“I Serve”: The Ceremonial Crown
“And what have kings that privates have not too,
Save ceremony, save general ceremony.”
— William Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, scene I.
“You are a member of the British Royal Family. We are never tired and we all love hospitals.”
— Queen Mary to a much younger royal who complained, prior to a hospital visit during the First World War to meet with wounded British soldiers, “I’m tired and I hate hospitals.”
“I’m the king, may I come in?”
The scene is a Glasgow tenement in 1936, and the person who had just opened the door stood face-to-face with Edward VIII. Shocked beyond belief, the working class Glaswegian soon learned the king’s business on the doorstep. Edward VIII was concerned with unemployment and poverty. He was worried about how ordinary people were coping with the mire of the Great Depression. Seeking first-hand knowledge of the difficulties his people were suffering, he insisted on personally visiting the poor. Later, on a similar visit to the Welsh town of Dowlais and its shuttered steel mill, the king was cheered by hundreds of unemployed workers when he famously declared, “Something must be done.”[1]
While good kings and queens in fairy tales always care for their subjects, most monarchs throughout history have shown a notorious lack of concern for the “lower orders.” The British Isles are not exempt from this arrogant stance. In fact, indifference to the commoners was one of the reasons for the outbreak of the English Civil War in 1642. By the reign of George III (1760–1820) though, this attitude was beginning to change. Just as the sovereign and his family were losing real political power, they began shifting their attention to philanthropy. Royalty had to have a purpose, and that purpose would be the support of good deeds and voluntary efforts serving the common interests of the nation. George III became an early advocate for smallpox inoculation, while his wife, Queen Charlotte, financed “distressed needlewomen.”
During the mid-nineteenth century, royal patronage of charitable causes increased, with Victoria’s reign setting the stage for the modern, philanthropic monarchy. Prince Albert, Victoria’s husband, sensed that the continued viability of the monarchy was contingent upon linking itself to the best aspirations of civil society — hence the royal family’s growing interest in supporting the development of hospitals, the establishment of the Victorian Order of Nurses, and the setting up of homes for orphans, veterans, and unwed mothers. Albert himself offered, in private, a more political motivation for royal philanthropy. He saw it as the best means to combat the growing threat of republicanism and the “practical application of socialism.”[2] Through the First World War, hospital visitations became a staple “engagement” for all members of the royal family, with Queen Mary, wife of George V, seeing this role as a moral imperative. With the end of the war and the collapse of royal dynasties in much of Europe, the British royal family sought to establish its social connection to its people even more deeply. George V’s private secretary, Lord Stamfordham, advised the king to be “a living power for good, with receptive faculties welcoming information affecting the interests and social well-being of all classes, and ready not only to sympathize with those questions, but anxious to further their solution.”[3] Stamfordham wanted the king to escape the stereotype of mere figurehead by demonstrating his and his family’s interest in the welfare of all their subjects. This goal would be best achieved by ensuring the royals heard their subjects’ life stories and shared in their joys and sadnesses. The Crown needed to be — and be seen to be — one with the people, in service to the people. The title of this chapter is derived from the official motto of the office of the Prince of Wales — “Ich Dien” — German for “I Serve.” But just how does the monarchy serve the people? What does the Queen do? What is required of governors when they are called upon to represent the Queen in Canada? And if royal power is dramatically limited by the principles and practices of responsible government, is the figurehead status of the monarchy of any worth? Simply put, can the monarchy justify its continued existence?
To understand the Crown in Canada, it is necessary to comprehend that the “Crown” refers to a complex array of individuals, institutions, powers, conventions, and traditions linking Canada and the Canadian constitution to the political and constitutional evolution of the United Kingdom, and England before it. The Crown in Canada is both an institutional reality and a political concept whose pedigree dates back over a thousand years, making it the most ancient part of the Canadian constitution. So, what does the “Crown” mean?
In British law professor Adam Tomkins’s sardonic words, the actual Crown is fundamentally “nothing more than a piece of somewhat garish jewelry that is kept securely locked up in the Tower of London.”[4] But as a piece of headwear, this Crown conveys enormous symbolism. The person upon whose head the Crown is placed is anointed as the sovereign of the realm, possessing full executive power to oversee the governance of his or her lands. As such, the Crown is much more a concept than a thing. It is a symbol of authority and power. And this marks the first of many symbolic relationships deriving from the Crown.
The Crown, by definition, refers to the monarch and the institution of monarchy. By virtue of being crowned king or queen, the monarch becomes the head of state of the United Kingdom and the fifteen Commonwealth countries recognizing the monarchy as their own (whether all of their people like it or not). The monarch also becomes the supreme governor of the Church of England, as well as head of the Commonwealth of Nations. In Canada, the Queen holds the royal title of Queen of Canada separate and distinct from that of the United Kingdom. As head of state in Canada, the monarch possesses full executive authority in this country and is at once a constituent part of the Parliament of Canada, deeply interwoven into the constitutional principles of the country, and the symbolic figurehead of the Canadian state and its people. The Crown thus has a profoundly personal and individual component to it: the Crown places great symbolic authority and some significant constitutional power into the hands of a single individual. That individual is the reigning sovereign (the common term of reference for the monarch as an individual), and his or her claim to the throne is based upon the hereditary principle rooted, until 2013, to the practice of male primogeniture. This tradition stipulated that upon the death of a sovereign, the next in line to the throne would be the eldest male heir of the deceased sovereign, regardless of the existence of elder daughters of the sovereign. Only in the absence of a male heir could a female heir ascend the throne, as occurred with both Elizabeth I and II, as well as Victoria. The historical evolution of the hereditary principle has resulted in the House of Windsor now being the royal family for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. The focus on the individual status and role of the sovereign gives rise to the concept of the Crown-as-monarch, as distinct from the Crown-as-executive.
