honeybadgerpress.ca

Royal visit 2025 - Perpetuating Deference to Unaccountable Power

Most Canadians quietly accept the legitimacy of unaccountable public and private power

Canadian Dimension: May 27, 2025

As Victoria Day memories fade, monarchists may already be rehearsing their bow and curtsy routines for the May 26-27 visit of King Charles and Queen Camilla.
These visitations inspire me to question both the value and purpose of royalty. I feel no personal loyalty to these wealthy strangers whose unrestrained forbearers cruelly oppressed the ancestors of many Canadians, including mine. Nevertheless, Canada’s government and many institutions remain smitten by the monarchy and ignore its dark history.

Charles’ visit reminds me that most Canadians quietly accept the legitimacy of unaccountable public and private power. Such deference continues to facilitate military violence perpetrated to protect and expand the profitability of transnational corporations while countless lives and even cultures are destroyed.

This deference helps explain the lingering presence of archaic royal figures whose public roles are often falsely defended as merely ceremonial rather than ideological. Therefore, some background on the current king is vital.
King Charles and his wealthy family still receive generous public subsidies. This support, officially justified by the royals’ popularity as a lucrative tourist attraction, creates the impression that the royal family has become a commercial enterprise with strong links to the state. Instead, this tourist enterprise is just the latest manifestation of British royalty’s transactional relationship with the government.

It is implausible that British royalty acquired their ancient wealth and possessions through conventional business practices rather than economic and military coercion. Why seek lawful transactions when your military power silences or crushes opposition to your goals?

Like many wealthy men, Charles diverts a portion of his inherited income to charitable causes like scholarships and youth programs. This minor largesse is meagre reparation for centuries of royal profiteering at the expense of peoples unable to resist British domination.

As king, Charles inherited his mother’s private fortune and yearly income from the Duchy of Lancaster. His son William will inherit Charles’ private wealth and yearly investment income of approximately $30 million from the Duchy of Cornwall. No royal is required to use their private funds to finance public activities but instead rely on the Sovereign Grant.

The so-called Sovereign Grant covering royal expenses is derived from “a collection of UK properties and farms that generate hundreds of millions of pounds each year.” The king or queen “pays” this revenue to the British government which then returns a percentage to finance royal duties. The Sovereign Grant never covers all royal expenses so the balance is paid by the UK taxpayer.

Contrary to public perception, King Charles wields significant political power over the lives of Britons, Canadians and other Commonwealth citizens. The monarch gives royal assent after bills pass through Britain’s Parliament as the Governor General does in Canada. This symbolism is presented as a nod to Canada’s historical connection to Britain.
However, Charles’ duty of royal assent is augmented by the privilege of royal consent, a process whereby the king “is provided with advance sight of draft laws and invited to approve them.” Royal consent applies to both the fundamental powers of state and laws “affecting the revenue, assets or interests of the crown.”

While the exact origins of this practice are unclear, it creates the impression that unaccountable royalty may meddle in parliamentary affairs to further their own advantage. There is no democratic justification for such privileged access, especially when we consider the royal family’s vast property holdings and investment portfolios.

During the king’s Canadian visit he will read the Speech from the Throne, his personal performance supposedly lending authority to a government statement better read by a Canadian citizen. As well, Charles is obliged to witness the usual military theatrics and take a gilded carriage ride. He will also take time to plant a few trees and meet the prime minister.

While the king’s prestige has diminished, he could improve his reputation by meeting Donald Trump, an insecure figure who thrives on flattery. Given Trump’s veneration of status and power, Charles might succeed in softening the president’s hostility to Canada by treating Trump as a peer.

Until King Charles displays genuine nobility by publicly advocating for unpopular causes like stopping Israel’s Gaza genocide, he warrants no special treatment. Instead, he must be challenged to explain his preference for bland platitudes as Western governments empower brutal regimes with military, financial and diplomatic support.
Charles’s public silence on global atrocities offends many Canadians obliged to pay his travel costs, suffer road closures and endure fawning commentary from official sycophants and private monarchists competing for mainstream media coverage.

Like vampires at the window, royals requires an invitation to enter. Therefore, their presence on Canadian soil can be easily deterred by simply ignoring them. Unfortunately, official Canada fears the political cost of “ghosting” the king.

Morgan Duchesney is a Canadian writer and Karate teacher whose work has appeared in Canadian Dimension, Humanist Perspectives, Adbusters, Briarpatch, Shintani Harmonizer, Victoria Standard, the Hampton Institute and the Ottawa Citizen. In addition to political writing, Morgan has published martial arts work and short fiction.