the queen is dead; long live the king
“Something as curious as the monarchy won’t survive unless you take account of people’s attitudes. After all, if people don’t want it, they won’t have it.”
— Charles, Prince of Wales.
Charles, Prince of Wales, has an ever-nearing date with destiny. And yet, this greatest of days — one ushering in a time he has waited for his whole adult life — will be tinged with deep sadness, for him and for his people. At some point in the next decade or so, Elizabeth II will depart this world, having reigned longer than any English, British, and Commonwealth monarch in history. Her state funeral, already planned under the operational name “London Bridge,” will be a majestic affair. Held in Westminster Abbey and officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it will be attended by thousands, from kings and queens and heads of states and governments to ordinary citizens young and old. A world audience of over a billion people will watch on television. All the pageantry and glory of a British royal funeral will be on full display, and rest assured, in the immediate aftermath of this event, public opinion polls across the Commonwealth realms will register a significant uptick in support for the monarchy. The departed Queen will be remembered for her decades of devoted service to her Crown and her people, for overseeing and fostering the transition of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, and for carrying the institution of the monarchy through times often so turbulent and changing that its future was at stake. She will be acclaimed for saving a Crown to pass on to her eldest son.
At the very moment she slips away, Charles will be king. That is, he will be king unless he chooses to alter the course of history. For over a decade, the media has speculated about his abdication in favour of his son, William — who has been joined in life by his wife, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Such an act of self-sacrifice would serve a dual purpose: it would eliminate the republican criticism that Charles is unfit to be king; and it would ensure that the Crown went to an immensely popular and refreshingly youthful royal couple.
While such a move may sound logical, the chances of it being put into motion are slim. It is hard to imagine, after all his years of waiting, that Charles would turn his back on his destiny, that he would willingly go down in history as only the second man ever to abdicate the British throne. This scenario is especially unlikely given that Charles has shown himself to be a man of ideas. Why would he relinquish the most regal of platforms from which he could promote his causes? Assuming he will not abdicate, in accordance with British and Canadian common law he will become king the very instant his mother ceases to live. The succession will be instantaneous and complete, with Charles inheriting all of the rights and titles, privileges, obligations, and prerogatives of the British, Canadian, and Commonwealth Crowns. His coronation day, however, will have to wait. In the tradition of the British and Commonwealth monarchy, the coronation — the formal, symbolic affirmation of the succession and ascension of the new sovereign — usually takes place a year or so after the death of the previous monarch. The coronation is to be a joyous occasion, a celebration of the life and calling of the new sovereign, and this ceremony can only take place once the period of mourning for the departed monarch has passed.
Most Canadians alive today have only ever lived under the reign of a single queen. Even those baby boomers born between 1945 and 1952 likely have little to no memory of Elizabeth II’s coronation on June 2, 1953. When we witness Charles’s coronation,[1] we will be watching something exceedingly rare, a political and religious ceremony steeped in more than a thousand years of tradition, yet always updated to take account of the changing circumstances of the British Crown and its relationship first to its Empire and now to the Commonwealth.
On his great day, Charles and his wife, Camilla, will don some of their finest clothes — he, probably a uniform of an admiral of the fleet, she, a luxurious gown — and they will ride to Westminster Abbey from Buckingham Palace in the twenty-four-foot-long Gold State Coach from the eighteenth century. The streets along the procession route will be thronged with people, well more than the one million who gathered to watch his mother’s progress in 1953. Charles’s procession will be a spectacular display of pageantry, complete with military bands and all the heads of government of the Commonwealth realms riding in coaches ahead of the royal couple. As well, thousands of soldiers, sailors, aircrew, uniformed civilian police officers, firefighters, and other first responders coming from every Commonwealth country will march or ride on horseback in the parade in honour of the new king. This procession will be merely the beginning of the spectacle that is a coronation.
Upon arrival at Westminster Abbey, the site of most every coronation since William the Conqueror’s in 1066, Charles and Camilla will be met by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The royal couple will proceed up the cathedral nave to the high altar, where the throne awaits. The Abbey will be packed with invited guests, including kings and queens from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; presidents and prime ministers from around the world; governors general from every Commonwealth realm; senior religious leaders from the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and other worldwide faiths and denominations; the secretary general of the Commonwealth; diplomats; senior military commanders; members of the British aristocracy; and select invitees representing the many charitable groups supported by the new king. At his mother’s coronation, some 7,500 guests were present, with tens of thousands standing in the crowds outside the Abbey. Charles will see similar numbers, their size constrained only by the physical limitations of the Abbey.
