Long may they reign, but whither the monarchy in Canada?

How many Canadians have been in the same air space as our monarchical masters? I, for one, have had only three remote royal encounters: The Queen, from way back in a huge crowd on a rainy day on Parliament Hill for the signing of the 1982 Constitution; a sighting of Princess Diana - and a blurry couple of photos - as she left some function in the West Block on the Hill in 1983 (where was Charles?); and, more recently, close enough to Kate and William on their 2012 visit to Quebec City to see their rosy complexions.

The proximity of Canadians to the Royal Family comes into the question as we mark some milestones in the storied history of the rulers of the realm. Queen Elizabeth II turned 92 last week, in the record-shattering 66th year of her reign, and in three weeks time, there will be a well-watched wedding when another American divorcée will join the ranks of the royals.

As regards that other American divorcée, Wallis Simpson, are we fans of The Crown, not still stunned by the withering observations about his family coming from the Duke of Windsor, who ditched his crown in 1936 to marry Simpson? Princess Shirley Temple? Egad.

“Shirley Temple” may still be around for some time, based on the durable genes of her mother who lived until age 102. That longevity perhaps spares Canada, and some 16 other Commonwealth nations, from addressing the royal elephant in the room, namely how to shed the antiquated allegiance to an unelected authority some 5,000 distant.

There’s a certain discrete assumption that no former colony would be as classless as to make a move to cut the monarchical cord whilst the revered living legend remains on the throne, though she outlives corgi after corgi. Once she’s joined her regal ancestors in the crypts of St. George’s chapel at Windsor Castle, and a Charles or a William becomes king, perhaps then the debate shall begin.

And how might that debate begin? No federal politician of note has spoken publicly about getting rid of the monarchy in recent years, although former prime minister Jean Chretien toyed with the idea in 1998, but backed down saying he "already had enough trouble on (his) hands with the separatists of Quebec, and didn't want to take on the monarchists in the rest of Canada, too.”

Polls show Canadians are somewhat indifferent when it comes to keeping the monarchy as a constitutional component of our parliamentary system of government. It’s not so much firing the royals is an incendiary topic; the real thorny issue is with what would Canada replace their highnesses.

Many suggestions abound, but the simplest fix would seem to be to rename the office of head of state, and keep the functional royal trappings, like final assent for a bill passed by Parliament, and the person a prime minister has tea with to request a pro-forma dissolution of the House of Commons to call an election. The title “First Canadian” has come up, as an alternative to the republican-style president.

Unfortunately, before any discussion can begin about a replacement for the current system, the Constitution must be amended according the fraught formula, which is the political equivalent of a root canal.

To change anything relating to the “office of the Queen, Governor General or Lieutenant Governor of a province” requires a resolution of approval from both the House of Commons and Senate, plus the legislatures of all provinces. Doable, but who’s going to take the lead?

Quebec politicians have been curiously mute on the topic of the persistence of the monarchy. Premier Philippe Couillard’s sesquicentennial project of getting Quebec’s signature on the Constitution remains in limbo. Even so, the earnest document making the case for Quebec’s “affirmation” of belonging to Canada contains not a single word about her majesty’s sustained grip on the country.

The Markle sparkle may bedazzle colonials for a while, and the future princess, as a former Toronto resident, may have a fond place in the hearts of Canadians, but sooner or later Canadians will start to ask how long will their glorious majesties “reign over us.”