A Canadian columnist identified as very much in the Reform/Alliance mold defends the Monarchy of Canada profoundly, as quoted here (by a confused neocon who needs to read my last post!):
…the National Post’s Andrew Coyne… in a 2002 column on the monarchy… had this to say:
The Crown is not some colonial pantomime. It is the rock on which the country stands, the foundation of our legal and political order. It is in the first line of the Constitution, the 1867 one, in which is expressed Confederation’s raison d’etre: that the provinces should be “federally united into One Dominion under the Crown.”
His tune has remained constant. Back in 1998 he elaborated further [sic]:
We kept the Crown not out of nostalgia or anglophilia, but because it is useful. The monarchy is not some soap opera for soggy teenagers. No quaint anachronism or colonial relic, it is a marvelous constitutional instrument, the best that has yet been devised for reconciling the power of the state with the sovereignty of the people. […]
The Queen is more than the personification of the state, she is the humanization of it. As much as the constraints upon her once absolute power say ours is a government of laws and not of men, her very humanity, and her all-too-human family, remind us that government is also about men: about real people and their concerns, not bloodless abstractions like “the state.” Focus of allegiance, symbol of unity, vessel of sovereignty, the monarchy is all these things. But mostly it is a statement about us.
So, generalizations are never 100 pct. right(!). BTW, I don’t call the blogger confused because he disagrees with me, but because he thinks c/Conservative equals “right” and l/Liberal equals “left,” and that is factually incorrect, or incomplete, or imprecise.