Once Charles and Camilla are seated by the throne, the official ceremony will begin. It consists of four parts: recognition, oath, anointing, and crowning. The coronation will echo the traditional procedures Charles’s mother and grandfather also carefully acted out, although a nod to recent history and the future will be added to this homage to the past. For example, certain details of the oath will surely be altered to take into account the changed nature of the Commonwealth from 1953 to the present; as well, the oath will doubtless consider Charles’s personal interests in being seen as a defender of faith as well as of the faith. At the outset, the Archbishop of Canterbury will present the king to all those present for their “recognition” of the new sovereign. “Ladies and Gentlemen,” he will intone, “I present unto you King Charles, your undoubted King: Wherefore all you who are come this day to do your homage and service. Are you willing to do the same?” As soon as the question is posed, the congregation will answer with the shout, “God Save King Charles.” The Archbishop will then administer the coronation oath. This oath involves Charles being asked a series of questions. Will he “solemnly promise and swear” to govern the peoples of the Commonwealth “according to their respective laws and customs?” In 1953, Elizabeth II was presented with the names of all the then self-governing dominions as well as the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland before taking the oath. Most likely Charles will also be presented with the names of every relevant nation when he is called upon to swear this same oath, which means Canada will be mentioned by name. He will also be asked if he will use his power “to cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in your judgments?” And, most importantly from a religious viewpoint, he will be asked, “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the Settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?” To which the king will reply: “All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.” Acceptance of these religious promises is vital if Charles is to be duly sanctified as the supreme governor of the Church of England. Charles will also swear an oath to preserve the Presbyterian Church government in the Church of Scotland, and he will likely profess a commitment to support and promote the concept of faith and faithfulness for all people regardless of their individual creed.
Following the oath comes the anointing, the most religiously significant part of the coronation. Charles will be led to the throne, King Edward’s Chair, upon which all English and British monarchs have been crowned since the time of Edward I. When he is before the throne, Charles will be stripped to his shirt and will be dressed in the anointing gown, a simple garment of plain white, with his chest laid bare. Once seated on the throne, a canopy will be drawn over the participants, concealing the act of anointing from the congregation and television viewers. This ritual includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, who applies consecrated oils upon the king’s hands, chest, and head. In this sacred act, it is believed that the king is touched by God. Once anointed, the religious part of the service is complete, and the secular act of coronation begins, with many of its symbols rooted in British history. Charles will be dressed in official vestments weighing over thirty pounds, including the Supertunica, a coat of gold silk; the Robe Royal, a mantle lined with crimson silk and decorated with silver coronets, national symbols (including the maple leaf), and imperial eagles; and the Stole Royal, a gold silk scarf embroidered with gold and silver thread, lined with jewels, and fringed in gold. Finally fully dressed, Charles will sit on the throne and will be presented with the symbols of his high office, deriving from the British Crown jewels: two twenty-two carat gold bracelets symbolizing sincerity and wisdom; gold spurs symbolizing chivalry; a white glove to encourage “gentleness in levying taxes;” and the jewelled Sword of Offering, designed to protect good and strike at evil. The Archbishop will also place on the fourth finger of his right hand the ruby and sapphire Coronation Ring, representing the marriage between king and people. Charles will also be given the Golden Orb, set with precious stones and surmounted with a cross, highlighting the rule of Christ over the world; and the Royal Sceptre, representing the power of the Crown. Finally comes the Coronation Crown itself. This crown is the greatest piece in the Crown jewel collection dating from 1661. Composed of solid gold, set with 444 semi-precious stones, and weighing in at five pounds, it is known as St. Edward’s Crown. While Charles holds the Orb and Sceptre, the Archbishop will lower the Crown unto his head, saying “God crown you with a crown of glory and righteousness.” The congregation will again shout “God save the King,” and the guns of the Royal Artillery will boom from Hyde Park and the Tower of London.
A much simpler and shorter procedure will then play out for Camilla, if she and Charles wish for her to be crowned as Queen Consort. There is nothing in British law to prevent her from being so crowned. However, at the time of their marriage in 2005, spokespersons for Camilla advised the media that she wished only to be known as “Princess Consort” once her husband ascended the throne. In the years since, however, as public opinion has softened toward her and as people in Britain and across the Commonwealth have seen her and Charles as a couple truly in love, Charles has indicated that he wants to see her crowned as Queen Consort, just as his grandmother was following the coronation of George VI.
In contemplating the reign of Charles III, it is possible to foresee a number of pressing issues that will occupy attention in Britain and across the Commonwealth in the early years of his kingship. The immediate concern of all fifty-three Commonwealth governments is whether Charles will be accepted as the Commonwealth’s official head. The reigning sovereign has always become the head of the Commonwealth, but this position is not automatically bestowed by right of succession. Rather, the title is confirmed by the unanimous agreement of the Commonwealth heads of government. In 1952, Elizabeth II was not confirmed as head of the organization until December 6, even though her father, George VI, had died ten months earlier.
