Many were surprised by the torrent of news, specials and panel discussions sparked by the death of Prince Philip.
“What is the public interest?” Some have asked.
It is not empty
The royals may fall into the realm of global “celebrities”, as we are not talking about empty Kardashian fame here.
And this is what surprised me yesterday: We are covering up the prince’s death as if it were a simple magazine issue. Another episode of the crown.
But we never or hardly confirm the link, and even the impact of this disappearance on our political system.
We tend to forget it – or hide it – but we live in a constitutional monarchy. Our laws are null and void if the deceased man’s wife’s representative did not approve them yesterday.
All this is purely “technical”, and symbolic, you will respond. But the effects are tangible and constitutional.
Certainly, Philip was only a prince of corin, and he had no real role or function in our sovereignty.
But her death at the age of 99 should ring like a wake-up call: Elizabeth II, on April 21, will be 95.
His disappearance will inevitably precipitate us, and everywhere in the Commonwealth, with a number of questions.
The Legault government reiterates that these questions are secondary, because we are experiencing a pandemic. In early February, he refused to even support a PQ proposal mentioning CAQ’s commitment to “remove the deputy governor’s office”.
However, soon after, he had to speed up the Bill 86 schedule, which stipulated that even if Elizabeth II died, the National Assembly would not be dissolved. The possibility, in theory, was considered risky enough to warrant this legislative gesture.
We live in a constitutional monarchy, but our reactions are republican: We want to choose our leaders. Do we really want Charles as head of state? When Elizabeth II dies, the question is inescapable.
The abolition of the monarchy in Canada is almost impossible because Pierre Elliott Trudeau has sealed her constitution so that it would last 1,000 years …
But if the Legault government wants to be a little creative, and a bit daring, it can decide that the next Quebec head of state will be appointed by two-thirds of the National Assembly, not by Ottawa unilaterally. He could even, according to constitutional expert Patrick Taeyeon, change the title of this job.
In November 1996, following the resignation of the controversial (other) Viceroy, Jean-Louis Roux, Quebec MPs adopted a motion calling for repeal, stating that Ottawa should be appointed as LG “the person democratically appointed by the National Assembly” .
It can be inspired by CAQ. But some signs do not bode well: We learned yesterday that on the day of Prince Philip’s funeral, the Quebec flag will be a half-mast on the central tower of the Parliament Building.
This decision, which we can read in a letter yesterday, was taken “in coordination with the Prime Minister, Mr. François Legault. [et] The President of the National Assembly, Mr. Francois Paradis. “
Didn’t Mr. Legault promise to form a national government driven by “courage” and “audacity”?