2. The King (see #1 here)
John Fraser, a lively, genial, well-informed presence on the literary and journalist scene in Toronto and Canada (I say from of a handful of encounters, no more) and an activist in monarchist circles for many years, had a piece about King Charles in the papers the other day. Crucial sentences:
We are a sovereign nation with a democratic system of government that embraces a constitutional monarchy. That monarchy is now needed to defend our sovereignty. King Charles has actually been longing to come to Canada for several years and has been repeatedly put off.
Of the three sentences, I find the first acceptable, except for the word “embraces.” But the second sentence is dangerously wrong. And because
it is wrong, I find the first part of the final sentence distressing and the
second part reassuring, which must be about the reverse of what John Fraser would wish Canadians to take from it.
Some Canadians understand the complicated constitutional situation in which the King of the United Kingdom also has the constitutional status of King of Canada. If Canada and Britain ever went to war against each other (please not!), the constitution presumes he would somehow support, indeed embody, both sides.
We are almost in that situation right now. The British government feels an urgent need to keep as close to the United States as possible – such is always the British position. Yet the Canadian government declares we are in a trade war with the US that is also an attack on our borders, our sovereignty, and our national existence.
It may be true in some sense that the King as King of Canada could make a statement in support of Canada existence. But should he do so, two profound problems would arise.
First as King of Britain, it appears Charles will also be following the emerging British/European consensus that in order to withstand the American assault on Europe, Canada will have to be abandoned. To play his role as head of two countries, he will soon be supporting two opposed policy lines.
As we said, it is constitutional acceptable to imagine the king holding two such contradictory positions. But the king is a proud man, and it is hard to see him wishing to say simultaneously “My Canada must be saved” and “Canada is not my problem.” He could do it, I suppose, but no one would ever take the poor two-headed man seriously again.
Second, even if the Canadian government did tell King Charles he must robustly speak for Canada and he accepted the assignment, his intervention could only do harm to the Canadian cause.
We are almost in that situation right now. The British government feels an urgent need to keep as close to the United States as possible – such is always the British position. Yet the Canadian government declares we are in a trade war with the US that is also an attack on our borders, our sovereignty, and our national existence.
It may be true in some sense that the King as King of Canada could make a statement in support of Canada existence. But should he do so, two profound problems would arise.
First as King of Britain, it appears Charles will also be following the emerging British/European consensus that in order to withstand the American assault on Europe, Canada will have to be abandoned. To play his role as head of two countries, he will soon be supporting two opposed policy lines.
As we said, it is constitutional acceptable to imagine the king holding two such contradictory positions. But the king is a proud man, and it is hard to see him wishing to say simultaneously “My Canada must be saved” and “Canada is not my problem.” He could do it, I suppose, but no one would ever take the poor two-headed man seriously again.
Second, even if the Canadian government did tell King Charles he must robustly speak for Canada and he accepted the assignment, his intervention could only do harm to the Canadian cause.
Canada is a proud, sovereignty, independent, unique nation in the world of nations. It is on that basis we have united to defend ourselves from the American threat.
But the moment Charles presumes to speak for us in his plummy accent and too-English suits, the whole world’s reaction (okay, maybe not New Zealand's), will be to say, “Gee, I thought Canada was its own country. If it is still a colony of England, subservient to the English king, maybe they do need to be liberated and given some of that American freedom.” As our king, Charles is obligated to defend us should we ask him to. But little could do more to weaken our cause before the world (and here at home) than us seeking his leadership and him trying to provide it.
Which is why it is alarming John Fraser believes that Charles is anxious to come here, and reassuring that he has not yet come and may not at all, at least as long as the British Prime Minister is using him to curry favour with the American President, the declared foe of our national existence. Let us defend our own existence. It just works better that way,
But the moment Charles presumes to speak for us in his plummy accent and too-English suits, the whole world’s reaction (okay, maybe not New Zealand's), will be to say, “Gee, I thought Canada was its own country. If it is still a colony of England, subservient to the English king, maybe they do need to be liberated and given some of that American freedom.” As our king, Charles is obligated to defend us should we ask him to. But little could do more to weaken our cause before the world (and here at home) than us seeking his leadership and him trying to provide it.
Which is why it is alarming John Fraser believes that Charles is anxious to come here, and reassuring that he has not yet come and may not at all, at least as long as the British Prime Minister is using him to curry favour with the American President, the declared foe of our national existence. Let us defend our own existence. It just works better that way,
A way out of this awkwardness?
I happened to hear an episode of the British podcast "The Rest is Politics" recently, in which Rory Stewart and Alasdair Campbell briefly took up the American threat to Canada. They agreed that Keir Starmer, as Britain's prime minister, and Charles III, as head of the Commonwealth, should each take a strong stand in support of Canada and its national sovereignty.
Neither seemed to take seriously the notion that either the PM or the king could, would, or should speak for and on behalf of Canada.
That seems a sensible and detached position to adopt.