While it is possible some Commonwealth heads of government would not want to accept Charles III as the new head of the Commonwealth, a decision against recognizing Charles would present the Commonwealth with what British constitutional scholar Vernon Bogdanor has claimed are “insuperable problems.”[2] If Charles were not to be the head, who would be? The Commonwealth has no formal constitution setting out any rules for the selection of a head; such an agreement has to be reached through unanimous consent of all the heads of government. Selecting the reigning monarch as their head has always been the easiest and least controversial way to accomplish this task. Not to follow suit upon the death of Elizabeth II would thrust the Commonwealth into a prolonged period of leadership indecision. If the heads of government decided to rotate the headship among themselves, this arrangement could mean, with fifty-three member states, that any one country would possess a standard five-year headship once every 265 years. Such a rotational headship could also prove highly embarrassing, if not destructive to the organization, if the position fell to a Commonwealth country with a highly questionable leader, such as an Idi Amin, at its helm. Given the imponderables here, Bogdanor argues that in all likelihood Commonwealth heads will once again opt for the surest and safest way of securing a head for the organization by investing Charles with the title.[3]
Another pressing issue will be the sovereign’s relationship to the Church of England. The discussion will likely centre around the Church’s potential desire to be “disestablished” — dissolved from its duties as the official state-sanctioned Church. A significant minority of clerics within the Church of England have long viewed its official relationship with the state as “corrupting.” They perceive this relationship to be one that has given the Church a supposed mandate to represent the faithfulness of all people in England, regardless of their beliefs. This status, they feel, has led the Church to lay claim to the title of being the national church when it really isn’t. As the established church, however, these critics argue, the Church of England has become bland, more secular than spiritual, and less willing and able to present a robust promotion of Anglicanism to an increasingly secularist English society. By trying to present an established version of a generalized faith to the English people, the Church of England has failed to uphold its core spiritual purpose of preaching the virtues of Anglicanism, Christian charity, and the Social Gospels. A “disestablished” church might be a stronger church, one more focused on its core spiritual goals and more activist in living out the true message of its creed.[4]
As Prince of Wales, Charles has stated he is opposed to such disestablishment. He has also famously said he will wish to be seen more as “Defender of Faith” rather than as “Defender of the Faith.” “I’ve always felt,” he said as early as 1994, “that the Catholic subjects of the sovereign are equally as important as the Anglican ones, as the Protestant ones. Likewise, I think that the Islamic subjects or the Hindu subjects or the Zoroastrian subjects of the sovereign are of equal and vital importance.”[5] Charles knows, at the same time, that the coronation oath will require him to swear to be “Defender of the Faith,” and two of his biographers, Jonathan Dimbleby, writing in 1994, and Catherine Mayer, writing in 2015, have stressed that he will have no problem taking such an oath. How do these seemingly contradictory positions become mutually inclusive? To Mayer, Charles is a devout if somewhat mystical Anglican who sees the important interconnections of faith, spiritualism, and the divine in all the world’s great religions, and wishes to build harmony and respect between these pillars of devotion. “In Charles,” writes Mayer, “the Church of England stands to gain a Supreme Governor who takes his duties, and his religion, exceptionally seriously.”[6] These duties will be seen by King Charles III as advancing the spiritual life and applied “good works” of the Church of England. As much as this, or even more, he will perceive his duty to be one of promoting understanding and respect, especially among Christians, Jews, and Muslims. His religious duties will be defined both by interfaith connection building and ecumenism, a movement toward the universality of Christian churches.
Apart from these Commonwealth and Church matters, what would the reign of Charles III look like? How will he use his position, particularly as he will be the head of state of the United Kingdom, Canada, and fifteen other Commonwealth realms, and what causes will he champion? Given the important hold of tradition on the nature and working of the monarchy, and based as well on our knowledge of Charles’s interests as Prince of Wales, it is not hard to offer some reasoned hypotheses of how Charles will likely approach his role as king.
Just as did his mother, he will take his likely role as head of the Commonwealth very seriously. He will travel extensively throughout the Commonwealth — especially in the early years of his reign — and promote its various programs of democratic development and good governance, socio-economic progress, education, health care, environmental protection, advocacy for the rights of women and girls, and youth empowerment. As supreme governor of the Church of England, he will advance the cause of ecumenism, using various speaking opportunities, including his annual Christmas message, to broadcast the importance of faith, the role of faith communities in building social cohesion in increasingly divided communities, and the importance of reaching across religious divisions as a means to achieve peace and understanding. Deep down, what we share in common is greater than what divides us, and the core tenets of faith and secular humanism all point to the need for people to respect, care for, and love one another.
Other causes Charles will champion, in his own royal way, will be related to his personal and long-lasting interests. He will continue to promote his ideas and ideals of harmony in life. When occasions merit, he will speak about the importance of humanity being one with the earth and our environment; he will exhort us to become better caretakers of nature and the ecology that supports all life on earth. He will also use his public appearances and speeches to discuss the dangers of poverty and social exclusion; he will remark on the loss to societies when substantial numbers of people — especially youth — feel disconnected because they live on the margins of those societies. He will talk about the significance of reaching out to and supporting young people at the dawn of their adult lives, just as he will stress the need for societies to care for the elderly in the twilight of their days. And he will continue to speak in favour of social cohesion and the need for sound urban planning that respects the people, the environment, and the community; he will advocate for the cultural significance of architecture that is in harmony with its natural and built surroundings.
