The Princess Royal with British former athlete David Hemery at the Olympic Village Flag ceremony at the Winter Olympics, Vancouver, 12 February 2010. Her Royal Highness is a member of the International Olympic Committee, and President of the British Olympic Association. I suppose it was for this reason that Her Royal Highness was not invited to sit in the VIP box with the Governor General of Canada when our vice regal formerly declared the Games open on behalf of Her Majesty.I do not believe this to be proper, that members of the Royal Family should come to a Commonwealth Realm to represent British interests. It sends the message that you are not one of us. It puts to lie the assertion that we have such a thing as a "Canadian Royal Family". We don't, of course, the Royal Family is obviously British, as much as Canadian monarchists pretend otherwise. There is nothing wrong with this, so long as the British Royal Family plays their Canadian part when in Canada.
The Vancouver Winter Olympics is about showcasing our athletes and our country to the world. If Her Royal Highness does not want to partake in that role, and wishes to cheer on British athletes at Canadian Olympic venues, then I have a very basic patriotic problem with that. Perhaps it is time we thought seriously of finally patriating the monarchy, one that we can truly call our own.
OK - but has anyone actually asked a member of the Royal Family to represent the Canadian Olympian movement?
ReplyDeleteRemember this is a family that feels sad that no one will ask them to serve in vice regal office in Australia (or other realms presumably). Prince Charles is currently representing the interests of UK, Australian and NZ wool growers. Why? Because he was asked.
Agreed. No one would ever accuse Her Majesty for not representing the interests of the Realms she visits. But I do agree that members of the royal family should represent the interests of the realms they visit. They are, after all, a prince of the realm. The Duke of York is notorious for representing British trade and commerical interests abroad, and that is perfectly legitimate, so long as they are indeed abroad and not in one of the Commonwealth Realms.
ReplyDeleteWe should recognize that British athletes need all the help they can get. Australia is a Summer Olympic powerhouse, Canada is a Winter Olympic powerhouse and Britain sucks at both. They really are pretty piss poor when you think that this is a country of 60 million people.
ReplyDelete"The Vancouver Winter Olympics is about showcasing our athletes and our country to the world."
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ. Normal people don't invite people to their home to "showcase" their big house or their above-average children. They invite them over to have dinner, a game of cards, or whatever. Countries should be no different.
Having a royal pursuing British interests in conflict with the interests of other realms is going to occur now and then. But it is not a serious enough problem to scrap a system that works as well as any human institution yet devised.
Odd that a family cannot be both Canadian and British. No, they must be British only. Are you sure, Tweedsmuir?
ReplyDeleteI would caveat what I said, James, by stating that perceptions are more important than facts. We can tell each other than as princes' of the realm, the Royal Family is as British as they are Canadian, but people do not view it as such. To the media and the world, the 'British Queen' will be coming to Canada in July, and there is very little we can do about erasing that perception, be it deliberate or not.
ReplyDeleteTrue what you say about the present. But, I've always wondered why it's felt that perceptions of the monarchy are immovable, while others are let to morph over time, as they're naturally wont to do. When it's said that the Royal Family will always be thought of as British, I'm reminded of those damned iconoclastic monarchy haters who say a republic is "inevitable".
ReplyDeleteOn this subject, Her Majesty is set to address the United Nations in July this year, not as Queen of the UK, or even as monarch of any one particular country; she is to speak as Queen of all her realms, equally. I wonder what the media will make of that.
I'm fairly sure that Anne came in the same capacity to the Sydney Olympics. I don't recall there being any controversy. Rather, the controversy was about who would open the games (this coming straight after the referendum". Sensibly, we followed the Canadian approach and had the governor-general do the honours rather than the Queen.
ReplyDeleteIn practical terms, I think it was this act that cemented the governor-general in the minds of many Australians as our functioning head of state.
To be honest I don't have a problem with members of the Royal Family representing UK interests, even in other realms. They don't fulfil a constitutional function outside the UK (do they there, either?) and in a symbolic way I think Anne, Andrew, Edward, etc fulfil a function similar to Australian and Canadian vice-regal figures at the state/provinicial level. Princess Anne seems to symbolically act as a de facto Governor-General of Scotland, for instance.
This is also why I think it makes sense for the Royals to have vice-regal experience in Canada or Australia at the state/provincial level, rather than the federal level. It protects the dignity of Rideau Hall and Yarralumla, but gives Wills and Harry the experience of being the "boss". Prince William would make a great Australian state governor.
Has anyone considered that as a former competitor representing GB her role, like David Hemery, was simply that! It appears to me that she is 'damned' in whatever role she appears.
ReplyDelete