By any realistic appraisal, the monarchy, as an institution has outlived its relevance in this country. It serves no necessary or useful purpose.
But there’s a reason why the institution has survived as long as it has and stayed in reasonable repair, surmounting multiple controversies – from Diana to Camilla to Andrew to Harry and Meghan – and escaping unscathed from periodic campaigns to abolish it.
The reason or explanation is found in the remarkable 70-year reign of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, the young princess who was thrust, undereducated and ill-prepared, into a life of duty above self. Although her frequent visits to this country, which she called her second home, would never rival the hysteria of, say, an appearance by the Beatles or a championship won by basketball’s Raptors, her popularity increased as she grew into the job of being queen.
It was a job that defied the parameters of any popularity contest. She was to be seen but not to be heard expressing any interesting, let alone controversial, opinions. She was to be admired from a distance, never touched. She was free to smile, but not to laugh. Her controllers at Downing Street and Westminster would listen to her advice and occasionally heed it, but influence was not to be confused with authority, of which she had none. It was her duty, as she interpreted it, to be a symbol of stability in a world that had precious little, to be a model of dignity among world leaders, many of whom had long since surrendered whatever dignity they may once have had.
Hers was an impossible job, but she persevered, not wavering during the privately painful and publicly embarrassing twists of the Windsor family soap opera. I think it was that perseverance and her lifelong dedication to duty above self that account for the outpouring of grief when her death, at 96, was announced last Wednesday. The emotions voiced by the prime minister, shopkeepers and homemakers alike, were genuine: Canada had lost a dear friend. Ordinary Canadians – by no means were they stereotypical Brit colonials – wept openly for the TV cameras as they spoke of their love for a monarch they had never met and might never have seen in person.
This devotion to Elizabeth will not transfer automatically to her son. King Charles III will have to earn his own measure of respect and affection. And as much as monarchists in Canada may wish it, he is not about to be hailed as Charles the Great.
Although public support for the institution has been dribbling away for years – a poll in February put support for Charles as king at 17 per cent; another one in April reported that only 26 per cent of Canadians favoured retaining the monarchy – the chances are roughly nil that any government in Ottawa will take the initiative to abolish it as long as Charles is king. But he is 73, and as he ascends to the throne he once said he didn’t want, I wouldn’t care to bet that the institution in its existing form will survive his passing.
A better bet would be that Canada will follow the Australian example: appoint a home-grown Canadian as head of state – perhaps elected by a free vote in Parliament – while continuing to recognize the monarch as head of the Commonwealth of Nations.
In fact, if monarchs were permitted to accept credit for achievements, the success of the Commonwealth would be among Elizabeth’s. Its 56 members, large and small, all subscribe to core principles entrenched in the association’s charter. Chief among them are democracy, human rights and freedom of expression. Institutions that will defend and fight for such principles are desperately needed in an age when democratic values are under attack everywhere, including in Canada today.
Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens is an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s. He welcomes comments at geoffstevens40@gmail.com