The Crown-as-monarch in Canada relates directly to the ceremonial roles of the sovereign’s representatives in Canada. While the monarch is head of state, the sovereign neither resides in Canada nor exercises the routine roles and responsibilities of the monarchy in Canada. These duties fall to the governor general, serving Canada overall, and the lieutenant governors, appointed to each of their respective provinces. These vice-regal representatives have been delegated the vast majority of the sovereign’s powers and responsibilities.
While most Canadians are familiar with the role of the Crown-as-monarch, the idea of the Crown encompasses much more than this one aspect. The Crown also refers to the state itself and executive power in the state, leading to the concept of the Crown-as-executive. The monarch is head of state and yet, as Louis Adolphe Theirs long ago said, “the king reigns but does not rule.”[5] Through the workings of responsible government, effective political power in any country based on the British parliamentary system of government lies in the hands of the prime minister, who is the head of government. A Canadian prime minister or provincial premier presides over the government, but it is technically the Queen’s government, with first ministers and their cabinet colleagues appointed in her name by the governor general or lieutenant governor. Once appointed, these officials and their ministries govern the country or its provinces, wielding power in the name of the Crown, while being accountable to the democratically elected Parliament or provincial legislatures. Hence we speak of “ministers of the Crown,” with the federal cabinet being a select grouping of “the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada” — namely, those privy councillors currently commanding the confidence of the House of Commons.
The concept of Crown-as-executive, then, refers to the lawful, constitutional authority to exercise governmental power in and over the state. Its attention is focused on those who truly exercise political power. First ministers and their cabinets are part of the Crown, as are federal and provincial public services and all public servants hired to fulfill duties in the service of the Crown. Government departments and agencies exercise Crown powers in their respective fields of jurisdiction, meaning that all government policies and programs represent the will of the Crown as reflected through the working of responsible government. The Crown governs the state, and its powers form the state. The Crown also has the authority to enter into commercial business enterprise, subject to the approval of federal or provincial law — hence, “Crown corporations.” The Crown has “legal personality,” entitling it to enter into contracts, own and manage property, and have legal rights to precedence in bankruptcy proceedings. All land not unambiguously and privately owned by individuals, corporations, or specific governments, or not recognized as belonging to indigenous First Nations on account of existing treaty rights or claims, is “Crown land.” And anyone granted permission by Crown agencies to profit from the use of Crown land must pay “royalties” to the state.
Beyond the traditional executive realm, the Crown relates to law and security. It establishes courts and appoints judges. It nominates “law officers of the Crown” to promote the rule of law. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is just one example of the policing arm of the state, while federal and provincial Crown attorneys advocate the enforcement of the “Queen’s law” before the Crown courts. Then there is the military. While the Queen holds the command-in-chief of all Canadian military forces, with the sovereign or members of the royal family being honorary lieutenant colonels of numerous Canadian Army regiments, since 1905 the governor general has been accorded the title “Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.” In keeping with British tradition, the Canadian Army has never been accorded the title “royal,” but the other services are officially known as the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
In any country with a constitution based upon the British parliamentary tradition, governmental authority comes from two sources: statutory law and Crown prerogative. Most powers held by governments are derived from statutory law; in Canada, these are laws passed by the federal Parliament or provincial legislatures. Statutory laws clearly assign specific powers and duties to ministers and their departments to achieve desired public policy results. Although the authority to assign such powers to Crown ministers and their agents officially rests with the legislative branch, a majority government, by definition, has effective command of a majority of the members of the legislature. This reality gives the ministers of the Crown, and especially the first minister, the real power to have government proposals turned into law, with the usual result being that parliamentary bodies grant ever more powers and responsibilities to the executive branch of government — that is, the Crown.
Crown prerogative is quite different. This term refers to all the traditional powers, rights, and privileges historically held by English and British monarchs that have not been superseded by statutory law. Most of the Crown’s historic prerogatives in Canada have been subsumed under laws passed by the federal Parliament or provincial legislatures, but some prerogative powers remain, to be exercised either on the advice of responsible first ministers and their cabinets or, in rare exceptions, by the vice-regents or even the Queen acting according to constitutional conventions and their own conscience. The most important of these “reserve powers,” exercisable at the discretion of the vice-regal representatives, are the powers to appoint the prime minister or premier, to grant royal assent to legislation, to prorogue parliamentary assemblies, to dissolve such assemblies and call new elections, and to dismiss a first minister and his or her government. Real Crown power continues to reside in these seemingly basic or arcane concepts. The use of these reserve powers now usually goes unnoticed in the routine life of Canadian parliamentary democracy. But, during a time of constitutional crisis, when it is unsure whether a first minister truly commands the confidence of his or her parliamentary assembly, the exercise of some of these reserve powers can become a matter of huge controversy. The last time we witnessed such a scene in Canada was in 2008 during the prorogation crisis in Ottawa. Much more attention will be devoted to those events and Governor General Michaëlle Jean’s questionable actions in chapter 5.
