Friday, April 22, 2011

Why "Canadians don't care" is a good reason to promptly sign onto royal succession reforms

I was really surprised to see this:

Britain’s Telegraph newspaper reports that Canada has expressed opposition to changing any legislation that would alter the principle of male primogeniture — the custom that makes the firstborn son of a prince or king heir to the throne, even if the child has an older sister. The report did not specify who in Ottawa opposed such a change.

When asked Monday about the government’s opposition to the change, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Canadians aren’t interested in a debate on the monarchy.

“The successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man,” Harper said during a campaign stop in Yellowknife, N.W.T. “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.”


Because, speaking as a Canadian, it seems to me that if Canadians don't want to open a debate on the matter and don't see it as a priority, that's a damn good reason, for this particular issue, to simply rubber-stamp the changes and let them go through without fuss.

As I mentioned before, Prince William has a weird job, where one of his duties is to have a biological child with his lawfully wedded wife. In fact, as soon as the vows are uttered, that becomes the most pressing of his duties. Not that it's desperately urgent - they're only 28 - but, as long as either the Queen or Prince Charles is alive, anything else that might fall under the purview of Prince William's duties could either be done by someone else or could be skipped entirely, even within a system where royal duties are generally deemed necessary. This is the one thing in the world that he can't fob off on someone else, and where the deadline (presumably Ms. Middleton's menopause) is absolute.

If your duties included producing a biological child within marriage, and you were a 28-year-old independently wealthy newlywed, you'd probably want to get around to it sooner rather than later, just in case you do have trouble conceiving or there are some other unforeseen health problems.

However, the royal couple basically has to wait until the succession question is resolved before they can start their family. If they have a daughter before the debate is resolved and then a son at a later date, things would get even more complicated. The sensible thing to do would be to wait a bit until everything is sorted.

The rules of succession affect all the Commonwealth countries, the rules of succession affect the royal couple's family planning, and the royal couple's family planning affects all the Commonwealth countries. Therefore, any delay in implementing changes to the rules of succession puts the entire Commonwealth on tenterhooks.

That's a really assholic thing to do out of indifference, isn't it? If we don't want a constitutional debate, let's not have one. Let's just cheerfully and promptly sign onto perfectly reasonable changes like making succession gender-blind. People who don't care still won't care, and people who do care can then get on with it..

At this point, some people are thinking "But I don't even want a monarchy!" Totally reasonable position! And you're absolutely free to keep on working towards extricating Canada from the monarchy. But it will be a long process, and everyone affected by changes in succession will still be there and still be affected by it after we leave. So why make things difficult for them if we're leaving anyway? All we'd be doing by signing onto the succession changes is saying we agree that gender-blind primogeniture is better than male primogeniture. This in no way precludes believing that no monarchy whatsoever is even better.

And yes, it is true that we already have the next two generations of heirs apparent to the throne. But, with the youngest heir apparent about to marry, it is the natural time to start thinking about the next generation. That's why it particularly surprises me that Stephen Harper of all people would act like this is unimportant and undeserving of Canada's attention. Monarchists tend to be conservative, and Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party. His base includes the people who think this is important, and we're in the midst of an election where Mr. Harper's strategy seems to be to focus heavily on his base. All he'd have to do is remain open to signing onto this innocuous change whenever it happens to come before the Commonwealth. Instead, he's telling the monarchists in his base that this issue that's important and time-sensitive to them (and of no concern either way to those who oppose them) doesn't even deserve enough of his time to put his signature on a pure ceremonial formality.

Refusing to sign onto succession changes because you're anti-monarchist is like a parent refusing to sign their kid's report card because they think a five-year high-school curriculum would be better. It's like the custodian of the building where the polling place is to be located refusing to open up on election day because they think the first-past-the-post system is suboptimal. It just stalls things for people who have a job to do and a deadline by which to do it.

The only valid reason for any reaction other than promptly signing onto the changes is if you genuinely believe that male primogeniture should be kept. (And is there anyone, anyone at all, who actually thinks that in a country that has had a female monarch for 127 years of its 144-year existence?) If it's simply a question of indifference, sign the paper and stop delaying things for the people who do care.

No comments: