Friday, May 28, 2010

Mad Rant: Canada's "Foreign" Queen

It was lately brought to my attention (via one of the members of the Mad Monarchist Brain Trust) that republican traitors in Alberta are again spreading their vitriol against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Canada in preparation for her upcoming visit. It seems the republicans have nothing new to offer as it was a tired repetition of the same inane arguments they have been making for years; that Canada is not truly independent so long as it shares a monarch with the rest of the Commonwealth realms, that the monarchy is an ominous reminder of their dreadful colonial past and that the Queen of Canada (God save her) is a foreigner; unfit to be the Canadian head of state. Balderdash and bull cookies!

This last argument (the “foreign” Queen argument) particularly chaps my hide. Some would cry ‘nationalism’ at this point, but it really is not even that. Such could only be true if there were actually a “Canadian” nation -which there is not. The Queen, most would agree, is British. But what is “British”? The Queen had an English father, a Scottish mother, belongs to a German royal house and has ancestry going back to numerous nations. Not so very long ago one could be born and raised in Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Jamaica, Canada or (even further back) New York, Virginia or South Carolina and still be considered “British”. And what exactly is this “Canadian” nationality that the Queen is not included in?

Canadians like to claim that they won the War of 1812 against the USA. In fact, in 1812, everyone on both sides of the border considered the inhabitants of Canada to be British. The only people who were known as Canadians were the French. Here is my ultimatum: Canada, if you are going to insist that the British are unrelated foreigners and that Canada is still not a truly independent country, stop claiming the credit for winning the War of 1812. Leave the laurels with the British along with the rest of your supposedly oppressive colonial past. Of course it also seems odd that, with Canada being such a downtrodden colony of tyrannical Britain, that so many loyalists, escapes slaves and Native Americans fled the republican USA to Canada.

This same revolutionary propagandist spoke hopefully of converting Canada to a republic upon the passing of the current Canadian monarch with the role of head of state passing to the Governor-General. The odd thing about that is; the current Governor-General (who has at times claimed to be the head of state anyway) is herself not a native born Canadian but was born in Haiti. Furthermore, the previous Governor-General, Adrienne Clarkson, was born, not in Canada, but in Hong Kong -a *Crown Colony*. That’s right ladies and germs, the last G-G of Canada was British! All the blood in her veins was Chinese of course and she spent the majority of her life in Canada but these details do not seem to bother those who wish to invoke the mentality of xenophobia to promote treason in Canada against their monarch.

I’ve never met the author of this piece of trash article -but I would imagine he does not look very dissimilar to the Queen of Canada (as in I doubt he is blue or something unless he’s been standing outside in Edmonton too long). He speaks the same language as she does, lives under the same legal system, shares much of the same history and was probably born at least in the same religion. So why exactly is the Queen of Canada so “foreign” to this guttersnipe? And why is it that it is most often the open-borders, united earth, “we are the world” leftie morons who are usually the first to denounce their monarch simply for being born in a place with a bit of water between them and all their people? Of all the republican arguments this has got to be one of the most ignorant and asinine of them all and it never ceases to make me a very, very…Mad Monarchist.


  1. Same argument down here, and the response in both cases is the same - minimise the Queen, promote the G-G.

    You are, of course, correct to point out the double standard of the G-G also being a foreigner, and yet being considered representative of Canada (I know, I know, it's all that PC multikulti hogwash).

    However, I think I have an answer for your question as to what constitutes a modern Canadian - they are those who bear Canadian passports. Given that Her Majesty basically issues them, that means she is Canadian, Australian, British, etc, etc.

    It is also a matter of attempting to appeal to nationalism, something which many people say "bollocks" to.

    Also, it is worthy of note that these are not arguments against monarchy per se, but at the current status quo of personal union. Dissolving the personal union could truly kill every republican argument in all the Commonwealth Realms, but that would also carry a certain element of risk that comes with such a change (how many republicans would say "They're imposing a foreign monarch on us!"?). Still, it is interesting to note that their opposition must be articulated as such, rather than attacking the idea of monarchy itself. Considering that they think that it resonates, it reflects poorly on their intellectual development.

  2. There are a couple of less extreme ideas I've had about dealing with the problem, but they are no less difficult in their own way; one because it now requires the cooperation of the local government and the other because it involves matters of the heart.

    That is; let the younger royals serve as G-G in the Commonwealth realms. That might give them a feeling of greater connection to the monarchy. Of course no local government would ever "recommend" one for the job I'm sure. The other idea, came from Australia as a matter of fact. The excitement shown when an Australian lovely married the Crown Prince of Denmark certainly gave me the impression that if some of the British royals, especially William & Harry, could marry a beautiful young Aussie or Canuck it would be the death of republicanism. But, alas, Wills seems set on a local girl and Harry on a former dominion that has already gone republican.

    Again though, it amazes me that they don't choke on their own hypocrisy when the PC-liberal-multicultural "we are the world" crowd start trying to play the "nationalism" card in the name of taking down the monarchy. Yet if any in Canada said that a Haitian woman married to a French citizen might not be best suited to the viceregal position in Ottowa they would immediately be accused of xenophobia.

  3. The truth is the Unity claim has always been part of the republican Philosophy since the Enlightenment. I dont mean to harp on the Enlightenment all the time but the vast majority of Anti-Monarchy claims come form there, as do the benefits of Republicanism, or nowadays Demoracy. In fct, this is also were most Atheist arguments come from.

    The facrt that modern republcis divide the whole Populace in their own natiosn and rent apart Empires seems to elude them. Supposedly Monarchies are divisive, and the Republcis unifying, when in fact peopel just tirn to their ow loval or private interests and just try to beat peopel over the Head with them.

    You cant unify the wolrd withotu gettign somethign to unify it around, and Nationalism or rep[ublicanism bpoth are exclusivity creating.

  4. Another interesting point to bring up in this regard is that among the first great movements of Anglophones into what would eventually become the Dominion of Canada were the American Tories, settlers in what would become the United States who remained loyal to the monarchy and took up arms against the American Revolution.

    Canadians are aware that they live in the shadow of their louder and crasser southern neighbour and will often go to great lengths to differentiate themselves from Americans and to assert an identity separate from "the 51st state" they often see themselves as considered as. The answer is clear from the foundation: Canada is a monarchy, largely built by monarchists fleeing a republican revolution.

    I would dare ask, would those republicans who would so easily repudiate their "foreign" queen have so similar a problem with the foreign influence seen in the extensive business and cultural relationships Canada now holds with the United States, which in these times doubtlessly has a much greater influence on the culture and way of life of Canadians than Buckingham Palace? If so, then any appeal to nationalism logically falls apart there, and those traitors to one of their great nation's basic traditions who would be so hypocritical thus curse their ancestors, and well deserve then to become the 51st state.

  5. Indeed so. I have said in the past that for Canada to abandon the monarchy would be nothing less than giving in on the defining principle which distinguishes Canada from the United States. If not for the rebellion in the one part and the loyalty of the other the two countries would be the same. If Canada abandons the monarchy they might just as well admit that the US was right all along and apply for annexation to the union.

  6. Ironically many Canadian republicans actually think Annexation into the US woudl be good. Of coruse each Provene would just become a State, rather than all of Canada becoming one big State...

    Mind you, its not the only,. or even largest segment of Canadian Republicanism, but it does exist to a signifigant degree.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...