Boringness of royals bodes well for monarchy

Prince does not quite have Queen's magic

Recent events both at home and abroad have occasioned another round of commentary on the future of the Canadian monarchy: The 96-year-old Queen's Platinum Jubilee and her ever-looser schedule; Prince Andrew's disgrace and bewildering attempts to mitigate it; the Sussexes quitting the Firm in favour of reality television; Barbados' decision to become a republic, and several other realms' agitations in that direction; and of course the recent three-day visit to Canada by Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

As ever, monarchists and republicans mostly agree on one point: The Queen's passing will be a very significant moment in the history of the Canadian monarchy, and not in a way that favours the status quo. And as ever, that stands to reason. “The Queen is great, but no thanks to Charles and the rest of them” is a common and understandable sentiment in Canada.

But Charles' and Camilla's recent visit may in fact offer a glimpse at a sustainable future for the monarchy that most Canadians could at least continue to tolerate. And that would be no small victory, considering how unlikely it ever is to change: All 10 provinces would have to agree not just to abandon the monarchy, but on what came next.

Elizabeth II has been the perfect monarch for her age, and indeed the perfect monarch for the gilded, megapomp version of monarchy that Buckingham Palace operates. It's a neat trick being that conspicuously rich while maintaining at least grudging respect from people who don't think your inherited position should exist in the first place.

Charles does not have that touch, but it could be a lot worse: Andrew could have been born first. For all his daft opinions on homeopathy and mutton consumption and genetically modified crops, Charles seems to understand what the job entails and wants to do it well.

He has said in so many words that he will need to button his lip, and that buttoning might already be underway.

Even considering how briefly they visited, Charles and Camilla barely made a ripple in the national media. Canada's future king and his future consort came, they gladhanded, they danced awkwardly, they met with Aboriginals, they no doubt tried some local delicacies, and they left. Monarchists who wished to pay tribute were free to do so. Hardcore republicans were free to seethe for 72 hours at the ridiculousness of it. And the vast majority of us were free to ignore it, which was easily done.

Therein, I think, lies the recipe for a more modern Canadian (and British) monarchy.

It's not just that the Queen has more royal jelly than her progeny, after all. It's unlikely anyone of Charles' or later generations could ever manage to justify running things the way she has. The world has moved on. Indeed, no other modern constitutional monarchy in the western world runs with anything like the same level of glitz. Norway's royal family officially consists of four people: the monarch, the heir apparent and their spouses. Spain's royal family doesn't even include the heir apparent.

That doesn't necessarily mean the monarchies are cheaper, incidentally: A 2020 book about European monarchies, edited by Bob Morris and Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit at University College London, found that only Belgium's and Spain's monarchies cost taxpayers less per capita than Britain's does. But the cost of the monarchy is more of a concern to people who already despise it than it is a reason to dislike monarchy in the first place. The Monarchist League pegs the annual per-capita cost of Canada's monarchy at $1.68 — a small price to pay, surely, for a sturdy tether in heavy winds.

“What modern monarchies offer is non-partisan state headship set apart from the daily political struggle of executive government; the continuity of a family whose different generations attract the interest of all age groups; and disinterested support for civil society that is beyond the reach of partisan politics,” Morris and Hazell wrote in a blog post. That's about as good and pithy a case as can be made for constitutional monarchy.

Note that there's nothing in there that says it's necessarily a crisis if the heir apparent's second-born wants to marry a divorced actress and live off Netflix money in California. Bon voyage! See you at Christmas! If Prince George decides he wants to be a physicist or professional rugby player or restaurateur instead of king, that doesn't have to matter either. Maybe his sister or brother are interested.

As terrific as Elizabeth II has been at her job, we're not looking for perfection and certainly do not require it in a head of state. We get nothing approaching perfection from heads of government and their ministers, after all.

We're just looking for some concrete to pour into the country's democratic foundations. Elizabeth II embodies so much about Britain's and Canada's history, not least with respect to the Second World War. Her successors will not enjoy the adulation that came with her peerless record of service.

But nor will they be lumbered with the burden of it. They can make their own way.