politically powerful elements in British government, a long struggle since the 1640's when the Crown succumbed to the political will of Parliament... or rather the House of Commons... or rather a military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. OK, so that really happened in the 1650's, but the nuances can be tricky.
The distaste of anything monarchial or lordly in the United States did not exactly happen overnight in 1776, nor did representative government suddenly emerge there as such. The colonies had their own constituent assemblies, albeit with voting rights limited to land-owning males. The Founding Fathers, of course, were not openly in love with Democratic principles, despite what the national mythos might say these days. There were exceptions in the more passionate people like Thomas Paine, and after he got a taste of France, Thomas Jefferson (which of course is a whole other story), but by and large the Fathers were Republicans (the philosophy of government, not the modern party) because they wanted power to rest in the hands of an educated electorate with an eye to the broader picture of history and the future. They were somewhat afraid of the passion of the mob, some because of concerns of anarchy, some because of an elitism, some because of an concern over the stability of the young country. Not all of them, in fact, wanted to throw out the concept of monarchy, at least not right away. Blame even focused early on toward the distant elected body of the lower house of Parliament. The King and Lords were rich, for the most part, but they held wealth passed down through generations and while greed stops nowhere, the concern was that some in the House of Commons were more concerned with fattening up their portfolios rather than engaging in discourse about how best to govern for the common good. Sound familiar? These days we call such corrupt politicians "shills" or in the pocket of some monied interest, and it seems that they are largely in control of things.
Of course, those with inherited wealth and titles are not above corruption, but the blame for mismanagement and disaster was harder to avoid in these cases. Famously, the Duke of Buckingham botched a raid on France so badly that he looked like a traitor to his country! He couldn't hide behind a defense of "well, vote me out, then". An assassin channeled the fury of the populace and permanently ended his mistakes. Truth be told, as much fun as it might seem to have such a pirate ship mentality take care of our political problems, well, we all decided, gradually, that representative democracy was instead the way to go. I certainly think so. The thinkers, politicians, economists, etc. that created new governments in the United States, Canada, and far beyond our shores did as well.
In the United States, however, a more hands off approach would emerge from multiple sides of the political spectrum, born of the Federalism that saw its birth pangs as far back as the Magna Carta. Initially, the Founding Fathers produced the Articles of Confederation out of a fear of how government can tyrannize private citizens and bring about an interruption of the free flow of commerce. Capitalism was in it's young adulthood, and the colonies and Britain were the birth place of the philosophy as we have come to recognize it. Alas, the Articles proved weak and ineffective, largely thanks to the American independent spirit. A Constitution would emerge once independence from Britain had been secured, a largely stable document that has thus far managed to endure and act as the law of the land.
Canada was another story. Seemingly in a continuation of "Tories" (conservatives, sort of) vs. "Whigs" (liberals, sort of), while the United States was all about keeping an eye on the wheel of the ship while letting it sail where the wind may provide opportunity (read: Whigs), Canada was dominated by a more paternalistic mentality that seemingly embraced some idealistic stability of the more controlled times of "before Capitalism", or rather mercantilism (read: Tories). To date, this is why even conservative elements in Canada don't consider public healthcare or welfare spending to be the devil (though this is currently undergoing a bit of a challenge), whereas in the United States the "hands off" approach has tended to dominate (though this is currently undergoing a bit of a challenge). As I noted in my last article, I've come to see this as a result of an unfinished war we have been fighting since those 1640's I talked about earlier. The players just seem different. Anyway, before I dive to deeply into that rabbit hole, what does any of this happen to do with Canada having (had) a queen?
Paternalism, or the concept of governing like a father.
In the United States, the hands off approach tended to form because a distrust of official class divisions, which on paper sailed away with any surviving and remaining Loyalists at the end of the American Revolution/War of Independence. Some went back to Britain, some stayed and made the best of it, but many went to Canada. There, over a long period of struggle that we have not really resolved, they found a an existing paternalistic society in the form of the French-Canadians, and while the English speakers largely took refuge in places like Nova Scotia or Upper Canada (now Ontario), Montreal became a famous hub of interaction of ideals and philosophies and two worlds started talking to each other. One can easily see that while the 13 colonies had to fight to find common ground in order to survive, with South Carolina and Massachusetts miraculously finding political harmony enough to muster political will, in Canada this was taken to a whole other level. Confederation was a difficult baby to birth, and these days hot headed elements popping out of the landscape screaming "Quebec, Alberta, etc." prove that the struggle continues.
Some say that it only happened because we did not want to be Americans. We were more comfortable with paternalism, that is to say the government acting as parent, specifically father, than the Founding Fathers ever were (though Hamilton had a strong attraction to it in some ways). To a degree, we largely still are. This is not to say we are not into elections and individual liberty! Those are good, necessary things, reminders of the accountability government has to all of us, that it rules by the consent of the governed. Yet we still have a crown. We delight in being Albertans, Ontarians, Quebecois almost as much, if not more so, than being Canadian, and yet when push comes to shove, we also have a very strong sense of community, which has thus far held us together. Americans have it too, and this is going to explain a lot about the real question here: "why does Canada still have a crown?"
Americans sort of had one.
He was many things, but George Washington is remembered as the quiet man in the room who everyone shut up to listen to. He inspired unity in a way that no other president has since done so, and no other figure had managed to in his own time. He is most significantly remembered for not taking a crown, for cementing into the national identity the concept of fair elections where one does one's duty and then moves on. He was the chairman of the board that the new country needed. Ever since 1660, when Britain decided that it needed that chairman of the board to come back after they chopped the head off King Charles I, flirted with a failed state under Cromwell, and then was plunged into the mess that both the Founding Fathers and Fathers of Confederation never wanted to repeat, even disconnected by centuries and ocean, so far away from such a chaotic "what's next?".
Canada decided to stick with the existing British model of political parties forming ruling coalitions in an elected lower House of Parliament. The leader of the dominant party would be a Prime Minister, just like back in London. Much like the President, however, the Prime Ministers would often fall short of being the figure of unity and a manifestation of the larger nation, that chairman of the board. Not being American, having a transcontinental railroad, other elements of the defensive nationalism that Canada may fairly be labelled as having in her history, these were not good enough reasons to stick together. Community, on the other hand, took a Canadian identity out of the hands of negative definitions and moved from I am X because not Y to we are all in this together. Canada not only drew its inspiration of government from what had been functioning in Britain in evolving form since the 1200's (or earlier, if we consider Henry II to be the founder of our modern rule of law), but had a figurehead already in place. Her name was Victoria.
 |
| Queen Elizabeth looks at Queen Victoria |
I fully acknowledge that she has a complicated history. She didn't, for example, support female voting, and while she was largely removed from the political process involved in colonization and atrocities like the Irish and Indian famines, she was still crowned while it was all happening. That said, she also knew how to cool heads and tell, as Elizabeth would later put it, "grey haired old men" to think things through. Like Elizabeth, and indeed like myself, she didn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, and had a historical perspective to consider options with.
By the time she ascended to the throne in Britain, she was roughly in the same role as King Charles is today. There were already vicious political factions vying for control, philosophical dominance, etc. by a hundred years prior to her crowning. At the end of the day, however, your radical reformer and most stolid aristocrat alike all shut up when she would enter the room. This is not because she was a figure of worship, but because she was, well, outside of the political realm. Yes, much like King Charles, she lived in splendor and once she became queen, never really had to want for anything ever again, but it served as a golden cage from which she could not necessarily live her own life. She was unelected, but she was also not making the decisions about how we ought to be governed; we had and have elections for that. She was, and he is, however, the living reminder that those elected leaders cannot run amok and have to be accountable to us and the Constitution which is there to remind us, in paper, of accountability. It may be bold to say so, but these days, Americans could use another Washington like that. Alas, as he warned in his farewell address, his office got political. A new crown is not the answer for the United States. The selection process would be impossible, to say the least, but alas, the modern nature of the Presidential office requires an exceptional individual to serve as inspiring more than just consumer confidence.
But while the United States is best known for forging a new path, or at least trying to a new form of one, Canada looks to the future by drawing strength, and these days, more sobriety, from the past. To quote King Charles in his first Royal speech made earlier today:
"In her life of service we saw that abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as Nations."
He smiled a bit when he said that line, and no, it wasn't a smirk. He said it because he was aware of his role, and hers, in wearing ermine and a jeweled crown while promoting various freedoms. His mother, for example, was very much opposed to Apartheid in South Africa. As early as her 1947 speech about the Commonwealth (which used, a product of its time, words we now shirk at, like "Imperial"), she was committed to leaving behind an empire and moving towards a global scale of cooperation and assistance. The most ardent supporter of this is, well, the crown. Many crowns in one person. In Canada, we have 11 crowns shared by the same person, Federalism born from a Unitary state, the struggle that was the excuse for starting that fight that began in the 1640's, but turned out to be more of a power and wealth struggle egged on by religious fervor (sound familiar?). You see, in the person of the monarch, who really lives in a manicured, arranged life, and is born to not be themselves, we have the representation of shared history, the legacy of the journey toward accountability, the rule of law, and the balance between freedom and the responsibility we have to each other. We didn't just wake up one day and say "freedom", "elections", etc.
The realm is not, you see, the extension of the will of the sovereign, but a community with whom the crown acts as a living embodiment of a unity over many voices and a desire to live free... together.
It's hard to go it alone. A tyrant looks at all of us differently than just us. That sentence can easily be at home in both the United States and Canada, no/non?
Canada still has a queen/king because we value democracy, the rule of law, political accountability, and the path to progress, rooted in a history that inspires and shows us how we got there, and how to avoid doing the same dumb stuff that took us a for a tumble or let a tyrant take control.