His biographers confirm that Charles is a passionate man, and these passions will not be eradicated once he assumes the throne. As king, however, he will not be as free to pursue his passions and his interests as when he was Prince of Wales. As king, he will be more circumscribed in his ability to act as an advocate for his causes. Nevertheless, as king, he will also have access to certain levers of influence that only the sovereign possesses.
When he becomes king, Charles will have to scrupulously adhere to the constitutional principle that the monarch may not become involved in partisan matters of political debate, either in the United Kingdom or anywhere throughout the Commonwealth — or in any other country, for that matter. In accordance with constitutional convention, the Crown is to be above politics. Charles knows this rule, as did his mother and grandfather before him. But being non-partisan does not mean the sovereign is prohibited from speaking about the importance of broad moral and social principles. These principles address what it is to be good, to do good, and to promote goodness in society. As long as he speaks to these matters in general terms, dealing with values rather than specific governmental policies and programs, and refrains from discussing certain principles when they are the subject matter of current partisan debates, Charles is free to encourage people to think more deeply about the societies in which we live, and how we can work together — in harmony with our fellow human beings and our environment — to make these societies better.
Once Charles is king, he will likely transfer the Prince’s Trust to his sons William and Harry, giving them the responsibility of overseeing these charitable organizations while also providing them the opportunity to reorient the existing trust, or to create new ones that will address issues and concerns of interest to them. As king, Charles will lose the ability to be directly involved in the management and direction of these institutions, thus losing these venues for advancing his charitable ideas. But as one door closes, others open. As king, Charles will inherit the right to give the monarch’s annual Christmas and Commonwealth Day messages. These addresses, written by the sovereign himself without being subject to the advice of any British or Commonwealth first minister, will give Charles the chance to present his ideas to an international audience on the importance of these festive occasions and what lessons we should draw from them. Like his mother’s addresses, his will no doubt speak to general matters such as the importance of family and tradition, being generous and charitable, reaching out to others, and respecting the ideals for which the Commonwealth stands. Critics of these messages tend to dismiss them as mere “feel-good” platitudes; supporters will see them as expressions of “profound simplicities.”
Perhaps most important for Charles, the kingship will place him in the position of hosting the weekly audience with the British prime minister when the British Parliament is in session. During these regular meetings, Charles will be able to discuss, in strictest confidence, any and all affairs of state and matters of public policy that he may want to raise with the prime minister. Likewise, prime ministers will have the ability to sound out the king on policy and program ideas, gaining his advice, encouragement, or warnings on the course of public policies. Given Charles’s extensive international travels and his close connection to the Commonwealth, prime ministers will also likely speak to him about international affairs, seeking his guidance and input on various matters. Any advice proffered by the king to his prime minister, however, is just that — advice — which a prime minister may accept or ignore, according to his or her discretion.
Charles will have the formalized opportunity to present his ideas and concerns to the British head of government; but, as with all his royal predecessors dating back to the eighteenth century, he will be subject to the rules of responsible government whereby the democratically elected prime minister and government will be solely responsible for the development and administration of policies and programs subject to the oversight of Parliament. As king and head of the Commonwealth, Charles will also be in a position, during his travels, to meet with Commonwealth heads of government and their ministers, and to discuss with them matters of public policy within their countries. Again, such discussions would be purely advisory, but they will present the king with the opportunity to raise matters of concern with these officials, confidentially encouraging and warning as he sees fit.
One element of such “soft power” that Charles already possesses as Prince of Wales, which will be amplified when he becomes king, is his “convening power.” This term refers to his ability to bring select people together by royal invitation for a dinner, an informal meeting, a more formal conference, or a weekend retreat. Once assembled, these invited guests are at liberty to discuss issues and concerns shared by all attendees as well as to explore the viability of various practical solutions to identified problems. His biographer, Catherine Mayer, notes that Charles has already developed a reputation for convening meetings on a wide variety of topics, inviting a diverse range of guests running from the Dalai Lama to Kylie Minogue.[7] At one such meeting, a self-billed summit in 2009 on the Prince’s Rainforest Project (an initiative designed to combat rainforest deforestation), the invited guests included eight heads of government representing Australia, France, Germany, Guyana, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Norway; U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton; four British cabinet ministers; the president of the European Commission; Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations; Gabon’s minister of defence; Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister; the president of the World Bank; and Canada’s then minister of finance, Jim Flaherty. This meeting resulted in an agreement between these leaders to promote rainforest preservation through the mechanism of buying and selling carbon credits tied to rainforest protection initiatives. The meeting packed a hefty punch: in 2010, thirty-five donor countries agreed to invest over $4 billion U.S. in projects to reduce carbon emissions in this manner.[8]
When Charles becomes king, such special meetings will likely continue, although he will be very careful about selecting issues that stretch across partisan lines and deliberate about acting as a convener, not an advocate, of certain outcomes. Charles has long known that his position and stature have given him the ability to host such meetings and to get high-powered persons from the worlds of government and business to accept his invitations. Often, however, these elite have found themselves convening with religious and labour leaders, academics, environmentalists, and community activists. About these unique get-togethers, Charles has said:
And right, there may be advantages in my case because I haven’t got a particular axe to grind and people notice that, I suppose, when you get people around the table you discover that frequently it’s the first time they’ve all sat around a table. You think, this can’t be possible. They must’ve sat and talked. These are people you’d think would form a sensible, integrated approach. Not a bit of it.[9]
As Mayer stresses, Charles takes pride in his skill of “getting business people, government and agencies to sit down with NGOs [non-governmental organizations], who normally they might never have talked to, except they shout across a huge chasm.”[10]
When the second Elizabethan Era draws to a close, many Canadians will be shocked to learn that Charles has instantly become their new king. Some Canadians will insist that they don’t want him; they would never have voted for him; they would prefer a Canadian as head of state; or if we must have a king and queen they’d prefer Will and Kate on the throne, not him. At this time of succession, while monarchists celebrate the accession of the new king and his queen, Canadian republicans will call for a national referendum on the abolition of the monarchy. They will assert that the succession we just witnessed was the epitome of anti-democratic and elitist rule — an insult to most Canadians. To republicans, the succession will be reviled as an antiquated throwback, a vestige of our colonialist past, and an embarrassing reminder of how little distance we have travelled toward becoming a fully modern, democratic society.
