I believe that "the Crown" can be equally or more effective as a symbol if it is held by a Canadian "Elder Statesmen" rather then worn by some European who lucked out and happens to have the last name of Windsor....
OK Infanteer, let's chill out a little on this one.
I support your general premise, as I said earlier its a good idea. I also said that I was not quite sure that I agreed with the timeline. I think it is a desireable end-state once Canada becomes a different Canada than it is today, the Canada the you wish it to become and the Canada that I, grudgingly, expect it to become. One that is less British.
One of the basic rules of leadership is never issue a command you don't expect to be followed. You may be right to issue the command but there is a considerable loss of authority and credibility if your "followers" laugh in your face, or worse look for the nearest explosive device.
The problem exists not only when all your "followers" disagree with you but even when a sizeable minority disagrees with you. That results in conflict. When the split is 50:50 on the national level then that is when civil wars occur. (No I am not predicting the Revolt of the Cavaliers, The Sequel).
In this I believe Trudeau had something of it right when asked what he would do about the Governor-General he responded "Nothing. Let it fade away to irrelevance". Unfortunately he was right and it has been a winning strategy for the Republicans. But he was right to recognize that without active support it would become irrelevant and naturally disappear from the Canadian consciousness. The alternative was to rile a very large portion of the population. You are too young to remember it, and I was too late to see it but folks like ROJ remember the Flag Debate well and its successor debate over removing the Royal Cipher from mail boxes and the prefix Her Majesty's.....from Government Departments and correspondence. Those moves, as much as any, poisoned the attitude of many Anglo-Canadians of those days to Trudeau and Quebec. Many of them were veterans that had proudly served Her Majesty's father as Canadians.
Many of those veterans and their offspring still feel strongly about the Monarchy and the numbers suggest that anything from 25 to 50% of the population stil have some attachment to the Monarchy. Forcing the issue at this time is not likely to play to the advantage of any political party, or IMHO the country at large.
That is why I suggest that while your end-state is an acceptable end-state for this tradition-loving Britophile Monarchist, I don't think that it is a desireable state at this time. Now in 25 years or so it may be a different matter - my kids certainly have not strong attachment to Britain, that could have something to do with the fact that my Franco-Canuck wife keeps bringing up the ruddy Acadians ( ;D "Don't mention the war....."). So in your lifetime you will probably find a move towards your point of view.
I am glad to see that you value symbols as reminders of history and what has brought us to this point. If those that forget history are doomed to repeat it then we should constantly strive to remind ourselves of the conficts that have been resolved on the route to the present. Those resolved conflicts, power struggles, have resulted in our modern institutions and thus have given us the tools to resolve and defuse modern conflicts.
As to the Royals as being "lucky Europeans" you are missing the point about the Royals entirely here.
The Royals are a symbol. Their power devolves not from legislation, force or even luck. Their power devolves from something much more fundamental. Blood.
They are a symbol of racial connectivity. They work hard to be able to trace their genealogy and maintain, not their purity, but their genetic connectivity.
You and I have had a discussion about "Blood and Belief". Some would argue that one is irrational and the other is rational. That one appeals to the heart the other the mind. That an attachment to blood-lines, to race, to tribe, to clan, to family is irrational. But it exists, just ask the Quebecers. And time does not prevent people remembering.
The entire history of the modern world and western liberalism, the rise of Prebyterianism, through the Enlightenment has been a struggle on the part of the rationalists to over-ride those heart-felt blood-ties with rational appeals to something greater. A common belief. Common beliefs have been common in the past and have been used to bring disparate bloodlines together. Generally these are beliefs in a God or a form of worship. The common belief that the rationalists have tried to proclaim, and it has found many adherents, especially amongst the academics of the world is rationalism itself. The belief that forswears belief and believes itself to be without beliefs and thus "pure".
The French, believing themselves to be the ultimate expositors of the "Enlightenment", largely in reaction to all the nastiness associated with the European wars of religious belief where the populace was whipped up to support power-seeking individuals by appealing to their religious beliefs, believe that they have no beliefs. That they are rational individuals that eschew any belief at all. Thus they believe in the state religion of "laicete", or no god-centred religion.
The Americans and the modern British state however spring from the Scottish Enlightenment. An enlightenment that sought to find the role for man in God's world and ended up promoting the individual, individual responsibility, charity begins at home, the acceptability of earning a profit, the desire to use science to find God's plan but the need to accede to God's good graces and look after the disadvantaged. If only in enlightened self-interest. It accepted the individual, blood and God as necessary ingredients to make their society work.
While the Scottish Enlightenment led to America, the French Enlightenment led to Marx. These two Enlightened views are at the heart of the modern conflicts between Progressives and Conservatives.
Now these days, while many Brits, both in Canada and in Britain have turned more towards a French world view likewise many non-Brits both in Canada and around the world have converted to more of a Scottish view. I would argue that the Poles, for example, clearly fall into that category.
These two camps will rally around their symbols. In the past Brits that shared the Scottish view, a majority of Canadian Brits, found those symbols in the Crown and the living symbol of the Royals. These days those types of Canadians constitute a diminishing population but as noted many non-Brits share a similar view. These people, although finding no attachment to the British blood lines, do find themselves attached to British philosophy. For them perhaps the Crown, as a symbol of the well-spring of their beliefs could be considered acceptable.
Another way to bridge the divide historically has been through inter-marriage, to incorporate other relevant blood-lines into the living symbol. Using traditional logic one solution for Canada would be for one of the Royals to take up permanent residence in Canada and become part of the fabric of Canadian society, not necessarily in an authority position like the GG but just as a private citizen who takes part in public life like any other notable private citizen. That person's heir would then marry a suitable Canadian of well recognized blood lines in the community - it could be a pure laine Quebecoise or a Native woman or a Hindu or Muslim or Chinese woman. Other heirs would confirm the web of blood and tie the families together in one family and create a Nation in the sense that the Unenlightened world understands it.
The Quebecers have that right. Country, Nation and State are three different things. Canada has the geography that defines it as a country. It has a government that defines it as a state. But it does not have the unity of bloodlines that define it, in the traditional sense as a Nation.
Our ruling classes are trying to get us beyond that sense of Nation and create something different, in that sense they are trying to accomplish the same as the Americans, a Nation that defines itself not by blood but by belief.
Perhaps they will succeed. Canadians more and more are defining themselves by belief and not by blood. But they are not united in those beliefs.
In the meantime Lord Durham's words of 1837 are still valid. Canada is still "two Nations warring within the bosom of a single State". Although in those days those Nations defined themselves by blood. These days there are many more bloodlines capable of defining themselves as Nations. These days we see not just divisions amongst Nations that define themselves by blood but also between Nations that define themselves by belief.
To remove the monarchs at this time, rather than letting them fade gracefully, or even potentially enjoy a natural resurgence, would only exacerbate divisions in a State that already has too many fault lines.
Sermon ends.
Cheers. ;D
