Blog - Politics
Comments (50) 
E-mail
PrintIt's about bloody time: Canadian support for monarchy drops dramatically
Finally. Some great news.
It’s been pretty hard being a Canadian of late.
Not only do we have a right-wing buffoon for a prime minister, but the progressive majority here has been left with no attractive, electable alternative.
Then there’s the fact that Canada is one of the world’s worst environmental degraders. The oil sands of Alberta is a bigger pox on the land with each passing day –a pox not only on the environmental landscape but also on our country’s once-stellar international reputation.
Furthermore, our justice system is a joke. We’ve got bishops in charge of sex abuse compensation claims caught with child porn. And Celine Dion continues to record music.
And, on top of all this misery, we still inexplicably have some foreign, overseas, in-bred family serving as this country’s monarchy and head of state. A reality that becomes more and more pathetic as Canada moves further away from its distant colonial past.
But this is where the good news comes in. A new poll suggests that 60 percent of Canadians think that the monarchy is outdated and irrelevant to the modern world.
Well, what the hell took you so long, Canada? I mean, seriously, is anything more ridiculous than having someone on the other side of the world as this country’s head of state? It’s nothing personal Queen Liz, but your institution is simply archaic. Archaic, asinine, and absurd.
As I wrote in an earlier piece on this subject, The God Save The Queen Rant, the whole notion of a monarchy–that is, the whole notion of some people being born with a right to rule due to some ridiculous idea of superior blood lines or what have you–is not just out of step with modern day Canadian values, it’s actually antithetical to everything Canada is supposed to stand for.
Those who say that it’s all just tradition and that such symbolism means nothing are, in my mind, akin to those in the Deep South who want to fly the Confederate flag over their state houses. Symbolism does, in fact, matter.
No Longer A British Nation
Besides, modern day Canada is no more a “British nation” than it is a country that needs feudal European forms of governance.
Does anyone really think the majority of Canadians who now trace their roots to someplace other than Great Britain–places such as Ireland, Italy, Scandinavia, China, India, Haiti, Ukraine, North America (First Nations), and the Philippines, not to mention France–are really all that tied to this archaic British institution? Is it really supposed to make them feel Canadian?
There are actually people who claim that without the monarchy, Canada would just be another American state, as if what makes Canada a distinct nation from the U.S. is nothing more than our antiquated and obsolete ties to the Queen and Chuck and Di and the boys. Seriously, anyone who really believes such nonsense should probably just move down to the States themselves because they have no idea what, in fact, makes Canada the wonderful nation that it is.
A Modern Nation
So, once again, it’s great to see that the number of Canadians who are ready to say goodbye to the old gal (and her family) across the sea has become such a clear majority. Hopefully, someday very soon, Canada can finally become a fully-independent nation with enough confidence and sense of self-respect to have its own head of state.
Think about it: A head of state who actually lives right here in Canada.
Hell, not only could we have a Canadian for head of state, but–imagine this–we could also have someone who has actually accomplished something of some relevance with their life.
Sure, we may have more pressing issues to deal with in this country–none more so than those hideous oil sands. However, I’d say that becoming a fully-modern, self-reliant nation with its own head of state is also, without a doubt, something that’s long overdue and must finally be addressed.
It’s time to cut the umbilical cord, Canada. It’s time to finally move on and become a modern republic.
Mike Cowie is a freelance writer who writes about politics, music, film, travel, and much more. You can read more of Mike’s views on his Web site.
Comments
Of course the extremely zenophobic and racist tone of the article suggests that the absence of logic wouldn't stand in the way of viciously attacking our Sovereign.
Rod Smelser
Canada has asserted itself on the world stage in many ways, but to be taken truly seriously at that level, we need to have a Canadian as our true head of state and then we will stand as equals with nations like Great Britain.
I also believe that cutting the British monarchs out of our national identity would also serve as an important gesture in smoothing English Canada's relations with French Canada. This is an important debate and I hope every Canadian will think hard about what makes them a Canadian, and whether they feel the Queen or future King, or even the appointed GG have any relevance in that identity.
For the most part it seems to work well. And it provides a tangible connection to a political history that long pre-dates Confederation. Speaking of history, I wish those who so blithely dismiss our collective history as "irrelevant" would first take the time to learn it. They might be less quick to disparage it. At the same time, they should ponder the wisdom of replacing a non-partisan head of state with an elected party politician.