All of these sentiments are genuine and passionately held by many Canadians, and yet none of them will have any impact on the reality of succession and the constitutional status of the monarchy in Canada once Charles becomes king. For all the reasons canvassed in the previous chapter, any substantial alteration to the institutions of the monarchy in this country requires a constitutional amendment, and such an amendment or even official discussions about such an amendment will not happen any time soon. Canadian monarchists may rest easy during the period of succession, knowing that the greatest line of defence for the institution they love is the constitution itself, with the pre-existence of monarchy being the “default mode” of Canadian constitutional reality. In the absence of any prior change to the status of the monarchy in this country, Charles will become king upon the death of his mother, and the institutions and practices of monarchy will continue to exist in Canada as they always have. Monarchists may perhaps express the sentiment during this time of transition that we should just “keep calm and carry on.” The governor general and the lieutenant governors will continue in their posts; official state ceremonial activities will endure; and the social, ceremonial, and charitable work of the Canadian vice-regents will continue to occupy the majority of their time. If a constitutional crisis emerges as to whether a first minister commands the confidence of the majority of his or her parliamentary assembly, the respective governor will continue to possess all the reserve powers of the Crown in order to resolve the dispute.
So, this we know: the monarchy will continue to exist in Canada once Elizabeth II is gone, and the Canadian vice-regents will carry on their work as they always have. There is a world of difference, however, between existing and thriving. As we have seen in previous chapters, while the monarchy undoubtedly has existed in this country, in many ways it has “merely” existed. Public opinion surveys over the past quarter century have often found that a plurality, if not an outright majority, of respondents wish to see the monarchy abolished in Canada, with a Canadian able to be selected, or better yet elected, as our head of state. These surveys have also suggested that a clear majority of Canadians do not wish to see Prince Charles become our next king. As we have seen, republican sentiment is strong among many Canadians, and past federal and provincial governments have picked up on this trend. Public and governmental support for the monarchy in Quebec is negligible, and many federal governments have worked to downplay the role of the royal family in the life of Canada while seeking to elevate the status of the governor general as the de facto Canadian head of state. Royal visits to this country have become fewer and shorter in duration. The hard reality for monarchists is that, as republican Michael Bliss long argued, to most young Canadians the monarchy is irrelevant, a useless and meaningless anachronism. Or, if it means anything, it is something to be laughed at and ridiculed. The Crown is not “cool.”
A symptom of the Crown’s current irrelevance to many in this country is that most Canadians would be hard pressed to name the present-day governor general or their provincial lieutenant governor. Furthermore, most Canadians would be unable to explain what the role of these vice-regents is, what their reserve powers are, and how, when, and why these very real powers can still be exercised. For an institution that to monarchists is a fundamental pillar of our constitutional system and a vital link to our history and our political development as a liberal democracy, such apathy and ignorance is appalling. If the monarchy is of vital significance to Canadian history, to our political development as a democratic people, and to the ceremonial, social, educational, and charitable life of this country, then the monarchy should be a thriving institution, known and respected by Canadians. But it’s not.
Are we destined to have to live with some of the worst fears of both republicans and monarchists? That is, are we stuck with an ineradicable monarchy that most Canadians view as virtually useless, a meaningless yet embarrassing ornamental bauble that we would and should discard if we could but we can’t? Or can we aspire to something better? If we know the monarchy will continue in this country, can we have a better monarchy? One that actually connects to most Canadians and means something to them? Rather than having a monarchy that simply continues to exist, could we actually have a Crown that thrives in the future?