In sum, the Crown means many things. It is profoundly personal, referring to a queen or a king, the royal family, governors general, and lieutenant governors. It is also essentially constitutional and governmental. The Crown is all around us, as tangible as land and government offices, police officers, and men and women of the Canadian military. It is also a felt presence in laws, courts, and public policies, and in public services delivered by federal and provincial governments. It is as intangible as the constitutional conventions of responsible government, the legacies of British parliamentary democracy, and the feelings of loyalty to a monarchical tradition dating back a millennium.
Since the reserve powers are rarely exercised and become controversial only during extraordinary times of constitutional crisis, at ordinary times, the representatives of the Crown-as-monarch undertake ordinary roles, with these functions being basically ceremonial. A monarchy largely rooted to ceremonial duties, however, is a monarchy increasingly susceptible to the argument that “mere” ceremony is an insufficient reason for its continued existence. It is here, in the realm of royal visits and royal assent, the official state opening of Parliament, and the inauguration of public libraries and hospitals by governors general and lieutenant governors, where we begin to confront one of the great battle lines in the debate over the future of the monarchy in this country. To republican critics, these ceremonies are either archaic vestiges of a colonial past or banal social courtesies that can be performed by any elected politician or middling public servant.
To monarchists, however, the ceremonies of state, such as the opening of Parliament, are important in that they speak to our history and heritage. They remind us of the evolution of our political system, the marriage of democratic, responsible government with Crown rule, and the idea that ultimate political power resides not in current prime ministers and premiers but in a higher entity, the Crown, representing and serving all Canadians. Other social ceremonies, such as Crown recognition of “good causes” and charitable efforts, highlight the importance of endeavouring to promote the social and cultural betterment of Canada — efforts that should be symbolically rewarded by the head of state or her delegates. Once we see that Crown ceremony is the routine role that the Queen, her royal family, and her vice-regal representatives play in this country, our appreciation of such ceremonies and the value we place upon them will shape how we think about the monarchy.
In 1867 Walter Bagehot published a fascinating study on the nature of British politics. In The English Constitution,[6] Bagehot stressed that the genius of the English people can be seen through their political evolution, during which they divided governmental authority into two streams: one was the “efficient” part of the constitution; the other, the “dignified” part. Governmental efficiency was found in the House of Commons and the cabinet. Through the working of responsible government, a prime minister and cabinet would wield effective political power in Britain. Prime ministers and their cabinets would administer the state and run the public service; they would develop foreign and domestic policies, and propose legislation that would be turned into law in the Commons and the House of Lords; they would also oversee the Empire. The prime minister and cabinet were the key governing authorities in Britain, engaged in the routine and at times complicated and messy work of running the machinery of government. It was they who would make and defend political decisions, decide between competing interests, cope with the changing currents of public opinion, advocate for core ideals while compromising on principles to build political consensus on policies and programs, and take responsibility for every success and failure of the government. Of course, with such responsibilities came great power, as well as the inevitable criticism, scorn, and the eventual loss of respect. No prime minister could ever stay dignified for long. It is simply not part of the job description.
Enter the monarch. According to Bagehot, it was the Queen who brought honour and respect, reverence and dignity, to the state. Prime ministers and their cabinets would come and go, rising and falling with the changing fortunes of fickle public opinion, but the monarch, as a fixed and central feature of the constitution, would reign on, representing the state in all its glory. When a sovereign died, the rules of succession ordaining an unbroken chain of inheritance linking the past to the future assured the monarch’s subjects of a familiar successor.
The sovereign’s dignity extended to her capacity to stand above and apart from the difficult, and some might say dirty, world of practical politics and governing. While political leaders represented transient governing factions in society, the Queen represented the enduring unity of the nation and the state, symbolically reminding all Britons of the political and social heritage they all shared. To Bagehot, the monarchy represented all that was noble in Britain. Queen Victoria was a living symbol of English history, representing the royal powers of the past as transformed through the evolution of parliamentary democracy. The royal family itself, moreover, linked ordinary Britons to the highest in the land through the shared experience of family life. Royal marriages and funerals, and consequent coronations, would be high state events, providing pomp and pageantry that enlivened ordinary life while creating emotional ties bonding subject to sovereign. The same would hold true with respect to the birth of royal children and stories of their upbringing, their interests, and the usual affections between parents and children. Through their own families, commoners could see that they shared the same fundamental values, hopes, and dreams as did the royal family.
The personal relationship between monarch and subject also transcended family. The sovereign was supreme governor of the Church of England, linking Victoria in a profoundly religious way to all devout Anglicans. To the faithful, the monarch was a servant of God on earth, owed all the respect and reverence that obligation entails, while the sovereign’s coronation oath personally committed her to serve her many peoples in the name of God. The moral tone Bagehot highlighted here, moreover, extended to society in general. As head of state, the sovereign was seen as the head of society, a symbol of propriety and ethics, personal goodness, and public honour. This popular image of Victoria as the epitome of formal correctness coupled with obedience to one’s duties endures.
