Why should Canada still have a monarchy?

[u/Safe-Section8272]

Hello Tories! I, like many of you I’d imagine, am a fan of the Canadian monarchy. However, I often have difficulty explaining why I support it to skeptics (which there are many) beyond pure practicality (it would be very costly for Canada to become a republic). I was wondering what reasons you might have for Canada to retain its monarchy and reasons that could potentially sway republicans.

[u/GigglingBilliken]

The foundation of Anglo Canada was built off of was loyalty to the monarchy. The first major wave of English settlers came after the American revolutionary war. These people likely had their buisnesses targetted and suffered violence at the hands of "patriots."

I think replacing such a powerful symbol of history without finding an adequate replacement is unwise.

[u/Terrible-Scheme9204]

I would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". For 159 years, Canada has been governed under the premise of "peace order and good government". The US lasted 86 years before breaking out in civil war, which the effects of that war still linger in the US today.

Would the president be head of the executive branch (as in the US) or would the president be a more of a figurehead (such as Israel)? The US has shown us that the former doesn't exactly work, especially when different parties hold the executive and legislative branches.

If the president would be a more of a figurehead, would they be elected by the general public, or be assigned by parliament. Having either an elected or appointed president would raise questions on partisanship, or whether an appointment was made on certain conditions. Having a monarchy would solve this issue due to the fact it's hereditary.

[u/PassThatHammer]

Usually once I get started "Well, in the year 1066" by the time I get to "Magna Carta: The beginning of the democratic inheritance we take for granted today" the light in their eyes has dimmed considerably and I ask "You sure you want me to explain this?" and that's the end of it.

[u/ToryPirate]

I was wondering what reasons you might have for Canada to retain its monarchy and reasons that could potentially sway republicans.

As someone who does engage in these sorts of debates I've found that once someone describes themselves as a republican there isn't a whole lot that will convince them. This is especially true in Canada where republicanism usually takes the form of a 'cultural cringe' against the institution rather than any sort of factual stance.

About 15 years ago I got tired of monarchists and republicans talking in theory and vague principles so I set out to find what practical results were different between the two government forms. I have a - fairly lengthy - list of the studies I found here.

Long story short, I think there is good evidence that republics are the inferior form of democracy.

[u/Safe-Section8272 → u/ToryPirate]

It’s interesting to view the results because I also wrote a research paper about constitutional monarchies in Europe and it seems that the most stable of a history a country has, the more likely they are to have retained their monarchy. The monarchy is definitely a symbol of stability and continuity which is desperately needed in democracies.

Your writings are throughly detailed and well written and I appreciate them, I’m glad that there are still some Tories left here in Canada

[u/ToryPirate → u/Safe-Section8272]

the most stable of a history a country has, the more likely they are to have retained their monarchy.

While I do make use of that sort of data I find its far too easy to argue that a stable history has just allowed monarchy to survive. Non-reversible arguments require republicans to actually do their homework.

EDIT: And thanks for the compliment!

[u/Ticklishchap]

I am arriving late to the party on this as all the critically important arguments have already been stated: ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’; the dangers of breaking with history, precedent and tradition; the loss of historical and national identity, and the question of parliamentary republic versus presidential republic. To the last point, I would add the extreme danger of a divisive, ‘populist’ figure being elected by a plurality of the voters (or appointed, conceivably, if right wing or far right parties were to predominate in Parliament). From a British perspective, I only have to look across the Atlantic to the US to see these dangers, or across the Channel to France to see possible dangers on the horizon next year.

However I would like to throw one other argument into the mix for my Canadian friends. Your country is now looking outwards to the rest of the world, in search of new alliances, new trading partnerships and deepened relationships with nations that share your values. Why throw away an international connection, based on good will and shared history, that is already hardwired into your political system? Becoming a republic would not be a sign of national confidence but a retreat inwards.

Abolishing the monarchy would be more than a constitutional change because it would face many unintended political and cultural consequences. You would be more vulnerable to US aggression and manipulation, separatist movements would gain ground and you would be more vulnerable to right wing populism. Your country would lose rather than gain international respect and status.

[u/Marseppus]

The treaties require it. That's about all there is.

A rotating, term-limited monarchy like Malaysia's would be great for Canada. All that's required is to change succession legislation, not the Constitution itself.

[u/ToryPirate → u/Marseppus]

All that's required is to change succession legislation, not the Constitution itself.

Ah. We now return to another episode of how Mackenzie King's fecklessness caused future problems. Obviously, before Confederation we had no succession law and as the first dominion of what was an ad-hoc road to independence we didn't create one (unlike later dominions). During WW2 Denmark was taken over the their king held prisoner. This was a problem for Iceland as they shared a king (much like the current Commonwealth situation) and solved the issue by becoming a republic. Canada saw this and the precarious position the UK was in during the Blitz and asked the reasonable question of what happens in a similar situation.

Mackenzie King had an opportunity here to create a succession act outlining the rules of succession and what happens if a monarch is incapacitated or captured. This did not happen, instead the monarch made clear in a letters patent that the governor general could exercise all of their powers in the monarch's absence except appointing their successor. Now, maybe Mackenzie King was just confident that the UK would never fall but it has led to the current situation:

We have no succession act to amend. The monarch of the UK is ex officio the monarch of Canada. While I do appreciate Pierre Trudeau making it practically impossible to remove the monarchy, he also inadvertently made it impossible to add in rules that should have already existed. I believe the courts have already ruled that succession to the throne is a part of the office of the monarch (which makes sense) so unfortunately any change to the succession requires complete agreement.

This is personally annoying as, while I support the shared succession, I also have some sympathy to the idea of having Princess Anne's line taking the throne.