What might a revitalized Canadian monarchy look like? What would it take to achieve a Crown that most Canadians would actually respect? In probing for an answer to these questions, a key word rises to the fore: more. If the monarchy is to be appreciated by most Canadians, if it is to be seen as important to the country and relevant to our lives, its representatives have to do more — and be seen to be doing more. Simply continuing with the status quo, with business as usual for the regal and vice-regal powers-that-be, is a recipe for a monarchy that exists in the social and political doldrums of irrelevancy, always vulnerable to public dissension and calls for abolition. If the monarchy is to be relevant to Canadians, it has to earn our respect, and it must do this by becoming a bigger part of our lives and the lives of our communities, our provinces, and our country. Elizabeth II has long had a personal motto: “I must be seen to be believed.”[11] This idea is central to any revitalization of the monarchy in Canada, and every representative of the Crown must play their part in such renewal, starting right at the top.
The future king and the royal family will be expected to do more if the monarchy during the reign of Charles III is to work itself into the hearts and minds of the Canadian people. Charles will come to the throne knowing that his ascension has been met with much criticism and outright hostility in Canada. He would be well advised to plan a comprehensive royal tour of Canada at the earliest convenience, bringing his queen with him. During their visit, they would be wise to travel through the country extensively, meeting with people from the prime minister, premiers, indigenous leaders, and heads of major charities to schoolchildren, youth, veterans, and seniors. Prince William, the new Prince of Wales, and Princess Catherine, and other members of the royal family should also be expected to regularly travel to this country, promoting their own and various Canadian philanthropic causes. If the royal family is to be appreciated by Canadians, they have to be seen by Canadians — but they must not be seen as merely draining Canadians’ dollars. They need to do more than simply be present here. Given that support for charitable and philanthropic work has become the heart of the social ceremonial work of the monarchy and its representatives, the royals need to be more active in supporting such causes in Canada. Just as the Prince’s Trust has raised funds and promoted a host of worthy causes in the United Kingdom, so too could Prince William and Prince Harry, and Princess Catherine in her own right, advance important interests in this country that would likely love to gain royal patronage. Groups supporting injured veterans, youth entrepreneurialism, abused women and children, indigenous Canadians’ educational achievement, environmental causes, and social housing initiatives, for example, could all benefit from the support and fundraising potential of such royal patrons. Charles himself would also be in a position to advance certain socially progressive initiatives that could have Commonwealth-wide reach.
The Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, for example, first established in 1959 to encourage and fund Commonwealth-resident university students to undertake part of their studies in another Commonwealth country, continues to exist but labours under financial constraint. Canada now only supports a limited number of short-term academic exchange opportunities with Caribbean Commonwealth nations. All other Commonwealth countries have witnessed a steady decline in funding support for students since the heyday of the 1960s and 1970s. As king, Charles would be ideally positioned to reinvigorate this program, persuading governmental and private charitable donations to establish a trust fund for the plan while encouraging university students from across the Commonwealth to broaden their educational and personal horizons by studying in a fellow Commonwealth country. In a similar fashion, exchange programs between Commonwealth public services, whereby young public servants on management fast tracks are given the opportunity to gain work experience within the national public service of a fellow Commonwealth government, are few and far between, even though senior leaderships in all Commonwealth public services praise the professional development, experience, and international networking such programs engender. Again, the great inhibitor of these initiatives is funding. Again, the future king could make a difference, encouraging Commonwealth governments to build up such programs while using his convening power to gather funders from across Commonwealth public and private sectors to establish a trust fund to energize this undertaking. As Prince of Wales, Charles has shown himself to be someone who relishes this type of creative thinking and problem-solving; it is unlikely he will stop thinking this way once he becomes king. Indeed, it is crucial to his reputation and the reputation of the monarchy that he does not.
If the monarchy is to be revitalized in Canada during the reign of Charles III, however, the bulk of this work will fall to the Canadian vice-regents — governors general and lieutenant governors. These officials represent the Crown in this country on a daily basis, performing the official and ceremonial work of the monarchy nationwide and in each province. They are the ones who can make the most difference to the stature of the monarchy if they want to (and if they are supported in this task by their respective governments), because they are closest and most visible to their people. If the Crown has to be seen to be believed, these individuals are the ones who most need to be seen. On a basic level, they will have to do more of what they already do: more social engagements; more school, university, and hospital visits; more meetings with community and business groups; more speeches to service clubs and charities; and, consequently, more travel throughout their jurisdictions. In this work they would be well advised to focus attention on causes and charities promoting the interests of young Canadians and students, new Canadians, immigrants and multicultural groups, indigenous Canadians and their socio-economic and educational needs, environmental groups concerned with conservation and sustainable development, and local community groups involved in such matters as building social capital, heritage conservation, and community revitalization. These concerns, and many others, are matters to which many interested Canadians devote their own time and money as they strive to make a positive difference in their local, regional, and national communities. All these important matters are always in need of official recognition and sponsorship. Active engagement in, and support for, such interests would provide the vice-regents with noble causes to which they could make their own contributions for the social good of Canada and its provinces. This type of activity would have the vital and beneficial consequence of making sure the vice-regents are seen by more and more people and become known for their allegiance to Canadians from all walks of life who are intent on making Canada a better place to live.
