King Charles III and the Kingdom of Canada
The death of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8th unleashed an outpouring of affection for Britain’s longest-serving monarch in Canada and around the world. While the transition to the reign of King Charles has been seamless, writes Carleton University governance and constitutional scholar Philippe Lagassé, it may also be time for Canada to consider the nature of its relationship to the Crown, even if the fundamentals will not be changing anytime soon.
Philippe Lagassé
King Charles III’s succession to the throne has been seamless. The Queen’s death was absorbed with a proper period of mourning and reflection, with the new King carefully balancing his personal grief and the responsibilities of his new office. Aside from one rather pathetic attempt to make a “gotcha” moment out of the King’s frustration with a leaky pen, Charles III has defied critics who hoped that his accession would be accompanied by missteps and public skepticism.
The beginning of the King’s reign has been marked by a sense of continuity and stability in the United Kingdom. These are early days, of course, but there are currently no indications that the succession will affect British support for the monarchy.
The situation in the King’s other realms is different. Jamaica and the Bahamas are likely to become republics in Charles III’s lifetime. This may lead other, smaller realms to reconsider their relationship with the monarchy as well. New Zealand is unlikely to become a republic in the near future, though an Australian move in that direction might trigger a more serious consideration of the question. Australia’s commitment to the monarchy — which prevailed in a 1999 referendum with 55 percent support — is fragile, and if Australian republicans can agree on an alternative to the monarchy, they could very well win a referendum and begin the long, complicated steps required to bring about the transition.
Anyone who has followed the Canadian republican debate knows that it would be practically impossible to sever our ties with the British monarchy. Canadian courts have told us that we automatically take the British monarch as the Sovereign of Canada. We did not patriate any laws of royal succession when Canada became independent from the United Kingdom in 1982. Instead, we decided to leave matters of royal succession with the British Parliament, with Canada’s Parliament merely expressing its assent to any changes the UK makes to its rules.
Altering this arrangement would likely require the agreement of all provincial legislatures and the houses of the federal Parliament. A republican alternative to the Crown, meanwhile, would almost certainly require this unanimous amending procedure. Moreover, since the Crown is a party to treaties with Indigenous peoples, and the honour of the Crown is central to Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, one could argue that constitutional convention requires that they be consulted before Canada were to replace the monarchy. A replacement for the Crown in the constitution would need to be accepted as a new treaty partner and an equal fount of honour.
Any effort to replace the Crown in the Canadian constitution, therefore, faces the dual challenge of reaching an agreement on an alternative and the seemingly insurmountable veto points provided by our amending formula. Indeed, the only way to end the monarchy in Canada would arguably be for the UK to become a republic, yet even that shock might not be enough, depending on how Canadian courts would interpret how we know who holds the office of the Sovereign in the absence of a British monarch.
The Canadian Crown, then, is not going away anytime soon. While the Canadian public is increasingly indifferent toward the monarchy, the institution is more entrenched here than anywhere else. In keeping with Canadian tradition, there will still be quarterly op-eds in major newspapers imploring us to move on from the monarchy, but these will accomplish little.
Many Canadians will rightly question the Crown’s role in colonization, oppression, and systemic racism in Canada, yet abandoning the institution cannot be offered as a viable option to address these wrongs for the foreseeable future. Once Canadians accept this, we may be able to stop focusing on form and pay greater attention to substance. Simply put, the real question we have before us is not whether to retain the Crown, but what we want our monarchy to look like.
The new King’s approach to his reign may help us here. Charles III is apparently committed to reducing the number of working royals and tightening the monarchy’s spending. Fewer working royals may mean fewer royal visits to Canada and less royal involvement with various Canadian charities, non-profits, and military regiments. These relationships may endure, of course, but they should not be taken for granted. Generational shifts may make royal patronage less appealing and fewer working royals make lead organizations to look elsewhere. The Britishness of the royal family could help propel this change as well. Younger members of the royal family can often be seen supporting British national teams and taking part in patriotic events. As much as monarchists in other realms may insist that the royals are not uniquely British, this sentiment sounds increasingly misplaced.
A smaller, less expensive royal family, furthermore, is likely to be still more locally focused under Charles III. While the King will still serve as the dutiful monarch of all his realms, he and his family will likely be less present outside of the British Isles, particularly as some of the remaining realms become republics. Should this occur, Canada would do well to take its cue from the King. Very few Canadians clamour for royal tours, and while the King should be invited to visit on occasion, it may suit the interests of both the royal family and the Canadian government to make them far less frequent.
In the UK, the Royal Mint has already announced a new coin featuring the King’s effigy. Australian coins will soon feature Charles III as well. The Royal Canadian Mint has not yet done the same, though it is highly likely that the King will soon appear on Canada’s coins. Removing the Sovereign’s image from the coinage would be such a break with established practice that it would be seen as bad form at best, and a clear insult at worst. Crowns will also continue to adorn the crests of state agencies, and royal monikers will surely be left in place.
Yet there are a number of other symbols that could change. Queen Elizabeth may very well stay on the 20-dollar bill for some time. If and when she is replaced, we encourage a debate about who should take her place. King Charles may win out, but even monarchists should want this to be seen as a considered decision, rather than the default.
The citizenship oath to the monarch should be re-examined as well, if only because it fosters confusion and is arguably a form of compelled speech. Australia’s oath of citizenship is to the state, its people, and Australian democracy, which provides a clearer sense of what we are asking new citizens to show loyalty toward.
Canadians could look at institutional changes as well, depending on how directly they want the King involved in Canada’s affairs. The Governor General could appoint their own successor under the Letters Patent 1947. This could be done without fully supplanting the King’s prerogative, which could be left in place to dismiss errant Governors General. The Canadian government could also explore an amendment to section 26 of the Constitution Act 1867, which empowers the monarch to appoint additional senators on the recommendation of the Governor General. If this section could be amended by Parliament alone, it could be updated to remove the Sovereign from the equation, leaving the appointment of additional senators at the sole discretion of the Governor General. Since this change would better insulate the King from potential Canadian controversies, the reform may be welcomed by the Palace.
Adopting these measures will displease fervent monarchists and republicans alike. Monarchists will chafe at efforts to diminish the role of the Crown and royal family in Canadian affairs. Republicans will complain that ‘monarchy-lite’ is not enough. Most Canadians, though, will likely be fine with it. The monarchy is here to stay, but Canadians should be able to happily ignore it. As King Charles looks to firm up “the firm” in the UK, leaving his Canadian kingdom to its own devices may suit him just fine, too.