Monarchism in Canada

[2] These beliefs can be expressed either individually—generally in academic circles—or through what are known as loyal societies,[3] which include the Monarchist League of Canada,[4] legions, historical groups, ethnic organizations,[5] and sometimes police and scout bodies.

[8][9] In Canada, monarchism, though it is sometimes mocked by its opponents,[10] is driven by various factors: monarchists support the perceived practicality of popular power being ultimately placed in the hands of a non-partisan, apolitical individual, and see the Canadian monarchy as a modern link, via the Crown's shared nature, to ethnically and historically similar countries around the world.

[21] Further, the republican rebellions of 1837—with their significant minority of conservative followers who critiqued Canada's Westminster parliamentary constitutional monarchy as both too democratic and too tyrannical in comparison to their preferred American model of checks and balances[26]—failed to inspire the majority of colonists to espouse a break with the Crown.

[30][31] It was noted in the early 1960s by William Lewis Morton, in his attempt to clarify both the historic and continuing significance of the Canadian monarchy, that the structuring of Canada as a kingdom was not "bait for dim-witted Tory voters", but was instead a way for Canada to assert its presence in North America and thwart American expansionism into Canadian territories;[7][32] the constitutional monarchy was meant as a balance between the autocracy of the Russian Empire and the popular sovereignty of the United States that had just led to the Civil War.

[33] Still, republican ideals – by their wider definition – did have influence during the setting period of after Confederation, wherein the use of laws and the institutions formed by them was moulded by popular attitudes coexistent with monarchical preference.

[34] For instance, against the intentions of those who framed the constitution, the provinces began to regard themselves as homogeneous communities, each with a right to a certain amount of self-governance founded on a co-sovereign crown, a notion that was eventually cemented in by the 1882 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council case of Maritime Bank vs. Receiver-General of New Brunswick.

[41] At the same time, and into the period of Pierre Trudeau's prime ministership, however, some of the royal symbols that had previously been accepted as representative of Canada because of their British heritage became the target of iconoclasm for exactly the same reason,[n 1] and the Crown was more frequently said to be at odds with multiculturalism;[11] Canadians were, according to Arthur Bousfield and Gary Toffoli, being encouraged to "neglect, ignore, forget, reject, debase, suppress, even hate and certainly treat as foreign what their parents and grandparents, whether spiritual or blood, regarded as the basis of Canadian nationhood, autonomy and history", including the monarchy.

[51] Those like the University of Lethbridge's Professor of Native American Studies Tony Hall, George Grant, and Eugene Forsey, theorised that the greatest threat to the Canadian Crown was not its British origins, but instead the "expansionist powers of Manifest Destiny in the United States and those who wished to move Canada closer to the American sphere and its presidential style marketplace politics", where corporate personalities amongst the sovereign populace could wield significantly more power over government than in the monarchical system where sovereignty is above popular control.

[71] The contrary opinion of republicans, who continue to brand the persona and institution of the Crown as purely British and foreign intrusions in Canada, is considered by monarchists to be a superficial argument,[1] representative either of ethnic prejudice, or of a cultural and historical confusion that forgets a number of Canadian values – peace, order, and good government; parliamentary democracy; the elevation of public welfare over personal greed; responsible government; etc.

[7][86] Monarchists find that republican arguments often take the form of cultural cringe,[86] focusing, as they perceive it, on long settled issues like Canada's independence and responsible government,[87] or unsubstantiated ones, such as the republican claim that the monarchy was non-consensually imposed on Canadians,[31][73] and demonstrating a sophistry that has been described as "'presto-you're-an-adult' immaturity that would malign Canada as some sort of pimply-faced adolescent thinking she could prove she is grown up by smoking a cigarette and telling Mom where to get off.

"[33] Monarchists have contended that this is a product of inadequate knowledge of the monarchy's role in both Canadian history and modern civics,[50][88] a phenomenon sometimes compounded by the pervasiveness of American culture in Canada.

[33][95][96] Further, those loyal to the Crown have felt that aboriginal peoples in Canada cherish their ability to present grievances directly to the sovereign before the witness of international cameras.

However, it was expressed by Jacques Rouillard that from the mid-19th century until the end of the Second World War, in Quebec the monarchy was seen as a source of democracy that permitted the prosperity of French Canada.