I would agree with critics of the crown in Canada to this extent: we should take a more active role in seeking needed reforms to the monarchy. Working with other Commonwealth countries who share QEII as their head of state, we should seek agreement on the abolition of the bar on Roman Catholic accession to the throne and to the law of primogeniture that privileges male heirs. The Scandinavian monarchies provide a good model in that regard. We might also insist that Governments in Canada exercise better judgement in selecting Governors General. Since the crown plays a crucial constitutional role in our system of government--a point that was powerfully underscored by the political turmoil on Parliament Hill last December--we ought to have a GG who is learned in the practices and conventions of parliamentary government.
So how 'bout a Canadian Monarchy?! Trudeau's kids have nothing but time on their hands. Na, they smoke too much pot; it'd never work. But we could settle on a royal family with, say, a hockey game. You know, a measure of merrit equally innane as the British being "born into" nobility. Ha, you monarchists are a hoot.
God save us from the Queen!
The replacement of the British monarchy with a Canadian head of state is a logical and healthy final step in that evolution.
However, Let's see if I can get this straight. The Queen who is our Head of State(on paper only) lives in castles in Britain and does NO WORK as Head of State.The GG is not our Head of State , but lives in Canada, and does all the work as Head of State .Folks, just do away with this stupid British Monarchy in Canada; reform the office of GG and make it our Head of State. It is already Head of State in every way except, name Monarchist always want to hold this country back. The problem will never be solved until it is fixed.
Frankly, I’m surprised that there are so many pro-monarchy Georgia Straight readers. That said, the spurious logic used to support their positions is not as surprising.
e.g., “Monarchy is the oldest continuously existing political institution in Canada. It has survived by evolving to meet our changing political needs”
Well, that seems mighty reasonable of the Royals. Then again, if someone were going to pay me handsomely for having the good fortune of being born to the right family, I’d probably “evolve” (i.e., do whatever needed to be done) in order to retain such an absurd privilege.
“Today, some of the most stable, prosperous, and, yes, egalitarian societies combine parliamentary democracy with constitutional monarchy (e.g., Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, New Zealand, and Australia).”
Where’s the cause and effect here? This is akin to saying that my lightning proof tattoo must be working since I haven’t been struck by lightening. Sure we have a good thing going here in Canada (as do the above countries), but is Stephen suggesting that everything would go down the tubes if we dropped the monarchy? Pretty dubious logic there.
The Canadian value system is based on egalitarianism, democracy, and merit. What is monarchy based on? Birth, blood and religion! Totally un-Canadian by my way of thinking and it behooves us to cast off the British monarchy from our political structure and elect a Canadian to exercise the duties and responsibilities of our head of state. I believe that this move will bring Canadians together as a nation and mitigate the desire of any province to separate.
And, here are those polls you requested, Mr. Cox. They show how support for ending our formal links to the British monarchy have been growing for years and how this latest poll is a clear confirmation of that already unstoppable trend:
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/resources.html#Polls
Finally let me just say that I find it absolutely hilarious that in his comment Stephen claims that the 60% of us who think that the monarchy is outdated and irrelevant are nothing more than a "miniscule band of self-styled republicans". When a substantial majority of the population is a "miniscule band", what exactly are the monarchists?
Mike Cowie
Sorry to interrupt while you're in full lather, but your claims have no basis in fact. Canada contributes not a penny to the Royal Family. Nor does Australia, New Zealand, or any other country of which the Queen is head of state--except for the UK. If you don't believe it, check the public accounts. No Canadian tax money is remitted to Britain for the upkeep of the monarchy.
Canadians do, of course, incur the relatively minor expense of occasional royal visits. But that's it.
As for the Gov. General, the money that's allocated to Rideau Hall is determined by the government of the day and has to be approved by Parliament. The expenses are not unreasonable compared to any other parliamentary democracy with a dual executive. If anything, we tend to skimp on ceremony in Canada, while benefiting from the prestige of the monarchy and the dedicated service of the Queen. So you could say we're freeloaders!
SMBs
However, the British Empire, which the Monarchy represents above all else, did provide the foundation of our democratic heritage, and provided prosperity and peace in its time. The Commonwealth presently provides a lively forum, which benefits many less well to do nations, and where Canada can play a vital role as a peacekeeper/peacemaker. As an offering to the monachists, Canada can maintain it's tie to the Monarchy, with our continued membership in this organization.
As for our next head of state, it should be all Canadian, modern, elected, preferably separate from the office of the Prime Minister, and from party politics.
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/polls.html
Over two thirds of Canadians don't want anything to do with this colonial relic. Mike Cowie is perfectly in step with the majority while any sane monarchists (an oxymoron?) knows the battle is already lost. It's just a matter of when not if we become a republic. It's time for the national debate to begin.