A richly symbolic event occurs at each opening of Parliament. The sovereign or governor general, after inspecting the guard of honour, enters the parliament building, progresses to the Senate chamber, and ascends the throne chair. Sitting above any other person in the chamber, her or his authority is visually accented by this height. From this vantage point, the sovereign or governor general looks out over senators, invited dignitaries, diplomats, military commanders in dress uniforms, justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in their ermine robes, and, sitting to the right of the throne chair, the prime minister. She or he then prepares to present the speech from the throne. This presentation is, arguably, the quintessential moment where the presence and role of the Crown renders extraordinary an otherwise functional proceeding, bestowing it with a significance and grandeur deriving from centuries of tradition. In Canada these events are marked with military parades, guards of honour, and, in Ottawa, twenty-one–gun salutes. Twice in Canadian history, a sitting of the federal Parliament has been opened by the reigning sovereign: once in 1957 and then again during Elizabeth II’s Silver Jubilee year of 1977. On all other occasions, the governor general has represented the Crown.
The symbolism and grandeur does not end with the seating of the sovereign. Once seated, the speaker of the Senate directs its protocol officer, the Usher of the Black Rod, to proceed to the House of Commons to request the presence of members of Parliament in the Senate for the speech from the throne. The rear of the Senate chamber has standing room for these individuals. As Black Rod approaches the entrances to the House of Commons, its doors are slammed shut, a defiant reminder of the independence of the Commons, dating back to the beginning of the English Civil War (1642–48). Charles I was the last English monarch ever to set foot in the House of Commons in 1642, accompanied by armed troops seeking to arrest parliamentary leaders such as John Pym and Oliver Cromwell for attacking his claim to rule England by divine right. This challenge to the authority of the House of Commons helped to spur on the Civil War, resulting in the victory of Parliament over the king, the eventual execution, in 1649, of Charles I by the Parliament led by Cromwell, and the inauguration of the principle of parliamentary supremacy. To this day, the only parts of the British and Commonwealth realms where the sovereign and her or his representatives are forbidden to enter are its legislative assemblies.
All this history is played out in symbolic form at the opening of every Parliament. Black Rod must knock three times on the door of the House of Commons, begging leave to enter the chamber, where he or she requests the presence of the members of Parliament within the Senate. Once Black Rod has exited the House of Commons, the speaker of the Commons leads its members to the Senate chamber to hear the throne speech. Once all the actors are assembled, the Parliament of Canada is complete: the Crown in the presence of the Senate and House of Commons.
While all throne speeches are read by the Queen or her vice-regents, their words are not their own. The speech is written by prime ministers or premiers and their key advisers, and it highlights the policy and legislative initiatives to be advanced by the government in the new sitting of Parliament or the provincial legislative assembly. Throne speeches have always tended to be general statements of policy priorities that garner little more than one day’s media attention. They offer an elegant ceremonial beginning to a new parliamentary session, but they are seldom the focus of great political importance. The speech from the throne becomes the first object of debate for the House of Commons or a provincial assembly and, providing the governing party commands a majority of seats in the legislature, the passage of the throne speech is a foregone conclusion.
The political reality here, foreordained by the numerical logic of a majority government, belies the symbolic importance of the throne speech. As the late Eugene Forsey, royalist, socialist, and constitutional scholar, long argued, the pageantry of the throne speech sends important constitutional messages to all participants in the drama, including those of us who simply follow it via the media. The monarch, or her vice-regal delegate, takes pride of place. But the speech read is that of the first minister and his or her cabinet. They are the ones who form the government, who exercise de facto executive authority over the state, who formulate policy and programs, and who command the confidence of Parliament.
It is vital to remember, though, that the first minister is not head of state. He or she must sit to the side of the throne, knowing that the de jure constitutional holder of full executive power in the country is the Queen. Traditionally, in throne speeches the voice of the Crown will refer to “my government” and “my ministers,” as seen in the following statement:
My Government’s legislative programme will focus on economic growth, justice and constitutional reform. My Ministers’ first priority will be to reduce the deficit and restore economic stability.[7]
The constitutional message here rings with exceptional clarity. The government is that of the monarch. Full executive authority resides in the Crown, and any current first minister holds but a temporary power to advise the sovereign or her vice-regal representatives on the exercise of their duties. No matter how powerful prime ministers or premiers may be, the throne speech reminds them, and us, that their power is constitutionally subordinate to the Crown. Their power is contingent on winning elections and commanding the confidence of their parliamentary assemblies. The very moment they fail in these regards, their power and authority evaporates, shifting to other leaders who have won such elections and who command such parliamentary confidence. First ministerial egos are symbolically always held in check. Yet the Crown carries on, as Forsey argued, with a fixed permanence. It perpetually represents the state in all its majesty; it is the legal possessor of all executive power in the realm; and it upholds and will defend, if need be, the constitution from abusive prime ministerial authority.