[39] At the time of Confederation, there existed French-Canadian royalists who favoured the retention of the monarchy in the new polity that would include the new province of Quebec,[97] some 40 years before Raymond Auzias-Turenne published in Montreal his book République royale, extolling the virtues of constitutional monarchy,[98] and of monarchism in the province, Prime Minister of Canada Wilfrid Laurier stated: "people are surprised at the attachment French Canadians feel for the Queen, and we are faithful to the great nation which has given us liberty.

Monarchists have also come to find that the Canadian monarchy correlates well with multiculturalism, the monarch being a living illustration of the concept:[47] the Crown's non-partisanship extends to culture and religion, the sovereign reigns over multiple socially diverse nations,[103] appoints persons of each gender and different races to be viceroy, and is him or herself of a heritage that including more than 30 ethnicities, from Danish to Mongol.

[104][105] The monarchy has also been seen by new Canadian citizens as a favourable symbol; in the late 1950s, for instance, recent immigrants from Eastern Bloc countries made public expressions of loyalty to the Queen and criticism towards those who were dismissive of the Crown.

[106] Alistair Horne observed at the same time that, while Canada's cultural mix grew, the monarchy remained held in high regard: "At its lowest common denominator, to the average Canadian—whether of British, French or Ukrainian extraction— the Crown is the one thing that he has that the rich and mighty Americans have not got.

"[114] Former Governor General Roland Michener said in a 1970 speech to the Empire Club of Canada: "Canadians refuse to consider the question at all on the simple ground that what we have works.

[38] The institution was used as the bedrock of the constitution because it was viewed by the Fathers of Confederation as a guarantor of Canadians' "life, liberty, and prosperity", and a body that was both inclusive and still subject to the rule of law; parliament, of which the monarch is one of the three pillars, spoke for all.

[116] The sovereign was also seen as an ideal representative of the Canadian state, as opposed to a president, who, due to the election process, would simply be another politician,[117] always accompanied by an inherent amount of division between his or her supporters and detractors, and therefore unable to appear as non-partisan and unbiased as a constitutional monarch.

[108] This "rigorously neutral civic identity" at the national level,[118] monarchists argue, benefits democracy as the sovereign and his or her viceroys are free to represent all Canadians,[86] un-reliant on blocks of voters divided by age, race, gender, financial worth, or political leanings, appealing to, for example, Farley Mowat, a self-described New Democrat and socialist;[119] Eugene Forsey, a trade unionist and founder of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, precursor to the New Democratic Party;[33] George Grant, a Red Tory;[33] and Dalton Camp, a Progressive Conservative.

[49] As Governor General the Lord Tweedsmuir put it, the monarch was "the friend of every citizen, but the master of none, for friendship implies a noble equality", and a link not only between all the peoples of every country that shared the same king in a personal union-type relationship, but also those of Canada.

[121] John A. Macdonald, speaking in 1865 about the proposals for the upcoming Confederation of Canada, said: By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States.

"[30]Indeed, five years prior, it was said that Canadians' enthusiasm for the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII), during his 1860 tour of Canada was "the intelligent appreciation by a free people of a principle of government and law, which is above party ...

"[122] In the late 1930s, Tweedsmuir said in a speech that, while the will of the populace prevailed through their election of parliamentary representatives, the King embodied the people on a higher level, above all the "mutations and vicissitudes of parties",[123] and some 60 years later, New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Bill Blaikie opined: "[The Queen] symbolizes for many the merits of a constitutional monarchy in which the head of state ... is separate and apart from the ongoing political struggles of the day",[47] a sentiment echoed in 2009 by American-born, Simon Fraser University professor Anthony Perl.

Monarchists, such as the Lord Tweedsmuir, felt that, despite having some drawbacks, constitutional monarchy offered greater stability,[120] it's being seldom thought of an illustration that it was working properly.

[11] Thus, the reserve powers of the Crown and the peculiar nature of the office holder are viewed as making the position a useful, if limited, asset against the "presidential" aspirations of prime ministers, and a superior safeguard for executive oversight than any republican alternative.

To the idea that the head of state be selected by the Companions of the Order of Canada, monarchists have said that such a situation would "politicise and destroy" the Canadian honours system by turning it into a form of electoral college,[136] and they further counter Edward McWhinney's notion that Canada could become a republic simply by failing to proclaim another sovereign upon the next Demise of the Crown, stating that such a proposal ignores the necessity of provincial input, and "would be contrary to the plain purpose of those who framed our system of government".