By the time Royal Baby Boy, born in 2013, becomes the King of England, will Canada still be linked to the throne?
The first-born son of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge was born yesterday at 4:24 pm, London time. The unnamed boy is 3rd in line to the throne, but given the geneological lineage, he might have a considerable wait.
His great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, is 87. His great-great-grandmother lived to 101. His grandfather, next in line, is 64.
In 2013, some Canadian permanent residents who can otherwise be citizens want to become citizens of Canada without pledging loyalty to the queen of England.
Under citizenship laws, would-be Canadians must pledge to be "faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors." Of course, those born in Canada and children of Canadian parents don't have to swear an oath to the Queen or anyone else.
According to Sergio Marchi, the one-time citizenship minister to then Prime Minister Jean Chretien, the oath to the Queen was almost changed … 20 years ago.
Even without an oath, Canada still have a major tie-in to the throne via the Governor General. The Queen appoints the Governor General, through the advice of the Canadian prime minister, and the Governor General represents the Queen in state activities.
Canada's link to England doesn't go over well in Quebec, the primarily French-speaking province. In Ontario, well, on Parliament Hill, the Peace Tower was illuminated with blue light. The CN Tower and Niagara Falls also featured blue light.
Despite the awkwardness of an official connection between the monarchy and the citizens of Canada, chances are the relationship will continue for some time. Perhaps it will take someone born in 2013 to see that this relationship needs to be a little less connected.
I'm pro-Monarchy for Canada. We've enjoyed a good and free governance for most of our nation's overall history.
So has Quebec. Without Canada's (Britain's) acceptance, they'd either be isolated or converted to an English speaking province or state. Slavery was abolished a few decades earlier, in pre-Canada, than in the U.S. as well. Our native populations have had (at least) a less troubled continued existence under our historical British peace treaties.
When our disagreements do occur, involving the First Nations or Quebec, having the separate and long-standing Monarchy position helps to defuse its contemporary political tensions.
Culturally, Canada also benefits from its direct association with Britain (and the Commonwealth). It encourages an alternatively international outlook which competes with our immediate strong next-door Neighbour Envy.
Posted by: CQ | July 24, 2013 at 07:05 AM
Canada is one of 15/16 countries that has that arrangement with a Governor General and the Queen as head of state. As much as the States loves the Royal Family, the dynamic is different, as you eloquently point out. You made some really good points. I still wonder that by the time George becomes King whether he will have the same role.
Posted by: Chad | July 24, 2013 at 04:00 PM
I'm one of those people who thinks it's time to dissolve the monarchy as the head of state of Canada. We will always have ties to England historically, and getting rid of the monarchy at this time, I don't think will make us not friends and allies. I think we always will be those, but I think the need for a monarchy is long past.
As for the natives, CQ, well there was this thing called broken treaties and residential school. I can't really compare it with USA, because my knowledge there is rocky, but they've definitely been screwed by the British and Canada in the past, too.
Posted by: SelahBeth | July 24, 2013 at 05:12 PM
Selah Beth, for me, it is the idea that the Queen (or King) has a role in deciding another country's policy. That feels monarchial. My other theory is that because Queen Elizabeth has been so popular, people still think the whole Queen thing is okay. That would change when Charles and then William are in charge.
Sadly, I think the Canadian government treats its native people than the U.S. government. They try on some level to help. If the U.S. govt. is doing things, they're not making the news.
Posted by: Chad | July 25, 2013 at 07:06 AM
I agree. Canada is its own soverein state, therefore the Queen/King of England is a foreigner, and should not have rule over Canada. I think it will change sometime in the next decade or so.
I think our gov't tries on some level today to help the native people.
Posted by: SelahBeth | July 25, 2013 at 11:37 PM
Curious to see how that goes in terms of the Queen.
That story about allegedly depriving Native people of nutrition was beyond sad. So there is help, but so much to overcome.
Posted by: Chad | July 26, 2013 at 07:09 AM