The speech from the throne is not the only state ceremonial role that reinforces the notion of permanence and majesty. No piece of legislation passed by the federal Parliament or a provincial legislature can become law until it has received royal assent. Such royal assent is now considered a mere formality, given the logic of responsible government. In the United Kingdom, the last sovereign who refused royal assent was Queen Anne in 1708.[8]
In Canada, royal assent of federal legislation has been refused only on a number of rare occasions, and those were by British-appointed governors general between 1867 and 1878. During this time period, twenty-one laws were reserved “for the signification of the Queen’s Pleasure” (that is, were reserved for review and assessment by the British government) with respect to whether Canadian legislation violated British imperial interests. Of the twenty-one laws reserved, only six were refused royal assent. In that same period, one federal act that had been granted royal assent in Canada was subsequently disallowed by the British government, making a total of seven denials of royal assent. Since 1878 and a change in British policy respecting oversight of Canadian legislation, coupled with the decision of the Imperial Conference of 1926 that stripped the governor general of his duties as a representative of the British government, the Crown has never rejected a bill duly passed by the federal Parliament.
The story is somewhat different with respect to royal assent of provincial bills. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the royal power of reservation and disallowance of provincial legislation was given to the governor in council, that is, the federal cabinet. This power was not infrequently exercised by the federal government in the first fifty years following Confederation. Political scientist R. MacGregor Dawson documented 112 cases, mostly occurring before 1896, in which the governor in council instructed provincial lieutenant governors to refuse royal assent to provincial bills, while in another 70 instances, lieutenant governors reserved bills for the assessment of the governor in council. Of these, only 14 were subsequently granted royal assent, making for a grand total of 168 cases where royal assent was denied to provincial bills. The last time such assent was withheld from a provincial bill was in 1943.[9]
Receiving royal assent to federal legislation became a mere formality very early on in the life of this country, as the British government quickly came to recognize that it had no democratic right to thwart the will of a Canadian government and Parliament. How could they when this very government had been democratically elected with a mandate to develop policies, make laws, and govern in the best interests of Canadians? The principle of pro forma royal assent to provincial legislation took longer to develop, due to policy and partisan rivalries between federal and provincial governments. By the middle of the twentieth century, though, the democratic principle had come to influence this aspect of federal-provincial relations as well. It is fair to say, as does law professor Peter Hogg, that “the modern development of ideas of judicial review and democratic responsibility has left no room for the exercise of the federal power of disallowance.”[10]
The throne speech and the granting of royal assent, while of great symbolic importance, comprise just a tiny fraction of the many state ceremonial duties of the Crown. The sovereign has always held the executive power to make appointments to government offices, and this role persists in Canada. Perhaps the most important appointment power exercised by the Crown is that of naming a prime minister or premier. This power is one of the prerogative powers by which the sovereign, and now the governor general or lieutenant governor, has always held the independent power to act on her or his own constitutional judgment, but in accordance with the constitutional conventions of responsible government. Once a first minister has been appointed, however, the sovereign and her vice-regal representatives exercise their power of appointment subject to the advice of responsible first ministers.
In Canada, these vice-regal representatives are called upon to authorize a wide array of senior governmental and judicial appointments. The governor general formally appoints all cabinet ministers and secretaries of state recommended by the prime minister. He or she also officially names all Canadian ambassadors and high commissioners, all senior public servants such as deputy ministers, the executive heads and board members of federal Crown corporations and regulatory agencies, all senior military commanders, and every judge appointed to the federal courts and, most importantly, to the Supreme Court of Canada. These governor in council appointments can number into the thousands. Provincial lieutenant governors have similar appointing responsibilities, but on a smaller scale. They officially appoint cabinet ministers; senior provincial public servants; executive leaders to provincial agencies, boards, and commissions; the judges of provincial courts; and lawyers to the rank of Queen’s Counsel.
Beyond the ratification of appointments, a host of other state obligations occupy the Crown-as-monarch. Take as examples the Queen’s Christmas address, Remembrance Day ceremonies, and Canadian vice-regal ceremonies and speeches on Canada Day and New Year’s levees. Each of these events is designed to convey majesty, symbolizing the power and dignity of the state. They are also tailored to convey the close connection between Crown and country. The same is true of state dinners presided over by the vice-regal representatives and attended by other heads of state, government and senior Canadian officials, leading figures in the current life of Canadian politics, business, or society, or such leading figures in the life of a province. The governor general will routinely meet with foreign diplomats in Ottawa while also travelling abroad to promote Canadian diplomatic and international policy interests through state visits to foreign countries. Lieutenant governors, in turn, travel within their own province as well as across the country, promoting the social, economic, and cultural interests of their home province.
All these travels, however, are eclipsed by the frequent official and unofficial royal tours of the Queen and members of the royal family to Canada. Elizabeth II has made twenty-two official royal tours to this country as of 2017. Members of her family, ranging from the Duke of Edinburgh to Prince Charles and his wives, first Princess Diana, and latterly Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, to the Queen’s other children, Princess Anne and Princes Andrew and Edward, to Charles’s son Prince William and his wife Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, have made dozens upon dozens of both official and unofficial (private) visits to Canada over the past sixty years. These visits have always attracted extensive media coverage, far exceeding that ever shown to any Canadian vice-regal representative of the Crown. While this discrepancy in media attention and public interest likely does not embarrass governors general or lieutenant governors in that they express gratitude that so many Canadians remain interested in the actions of the royals, the media and public focus witnessed here does say something significant about the continuing star power of the royal family — a power that the Canadian vice-regal delegates can never attain.
