The nationalists’ conquêtisme, of course, was but a mirror to that of an earlier tradition of Anglo triumphalists, who also emphasized the Conquest (“Wolfe the dauntless hero came”) as the locus generis of the British ascendancy. As, in their own way, did a later generation of Canadian nationalists, for whom the British connection was a yoke to be thrown off, together with such colonial “relics” as the Crown, not merely to mollify Quebec but for the sake of our own psychological maturation as a people. You still hear a lot of that.Of course John Cabot landed in Newfoundland in 1497 in the name of Henry VII, which predates the landing by Jacques Cartier in 1534, so is not Canada originally an English country? Or are we to believe that because Newfoundland did not join Confederation until 1949, Newfoundland is therefore not really part of old Canada. The unbroken chain of sovereignty over Canadian territory began in 1497, a fact that was not even interrupted by the brief Cromwellian republic since a French king still ruled over most of Canada at the time.
But if the history of Canada is an unbroken chain of sovereignty, Francis to Elizabeth, Champlain to Johnston; if what is important about it is not the change from French to British rule but the continuity between them—if we are not a British monarchy, or even a French monarchy and then a British one, but simply a monarchy, throughout—then the Conquest is not the pivotal event in our history: it is just an event. The effect, in turn, is to deracinate the British inheritance. What is valuable is the inheritance—Crown, Parliament, the common law, the Constitution—not its Britishness.
Does Canada therefore have a longer continuous monarchy than even England?
Yes. I have argued this point for many years. It is extremely good for countering the republican claim that the concept of monarchy is "foreign" and "un-Canadian". Stuff and nonsense; it is entirely Canadian and Canada has known nothing else.
ReplyDeleteWe dearly miss the Young Fogey.
ReplyDeleteIndeed we do.
ReplyDeleteI feel, in regard to continuous monarchy, that Cromwell really didn't interrupt it. The monarchy continues so long as the Crown Prince survives to inherit the throne within a reasonable space of time. No doubt this is unsupported by the actual rules of succession, but there you go.
We dearly miss the Young Fogey.
ReplyDeleteIndeed!
As politically shrewd as this mythology of being 'French' might be, it is, of course, nonesense. Canada is a country. A country consists of laws and institutions that establish it as such. Prior to Confederation, Canada, the country, did not exist. If one follows the logic of Canada always having existed, then we would have to look to the polywogs and beaver as our patrimony.
ReplyDeleteAs a country, Canada is and always has been a monarchy...by law, not be inference. Canada was never a French country. Portions of what is now called 'Canada' were the French colony of New France. New France was never a country.
"Cromwell didn't interrupt it. The Monarchy continues so long as The Crown Prince survives to inherit the throne." This is what monarchists do indeed believe. Official rules or laws - or no official rules or laws. For a Prince or King is the actual incarnation or embodiment of the Law. The only Law that matters. Hee! Hee! Hee!
ReplyDelete