As for Canada, its problem with the monarchy is that it is non-resident and, literally, un-Canadian. If the Cambridges were here for one or more five-year terms, they would be a smash, not least as ambassadors for Canada opposite other countries. (This is no rap on David Johnston, an outstandingly qualified Governor-General in every respect.)
If for any reason, some such idea as this is not a runner, the governor general should become a co-chief of state with the monarch, and not just a stand-in. A serious country cannot have a viceroy as its chief of state other than for two weeks every three years or so when a monarch from overseas, however distinguished, and who is officially shared with other countries, is physically present in Canada.
We have good people and good institutions. What is needed is a little creative thinking. The republicans, pounding the table and just demanding the abolition of the monarchy, are not contributing much to what should be an interesting and certainly is a timely, discussion.
Defending he British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Realms
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice - G.K. Chesterton
Monday, November 7, 2011
"A serious country cannot have a viceroy as its chief of state"
So says Conrad Black, who is himself a monarchist, a Catholic and a Lord. The problem is not the monarchy, writes Lord Black, the issue for non-British Commonwealth realms is its non-resident status:
Good to know what convicted criminal Conrad Black thinks. This is the man who gave up his Canadian citizenship to accent a political life peerage from William Hague. Not a serious character.
ReplyDeleteI have serious reservations with Lord Black's notions on this topic, I seem to recall he has also called for a Canadian president to serve as equal to the queen so as to 'give the republicans a leader they can respect' or something along those lines. I think he misunderstands the importance that the viceregal post has for most Canadians. Most people I have spoken to (including well educated people with university degrees) have no idea who the Governor General is and think the post is still the exclusive preserve of British lords, and are not particularly upset by that either.
ReplyDeleteI have long felt that Canada needs to start appointing members of the royal family to the post of Governor General (and preferably extending the Governor General's term back to at least 7 years), this would strengthen the regal nature of the post and also lend some much needed glamour to it as well. Although I feel that the present system is better than Lord Black's plan B, frankly I do not quite see how a Governor General could be co-chief of state with the queen.
Keep things as they are would be best. The sorts of changes put above would invite a republican debate, that and the fact nothing needs to be done with this aspect of the Crown.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with these posts. Black is "spot on". We need the Cambridge's here for a few years to let them get adjusted to Canadian life. The money wasted on the LG's could be better spent on that young couple. Otherwise we ought to have the GG designated as a co-chief of state. It is an "end-run" on republican arguments. I am completely respectful of and loyal to our Queen and she is the "life force" of it all. When she is gone one day then we need to reinvent the monarchy here to keep it relevant.
ReplyDeleteWhy would a royal Governor-General have to be Prince William? While I can see the advantage in it, I can also see where Prince Andrew (who's worked with the Canadian military) or Princess Anne (her son's married to a Canadian) might also work.
ReplyDelete