I'll take Queen Liz and Charles any day over our inbred band of corrupt Canadian politicos!
Frankly, I’m surprised that there are so many pro-monarchy Georgia Straight readers. That said, the spurious logic used to support their positions is not as surprising.
e.g., “Monarchy is the oldest continuously existing political institution in Canada. It has survived by evolving to meet our changing political needs”
Well, that seems mighty reasonable of the Royals. Then again, if someone were going to pay me handsomely for having the good fortune of being born to the right family, I’d probably “evolve” (i.e., do whatever needed to be done) in order to retain such an absurd privilege.
“Today, some of the most stable, prosperous, and, yes, egalitarian societies combine parliamentary democracy with constitutional monarchy (e.g., Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, New Zealand, and Australia).”
Where’s the cause and effect here? This is akin to saying that my lightning proof tattoo must be working since I haven’t been struck by lightening. Sure we have a good thing going here in Canada (as do the above countries), but is Stephen suggesting that everything would go down the tubes if we dropped the monarchy? Pretty dubious logic there.
They still view Canada and America as colonies .
"A tear, please, for Charles;" is the titled of an article by columnist Allan Fotheringham. In the article he writes;"a woman with the only-in-England byline of Decca Aitkenhaed observes that it is ridiculous to be so exercised to make the Royal Family--- and Prince Charles in particular---more like "real" people.
"We are asking the single- most-ill-equipped family in the country to provide us with a model to look up to. A modern monarchy is an oxymoron, like a modern slave, or a modern witch doctor."
'Too bad the twits(politicans) in Ottawa don't have the courage to admit the same."
There are many components of good government, yet anti-monarchists presume to rule out, without further inquiry, the very idea that a key political institution like constitutional monarchy could possibly have any bearing on the matter. May I suggest that having a non-partisan head of state to enforce and protect the largely unwritten rules (conventions) of parliamentary government is no bad thing. Of course, that doesn`t guarantee that a particular sovereign (or her representative) will always make wise decisions. E.g., I share the view of many that Michaelle Jean failed in her duty when she granted Harper his self-serving request to prorogue Parliament. But it is far less likely that a monarchical head of state will misuse her powers for partisan purposes than an elected chief executive.
After all, elected heads of state invariably are party politicians. In the case of presidential systems, there is ample temptation and opportunity for the president (being both head of state and head of government) to subvert the constituton he is sworn to uphold in furtherance of his partisan aims (e.g., George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, el al.). In a semi-presidential system like France--with both an elected President and a PM responsible to parliament--there was constant bickering between the President and the PM in periods when the Elysee and the Matignon were occupied by political rivals (Mitterrand-Chirac; Chirac-Jospin).
A non-partisan office-holder is better placed than a party politician to embody the authority of the state and to command the respect of citzens, regardless of their party affiliation. And a monarchical head of state contributes to political stability--even as individual prime ministers come and go--by symbolizing the continuity of constitutional government.
These are not matters to be dismissed as irrelevant. Nor, I suggest, should we be too quick to discount the importance of an institution so deeply rooted in our history and identity as a nation. We've transformed the crown in Canada in signficant ways since Confederation and there's nothing to stop us from using our intelligence and imagination to make further reforms in the future. But we should think long and hard before ripping out what one scholar has called "the hidden wiring of the constitution."
By the way, anyone interested in reading more about the crown in Canada should consult the writings of the late Eugene Forsey. An acknowledged expert on parliamentary government, Forsey was also a staunch socialist--co-founder of the League for Social Reconstruction, CCF candidate, and research director of the Canadian Labour Congress. Forsey was not so incongruous as one might think. As Roberson Davies once observed, Canada is a "socialist monarchy." Long may it remain so!
Hello Mike. I merely point out the fact that republicanism in Canada, unlike in Australia, doesn't exist as a serious political movement. It has not been embraced by any political party or endorsed by more than a handful of politicians (e.g, John Manley). Of course, the Bloc Quebecois favours abolition, but then it's not really the monarchy to which they object--it's the Canadian state.
As for polls, well, a majority of Canadians consistently favour capital punishment too--on those rare occasions when they address their minds to the subject. But many of them are open to changing their view when exposed to an informed debate. In fact, the last time we had one, in 1987, MPs chose, on a free vote, not to restore the noose. Since then, there's been little more than a peep from the general public on the issue. As for the monarchy, we've never had a serious public debate about it. Until we do, I think it's a bit premature to say that 60% of Canadians are bona fide republicans. I suspect that most of them are just indifferent.
