“The most gracious of sovereigns. This is how the new king of Canada, Charles III, was presented in a motion adopted Thursday by the deputies of the House of Commons, with the notable exception of the elected Bloc members.
Posted at 6:00 a.m.
Allow me this irreverence: however bereaved he may be, Charles III has not always dazzled us with his grace over the past few days.
For example, this anecdote, which occurred on Tuesday. The new monarch then engages in a signing session in a castle in Northern Ireland. Suddenly, the ink from his quill runs over his fingers. He gets angry. “Oh, my God, I hate this! He stands up, annoyed. “I can’t stand this fucking stuff,” he grumbles through his teeth.
To hell with British phlegm. The king is not amused. And he does not hesitate to shout it in the face of the world.
Four days earlier, during the ceremony of accession to the throne in London, Charles III had made angry gestures to get rid, and faster than that, the table where he was to sign documents. Her Majesty – who, according to a former butler, demands ironed shoelaces every morning – clearly couldn’t stoop to moving a pencil holder a few centimeters herself…
PHOTO BY BLAIR GABLE, REUTERS
The new king of Canada, Charles III, was presented as the “most gracious of sovereigns” in a motion adopted Thursday by the members of the House of Commons, with the exception of the elected Bloc members.
Another anecdote, no doubt. Let’s not see more than that. After all, the 74-year-old is exhausted. For a week, he has been traveling to the four corners of his kingdom. Above all, he has just lost his very dear mother.
But all the same… Elizabeth II is not yet buried that dozens of employees of Clarence House, the former residence of Charles III in London, have already received their dismissal letter. These announcements in times of mourning “are simply heartless”, reacted the union.
These are just anecdotes, okay. Each time, however, they cause discomfort.
Each time, we can’t help but think that the queen wouldn’t have done that.
Think about it for a moment: we are now subjects of Charles III. His royal face will soon adorn our banknotes. The Quebecers we elect on October 3 will have to take an oath to him.
It may not change anything in our lives. The question is how many times in the future will we repeat to ourselves that the queen wouldn’t have done that…
For 70 years, Elizabeth II ruled without her subjects guessing her opinion. She knew how to hold her tongue in all circumstances. Never complain, never explain was his motto. The same cannot be said of his eldest son.
I’m not talking about his extramarital escapades or even the “tampongate”, an episode so embarrassing that the TV series The Crown, yet repeatedly accused of flirting with sensationalism, refused to approach it.
(As a reminder: in an unknowingly taped phone conversation, Charles told Camilla, his mistress at the time… well, good. Tampongate. Do your research, as they say.)
I am not talking to you about his escapades, I said, but about the opinions, to say the least, of the new king. There was a time when Charles made a specialty of stirring up controversy. He shared his points of view on modern architecture (awful, he lamented), GMOs (a scourge), nanotechnology (dangerous), homeopathy (very effective)…
In 2004, the Prince of Wales even praised the benefits of a miracle cure for cancer, which involved drinking liters of vegetable juice and giving coffee enemas. A ridiculously expensive therapy, banned in the United States…
You will tell me that all this is far behind. Charles had been preparing to be king since birth. He will respect his position. “I’m not that stupid,” he told the BBC in 2018. “I do realize that it’s a separate exercise to be sovereign. So, of course, I fully understand how it should work. »
Still, all these years of criticism have marked the character. Charles has mellowed over time, okay, but he’s the one on the throne today. He is indeed the head of state. Will he be able to stay above the fray, as his job demands? Will it resist the temptation to go beyond its symbolic role?
The question is serious: it is about the monarchy. This anachronistic institution, based on heredity, is defensible only if it remains decorative and powerless. She should avoid controversy. Never make waves.
This is what Elizabeth II had managed to do for seven decades. In the United Kingdom, in Canada and, above all, in Quebec, we supported – or at least supported – the monarchy because we really liked this queen. For a long time, she was part of our lives. It was personal.
Bloc Québécois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet said Thursday it was time to separate “the institution from the person” and hold a debate on the future of the monarchy in the country. Perhaps it is indeed necessary to depersonalize the debate. In the meantime, in any case, Charles III has an interest in revealing himself in all his grace, failing which the new king of Canada could well be the last.