On a different and newer level, however, the vice-regents will have to innovate by elevating their work and becoming more effective advocates and creators of philanthropy designed to promote Canadian culture, heritage, and social interests. Here, the Canadian vice-regents can take a lesson from Charles and the nature and working of the Prince’s Trust. Past governors have been good at inaugurating honours and awards such as the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers (formerly the Governor General’s Caring Canadian Award), the Governor General’s Awards for Excellence in Teaching Canadian History, the Lieutenant Governor’s Ontario Heritage Award, the Lieutenant Governor’s Award for Excellence in British Columbia Wines, and the Lieutenant Governor’s Persons with Disabilities Employer Partnership Award (Nova Scotia). What they have not done, however, is use their offices to engage in fundraising to establish trusts to promote select and worthy causes. A number of important trusts can be conjured up in the imagination: a Governor’s Trust to encourage and financially and socially support indigenous Canadians attending college and university; a Governor’s Trust to assist in the integration of new immigrants into Canadian society by linking new immigrants and immigrant support groups with existing Canadian faith communities and interested individual volunteers; a Governor’s Trust to promote the preservation and renovation of local heritage buildings; a Governor’s Trust to promote intercultural exchanges, community projects and festivals, and shared local business ventures between multicultural groups and organizations. This last trust could be designed to build links between these social groups while promoting Canadian multiculturalism and the development of a modern Canadian identity. Another Governor’s Trust could link high school students and seniors through encouraging and administering youth visits to senior citizen care facilities with reciprocating visits of senior citizens to high schools. Students could then compete for provincial and national awards for the best piece of work — essay, song, painting, story, and the like — addressing and bridging the divide between these two groups. The possibilities here are almost endless, limited only by one’s imagination and the requirement that such initiatives must always be non-partisan.
Establishing and advancing these types of social development trusts, while new to Canada’s governors, could fall fully within the mandate of vice-regents to support worthy charitable causes. The fact that Charles, Prince of Wales, has already pioneered their use in the United Kingdom serves only to bolster the argument that such trusts, if well and carefully designed, can be viable creations that promote important philanthropic causes while respecting the integrity of the Crown. It is important to understand how such trusts can and could work. The key role of the Crown representative — a royal or a vice-regent — would be to identify a worthy cause in need of support and to assist in raising the funds necessary to bring a trust into existence with sufficient working capital to sustain its programs. Fundraising involves the representative of the Crown using her or his good offices to assemble wealthy potential donors, presenting them with the justification for such a trust, what it could and would do, and how it would be organized and administered. Trusts typically have a board of governors and a small staff of managers and administrators whose task it is to lead the organization, facilitating its work while providing control over all necessary financial management, human resources, and accountability obligations. The board provides the trust with strategic policy direction, with board members being drawn from donors as well as from leading figures representing interests directly concerned with the work of the trust. Crown representatives may be board members but do not need to be. The most important role for these representatives is the establishment of the trust in the first place, and then continuing to encourage people and donors to support its ongoing work. As long as such trusts are non-partisan, focused on charitable causes of broad social importance, involvement does not impinge upon a Crown agent’s status as an impartial manifestation of the state.
There are many ways by which vice-regents in Canada could establish such trusts. They could work independently, the governor general and any number of lieutenant governors acting on their own to identify worthy causes and working with supportive individuals to establish a trust. They could also co-operate in myriad interesting and innovative ways. A governor general could work with interested lieutenant governors on a matter of shared interest, just as lieutenant governors could co-operate with one another on initiatives supported by all. Such co-operation between vice-regents would be new but in no way improper or unconstitutional. Each vice-regent would represent the socio-economic, cultural, and heritage interests of his or her jurisdiction, with co-operative agreements designed to share programs and benefits among all participating jurisdictions. One requirement, of course, would be that all vice-regents would be expected to ask for and receive the official support of their first minister prior to undertaking any work to establish such a trust. This requirement is altogether constitutionally fitting and proper, highlighting the necessity for any such undertaking sought by a vice-regent to be demonstrably non-partisan, of broad social appeal, and truly charitable in orientation and outcome. If these preconditions can be met, first ministers supportive of a reinvigorated monarchy may find such trust initiatives appealing and worthy of encouragement.
All these ideas for promoting a revitalized monarchy share a basic reality. The royals and the Canadian vice-regents on their own cannot breathe new life into the institutions of the monarchy in Canada. All the proposed courses of monarchical reinvigoration mentioned above require political support from first ministers, their governments, and parliamentary assemblies — and ultimately from the Canadian people. A simple fact of life states that if we want something we have to pay for it. More royal tours require more Canadian funding for such tours. More travel by the governor general and the lieutenant governors throughout Canada in general and the provinces in particular means more public monies invested in these trips. If the vice-regents are to be more active in recognizing and honouring charitable organizations within their jurisdictions, and if these governors are to be allowed to explore the many possibilities of giving enhanced value to Canadians through the development of philanthropic trusts, we must be prepared to expand their support staffs, giving them the institutional intelligence and organizational ability to research, plan, and develop viable trust initiatives.