I do agree that the number of self-styled monarchists is relatively small too. But they're more numerous and better organized than you may be aware. The Canadian Monarchist League has been around since 1970 and has chapters across the country. And it has a number of notable achievements to its credit--including, most recently, pressuring the GG to stop calling herself the head of state. There's no organization of comparable strength to the CML to promote republicanism. If there were, I'm sure there'd be more politicians willing to espouse it.
"Do we have a seconder.? Yes we do, but I have an ammendment. "Could the bill provide for counsellors to help these monarchists to become real Canadians."? Another member;"I cannot support this bill because it would be too costly."
"Oh, forget it --this archic institution is dying a natural death anyway."
To me monarchy is a prison,even to the queen and and all!
Thats why Diana wanted to get away!She wanted freedom!She wanted Happiness!Something that all that treasure they collect from people and countries would never give her!!!
Monarchists have to imagine they benefit us in some microbial way and I'm not interested because I'd have to include there elitist views, Nazi sympathizing 'kingships', highly effective glass ceilings and mirthfully oppressive histories and on...
Lets raise our own king or queen and make them righteous for our best interest. Man how much money have they bled from the cowed pedestrians of lets say, India.
Now some might say if we were to elect the GG indirectly, by a vote of MPs, why not make the GG the head of state and be done with the monarchy? After all, a number of parliamentary republics elect their presidents in that way. True, but there are advantages to the GG not being the head of state--even if many Canadians mistakenly believe she is.
(By the way, that's only one of many misconceptions Canadians have about their system of government, thanks in large part to the failure of our schools to do a very good job of teaching the basic principles of Canadian government. The Conservative fairy tales that many people believed during the parliamentary crisis of last December are only a recent confirmation of that. But I digress.)
The fact that Michaelle Jean is the Queen's representative means that she exercises her power on behalf of the Monarch. As such, she's not entitled to substitute her personal views for those of the elected government and Parliament. Instead, she is bound to abide by the constitution (including its unwritten rules) and, where necessary, to defend it against abuse by the government of the day.
Interestingly, even though GGs are hand-picked by the PM, and several were even former ministers under the PMs who appointed them (eg, Jeanne Sauve, Ray Hnatyshyn, and Romeo LeBlanc), they have not in practice overstepped their authority. I suggest that a major reason for this restraint has been the fact that they understood that their highest duty was to represent Canada's constitutional monarch--which is really, nowadays, a metaphor for parliamentary democracy. Having no electoral mandate of her own, the GG has no legitimate grounds to challenge the policies of a government that enjoys the confidence of parliament. Her role instead is to enforce the rules of the game.
If we were to set up the GG as head of state in her own right by severing the monarchical link, there'd be a natural tendency for her to push the boundaries of her authority. That tendency would be even stronger if she were directly elected and had an electoral mandate of her own. That in turn would create the potential for a "dualling executive" (elected head of state vs. elected head of government), especially if the two contenders represented rival parties. I already gave examples of how that happened in recent years in France.
Indeed this was what apparently happened to France when the 4th Republic gave way to the 5th republic in 1958. However, the why it happened at that time and place are quite specific and unlikely to represent a “natural” trend. The 4th Republic was afflicted with the Italian disease: the inability to provide stable governments, itself the consequence of a highly fragmented parliament. Since 1870, the 3rd and 4th Republic was indeed modeled on the British parliament with a very important difference: by the fifties, two turn proportional elections had become the norm and the multiplication of political parties made the ruling coalition at the mercy of sudden allegiance shifts of minor parties (a bit like Israel now). Frenchmen did not like their country, in the midst of decolonisation crises, to be so unbearably fragile. So, when De Gaule proposed a constitution for a new republic based on a strong, directly elected president, with real power, they felt for it, not even thinking twice. But this had nothing to do with the former 4th Republic presidential function presumed weaknesses. The 4th Republic failed because it could not provide stable majority governments and for no other reason. For all its shortcomings, the 5th Republic has been remarkably resilient and the occasional bickering between the Prime Minister and the elected President have not prevented the institutions to work as they should so Stephen dismissal of the “duelling executives” is not warranted: in fact, all the polls at the time indicated that Frenchmen actually liked the idea of “co-habitation” as it was called then, probably because they like the idea of power sharing and were always wary of too powerful men.
This brings me to the conclusion that a Canadian Republic could indeed evolve toward either of the two presidential models, strict arbiter of the institution or some executive power sharing, with no particular damage. There is no need to press the panic button in either case.
My preference would still go the “strict arbiter of institutions” and in that role, it is not impossible to find a nomination process that will insure the appointment of proper candidates, certainly at least or better than the current process of nominating the GG.
