Well, there has been quite a kerfuffle this past week over Oprah Winfrey’s interview last Sunday with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. In many ways, that was appropriate because much of what they had to say was important to hear.
For those who ask, “Who gives a damn about what Harry and Meghan have to say?”, I would invite you to check out the television ratings of that interview, which surpassed everything else that was going on last week and, indeed, with the exception of major sporting events, for much of the last year—17.1 million viewers in the United States alone, to say nothing of the rest of the world.
So, what was important? Was it the intrigue about what goes on inside the Royal Family? That’s part of it I suppose. There is an international mystique about royalty. Love them or hate them, many people want to be on the inside and know what is going on, both the good and the bad. After all, the institution is well over a thousand years old and there are many stories to be told!
But the really important stuff that came out of that interview was about mental health and racism. Not just because it was the result of Meghan’s and Harry’s experiences as members of the Royal Family. That was significant but not surprising and it should not be dismissed. But it should also be remembered that the Royal Family is just that—a family, albeit on a much higher pedestal, where much is expected of them and little is forgotten or forgiven.
Yet, it is the notoriety of the Crown that provided an extraordinary platform for Prince Harry and his wife to highlight the realities that many, if not all, families face in one way or another when it comes to dealing with issues of mental health and, yes, racism within their own circles. To pull the rug from under the feet of the Royal Family is to pull the rug from the feet of all of us.
To do it in such an extraordinary manner, to remind us all that mental illness is real and not a stigma and that racism is systemic, and to put it in personal terms that cannot be ignored, and to remind us that we all have an important role to play in dealing with these issues, is a significant step forward.
There are those of course who will use the interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, to further the case of abolishing the monarchy in both England and Canada. I respectfully disagree with that.
I have had the pleasure of meeting Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip twice, once at a royal performance at Roy Thomson Hall where I was a board member, and again at a state dinner in Toronto when Frank Miller was premier of Ontario.
When I was chairman of Muskoka, many years ago, I also met the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret (very different from Her Majesty, I can tell you) and her daughter. They were guests at the cottage of John Black Aird, at that time the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.
Anne and I were asked to greet the Princess when she arrived at Muskoka Airport, which we did. The first words out of my wife’s mouth, being British-born and strict on royal protocol, were, “Oh goodness, she is not wearing any stockings!” That evening, there was a dinner for the Princess at a golf club in Muskoka Lakes, which we attended, and from which there, too, are many good stories to tell!
I confess to being a monarchist. I am not blind to its faults, or to the fact that its members are mere human beings, and that occasionally some will make an ass of themselves. But I also remember that the Royal Family have been instrumental in times of crisis, times of war, and when unity and a sense of purpose was essential to survival.
I am committed to a constitutional monarchy. For one thing, in Canada, our form of governance sets us uniquely apart from that of the United States, our behemoth of a neighbour. This distinction helps to keep our countries as friends but at arms length and unconnected. The last thing I believe we need in Canada is a system of governance that comes even close to that in the United States.
I have watched with some concern over the past year or so our penchant for cancel culture and regret that it is in this atmosphere that the debate of maintaining the monarchy in Canada will likely take place. Taking down statues, banning books (my goodness, even Curious George and Winnie the Pooh are at risk), apologizing for standards based on today for decisions taken a century ago—basically pretending the past didn’t happen and that tradition, almost by definition, should be abandoned is all troubling to me.
In my view, erasing our history and traditions will do nothing to remind us of what we have done right and what we have done wrong and what we need to accomplish in the future.
Cancel culture should not extend to the monarchy. It is still an effective form of governance and in spite of how the world is changing the Crown still remains popular to the majority of Canadians, although support for abolishment is growing.
The big question is how will this change when Queen Elizabeth, whose popularity exceeds 80 per cent and who will celebrate her 95th birthday next month, leaves this mortal coil?
Tony Burman is a foreign affairs journalist and recently wrote an opinion piece in the Toronto Star that Prince Charles, heir to the throne and well into his seventies, should stand aside upon the death of Queen Elizabeth and allow his son William, to ascend to the throne. Sadly. I agree with him.
If the monarchy is to survive, it must relate to younger generations and their lives moving forward. In terms of accomplishing this, Prince Charles is past his best-before date. In what is certainly becoming a rocky time for the monarchy, he needs to recognize this. Prince William’s popularity is high. His Father, who, over the years, has born the brunt of much of the Royal criticism, fairly or unfairly, does not enjoy significant support. He should get out of the way.
It would be sad to see a wave of republicanism in Canada. We see enough of that across our border. That, however, is the alternative to a constitutional monarchy. But the monarchy itself must step up to the plate. Like all long-lasting institutions it needs reform, it needs to relate to the diverse population it serves, and it needs to reflect standards, traditions, and forward thinking that are important to this day and age.
