Monarchy played important role in treaty protection

But as royals’ power wanes, move could be good for couple

I have always been ambivalent about the monarchy.

On one hand, it’s an outdated vestige of a long since failed empire, but on the other we made treaty with the Crown and our rights are embodied in the commitment made in Queen Victoria’s name.

If we didn’t have the monarchy and the subsequent honour of the Crown, our treaties would have been reduced to meaningless rhetoric long ago, much like the Americans’ treaties south of the medicine line.

Our relationship with the Crown goes back a long way. In 1763, King George the Third issued the Royal Proclamation which outlined how the North American colonies would be governed. The proclamation placed the Crown in the position of dealing with the various nations of Indians that were within the colonies’ land base. This principle is still in place and all our treaties have been made in the name of the Crown.

Now we have our treaties entrenched in the constitution, and in the future, they will be further strengthened by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the honour of the Crown will still apply.

The honour of the Crown is the principle that when a treaty or any arrangement is made in the name of the Crown, it must be honourable and not place the sovereign in disrepute. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the treaties must be interpreted fairly and where ambiguity exists it must be in the favour of the First Nations.

Which brings us to the state of the current monarchy. Back in George the Third’s day, the monarchy had much more control over the affairs of state compared to the current monarchy, which is largely symbolic. However, today’s monarchy is much better organized and is deeply embedded in British life.

While the monarchy should be out of date and largely obsolete, British royalty has few important functions. Today’s monarchy is little more than a group of mediocre people with few accomplishments other than military service, horseback riding and the ability to serve in a figurehead role.

Which brings us to Prince Harry. Harry had watched his mother pursued by the press and hounded relentlessly. His wife Meghan is now the object of the same public humiliation, only in her case, racism plays a major role.

The British tabloids have been relentless in their pursuit of her.

Because her mother came from Los Angeles, the Daily Mail’s headline in November 2016 read, “Harry’s girl is (almost) Straight Outta Compton.” The fact that she is biracial seems to be a fact that some racist British media just can’t handle.

While other royals would get a pass, every issue about Meghan was noted; a BBC reporter even made the remark that her baby looked like a chimpanzee. Fortunately, he lost his job, but that is the nature of the racist undercurrent. They want out, and I don’t blame them.

I have been to Britain several times and I have been shocked at the level of racism. Most Brits still think that Britannia still rules the waves and the sun has yet to set on the British Empire. They call us Red Indians and think we still live in teepees or igloos.

When Harry moves to Canada, he won’t be some impoverished waif travelling steerage on a tramp steamer. He has an inheritance from his mother and the Queen Mother of some $46 million Canadian, plus he is entitled to a piece of his father’s profit from the Duchy of Cornwall and the Royal allowance that is doled out by the Queen.

Meghan Markle also has an estimated net worth of around $5 million.

So, they are not exactly strapped for cash. Harry would be just another remittance man sent out to live in the colonies.

The couple’s move to Canada could turn out to be a positive move. Canadians are by and large polite and give each other their space. We don’t have a culture of celebrity as the U.S., nor do we have a gutter press that preys on the royals as does Britain.

So, I encourage them to come to multicultural Canada and let the sun continue to set on Britain and its long dead empire.