Royal visits mark the epitome of the ceremonial role of the monarchy in Canada. “The Queen’s tours,” Frank MacKinnon has noted, “are major occasions which only a sovereign’s presence can provide. Official ceremonies, visits to institutions, and other events give opportunities to thousands of citizens to see a world figure representing centuries of political tradition, national sovereignty, and contemporary international friendship.”[11] Anyone interested enough in the monarchy to be reading this book has likely seen some of these manifestations of royalty, either live or via television. Through these regular visits, the Queen and other members of the royal family recognize the accomplishments of Canadians, bestow awards, and promote social and cultural causes worthy of respect and admiration. They execute all of these undertakings in a highly stylized manner famous for its attention to formality and etiquette, decorum and dignity, befitting both royalty and the headship of state. Anyone who meets a “royal” feels the flutter of butterflies in the stomach while wondering about the proper form of address, and how to curtsy or bow. But sometimes the formality breaks down, perhaps most dramatically in Toronto in 1919. In that year, Edward, Prince of Wales (and the future Edward VIII), while on a cross-Canada tour to celebrate the end of the First World War, visited the Canadian National Exhibition to meet some twenty-seven thousand veterans. He was called upon to inspect the former troops from horseback. As he recorded in his memoirs:
The moment I appeared the veterans broke ranks and, cheering and yelling, surged around me. At first my mount showed commendable control. Then, as the human mass engulfed us both, I felt its body quiver. Fortunately, even if its instinct had been to rear up and bolt, the crowd held it as in a vise. The next thing I knew I was being lifted off the horse’s back by strong hands and passed like a football over the heads of the veterans. Disheveled, shaken and breathless, I eventually found myself on the platform, clutching the crumpled notes of my speech. The roar of cheering had changed to laughter. I wish Papa could have seen this.[12]
Thus ended the first, and likely the last, recorded example of royal crowd-surfing.
A variety of other Crown ceremonial roles are connected to these state visits. As former governor general Adrienne Clarkson noted, one of the important parts of the job of being a vice-regent is travelling the country and meeting people. “In the six years that I was Governor General,” she writes, “I took part in more than 6,000 events, travelling about 150,000 kilometres a year. We visited close to 400 villages, towns, and cities. And even though some contacts were brief, the very act of shaking hands and touching someone and looking into their eyes can bring an instant and genuine rapport. Too often we pass by without really noticing others.”[13]
The concept of the Crown-as-monarch is now synonymous with public engagements. The Queen, for example, officially represented Canada at the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959, opened the 1976 Summer Olympic Games in Montreal, proclaimed the Constitution Act of 1982 in Ottawa, and commemorated the ninetieth anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 2007. Her vice-regal representatives regularly visit schools, hospitals, and seniors homes; attend charitable, arts, and cultural events; meet with community and business service groups; declare open new or renovated buildings and venues of historical, cultural, or commercial importance; and interact with members of the Canadian armed forces. And this list can go on and on.
At many of these public events, the representatives of the Crown bestow honours and awards, and offer symbolic recognition for service to the country. The granting of “honours” such as titles and knighthoods, as a royal prerogative, dates back to the earliest days of French and English history, with the reigning sovereign always viewed as the “fount” of all honours. This perception endures. In the modern Canadian Honours System, the Queen’s personal honours rank as the most prestigious: the Order of Merit, the Royal Victorian Chain, the Royal Victorian Order, and the Royal Victorian Medal are all honours that can be awarded to Canadians, at the personal discretion of the Queen, for exceptional service both to Canada and the Crown. The most exclusive is appointment to the Order of Merit, since there can be no more than twenty-four living members. Only four Canadians have ever been admitted to this order: William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1947, Wilder Penfield in 1953, Lester Pearson in 1971, and Jean Chrétien in 2009.
Within Canada, the honours system consists of a hierarchical variety of orders, decorations, and medals. At the bottom of the ranking, Canadians can be awarded an assortment of medals for certain types of military and police service, volunteerism within provinces, and recognition of public service through commemorative coronation or jubilee medals. Higher up come decorations, which are special medals awarded for “specific acts of bravery, valour, gallantry or meritorious service.” The highest decoration in the country, of course, is the Victoria Cross, a military medal awarded for “a signal act of valour while in the presence of the enemy.” At the apex of the hierarchy are a number of orders, the most prestigious of which is the Order of Canada, established in 1967 to recognize distinguished service by any Canadian citizen in the interests of Canada or humanity at large.
Beyond these honours, various governors general have established separate awards to highlight and promote various aspects of Canadian social life and culture. Lord Dufferin in 1873 created the Governor General’s Academic Medal; Lord Tweedsmuir established the Governor General’s Literary Awards in 1937; Roméo LeBlanc, in 1996, authorized the Governor General’s Caring Canadian Award (now called the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers). Perhaps most famous of all are Lord Stanley, in 1892, and Lord Grey, in 1909, who donated cups to be awarded to the national champions for hockey and football, respectively. Sensing a gender bias in regard to these latter two trophies, Adrienne Clarkson established the Clarkson Cup in 2005, to be awarded to the winner of the Canadian Women’s Hockey League championship.
