The Queen is a Drag!

T H U R S D A Y,  D E C E M B E R  3,   2 0 0 9

There are  few journalists who's
views I respect more, than those of Mr. Andrew Coyne, National Editor for Maclean's. This is really saying a lot, because he is often right of center, a position that I can barely even see from my left of left vantage point. Yet damn, doesn't he make sense most times! He has successfully swayed my opinion on several occasions, and when he hasn't succeeded in doing so, I have easily understood his arguments and respected his conclusions  (even though he was wrong, of course). He is among the primary reason that I renew my Maclean's subscription every year (or two, or whenever I get that letter saying I only have a few weeks left to get the electronic address book with my renewal (value: approx $7.95)).

That's why I'm worried that he may be suffering some kind of an emotional breakdown (likely caused by his association with the ill-conceived new CBC News). Unfortunately, the CBC's complete dismissal of their viewer's opinions on their recent format change (quite pompously by Peter Mansbridge, I might add), has made it impossible for me to watch CBC News, so I'm not sure if any other journalists or pundits have been similarly affected.

Here is the source of my concerns...

In the November 23rd edition of Maclean's (I'm writing this late - the issue arrived 3 weeks ago), Andrew chose for the subject of his column, a defense of the Royal Family as Canada's Head of State. I originally hoped it was a joke (his article, not the Royal Family - they are a joke), but alas, he really did take up the argument that we should be honoured to be ruled by an elite class, who's only claim to power is lineage and wealth.

As Coyne correctly points out, contrary to my referring  to her as "The Queen of a foreign country" in my sidebar rant, Liz actually is constitutionally the Queen of Canada. This also means that if Lizzie ever dies, then Charles (who likely had his wife murdered so he could take up with his mistress) will become the King of Canada and one of the most horrendously homely harlots in history will become our Princess (in an ugly step-sister kind of way!).

Now in Chuck's defense, Diana was boffing an Arab retail magnate, which had to sting a bit....knowing she had traded up so dramatically from the Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha clan! For those of you who are unaware, that's the REAL name of the Windsors....well, actually the real name is Wettin... sortof... they picked that one up when they bought a castle named Wettin (which is also where they got the name Windsor). Actually, the Royal family doesn't have surnames like the rest of us...Queen Liz II's full name on her birth certificate is "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary" - no surname! You can't blame Phillip for shortening his name to simply "Phillip RN"...his ancestral tribe would be "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg / House of Oldenburg" (Mountbatten for short). I guess being able to ditch your historical identity comes with being chosen by God to rule (Hey...I was chosen by God too!(really, I was!), can I have a country? Bermuda would be nice.)

Honestly, what do we actually KNOW about these people? We know that they're not British, (just mutts really...Norwegian, German, Greek - pound stock only, certainly not kennel bred). We know that  they often adopt the names of various castles, and that they're rich and privileged enough to have simply "inherited" power for generations. The whole concept is morally repugnant. It's bad enough we contend with the influence of wealth usurping democracy's checks and balances at every turn! Please don't ask me to feel respect for it!

Personally, I don't understand why we don't simply seize their assets, sell their properties, and split the cash with Australia and New Zealand, the only other two colonies who haven't written the sorry Royal asses out of their constitutions. We could pillage the bastard child Church of England while we're at it. Imagine, an entire religious sect created so that Henry the 8th could get rid of his wives! It seems that Royals have always been about moral superiority.

But Coyne even believes it would be just oodles of fun if one of the Windsor-Mountbatten boys moved to Canada and became Prince of Canada on our turf...spawning little brats who would grow up and become Canadian royalty. Imagine a whole Canadian line of rich kids who want us to bend down and kiss their asses simply because they were born oh so very special. Ain't gonna happen babe!

And Andrew, when the Prime Minister bows before the Queen, he is not, as you claim, bowing before all of us, he's mooning all of us. The Queen should bow before us if she cares anything for her continued significance.

Monarchy and Democracy are incompatible just as Capitalism and Democracy are. Deal with it. You can't have government by the people, if you allow elite ancestry or corporate associations to afford special status to the few. My Canada has no place for the Monarchy... whether they have constitutionally entrenched powers or not! The Constitution recognizes the Supremacy of god as well! Should I be charged with treason for not subscribing to that ludicrous mythology?

Walk me to the ocean, and help me make some salt!!

Items are placed into Constitutions in an attempt to garner support from the greatest number of people. I'm all for people having the right to believe whatever nonsense they chose, but when you tell me that deities, and people who think they were chosen to rule by deities are constitutionally my supreme leaders, it's time to take a pill! Unless you have a really short memory (or are younger than me and are inherently stupid as a result), you'll remember that Trudeau made many compromises to ensure the document was signed on his watch! Hell, he completely ignored an entire province! I think we all know he had no problem holding his nose for clauses he found distasteful, if it meant that his greater vision was ratified, and his legacy was assured.

Luckily, Andrew's views on this one, are part of a dying ideology. There is no honour in perpetuating special status for the Royal Family, and I find it very hard to have much pride in being Canadian as long as we are saddled with this archaic tradition. We have a VERY proud history on our own, we don't need another country's history to provide us with our identity. We are SO much more than a colony. We are SO much more than British!

Look, I am aware that a complete analysis of the Crown is beyond the few hundred words that I afford it here (many would argue, for example, that where I state that a monarchy is counter to democracy, in actuality, their primary role is to protect democracy - which misses the point that no one elected them ...or their kids...or their kids' kids... to the role.)

The politician who promises to make Constitutional amendments to ditch the Monarchy and divine supremacy, has my enthusiastic vote. Voluntary subservience to a foreign monarch or to an almighty should always be a RIGHT, and never a requirement of citizenship.

And therein lies my opposition to the Crown. Traditions are important, but must always represent the realities of the present day. Our current diversity can only be represented in the form of a Parliamentary Republic. Remove the crown from the equation,  but maintain the Westminster electoral system. The current role of Governor General is replaced with a non-partisan Office of Head of State, and we gain true independence for the first time since Confederation.

And as long as Maclean's Magazine continues to accept and print submissions from elitists like Barbara Amiel (couldn't you just slap her?!), I guess I can't be surprised when one of their better journalists demonstrates an affinity for the pomposity of wealth and privilege.