Still Crowned
Have you ever watched the swearing-in ceremony for Canada's new ministers, I did and one detail stood out. It's pretty wild that what the words they were made to say: a solemn pledge of allegiance to "His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors."
In 2025. In a modern democracy. In a country where we pride ourselves on
being independent, progressive, and self-governing, we are still asking
ministers to pledge fealty not to the people, not even to the Constitution, but to a literal king.
And not just a king. This king. The guy who couldn't even get his own pens
to work during his coronation tour. The guy who wears jewels stolen from
colonized nations and sits atop an institution built on centuries of slavery,
imperialism, and violent dispossession.
Let's be clear. This isn't just ceremonial fluff. Canada may pretend to be
a modern democracy with a decorative crown, but the reality is more twisted. We
are a monarchy pretending not to be one. The consequences of that show up in
subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
Today, King Charles III is delivering the Speech from the Throne. This
marks the first time in 48 years that a reigning monarch has done so in Canada,
and only the third time ever. Queen Elizabeth II read the speech in 1957 and
again in 1977, both during symbolic royal tours. But this one hits
differently. It is not just a visit. It is a reminder.
A symbolic move, sure. But symbols matter. And in the context of a rising
authoritarian wave south of the border, the timing feels more than ironic.
Because while the Republican Party in the U.S. has rallied behind a man
who believes he is a king, here we are in Canada claiming we are not one, while
having our ministers swear loyalty to a royal family. It is cosplay
constitutionalism. And I say this with respect to cosplay.
The irony goes deeper. People who oppose monarchy are often labeled
republicans, as if rejecting hereditary power aligns them with the authoritarian
brand now controlling the U.S. Republican Party. We need a better word.
Because the answer to one totalitarian regime is not to run back to the
mothership of imperial institutions and a deeply corrupt family.
Now, you might be saying, "Ben, come on. The monarchy doesn't really have
power in Canada." But it does. Not in the daily business of government, no. But
in moments of crisis, the Crown's representatives, our Governor General and the
Lieutenant Governors, hold real reserve powers. They have exercised them before.
They could again.
Remember 2017? Christy Clark, then Premier of British Columbia, lost the
confidence of the Legislature. Rather than dissolve Parliament as she requested,
Lieutenant Governor Judith Guichon invited John Horgan to form government. That
is not just a ribbon-cutting role. That is power.
Or take Stephen Harper's 2008 prorogation crisis. Facing a confidence
vote he was likely to lose, he asked the Governor General to prorogue
Parliament. Michaëlle Jean agreed. Many framed it as a wise avoidance of
crisis. But in truth, a majority of MPs had signed a letter expressing their
desire to form an alternative government. The Governor General made a
choice. She backed the sitting Prime Minister instead of the stated will of the
majority. That is not democratic restraint. That is institutional bias dressed
up as neutrality.
Mark Carney, now Prime Minister and former head of both the Bank of Canada
and the Bank of England, has defended this arrangement as a bulwark of Canadian
sovereignty. But is it? Or is it just stability through tradition? Are we
clinging to symbols of empire to avoid real conversations about democratic
renewal?
Our sovereignty should reflect our values. It should be rooted in
accountability, justice, and the will of the people, not a colonial tradition
or a crown passed down by birthright. We are more than a subject nation, and
our future depends on acting like it.
