Posted by Ian McKechnie on November 4, 2009, 8:40 pm, in reply to "Re: The Canadian Prince"
38.117.68.220
"Never having lived here surely precludes one from being Canadian, not to mention other things."
Too true. I might be too imaginative, but I think that the Royal Family should be here regularly as residents, and not mere visitors; the former Prince of Wales, for example, maintained a ranch in Alberta.
Setting aside the issue of who or what is/isn't a "Canadian," I think most Canadians would agree with what Vincent Massey once said: "Canadians rightly demand that if things are to exist here, they must have some Canadian meaning." This is what I meant when speaking of Prince Charles as a "Canadian Prince." He should certainly retain his English identity, but his position should be "Canadianised" to represent his interests in Canada as being distinct from that of the United Kingdom. I am not xenophobic, but as long as Prince Charles is portrayed as strictly a British Prince while he is carrying out Canadian duties in Canada, Canadians are bound to ask the question: "Why?"
The Queen and Royal Family can never be divorced from their British heritage, but as far as Canada is concerned, they should distinguish between being "British" and "Canadian" royals. When the media refers to the Prince of Wales as being the "British Prince" when he is undoubtedly carrying out Canadian duties, the average citizen becomes mystified. I can live with this, but many Canadians cannot.
Unlike the Canadian government, the Royal Family does a very good job at distinguishing between their roles. To use a mild example, a PM born in Alberta will, after he is elected, speak for all of those who elected him regardless of which province they are from. Though born and raised British, the Prince of Wales is certainly not, I think you will agree, incapable of presenting himself as representing a Canadian (or even transnational) Monarchy.
Responses: