The federal position here is promoted by all the provincial governments, various academics such as Andrew Heard and Benoît Pelletier, and the Monarchist League of Canada. As professor Heard argued, the key principle of the monarchy in Canada, deriving from the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, is that Canada will be “one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” These two countries share both the institution of the monarchy and the person of the sovereign. By definition, to Heard, “the Canadian law governing our head of state is that whomever is the British monarch is our head of state.” Canada has always accepted that the rules of succession for the Crown will be those developed in Britain and assented to by Canada.[26]
The Canadian Royal Heritage Trust and Citizens for a Canadian Republic stand in support of the plaintiffs. Indeed, the CCR finds itself in an interesting position. If the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 is found to be unconstitutional, this ruling could precipitate a move to have a formal amendment to ratify the act, which may open up the broader issue of monarchy abolition. But if, as is more likely, the courts rule in favour of the act as a means of providing stability to the institution of the monarchy in this country while ensuring that the rules for the succession to the Canadian Crown are identical to the rest of the Commonwealth, such a ruling would present the CCR with an intriguing argument. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the institution of the monarchy can be subject to alteration without the need to engage section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. “[T]hanks to Prime Minister Harper,” writes Tom Freda, director of the CCR, “ending the monarchy could now be easier because of the passing of the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, which many believe directly affects the ‘office of the Queen’.… The Harper government defended the tactic [of not securing a constitutional amendment] with the assurance that even though the legislation definitely affects who can become head of state, it doesn’t affect the office itself.” To Freda, this act “could set a precedent for future attempts to change the constitution, including the monarchy, without provincial consent.”[27]
The Quebec Superior Court, however, has not given the plaintiffs in this case or the CCR much satisfaction. In a decision rendered in February 2016, Justice Claude Bouchard ruled in favour of the position of the federal government, stressing that the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 represented a minor alteration to the British rules of succession with which Canada agreed. Justice Bouchard wrote:
The sole purpose of the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act of 2013 is to give Canada’s assent to the modifications made to the Succession by British law, according to the constitutional convention of the latter deriving from the Preamble to The Statute of Westminster of 1931. Accordingly, the 2013 Act only recognizes that the King or Queen of the United Kingdom, as designated by the laws of the United Kingdom, is the King or Queen of Canada.[28]
Any change to the “powers, position and functions conferred on the Crown as an institution,” however, Justice Bouchard asserted, including its very existence, its continuation, and its possible abolition, would constitute major and fundamental changes to the institution, requiring ratification according to the full set of obligations set forth in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.[29] In April 2016 the plaintiffs announced their intentions to appeal this decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal. This case was ongoing at the time of writing, and, once again, the republican cause found itself behind the constitutional eight ball.
The Ultimate Irony
No discussion on the difficulties of abolishing the monarchy in Canada would be complete without a quick and amusing look at the same issue in the United Kingdom. Just as a republican movement exists in Canada, so, too, is there one in the United Kingdom; just as Canadian republicans seek the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, so, too, do British republicans seek the same goal in their homeland, the very birthplace of the British Crown. In Canada, republicans face the challenge of seeking their ends in compliance with the rules of a written federal constitution that has an explicit amending formula requiring the unanimous support of the federal and provincial governments and their legislative assemblies. The United Kingdom, however, does not have a formal written constitution. There is no formally written procedure for amending the constitution, and the newly devolved parliamentary institutions in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland do not possess the legislative right to be involved in general changes to the constitutional order of the United Kingdom. The British constitution can only be changed by the one supreme lawmaking body in the country — the British Parliament at Westminster, the mother of parliaments. In the tradition of the British constitution, Parliament is supreme, and it has the power to change, alter, amend, create, or abolish any aspect of the British constitution by means of a simple act of Parliament.
All that is required to abolish the monarchy in Britain, then, would be for the republican movement to have a sympathetic party win a majority government in the House of Commons and to propose such an amendment. While a national referendum is not legally required for such a change, one would probably be held. If the republican side won this vote, the government could quickly steer its abolition act through the Commons. The House of Lords, by virtue of the Parliament Act, 1949, now has only a one-year suspensive veto on legislation, meaning that even if a majority of the lords objected to the abolition act, such objection would cease to have legal effect after twelve months, clearing the act for final royal assent. Here, given the principles of responsible government, the monarch would be obligated to follow the advice of his or her prime minister and sign the legislation into law, effectively ending his or her reign and eliminating the institution of the monarchy from the British system of government. As Walter Bagehot once said, the Queen must sign her own death warrant if she is so advised by her prime minister. If this abolition scenario ever came to pass, republicans in the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth realms would be ecstatic.
But ecstasy in Canada would soon turn to outrage. The sovereign holds his or her title of queen or king of Canada distinct from any British title. At her coronation in 1953, Elizabeth II gained the title Queen of Canada as a legal status separate from any other legal right bestowed upon her by the British. This Canadian title was granted to her by the authority of the Parliament of Canada through the Royal Styles and Titles Act, 1953. Two other pieces of legislation now come into play. The Statute of Westminster, 1931 stipulated that the British government would cease to legislate for any member state of the British Commonwealth, and that no future British law would ever be applicable to such a Commonwealth member. The only exception to this rule, however, was the Canadian constitution. Due to the inability of Canadian federal and provincial leaders to agree to an amending formula, amendments to the Canadian constitution were still ultimately passed by the British Parliament in Westminster, with the British acting upon the advice of the Canadian prime minister and federal government. This anomaly was finally ended in 1982 with the passage, in London, of the Canada Act, 1982. This British law brought into legal force the Constitution Act, 1982 while also stipulating that, henceforth, no act of the British Parliament would ever extend to Canada.
What all of this signifies is that any act of the British Parliament abolishing the monarchy in the United Kingdom only has effectiveness in the United Kingdom and would not touch upon the status of the monarchy in Canada. The British Parliament cannot legislate for Canada, so British parliamentarians cannot declare that the monarchy has come to an end in Canada, that the position of king or queen of Canada is defunct. Under the Constitution Act, 1982, only Canadian parliamentarians can take such actions, and these actions affecting “the office of the Queen” in Canada can only be constitutionally sanctioned through adherence to the rules of constitutional amendment found in section 41 of that act. So deeply entrenched is the monarchy in Canada that even if the British abolished it in their country, the
institution would continue to exist in this country until such time as Canadians put an end to it. Even if the British drove a stake through the heart of the monarchy in the United Kingdom (a Kingdom no more), it would live on in Canada.
Such a reality may drive some monarchists to entertain the idea that, in the unlikely event of the British ever severing their historic link with the Crown, the House of Windsor could find a new home in Canada. Rideau Hall would certainly gain a new international stature, and Canadian monarchists would find extra pride in being greater loyalists to the Crown than those found in the United Kingdom. Such a Canadian scenario, however, is highly improbable. Should the monarchy ever be abolished in Britain, it would be much more likely that the last remaining monarch would abdicate all of his or her titles throughout all the remaining Commonwealth realms, bringing to a close a royal tradition dating back to medieval times. It is hard to imagine the Windsors seeking to maintain the “family firm” apart from their British roots, while facing heightened and inevitable republican challenges from within Canada and other Commonwealth countries were they ever to contemplate such a transplanted monarchy initiative. Dignity would trump vanity.
The Power of Elitist Inertia
The constitutional difficulties confronting all those who seek to abolish the monarchy in Canada are formidable to the point of seeming insurmountable. While the Constitution Act, 1982 does allow for a formal amendment to sever Canada’s connection to the royal family, the process is torturous. A host of complicated institutional issues regarding the nature of the new head of state must be addressed and agreed to by Canadians and their elected leaders prior to the change being enacted, and the final decisions here are always in the hands of first ministers. They must agree to open up the constitution to address this reform, but in so doing they would be opening a Pandora’s box with no guarantee that their desired goals could be achieved. Any constitution is weighted in favour of the status quo, with those wishing to make any alteration to the document required to meet a demanding threshold of consent to change. In Canada that threshold is so high and complicated as to guarantee the continued existence of the monarchy in this country after the death of Elizabeth II. Therefore an institution that many Canadians view as anti-democratic, foreign, and elitist, a vestige of our colonial past, and an institution that would never be accepted by Canadians today if we had the opportunity to draft our constitution anew, will continue. In the fullness of time, and regardless of the opposition to his ascension, we will enter the reign of King Charles III. The debate on the worth and legitimacy of the monarchy will rage on. But maybe then, just maybe, Canadians can begin to explore how we could have a monarchy and vice-regal leadership that is more relevant to and valued by most Canadians. To these issues we turn in our final chapter.
Chapter 10
the queen is dead; long live the king
“Something as curious as the monarchy won’t survive unless you take account of people’s attitudes. After all, if people don’t want it, they won’t have it.”
— Charles, Prince of Wales.
Charles, Prince of Wales, has an ever-nearing date with destiny. And yet, this greatest of days — one ushering in a time he has waited for his whole adult life — will be tinged with deep sadness, for him and for his people. At some point in the next decade or so, Elizabeth II will depart this world, having reigned longer than any English, British, and Commonwealth monarch in history. Her state funeral, already planned under the operational name “London Bridge,” will be a majestic affair. Held in Westminster Abbey and officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it will be attended by thousands, from kings and queens and heads of states and governments to ordinary citizens young and old. A world audience of over a billion people will watch on television. All the pageantry and glory of a British royal funeral will be on full display, and rest assured, in the immediate aftermath of this event, public opinion polls across the Commonwealth realms will register a significant uptick in support for the monarchy. The departed Queen will be remembered for her decades of devoted service to her Crown and her people, for overseeing and fostering the transition of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, and for carrying the institution of the monarchy through times often so turbulent and changing that its future was at stake. She will be acclaimed for saving a Crown to pass on to her eldest son.
