[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: A wedding gift for Kate and William (click to view)
Date: April 29, 2011
Amid all the hoopla of the royal wedding, there's been another quietly  important monarchy story in the news lately, though you can be excused for having missed it.

Since rising to the office of deputy prime minister in Britain's present Conservative-Liberal coalition government, Liberal Democratic Party leader Nicholas Clegg has been pushing for a number of progressive reforms to the United Kingdom's well-aged system of government. Chief amongst these will be a referendum next week on changing the British electoral system from it's current "first-past-the-post" model to something more proportional and European — which looks doomed to fail — and a proposed reform to the British monarchy's 300-year-old Act of Succession. The latter looks doomed to fail as well, though in this case it's no fault of the Brits.

The proposed changes are innocuous enough. Under the terms of the current Succession Act, daughters of the monarch, regardless of age, cannot ascend to the throne unless they have no brothers. This is part of the reason queens tend to be much rarer than kings in the UK; the rules are purposely structured to make this an incredibly difficult outcome. Elizabeth only became queen, for instance, because her parents only had a comparatively small royal offspring of two children, both girls. Victoria, similarly, was an only child. Clegg's reforms would bring the British monarchy in line with the standards of most other European royal families, and allow the oldest child, period, of any royal couple to be first-in-line to the throne, regardless of gender.

Seeing as how a change at this point wouldn't affect the pecking order of any current royals — heirs to the throne number one and two, Prince Charles and Prince William, are both eldest children — one would expect a sensible 21st Century reform like this to sail through. But alas, nothing with the monarchy is ever simple.

Under the terms of the Westminster Statute of 1931, which guaranteed the practical legislative independence of the former British "dominions" from the UK parliament, any changes to the institution of the British monarchy must "require the assent [...] of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." Though we no longer use the term today, Canada remains one of the dominions in question, and can thus unilaterally veto any reforms to the monarchy we feel like. Which is exactly what Prime Minister Harper is evidently willing to do, in this instance.

Though no one can doubt his country's progressive commitment to gender equality, the prime minister of Canada has evidently decided that putting any monarchy-related issue to the floor of the House of Commons is simply not worth the broader debate on the usefulness of the institution that would inevitably follow. Said Harper, "I don’t think Canadians want to open a debate on the monarchy or constitutional matters at this time. That’s our position. I just don’t see that as a priority for Canadians right now at all."

The monarchy is not popular in Canada. Every poll take on the issue, no matter how phrased, confirms this. The monarchy is not even terribly popular in the Conservative Party or the Harper cabinet, despite much official mythology that argues otherwise. Yet the extreme cowardice of the Canadian political class guarantees that the Canadian people will never be permitted to even debate the merits of the Crown, presumably for no reason other than such a debate might be unwieldy, and thus hard for the Ottawa set to control. This is the same reason we don't debate a whole host of other serious issues in this country, like health care, abortion, or the death penalty: not because the entire collective Canadian populace unanimously agrees on one position (though this is sometimes absurdly declared), but simply because it's a lot easier for our rulers if we just operate on the assumption that we do.

So Canada looks incredibly reactionary in the eyes of Britain, and William and Kate are guaranteed that if they have a first-born daughter, she has a very good chance of being shunned out of the royal sweepstakes. This is the sort of damage Canada is willing to inflict simply to avoid publicly discussing something we've all long ago started discussing anyway.

[raydan]

You're kidding!

[andyt]

[peck420]

Canada has no place commenting on the Monarchy of England.

However, Canada should state that the Monarchy of Canada is open and equal. They are technically two seperate thrones that are currently held by one Monarch.

This way we could show the world that we are serious about equality, without overstepping our bounds on what is an internal English manner.

Let them figure out how they want to deal with it after.

Just my $0.02

[BartSimpson]

peck420 wrote:

Canada has no place commenting on the Monarchy of England.

However, Canada should state that the Monarchy of Canada is open and equal. They are technically two seperate thrones that are currently held by one Monarch.

This way we could show the world that we are serious about equality, without overstepping our bounds on what is an internal English manner.

Let them figure out how they want to deal with it after.

Just my $0.02

oooh. I like that.

