The King of Canada is dead. Long live the King of Canada.
Poor Prince Harry. It didn't take long at all for the idea of installing him as "King of Canada" to be dismissed as "absurd" and neither "desirable" or "doable."
On Monday, The Telegraph reported that "royalists in Canada have come up with a novel solution to the age-old problem" of having a head of state who rarely visits: "Install Prince Harry as their king."
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you may be thinking, who came up with this idea?
The story gave credit to Etienne Boisvert, identified as the Quebec spokesperson for the Monarchist League of Canada.
"Prince Harry, who has virtually no chance of becoming king, could set himself up here and found a Canadian branch of the Royal Family," he told the newspaper.
The Royal Family, he added, is "an institution that knows how to reinvent itself," after all.
So, what we've got here is a legitimate idea that is worthy of consideration. Right, Robert Finch, chair of the Monarchist League? Um, not so much.
"It's not practical, it's not doable and it's not desirable, frankly," Mr. Finch told Canadian media in response to the story. "I've worked so hard to build up relationships with the palace and Clarence House. They're going to look at this and think, 'What the heck is going on over there?' It makes us look like whackos and that's not who we are."
Mr. Finch said the story in the Telegraph was merely the result of miscommunication and confusion, adding that monarchists are fine with things as they are and are not looking to crown Harry, or anyone else for that matter, with any new titles, especially one as "absurd" as King of Canada.
"I can speak as a monarchist and an ordinary Canadian, and my sense is that Canadians are not at all interested in giving members of the Royal Family little cute titles to add to what they already have," he said. "They don't need them, we don't need them. There are better ways to strengthen the ties between Canadians and the Royal Family."
Is a separate King of Canada an absurd idea, or something we should entertain?Report Typo/Error