Gdammit. They should NOT cancel the event.
Instead they should finally get around to disabusing Quebecers (and the rest of Canada) that this was an English-French thing. IT WAS NOT.
It was an extension of the Huguenot Wars that started in France with some Franco-Spanish borderers (the Bourbons) having a debate with the Belgian Guise clan (backed by Stuarts/Stewarts and Medicis) over the who would get to sit on the throne in Paris. The Guise pretended they were Catholics, and the Bourbons pretended they were Protestants until they decided it made more sense to pretend to be Catholics.
Between 1525 and 1815 you couldn't tell one army from the other on the basis of nationality. Frenchmen fought under the Union Jack as did Germans, Swiss, Portuguese and Spanish. Englishmen, Scots and Irishmen fought under French flags. And that included at Quebec.
Montcalm's bloody Aide de Camp was a Scotsman.
Johnstone. Its nae bluidy wunner that the gardes at the tap o' yon hill wernae bothered when the loon that led the first "British" troops up the brae answered their challenge wi' a Scots accent. They had Scots officers amangst them. For all I ken the gardes themsel's wur Scots.
And this was nae new thing. Scots had been serving the French since at least 1445, serving the same role as the Swiss Guard do for the Pope today. One of the offspring of that crew became governor Ramezay of Quebec under the French regime, building a Chateau in
1715 1705.
There were Scotsmen in Champlain's crew. Abraham Martin "called Maitre Abraham, l'Ecossais. He was a seaman and fisherman of Scots origin who turned up in the port of Dieppe......" His son Eustache, by Marguerite Langlois, born in 1621 was "the first French baby born in America". (Hackett Fischer: Champlain's Dream p.408)
The
deKlerk(Kirke: Scots for Church - dam my memory gives me trouble at times) brothers that captured Quebec from Champlain are widely believed to have been first genereation Franco-Scots from Dunkirk - then a port widely associated with piracy (meaning beyond the reach of Paris).
And to give the other side their dues
Paul Mascarene, a francophone Savoyard served in the British army, including a stint with the 40th Foot (Philips) the original territorial defence regiment for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and did a tour as acting British Governor representing the Hanoverians while they governed the Acadiens. His bete noire was Abbe le Loutre. He made his home in Boston near to that other well known English family the Faneuil (for whom the hall is named).
Another Savoyard,
Jean Cavalier, after leading a rebellion against the Bourbons, found sanctuary in Britain, served in the British army and ultimately became a Major General and Governor of one of the Channel Islands.
The Duke of Berwick fought for the Bourbons. Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, fought for the Bourbons before he fought for the Protestant Stewarts (an early case of a Churchill ratting and re-ratting).
Throughout the history of this period, the common thread was the rallying of ALL protestants against Catholics. But not all Catholics. In particular Gallican Catholics - those priests and ministries appointed NOT by the Pope but by the Bourbon Kings to serve their political ends. The
Pope himself "Pope Alexander VIII actually sided with King William of Orange against the Catholic King James II, who was backed by the French. People on all sides might benefit if they knew a little more about the battle’s (here they are talking about the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland 1690) actual significance"
From 1525 to 1815, and arguably long after that (Upper and Lower Canada rebellions, Metis rebellions, Fenian raids, Quebec Papal Zouaves, the Juarista revolution of Mexico, even the Quebec and Manitoba schools acts can best be seen in that light.)
Protestant Dutchmen and Germans on the London throne. Expatriate Protestant Frenchmen serving in the British Army and governing French and English speaking subjects. A Belgian Huguenot, Houblon, original Governor of the Bank of England that financed those centuries of Struggle. Irish and Scots (Including Charles I as Honorary Captain of the Garde Ecossaise) serving the Bourbons.
The Quebec-Canada, French-English argument is stale and wrong and does a disservice to this country. Historically the discussion was about religion, Protestant Huguenots and Catholics....... and even that was blurred because the Bourbons wanted the control over the church that Henry VIII had gained in England but did everything possible to continue to lay claim to the Catholic brand, even when actively opposed by the Pope. At one point in time the Brits offered to replace Bourbon appointed French priests, with no Acadien connections with Rome appointed priests.....The offer was rejected.
The Battle on the Plains of Abraham........
Abraham Martin dit L'Ecossais was NOT about anything that our modern polity would vaguely recognize as nationalism. The battles amongst the Recollets, Jesuits and Sulpiciens were every bit as fierce if less bloody.
Ah'm fair scunnert wi' the hale bluidy mess and ah'm fed up folks telling tales to whip up a crowd..... Sam Johnson would recognize the scoundrels in the PQ/BQ for what they are. And I don't doubt he would find a fair few wrapping themselves in the Jack as well.
Let the Battle be re-enacted..... and use it to tell the tale as the times saw it.
Don't cave in to that radical fringe of the minority 2,000,000 Quebecers (Parti Quebecois own numbers in a letter to the French Embassy whining about Sarkozy's recent remarks) that want to separate the same way that Erica Jong wanted to have sex (all the advantages and none of the commitment - the Zipless **** as defined in Fear of Flying).
OK, I'm finished ranting now. 'Strewth.