However, dividing power between royals and commoners – the wearer of the Crown and the Peoples’ elected representatives operating on parallel tracks – depends on constitutional fictions. If you go along, they work tolerably. If you discover a virtual existence is hollower than authentic life, you may instinctively challenge that condition by asserting a national will if Canadian, or personal will if you’re a prince.
Last week Prince Harry hurtled West through eight time zones to reach his American princess and child at their isolated enclave in British Columbia, while in London the Royal Gift Shop heavily discounted its inventory of damaged goods: Royal Highness Harry and Royal Highness Meghan DVDs, photos, teacups, commemorative plates, spoons, bracelet charms, jigsaw puzzles, scarves, and look-alike figurines.
The British Establishment closed ranks to condemn Harry for “taking a wrecking ball to the reputation of the Royal Family,” in the words of royal historian Christopher Wilson. “All this that’s happened should have happened behind closed doors.” That’s the elite’s way of addressing issues “over the teacups,” giving folks the silent treatment while brokering public business in private.
Far too much must be resolved to handle it that way. Andrew and Meghan are not the problem. They are a symptom of bigger problems with the House of Windsor.
Harry’s dad carried on his affair with a married woman, divorced princess Diana, then got the constitution changed so he could, despite all that, still become king someday. Harry’s great-great-uncle King Edward VIII – a playboy prince who noted with rueful pride that his ranch in Alberta was “The only property I’ve ever owned in my own name.” – abdicated in 1936 to marry an American divorcee. It’s worse when royals exercise real power. Queen Victoria’s great-grandson Lord Mountbatten, a cousin of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip’s uncle, incompetently planned Canadian soldiers perishing in 1942 at Dieppe, and arrogantly ignored his 1947 instructions as Viceroy of India for decolonizing the country by hastily partitioning it in a manner that caused millions to perish.
Like these and others, Harry performed improbable roles because the House of Windsor in relation to us embodies the institutionalized ambiguity of dual sovereignty, with Crown and People entwined entities. Royal enthusiasts fantasize via television as drone-camera shots feature Old England pageantry with horse-drawn carriages in royal ceremonies and stale-dated hereditary roles. Canadian patriots chaff at divided loyalties, lack of governing focus, and absence of democratic accountability as the unaccountable Senate of Canada enacts our laws and the doctrine of Crown Immunity shields our governments’ screw-ups.
Harry’s challenge in the House of Windsor illuminate our conundrum as Canadians trying, ever so incrementally since Confederation in 1867, to create a “true north, strong, and FREE.”