And there is more. If we want the vice-regents to be more active along all these lines, we may need to consider lengthening their terms of office. Currently, Canadian governors serve a five-year term, although it can be extended by a year or two when so desired by a first minister. Nothing in the constitution, however, prevents even longer terms, and some governors general and lieutenant governors have served for eight to ten years. If vice-regents are to take on even more tasks, including the time-consuming work of establishing trusts, the time required for governors to become comfortable and proficient in this work may require greater continuity in office. Reinvigorated vice-regents may need terms of eight to ten years to be effective in their expanded roles. Longer tenures in office would also provide the vice-regents with greater experience in dealing with first ministers and parliamentary assemblies, perhaps giving them greater knowledge and influence if and when parliamentary crises arise.
If we are to accept a changing role for the vice-regents, moreover, we may want to consider changing their manner of appointment. But if we want to pursue this path without sinking into the morass of constitutional amendment issues involving the idea of electing vice-regents, we may want to think about improving the manner by which the prime minister appoints vice-regents. In 2012, Prime Minister Harper established a rather narrowly circumscribed Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments to provide him advice on all such appointments, including those of lieutenant governors. Canadians may wish to see this committee possessing a far broader membership than just a few appointees close to the prime minister; many Canadians may desire an advisory committee closer in composition to the one recommended by the editorial board of the Globe and Mail in 2009, with membership drawn from the federal government, Parliament, the Supreme Court, the premiers, the Assembly of First Nations, the Royal Society of Canada, and other leaders representing diverse aspects of Canadian society. Whether Canadians are prepared, however, for our vice-regents to be selected through a somewhat more open and representative process, serve longer terms, and become more activist in leading a reinvigorated monarchy remains an open question for us and for Prime Minister Trudeau.
It is possible we will see a revitalized Crown when King Charles III comes to the throne. It is also possible, and perhaps more likely, that the monarchy’s past half century will be but a prologue to its future. With the accession of Charles III, we may simply witness the representatives of the monarchy in this country carrying on as they always have: people who are always there, executing their traditional ceremonial and charitable duties with little fanfare and even less public awareness and support, with the rare occasional exercise of reserve power thrown in, but tending to be little known and seldom noticed. As the late republican Michael Bliss has said, the monarchy may continue to walk the tightrope over irrelevance, with its greatest security net being the inertia guaranteed by the law and politics of the constitutional amendment process. Such continuity, however, will simply confirm monarchist Michael Valpy’s assertion that we are, in truth, a “crowned republic.” We will remain a monarchy, with all the institutional trappings that go with this state of affairs, but we will be a constitutional monarchy. Real power in this country will continue to rest with the people and their democratically elected governments. Prime ministers and premiers are the key actors on the political stage, supported by their cabinets and sustained in office by parliamentary assemblies. A king, assisted by his vice-regents, will reign but can never rule, except in those rare instances when the use of the reserve powers is called for. This way of governing is how it should be in a constitutional, monarchical democracy.
As we come to the end of the second Elizabethan Era and are about to enter the reign of Charles III, the great debate on the monarchy in this country endures. Republicans will maintain their challenge to the legitimacy of the monarchy, earnestly calling for a national referendum allowing Canadians to vote on whether they want to sever our ties to the British monarchy and enable a Canadian to become head of state. In turn, monarchists will remain steadfast defenders of the Crown in this country, loyally upholding the institution of the monarchy as a fundamental part of our constitution and a living link to a thousand-year heritage of parliamentary evolution and democratic development.
In keeping with the life of a democracy, it will be for Canadians to decide the outcome of this debate. If we truly want to abolish the monarchy, we can do so by supporting the republican cause and ultimately electing to power governments and leaders throughout this country who would take up the challenge of securing the required constitutional amendment. If the political will to abolish the monarchy is there, the constitution does show the way. But if Canadians wish to see a revitalized monarchy, one more active and more engaged with Canadians, in which both the royals and Canadian vice-regents play a much greater role within the official, ceremonial, and charitable life of this country, such a monarchy can exist. If Canadians call for a stronger monarchy, expressing support for initiatives of the royals and the vice-regents to attain such an end while also encouraging governments to invest more resources, including money, into the institutions of the monarchy, such a revitalized Crown can be achieved. But if, as will likely be the case, Canadians remain divided between these two courses of action, the great debate on the future of the monarchy in Canada will continue. We will retain our Crown, but it will remain, as it has long been, a “Crown of Questions.” A fact of political life within this Canadian “crowned republic,” however, stands unquestionably true, and it is a truth existing throughout Canada and well known within Buckingham Palace: we, the Canadian people, hold the Crown and its future in our hands.