Just as the Order of Canada and these other honours recognize acts and works of distinction by Canadians coast to coast, so too have all the provinces established their own provincial orders, medals, and awards functioning along the same lines as their national counterparts. These provincial honours have been designed to recognize and celebrate outstanding works of community and public service performed by exceptional citizens living within their given province. Lieutenant governors confer these honours on an annual basis.
There is yet more to the ceremonial life of the Crown in Canada. The sovereign retains the right to grant the royal prefix to prominent institutions, signalling that the recipient body is exceptionally worthy of royal prestige and honour. Examples of this recognition include the Royal Society of Canada, so named by Victoria in 1882, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, named by Edward VII in 1904. George V officially named the Royal Canadian Navy in 1911, the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1924, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada in 1929. The Royal Conservatory of Music was named by George VI in 1947. The following institutions represent just a smattering of those that have received the royal prefix by Elizabeth II: the Royal Winnipeg Ballet (1953); the Royal Canadian Legion (1962); the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (1979); the Royal Tyrell Museum (1990); the Royal Nova Scotia International Tattoo (2006); and the Royal Cape Breton Gaelic College (2013).
Of all the many ceremonial and symbolic roles of the Crown in Canada, arguably one of the most significant today is the one connecting the Canadian state to indigenous peoples. When members of the royal family or governors general or lieutenant governors visit First Nation, Métis, and Inuit communities across this country, meeting with both common people and indigenous leaders, they reaffirm a special governmental relationship of historic importance. As we saw in chapter 1, members of First Nations found themselves involved in the first official and unofficial interactions with representatives of first the French and then the British Crowns in what was to become Canada. These relationships continue to this day, and they are especially honoured by indigenous Canadians. At many meetings between Crown representatives and indigenous peoples, ranging from formal ceremonies and Treaty Days to informal pow-wows, historic treaties will be recognized as having established sacred covenants between indigenous peoples and the Crown, where the honour of both sides was pledged in perpetuity. These treaties, and especially the Royal Proclamation of 1763, are viewed by many indigenous Canadians as legal evidence of their nationhoods and aboriginal rights, with all such treaties affirming that indigenous Canadians are not so much subjects of the Crown but allies of the monarch.
The concept of the “honour of the Crown” has always resulted in a very personalistic relationship existing between indigenous peoples and the Crown. Many indigenous Canadians have seen the treaties as establishing a personal kinship bond between indigenous leaders and the British sovereign. They have perceived the sovereign, whether it be George III, Victoria, or Elizabeth II, as someone who takes a direct interest in the welfare of their indigenous allies and to whom direct appeals for redress of grievances should be directed.[14] We saw the latest manifestation of this understanding on January 24, 2013, with a Crown–First Nations Gathering in Ottawa between 170 indigenous leaders and representatives of the federal government to discuss social, economic, and constitutional policy concerns of indigenous Canadians. At this meeting, indigenous leaders insisted that the governor general be present, at least for the opening ceremonies, to remind all in attendance, and especially Prime Minister Harper, that the “honour of the Crown” remained to be defended.
Since the Crown represents the state and constitutionally holds all the executive powers of the state, the Crown has to act in such a manner as to command respect and awe. It must wield dignity. The sovereign is to be the living embodiment of the state — one person who must reflect all that is good and great about the state. As a symbol of nobility and virtue, all sovereigns are logically required to comport themselves in such a manner so as to avoid controversies that would tarnish the image and reputation of the Crown and bring the institution of the monarchy into disrepute. The Queen and members of her family, along with her vice-regal representatives across the Commonwealth, are expected to be staid, cautious, careful in speech, at all times respectful, and at no times contentious or partisan. When the Crown speaks, it speaks in decorous triteness and profound simplicity. The one exception to this rule of behaviour, of course, is the throne speech, but there it is understood that the sovereign, or her vice-regal representative, is speaking the words of her first minister and government. At all other times, the Crown is to be a symbol of decorum and unity.
