Battle Royal

by David Johnson

  Dedicated, with everlasting love, to my mother, Blanche Johnson. In the beginning this book was an idea, and it was hers.

  Monarchist, noun. 1. One who supports the principle of hereditary leadership vested in a royal family, and the rule of kings and queens serving as head of state. 2. One who respects the political and social heritage of royalty.

  Republican, noun. 1. One who believes in the principles of government of, by, and for the people, that all citizens are equal, and that any citizen can be selected by other citizens to serve as head of state. 2. One who opposes the rule of kings and queens.

  Contents

  Preface

  Introduction: A Crown of Questions

  1Rivers of Blood: Legacies of Conflict and Reconciliation

  2From the Few to the Many: Responsible Government, the Progressive Crown, and Confederation

  3“I Serve”: The Ceremonial Crown

  4The Hard Road to Soft Power: The Crown Prerogative and the Evolution of Constitutional Monarchy

  5Do the Right Thing: Hard Power and Tough Choices

  6We the People: Republicanism and Democracy

  7The Great Debate I: Republicans vs. the Crown

  8The Great Debate II: The Royal Family vs. Republicans

  9Quests and Quagmires: Republicanism Meets Constitutionalism

  10The Queen Is Dead; Long Live the King

  Acknowledgements

  Notes

  Bibliography

  Preface

  “The Queen is dead; long live the King.” Are Canadians ready to hear these words? When the second Elizabethan Era comes to its inevitable conclusion over the next decade or so, do we wish to see King Charles III reigning over us? Public opinion surveys reveal most Canadians oppose Charles becoming king, with many saying they wish to see the monarchy in this country terminated upon the death of Elizabeth II. Is this desirable? Is this lamentable? Is this possible?

  Welcome to the big issues at the heart of Battle Royal. The historic and ongoing debate between monarchists and republicans respecting the worth of the monarchy, the role of the Queen and her Canadian vice-regents, and whether the Crown deserves a future in this country is the focus of the book you are now holding.

  This debate is both as old as the country and as new as the most recent immigrant setting foot on Canadian soil and wondering why the “Queen of England” is on our twenty-dollar bill. Old in that Canadians have been talking about the merits and demerits of the monarchy for generations. Yet new because in the near future we will witness a historic succession from one monarch to another, something that has not happened since 1952, unless we act now to stipulate that after the passing of Elizabeth II, Canada will become a republic with a Canadian selected as head of state.

  This debate pits republicans against monarchists: the former wish to see the abolition of the monarchy in this country, while the latter, loyal to the Crown, are intent on preserving what to them is a vital part of Canada’s political and constitutional heritage. To republicans, the monarchy is an anachronism, a reminder of our once colonial connection with the long-defunct British Empire. To them, it carries the idea of an elitist and privileged hereditary monarchy that runs entirely contrary to modern Canadian values of democracy, equality, and meritocracy. Monarchists, however, insist that the Crown is a fundamental part of the Canadian constitution, with the Queen and her Canadian vice-regents — the federal governor general and the provincial lieutenant governors — being guarantors of our constitutional integrity. Defenders of the monarchy perceive it to be a vital link both to our constitutional past and to its legacy of responsible government and parliamentary democracy. Republicans counter that the past is the past and it is embarrassing to have such an outdated and democratically challenged institution at the very heart of Canada’s constitutional order today.

  And so the debate endures.

  In the quarter century that I have been teaching university courses on the Canadian constitution, a number of points with respect to the monarchy have struck me. Among the most notable is Canadians’ confidence in sharing their opinions with others regarding the merits or demerits of the monarchy. Whether monarchist or republican, Canadians are passionate about their beliefs on this topic.

  Another is that most Canadians, and especially the younger generation, know very little about Canadian history, our constitutional development, the nature and role of the Crown in Canada, and its relationship to the Canadian constitution. Given the limited teaching of Canadian history in high schools, this knowledge deficit, while sad, no longer surprises me. It does mean, though, that when most Canadians engage in this debate, they do so from a rather limited knowledge base. A cynic would say that lack of understanding is always the case with most matters, so why worry about the issue now?

  But here’s the thing. We are coming to the end of an era. Elizabeth II, a seemingly near permanent feature of life for so many people, is in her twilight years. At any point in the next decade or so the Queen will die, and her son, Charles, Prince of Wales, will become king. Monarchists will rejoice at this succession, following the ancient protocols of English common law, but republicans will grimace. So strong is the animosity felt by many Canadians against Prince Charles that many would prefer to see him abdicate in favour of his son, Prince William, upon the death of his mother. There is no indication, however, that Charles would ever relinquish his birthright. If most Canadians truly wish to see Charles prevented from taking his place as Canada’s head of state, then time is of the essence: we must engage in the political discussions now in order to secure the necessary constitutional amendment abolishing the monarchy in Canada upon the death of Elizabeth II. The debate on the monarchy in this country will then inevitably intensify, spurred on by the republican movement, and become a subject of increasing public focus. If this debate fails to result in any change to the constitution, however, the succession will be preordained and Charles will become Canada’s king. At this point many frustrated and angry Canadians will be mystified, finding themselves wondering why they didn’t get a vote on whether they wanted Charles as their new sovereign. Debate will be coupled with ridicule and outrage, accompanied by republicans demanding that the monarchy be abolished immediately so as to rid ourselves of Charles, the “unwanted.”

