You must be very excited over the royal visit and the opportunity to reaffirm our ancestral links to Great Britain. While Charles and Camilla may not be the most inspiring representatives, it is the institution we must respect. It is the glory of our monarchy and our Commonwealth that we are part of a non-military family of nations who hold a common British heritage of democracy, justice and tea-drinking.



I’m tempted to reply by paraphrasing Sir Winston Churchill’s dismissal of the “glory” of the Royal Navy: “nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash.” Perhaps “inbreeding, snobbery, and the throne” would be the equivalent for the “glory” of our monarchy.

You’re right in noting that Canada has ancestral links to Great Britain, and clearly many of our civil and parliamentary institutions have their origins there. But Canada is a sovereign nation, not a nation in need of a sovereign.

The many peoples – including the First Nations – who now make up this land all have traditions that inform our contemporary society, and it’s my belief that our strongest sense of ourselves will result from balancing relationships among cultures, regions, and the land. I don’t see how the monarchy is of any benefit in getting that balance right.



You’re right, Canada has been sovereign for quite a while – I peg the date at July 1956 when Britain parachuted forces into Sinai and Canada was diametrically opposed to the military intervention. Now, at that time, if Queen Elizabeth II was anything but a symbol of parliamentary democracies at work, relations between us and the monarchy could become strained.

However, we all realize the Queen has no real power and that she is a symbol of Canada - not the symbol - but one of many symbols of our country; the canoe, the fleurs-de-lis and the winter vacation in Cuba.

By the way, I assume that many of our First Nations peoples will be welcoming Charles and Camilla to Canada during this visit – they appreciate that if we are to have monarchs, it’s great to have Charles and Elizabeth whose tireless charitable works benefit and inspire us all . Clearly they have reconciled history and reality – why can’t you?




Pshaw! Charitable works are admirable, but we don’t need royalty to have charity. And you’re the one who said it’s the institution we must respect – why are you now lauding the accomplishments of the individuals?

On the other hand, if we’re going to pay homage to the royalty of one of our founding nations, why not all of them?

The modern history of Canada is tied to Britain and the Commonwealth, and that’s reflected in our laws and institutions. But Canada’s present and future are global, and we’re grown up now. We need to make our own way.

If we were founding a nation today, we’d want full democracy, not a constitutional monarchy, no matter how “symbolic.” Let’s face it: the Queen’s UNELECTED representative decided the outcome of last year’s constitutional crisis. That’s just plain undemocratic.



Well, the reason we don’t celebrate the French monarchy is that they had trouble perpetuating their line after Louis XVI was executed – the Bourbons were a perfect example of a monarchy refusing to change with the times. Contrast the Bourbons with the character of our royal family during the Second World War. They were given the chance to flee to Canada but they stuck it out in London during the Blitz with their subjects. Picture the young Princess Elizabeth driving an army truck while bombs dropped and the royal corgis forced to eat spam off silver plates – the hardship! The courage!

I’m glad you brought up the constitutional crisis. It proved we have the best system in the world because a person of noble stature, the Governor-General, was able to keep order during political chaos. Again, let’s compare our crisis with the U.S. election – or non-election – of George Bush in 2000. A gaggle of judges (appointed by politicians) decided the fate of a nation, and indeed the world, by proclaiming Bush the winner and not Al Gore. What would our world be like if the decision had gone the other way?

Finally, I recall that after the end of apartheid, one of the first international gestures Nelson Mandela did was to re-establish South Africa’s relationship with the Commonwealth. Clearly, if links to our British heritage are good enough for South Africa and Mandela, I’m content to be a loyal subject of the Queen – God Bless Her!




Sigh. You’re going to defend the royalty by reminding Canadian voters that the unelected Governor-General, at the urging of a weakened Prime Minister, prorogued parliament to give him time to get back on his feet – with no consultation from the electorate – and suggest that’s superior to the American system merely because Bush beat Gore in a dubious result?

Maybe Nelson Mandela likes being part of the Commonwealth because it helps keep the peace in a very tenuous situation in South Africa. I myself wouldn’t oppose it – as long as it didn’t mean having the English monarch as the titular head of our state. Democracy means more to me than heritage.