Lord Tweedsmuir, governor general from 1935–40, bemoaned the task of speaking in “Governor Generalities,” that is, avoiding sensitive subject areas while still sounding thoughtful and intelligent. Three decades previously Earl Grey, governor general from 1904–11, commented that “for nearly five years I have, quite conscious of my constitutional limitations, walked the tight-rope of platitudinous generalities and I am not aware of making any serious slip.” Despite Governor General Grey’s protestations to the contrary, MacGregor Dawson noted that he was “attacked for giving his views on such innocuous topics as co-operative societies and retail merchants’ associations.”[15] The intervening decades have not changed much. Edward McWhinney, writing in 2005, commented on the quietness of the governor general’s role:
For more than three-quarters of a century, the office of governor general of Canada has been pleasantly free from public controversy, and from involvement in complex and difficult constitutional decisions that all too often end up in partisan political conflict.… Absence, during all that time, of any real difference or disagreement between the governor general and the prime minister has left the governor general free to concentrate on the quieter and gentler, essentially honorific aspects of the office as titular head-of-state.[16]
So quiet has been the speech and so limited the range of matters upon which representatives of the Crown can speak that many people both in Canada and across the Commonwealth, especially those of a republican frame of mind, have come to believe that the words of the Crown-as-person are essentially banal. Real substance, if it is to be found in public life, comes from governments and ministers, from politicians representing either the ruling majority party or the opposition in parliaments; in other words, real substance originates in those who have earned the democratic right to represent Canadians in Parliament and government. The rest, to the naysayers, signifies nothing — at least nothing worth the taxes required to sustain it. The sovereign and her vice-regal representatives manifest as pale mannequins, giving the appearance of significant public actors but constitutionally limited to speaking in pleasant platitudes while performing mundane ceremonial tasks of little interest to most people. Their lack of power and importance reduces them to “mere figureheads” whose little noted role is of no consequence. The Queen becomes an object of jokes on account of her “wave,” while her family members are the object of tabloid journalism; and most Canadians are hard pressed to name the current governor general or, harder yet, their provincial lieutenant governor. The monarchy, republicans claim, is an institution becoming increasingly irrelevant, especially to the young, to French Canadians, to Canadians of more recent immigrant heritage, and to those who wish to see Canada finally become unfettered from its colonial stronghold. If we are to be a truly modern and independent country, republicans assert, we need to sever the link tying us to the remnants of an archaic and colonial past.
But such opinions never go unchallenged. Monarchists such as Eugene Forsey and Frank MacKinnon long argued that this all too common public attitude ignores the symbolic importance of the Crown’s ceremonial role in this country. Once again, symbolism rises to the fore, speaking to power relationships and the importance of political and social culture. Defenders of the Crown are quick to assert that the role of the head of state needs to be kept separate and distinct from that of the head of government, with the former properly attending to the dignified ceremonial life of the state. In so doing, the actor at the heart of such ceremonies is the Queen or her vice-regal representative. These individuals are figures who represent the state in general, who are by definition non-partisan and apolitical, and who appeal to common, general interests in Canadian society that hopefully serve to unite Canadians with their history and culture. According to this way of thinking, the monarchy and its representatives ideally symbolize the grandeur of the state while reminding and encouraging all Canadians to be proud of the democratic society in which they live.
As head of state, the Queen is the symbolic personification of Canada. She and her vice-regal representatives officially hold all executive powers in Canada, exercising them in the name of the Canadian people through the advice of democratically elected first ministers and their governments. While prime ministers and premiers truly do rule in the country, the institutions of the monarchy remind them, and all Canadians, that the heads of governments are transitory officials, possessing political power for not one second more than they command the confidence of the parliamentary chambers in which they reside.
Only the Crown is permanent, representing the state in all its majesty, and pledged to the service of all Canadians. The Crown is to be experienced by all Canadians through Crown ceremonies. Hence the importance, as monarchists assert, of both the state and social ceremonial activities of the Queen and the royal family, and of governors general and lieutenant governors in this country. It is through these ceremonial roles that the agents of the Crown are seen and understood by ordinary Canadians. Through these ceremonies, moreover, these agents of the Crown remind Canadians of their shared history and heritage, while encouraging all of us to value the significant achievements of Canadians from all walks of life in helping to build a better Canada through the promotion of Canadian social, economic, and cultural well-being.
This rosy perspective concerning the Crown does not inspire Canadians of a republican frame of mind. To these less than loyal subjects of Her Majesty, the monarchy itself is a dated relic of an imperial and colonial past. By its very nature, republicans contend, the monarchy symbolizes and perpetuates concepts of social and political hierarchy, elitism, class, and religious privilege that are fundamentally contrary to the democratic and egalitarian values of modern Canada. If the Crown represents history and heritage, to many republicans it is a history and heritage of colonial exploitation and racist imperialism, which serves to divide Canadians more than it unites them. For these reasons, it is also a history best superseded in this modern era.
Republicans are also quick to pounce on the modern contradictions arising from the monarch’s role as supreme governor of the Church of England. The sovereign, by law, cannot be a Catholic or an adherent of any faith other than Anglicanism. Further, she or he must be “in communion” with the Church of England. Lastly, she or he is legally required to defend the interests of the Anglican faith. All of these constitutional requirements borne by the Queen and her heirs and successors arguably run counter to the provisions respecting freedom of religion, equality rights, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How can it be, republicans ask, that the head of state, the symbolic leader of the country, by law embodies religious precepts in opposition to fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Canadian constitution?
If Canada is to be a truly modern country, republicans argue, we need to finally grow up as a people and sever the vestiges of British colonialism that still maintain an English foreigner as our Queen. We need to develop our own independent head of state who could represent the country and its people in a style that is uniquely Canadian, democratic, and multicultural.
The republican challenge to monarchy in this country is intellectually powerful. It resonates deeply with contemporary Canadian public opinion. Subsequent chapters will be devoted to the exploration of republican thinking in Canada. Before going there, though, we need to move beyond the ceremonial role of the Crown and look at the real powers the Queen and her Canadian vice-regents possess. Is there a modern justification for the continued existence of monarchy in Canada to be found in the ancient nature of the Crown prerogative?