  Hence my reason for writing Battle Royal. As we head into this period of growing intensity and emotionalism surrounding the future of the monarchy, I believe it to be worthwhile for Canadians to have an informative and balanced overview of the Canadian Crown, its history, its role in the life of the Canadian state and people, and the constitutional issues surrounding any proposed amendments to the monarchy. It is also important for Canadians interested in these issues, regardless of what side they are on, or even if they are as yet undecided, to have a critical understanding of the arguments and issues in this debate. Battle Royal is for everyone: monarchist or republican, profoundly engaged or faintly curious. My book is for Canadians who are, at any level, interested in the Crown in Canada and its role in Canadian political, constitutional, and social life. As good citizens, Canadian republicans need to know the ideas and viewpoints of Canadian monarchists, and vice versa. The more we know the better will be the debate to come, with people respectful and informed of the positions of those with whom they disagree.

  All this discussion leads to a final point. The debate on the monarchy is an emotional one, engaging both the mind and the heart. The side on which you fall will be very much determined by how you feel about the Crown, the values of monarchism and republicanism, and the personal integrity of the royals. You may be wondering where I stand on these issues. In the spirit of full disclosure, I like to des
cribe myself as a pragmatic monarchist. I learned, at my mother’s knee, the storied history of the Crown in this country, in Britain, and across the Commonwealth. Much later I came to respect and admire its role in the constitutional evolution of all these lands. But I am no royalist sycophant. There is much to criticize in the history of the Crown, both in Canada and elsewhere, and it is crucial for monarchists to be fully aware of the republican challenge to the Crown narrative. In thinking about the future of the monarchy, moreover, we need to be conscious of its past, its current roles, and the problems of perceived illegitimacy, as well as the many obstacles to making radical changes to its constitutional status. In the pages to come, Battle Royal asserts six key sets of propositions:

  The monarchy is an important part of Canada’s history and its constitution.

  The monarchy is an odd, seemingly anachronistic institution, which is easily criticized and ridiculed in a modern society committed to the ideals of democracy, equality, and meritocracy. That the monarchy continues to exist at all in this country is actually quite amazing, but it persists precisely because it has accommodated itself, over time, to the prevailing spirits of democracy and republicanism found in Canada.

  Despite the second point, the monarch and her or his Canadian vice-regal representatives do have the means and capacity to play a vital role in the political life of this country during times of constitutional crisis. This reality signifies that even if we did abolish the monarchy, the crisis-resolution role would still have to be played by someone, as long as we maintain a parliamentary system of government.

  Canadians are deeply divided on the merits of the monarchy and whether it should be preserved or abolished. This on­going and, at times, bitter tension is what fuels Battle Royal. Evidently, a clear majority of Canadians do not want to see Charles, Prince of Wales, become king upon the death of his mother. But the throne is his entitlement, and he has loyalists in this land quick to defend his coming reign. The debate on the future of the monarchy in Canada is thus fascinating, with both monarchists and republicans advancing powerful and thought-provoking arguments in their position’s favour.

  While the abolition of the monarchy is theoretically possible, for all intents and purposes it would be practically impossible given the strict rules of constitutional amendment found in the Constitution Act, 1982. Even though most Canadians do not want to see a King Charles III, barring a tragedy in the House of Windsor, that is exactly what we’ll see in due course.

  Following the last consideration, clearly the monarchy will continue in this country upon the death of Elizabeth II. But this predication doesn’t have to mean that the future of the monarchy in Canada must maintain the exact form and substance it had during the reign of Elizabeth II. We can have a more vibrant and relevant Crown, one befitting the twenty-first century.

  Read on to see how.

  Introduction

  A Crown of Questions

  In 1964, the Irish-born Michael McAteer moved to Canada, where he began a long and distinguished career as a writer for the Toronto Star. By 2013, he was keen to become a Canadian citizen, save for one huge obstacle. The barrier was an existential one — an issue of principle that he was not prepared to overlook. Having met all the required residency criteria, criminal background checks, and knowledge-of-Canada tests, he faced one last procedural step: swearing allegiance to the Queen. The Canadian Citizenship Act, 1985, obligates all permanent residents of Canada over the age of fourteen years wishing to become Canadian citizens to make the following declaration:

  I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.[1]

  Michael McAteer refused to make this oath of allegiance, stressing that to do so under the compulsion of law would violate his individual rights. As a republican of Irish heritage opposed to the monarchy, he believed the oath violated his freedom of conscience and expression. He argued that “taking an oath to an hereditary monarch who lives abroad would violate my conscience, be a betrayal of my republican heritage, and impede my activities in support of ending the monarchy in Canada.”[2]