There is a line at the end of Gilbert and Sullivan’s famous musical, The Pirates of Penzance, where the Pirate King sings, “Because, with all our faults, we love our Queen”.
I relate to that. God bless the Queen…and the monarchy!
Hugh Mackenzie
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Thanks Hough , for putting our relationship so clearly the Crown !
I wish that our Government can come up , with all our Parties , to a consensuses , selecting our next Governor General . The Governor General is still in charge , if our Government breaks down.
Good article Hugh. And lots of good comments. Apparently, the only forms of democratic government are a republic or a monarchy. But there are hereditary and elective monarchies. There is an article in Wikipedia called “Elective Monarchy” that is worth reading. It reviews the history of monarchies around the world. Cambodia is currently the only elective monarchy. Canada and the Scandinavian countries that currently rank at or near the top of most international rankings are all some form of hereditary monarchies. In reality, Canada is more like an appointed monarchy. The truth is that all monarchies are mainly symbolic. They have an important function to perform, but little if any real power.
Over time, Republics and Monarchies have both worked well and both worked poorly, depending on how well informed and involved the citizens are. At the end of the day, the best form of government is the one that most of the people support. Any system can be tweaked and improved, but nothing would steal more parliamentary time away from real problems than another constitutional debate.
At some point, Canada may want to make a clean break from the apron strings, real or perceived. When will everything be going so well that we can afford the time that debate is bound to take? One way to proceed would be for a special all-party committee to appoint another committee of 5 of our best constitutional scholars and give them 3 years to do surveys and town-hall meetings and study the options and reach a consensus they would present as simply and clearly as possible. Of course, there would have to be one scholar each from Ontario, Quebec, the West, the East, and the North. And at least one would have to be an Indigenous scholar. Sound like fun? Who wants to sign up for that?
Dinosaurs in favour of dinosaurs. This support of the monarchy is Conservative poppycock, right up there with anti abortion and oil fracking.
Sven is dead right, it’s part of history, but is definitely not part of our future. What a huge waste of time, money, energy. Make Elizabeth our last Monarch, then give rideau hall to the people!
The issue I have had with the monarchy vis a vis its role in Canadian governance, for all my adult life has been:
How do you explain to your children and/or grandchildren that you believe in meritocracy and democracy as values fundamental to what it means to be Canadian and then have to explain that this family simply born to wealth and privilege are the nominal head of state? Does this institution not diminish everything that you hope for in the world that your children will enter?
No it doesn’t take deep scrutiny to see that the very nature of the monarchy is the antithesis of the most fundamental values of being Canadian and has not been for 75 years.
The tide has turned on public opinion regarding the monarchy and it has little to do with the personal attributes of the reigning monarch or her successor(s).
The problem is of course that it will be a nightmare to change it.
The monarchy is well past its best before date. At a time when our society is dealing with the serious issues of inequality and racial discrimination, why would we continue to support an institution who’s founding principal is the superiority of them over the rest of us?
Canada can retain its parliamentary system without having a foreign king or queen as our head of state. The end of the role of the British monarchy in Canada is not cancel culture. This institution will always have a place in our history books but they should no longer have a place in our future.
Mr. Mackenzie, I think this commentary is one I can agree with at least 99%! Hooray.
All we have to do is look south and then further south to see what a republican system of government can become.
Of course, any form of government system can become corrupted, it is run by human beings.
But our inherited strong parliamentary system, even with flaws, is much preferred. This is yet another reason I do not wish to see the end of the Canadian Senate. Checks and balances need to be in place. Improve systems rather than completely deconstruct them. Pay attention and act to address inequities for our citizens. It should be no surprise to anyone that I favour a public agency and ownership to do this – but even that has degrees. Public or private needs oversight in law, regulation, and an ethical yardstick for stability.
Thanks for reading.
With the serious situation round the world with disease , Chinese economic and human aggression and slaughter of civilians in Myanmar , the fact that this drivel amongst very wealthy privileged people even sees the light of day is astonishing ! Please no more sensationalism for profit .Reminds Me of Fox TV !
Thanks, Hugh, for a timely and thoughtful commentary. Hopefully we are not a tabloid obsessed society. The monarchy has a place in our constitution.
I agree that Charles should abdicate/step aside in favour of William when the Queen does pass.
Good comments Hugh.
As it happens I was at the Muskoka Lakes Golf and Country Club dinner for Princess Margeret with my wife as well. We are Monarchy followers now and have been for years. This includes getting up and making tea to watch a royal wedding spectacle or funeral on tv several times.
We are believers that our present Parlaimentary system as opposed to a republican system as in the States is far superior. Granted, we sometimes end up with a political mess such as we presently exp