So perhaps sometime in mid-century the UK could have the eldest son of Kate and William as King while Canada would have that kid's older sister as Queen of Canada. Maybe you folks would have to build her a spiffy little cottage to call home, too.

That'd be alright.

[peck420]

The Monarchy already has residence in Canada. Actually I believe they have multiple residences.

The official Monarch residence is Rideau Hall in Ottawa (occupied by the Governor General) and I believe the residences for the Lt. Governor Generals (Provincial) are also Monarchy residences.

However, if we had a seperate Monarch, we wouldn't need the Governor General, therefore they could use Rideau.

Edit to add:

We even already have throne(s). One is traditionally placed in Parliment. However, when a Monarch with spouse visits, the other get's brought out of storage and both will be used.

Here is a photo of the thrones in use.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/RoyalVisitSenate.jpg

[andyt]

If we had a separate monarch we wouldn't have a monarch. I don't think people would stand for it. If were're going to make changes, I think people would go for abolishing the monarchy. We're already put off enough with the airs some of the gov gens give themselves. But as long as there are no changes, inertia takes over and the status quo remains.

Maybe we could give the job to Steve Harper. He doesn't have a clue on how to earn a real living, so when he's turfed out he'll be lost. Somebody will just have to explain to him that off with their heads just doesn't fly anymore.

[peck420]

andyt,

There would be no real difference to Canada per say.

The Monarch would simply replace the Governor General. Whom we already fund.

Basically just be symbolic.

To add again:

Canada even has a seperate crown and royal coat of arms. It is litterally 2 distinct thrones (England and Canada).

[raydan]

Let's just forget how popular or not the monarchy is, if we should keep it, get rid of it or change it.

Doesn't matter for this story... Britain want's to modify it and I guess that most in Canada would agree with the change... let's just say "OK".

Is that so hard?

[monapublican]

Granted, I would much rather have Britain republicanize the monarchy and Canada get a residential version of it.

[Hawkes]

raydan wrote:

Let's just forget how popular or not the monarchy is, if we should keep it, get rid of it or change it.

Doesn't matter for this story... Britain want's to modify it and I guess that most in Canada would agree with the change... let's just say "OK".

Is that so hard?

Not at all...which makes you wonder why Harper made the comments that he did. From the same article that is used in the original post -

Harper’s response was blunt: “The successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man . . . I don’t think Canadians want to open a debate on the monarchy or constitutional matters at this time. That’s our position. I just don’t see that as a priority for Canadians right now at all.”

It would seem that Harper prefers it to stay the way it is now.

[Kjorteo]

Um, guys? This isn't a "Canada should stay out of the UK's business" thing. Canada is a dominion, and due to how the rules are apparently set up, Canadian assent is required for the monarchy of the UK to do anything. (Technically, I think Canada had the right to veto this marriage in the first place since we're talking their future monarch and such, but they didn't because that would have been stupid.)

Because Canadian assent is required to change the system, Canada is basically accidentally silently filibustering the proposal by taking no action. The reform is going to fail because Canada has to approve it but won't, precisely because Harper doesn't want to get involved. That is the entire point of this cartoon.

[Hawkes]

Kjorteo wrote:

Um, guys? This isn't a "Canada should stay out of the UK's business" thing. Canada is a dominion, and due to how the rules are apparently set up, Canadian assent is required for the monarchy of the UK to do anything. (Technically, I think Canada had the right to veto this marriage in the first place since we're talking their future monarch and such, but they didn't because that would have been stupid.)

Because Canadian assent is required to change the system, Canada is basically accidentally silently filibustering the proposal by taking no action. The reform is going to fail because Canada has to approve it but won't, precisely because Harper doesn't want to get involved. That is the entire point of this cartoon.

Agreed...as a Dominion, we have to give assent. To not say anything is silently rejecting the motion.

[Canadaka]

I collected some #royalwedding Twitter stats http://bit.ly/kLUprt over 1.3 Million Tweets!

[Psudo]

Wait... I agree with andyt!? That's unnerving.

peck420 wrote:

Canada has no place commenting on the Monarchy of England.

However, Canada should state that the Monarchy of Canada is open and equal. They are technically two seperate thrones that are currently held by one Monarch.

I support Canada and England using different standards for heirs to the throne as a step towards eventually recognizing different monarchs. That, in turn, is a step towards further independence from England.