At the very moment she slips away, Charles will be king. That is, he will be king unless he chooses to alter the course of history. For over a decade, the media has speculated about his abdication in favour of his son, William — who has been joined in life by his wife, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Such an act of self-sacrifice would serve a dual purpose: it would eliminate the republican criticism that Charles is unfit to be king; and it would ensure that the Crown went to an immensely popular and refreshingly youthful royal couple.
While such a move may sound logical, the chances of it being put into motion are slim. It is hard to imagine, after all his years of waiting, that Charles would turn his back on his destiny, that he would willingly go down in history as only the second man ever to abdicate the British throne. This scenario is especially unlikely given that Charles has shown himself to be a man of ideas. Why would he relinquish the most regal of platforms from which he could promote his causes? Assuming he will not abdicate, in accordance with British and Canadian common law he will become king the very instant his mother ceases to live. The succession will be instantaneous and complete, with Charles inheriting all of the rights and titles, privileges, obligations, and prerogatives of the British, Canadian, and Commonwealth Crowns. His coronation day, however, will have to wait. In the tradition of the British and Commonwealth monarchy, the coronation — the formal, symbolic affirmation of the succession and ascension of the new sovereign — usually takes place a year or so after the death of the previous monarch. The coronation is to be a joyous occasion, a celebration of the life and calling of the new sovereign, and this ceremony can only take place once the period of mourning for the departed monarch has passed.
Most Canadians alive today have only ever lived under the reign of a single queen. Even those baby boomers born between 1945 and 1952 likely have little to no memory of Elizabeth II’s coronation on June 2, 1953. When we witness Charles’s coronation,[1] we will be watching something exceedingly rare, a political and religious ceremony steeped in more than a thousand years of tradition, yet always updated to take account of the changing circumstances of the British Crown and its relationship first to its Empire and now to the Commonwealth.
On his great day, Charles and his wife, Camilla, will don some of their finest clothes — he, probably a uniform of an admiral of the fleet, she, a luxurious gown — and they will ride to Westminster Abbey from Buckingham Palace in the twenty-four-foot-long Gold State Coach from the eighteenth century. The streets along the procession route will be thronged with people, well more than the one million who gathered to watch his mother’s progress in 1953. Charles’s procession will be a spectacular display of pageantry, complete with military bands and all the heads of government of the Commonwealth realms riding in coaches ahead of the royal couple. As well, thousands of soldiers, sailors, aircrew, uniformed civilian police officers, firefighters, and other first responders coming from every Commonwealth country will march or ride on horseback in the parade in honour of the new king. This procession will be merely the beginning of the spectacle that is a coronation.
Upon arrival at Westminster Abbey, the site of most every coronation since William the Conqueror’s in 1066, Charles and Camilla will be met by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The royal couple will proceed up the cathedral nave to the high altar, where the throne awaits. The Abbey will be packed with invited guests, including kings and queens from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; presidents and prime ministers from around the world; governors general from every Commonwealth realm; senior religious leaders from the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and other worl
dwide faiths and denominations; the secretary general of the Commonwealth; diplomats; senior military commanders; members of the British aristocracy; and select invitees representing the many charitable groups supported by the new king. At his mother’s coronation, some 7,500 guests were present, with tens of thousands standing in the crowds outside the Abbey. Charles will see similar numbers, their size constrained only by the physical limitations of the Abbey.
Once Charles and Camilla are seated by the throne, the official ceremony will begin. It consists of four parts: recognition, oath, anointing, and crowning. The coronation will echo the traditional procedures Charles’s mother and grandfather also carefully acted out, although a nod to recent history and the future will be added to this homage to the past. For example, certain details of the oath will surely be altered to take into account the changed nature of the Commonwealth from 1953 to the present; as well, the oath will doubtless consider Charles’s personal interests in being seen as a defender of faith as well as of the faith. At the outset, the Archbishop of Canterbury will present the king to all those present for their “recognition” of the new sovereign. “Ladies and Gentlemen,” he will intone, “I present unto you King Charles, your undoubted King: Wherefore all you who are come this day to do your homage and service. Are you willing to do the same?” As soon as the question is posed, the congregation will answer with the shout, “God Save King Charles.” The Archbishop will then administer the coronation oath. This oath involves Charles being asked a series of questions. Will he “solemnly promise and swear” to govern the peoples of the Commonwealth “according to their respective laws and customs?” In 1953, Elizabeth II was presented with the names of all the then self-governing dominions as well as the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland before taking the oath. Most likely Charles will also be presented with the names of every relevant nation when he is called upon to swear this same oath, which means Canada will be mentioned by name. He will also be asked if he will use his power “to cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in your judgments?” And, most importantly from a religious viewpoint, he will be asked, “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the Settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?” To which the king will reply: “All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.” Acceptance of these religious promises is vital if Charles is to be duly sanctified as the supreme governor of the Church of England. Charles will also swear an oath to preserve the Presbyterian Church government in the Church of Scotland, and he will likely profess a commitment to support and promote the concept of faith and faithfulness for all people regardless of their individual creed.
Battle Royal Page 26