  Girded with his strength of conviction, McAteer joined forces in July 2013 with two other would-be Canadians, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan, who also had issues respecting the oath. They filed a joint legal application in the Ontario Superior Court, arguing that being compelled to make this oath to the Queen as a requirement of gaining citizenship was an unconstitutional violation of their rights to freedom of expression and religion guaranteed to all citizens and persons subject to Canadian law as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. McAteer wrote in his deposition that the oath perpetuates a class system, with the monarchy being “anachronistic” and “discriminatory,” and inconsistent with his beliefs in “egalitarianism” and “democracy.” Simone Topey, a Rastafarian, asserted that she regarded the Queen as the head of Babylon, and to be compelled to make any kind of oath to Elizabeth II would “deeply violate her religious belief.” In a similar fashion, Mr. Bar-Natan, an immigrant from Israel, called the oath “repulsive,” due to his belief that the Queen is a symbol of a class system perpetuating inequality.[3]

  These litigants were not alone in their rejection of swearing an oath of fealty to the Queen. Many individuals have looked sceptically at the practice, finding it a little odd, maybe even silly, and sometimes deeply offensive. Charles Pascal, writing in the Toronto Star in 2011, had this to say about his experience becoming a new Canadian:

  I will soon celebrate the 40th anniversary of my cherished Canadian citizenship. I remember so clearly the meeting in the office of the Quebec judge who posed my skill-testing question. “Ottawa is the capital of Canada,” I answered. He then asked if I would swear an oath to the Queen. “Sure, I guess, if it’s necessary,” I said. “Play along with it, that’s what we do in Quebec,” the judge smiled.[4]

  In their first attempt to eliminate the oath to the Queen in 2013, the plaintiffs in the McAteer case saw their claim dismissed. While the oath does appear to infringe upon the right to free expression in the Charter, the court ruled, it does so minimally, whereas the Citizenship Act promotes the valid objective of requiring new citizens to swear or affirm their allegiance to the country’s constitutional structure. Having been rebuffed the first time, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where, on August 13, 2014, they lost once again in a unanimous three-judge decision authored by Madam Justice Karen Weiler. In a detailed judgment, this court sided with the arguments presented by legal counsel for the government of Canada. Justice Weiler found that the plaintiffs were adopting a far too literal approach to the oath, failing to distinguish between the Queen as a person and the Queen as head of state. In calling upon prospective citizens to swear an oath to the Queen, the Citizenship Act compels an action that “is an oath to our form of government, as symbolized by the Queen as the apex of our Canadian parliamentary system of constitutional monarchy.” Given this broad interpretation, the appeal judges found that the oath in no way violated any of the plaintiffs’ freedoms of expression or religion in that the oath, properly understood, was simply a symbolic affirmation of loyalty to the Canadian constitution and system of government. After taking the oath, the new citizens would be free to express their disapproval of the monarchy if they so wished and to freely follow their religious beliefs.[5] The oath of allegiance was thus upheld as being fully constitutional, with this upper court overturning the contention that the oath slightly violated the Charter; all applicants for Canadian citizenship were clearly informed that making such an oath was a mandatory precondition for gaining that title.

  Needless to say, none of the plaintiffs were happy with this outcome. “It’s an insult to my integrity,” Mr. McAteer told the press, “to take an oath that I don’t believe a wor
d of … I am puzzled that members of the legal profession that sit on the judges’ bench would even suggest that.”[6] Legal counsel for the plaintiffs sought to appeal this case to the Supreme Court of Canada, but, on February 26, 2015, this court refused to hear the case, letting the Ontario Court of Appeal decision stand as the valid statement of law regarding the necessity of the oath of allegiance.

  Public response to this widely publicized case revealed Canadians to be divided on this legal outcome. Many expressed support for the court’s decision, stressing that immigrants must be expected to abide by Canadian laws and traditions, and should not be the ones seeking to change these legal obligations. Many others, however, argued that requiring would-be citizens to make an oath to a “foreign” Queen was embarrassing to Canada, highlighting why Canadians need to abolish the monarchy and bring the Canadian constitution up to date with modern liberal democracies.

  On November 30, 2015, Dror Bar-Natan finally made history the way he wanted to. On that day he took part in a citizenship ceremony in Toronto, standing before a citizenship judge and swearing true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. No sooner had the judge proclaimed him a Canadian citizen, however, than Mr. Bar-Natan publicly recanted the “royalty part” of the oath, affirming that his loyalty was to Canada, not to the Queen. In speaking to the media after this much-publicized event, Mr. Bar-Natan likened the oath to something “comparable to hazing, the fact that you are required to stand up and express views that are opposite to yours. I don’t think it is part of Canada to impose political speech on others. To impose opinions on others.”[7]

  This legal saga is revealing; it speaks about more than just the ceremony of becoming a Canadian citizen and the mandatory oath that must be a part of this act. To many people living in this country, citizens and non-citizens alike, the monarchy is a sharp bone of contention. It is viewed as elitist and anti-democratic, an embarrassing reminder of our former colonial status and of the worst features of the racist British Empire. The monarchy is also reminiscent, to its critics, of class discrimination and inequality, where some people reign over others by pure accident of birth, while the rest are mere subjects to their authority. No Canadian, by definition, can ever rise to become Canada’s head of state because that position is given, by law, to the head of an aristocratic English family, the House of Windsor.