Canada’s royal links matter

Here we are, only a day from what was once Dominion Day, and has since been rebranded as Canada Day, and we are faced with an attack on Canada’s Royal connection (“Break Canada’s bonds with the Queen,” letter, June 24).

If you were asked what characteristics made Canada a special nation, you would probably mention democracy, the rule of law, the bilingual and bicultural history of our country, superior education, tolerance of minority views, and Canada’s outstanding military history.

I did not mention the royal connection in the preceding paragraph. Yet each one of the characteristics mentioned has a royal connection. Two royal connections are special, those of Parliament and the Canadian military.

The royal connection to Canada’s Parliament and government is well known and understood. The governor-general is the Queen’s principal representative, and delivers the speech from the throne. Assent by that royal deputy to a bill that has passed Parliament is required before the bill becomes law. The deputy also has residual authority to deal with serious procedural problems that may arise. Lieutenant-governors fill a corresponding role in the provinces.

The royal connection to the Canadian military is well known and appreciated by those who have served in the military, but perhaps less so by those who have not so served. The divisions and ranks within the Canadian military are modelled on British precedents.

For example, I served in the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers; omit “Canadian” and you have the name of its British counterpart.

In wartime, Canadian military personnel frequently served under a British commanderin-chief in liaison with British forces. The victories of the Canadian military in the two world wars are exceptional and impressive. At the end of the Second World War, the Royal Canadian Navy, having made possible more than 25,000 merchant ship crossings of the Atlantic, had the third-largest navy in the world.

And what of the royals? They have consistently served in the U.K. and Commonwealth military as role models and dedicated leaders. The Queen (then Princess Elizabeth) joined the British Army, drove an ambulance and became a truck mechanic in the Second World War. Her father, King George VI, served in both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in the First World War.

Prince Philip, in the Second World War, served as lord high admiral and field marshal of the U.K., as well as senior positions in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. His uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, was an admiral of the fleet in both world wars and served as both First Sea Lord and chief of the U.K. defence staff.

Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, was an accomplished pilot and served in senior positions in the British and Commonwealth military. All his male children have done military service, including remotely in Afghanistan and the Falkland Islands.

It is not surprising that at mess dinners in Canada, there is always a toast to the Queen.

It is also worth noting that francophones have been successfully integrated into the Canadian military, and bilingualism has been encouraged and supported. Several members of my RCEME platoon had attended le collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean in Quebec.

Francophones have ascended to the highest military ranks; in my time, General Jean Victor Allard was chief of the defence staff.

Many other royal references exist in our Canadian culture. For example, I have been appointed as “one of Her Majesty’s Counsel, Learned in the Law,” most often shortened to “Queen’s Counsel” or simply “QC.” Again, the parallel histories and institutions of Canada and the U.K., in this instance those relating to the court system and the practice of law, invoke royal connections.

While I respect the desire for independence, I submit that Canada’s royal connections have contributed positively to a worthy Canadian identity. If there were no royals, or if they were to suffer a disconnect from Canada, their absence would be severely felt.