What has NOT been discussed yet is the very positive effect the change to a Republic might have on the elephant in the room. No one has yet discussed or evaluated the political impact of changing to a republic on the Quebec electorate. No one has even hinted that the survival of Canada as a united country might be, just might be, very dependant on Quebecers feeling at last at home within the Confederation. Let’s face it: no francophone Quebecer, even the federalist ones, accepts the idea that bowing to a foreign sovereign is part and parcel of being Canadian. Symbols do matter and that one is not merely anachronistic, it is slowly killing the Confederation as we know it. This is my point.
Removing the monarchy would clear the deck for a possible association of equals, something impossible as this symbol remains in the way.
"Trust me, outside of watching Coronation Street we have very little in common with the British. Very little."
That is a very fashionable attitude nowadays. But it requires us to overlook a few things--very minor, of course--like habeas corpus, the common law, trial by jury, parliamentary government, and, last but not least, spelling colour with a "u."
The comment reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in which the leader of the Judean People's Front asks, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
On a more serious note, one of the biggest flaws of our political system is the anti-democratic first-past-the-post voting system. We might want to pay some attention to what's been going on in the UK in that regard since the late 1990s. The Brits use proportional representation for Euro Parliament elections, regional elections in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and local elections in Scotland. Maybe there are still a few things we can learn from other countries, including, dare I say, the UK.
Interestingly, while co-habitation is now regarded as an exception to the normal relationship between President and PM, it is actually closer to the original design of the Fifth Republic than the President-centric version created by de Gaulle and carried on by his successors (including Mitterrand!).
All of this is to say that if we choose in Canada to have an elected president and to restrict his or her role to the arbiter function now carried out by the GG, it would be prudent to codify the conventions now limiting the exercise of the GG's powers under our system of responsible government. Otherwise, we might end up with a lot more than we bargained for.
Of course, I would advise against opening that can of worms. As a general rule, it's not a good idea to propose fundamental institutional change unless (a) the institution in question demonstrably isn't working and (b) one has achieved broad agreement on a new institution that is guaranteed to work better. I don't think either condition is satisfied in regard to outright abolition of the monarchy. But I agree that the process for selecting the GG needs to be fixed. In any case, I would say there is a much more compelling case to be made for reform of the electoral system and the Senate.
As for Quebec, well, I can't presume to say what it would take to make Quebeckers feel at home in Confederation. I don't think anyone can. However, I do think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the monarchy in Canada "is slowly killing Confederation." If so, the patient seems remarkably robust for one that has been dying for the past 142 years.
Both broke their faith with 'their high moral fiber'.
you stupid so & so's.... Just my contempt for an amoral citizenry...
Why not a new name for a new post? Off with er title GG. CC for Citizens Commissioner or Crown Constable, you know what I mean.
Stephen, I continued on to make the point that we have a lot to thank the British for (our parliamentary system, legal system) in terms of helping us build our great nation. But in my view, we can take it from here, thanks.
By calling my opinion "fashionable" you are attempting to trivialize it. All the important political infrastructure and systems necessary for Canada to move forward and continue to be governed democratically are in place -- the queen is simply a superfluous cherry on the cake. How the head of state is replaced is really meaningless since there is no power vacuum to fill. Other nations such as America and France have shown that you don't need a monarch -- especially one that doesn't even live in the same country. The days of empire are over. We are ready. But don't worry, we may drop the queen, but we'll keep the 'u'.
I am glad I am not the only one who sees the Monarchists as quite similar to the Conservative, white supremacists of America's south. The Monarchy, like the Confederate flag, is a symbol of white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Supremacy and privilege. It's a symbol of colonialism and imperialism, too.
PS. John Cox, it's not one poll. Every poll since the late 1990s has shown the "republican" side gaining and the pro-Monarchy side losing. Each CANADA Day, a new NATION-WIDE poll is released and shows the same result--strong support for the Republicans and waning support for the Monarchy.
I usually ignore hateful rants of this kind, but this one is so horribly misguided that it demands a response.
First, the crown is a quintessentially Canadian institution. It's deeply embedded in our history and has proven to be entirely compatible with the growth of Canadian nationalism and the flowering of Canadian culture--including Quebecois culture. And support for republicanism is hardly a reasonable litmus test for patriotism. If it were, you would have to impugn the patriotism of John A. Macdonald, George-Etienne Cartier, John Diefenbaker, Eugene Forsey, and many other great Canadians, all of whom were strong supporters of the monarchy. The same goes for millions of Canadians today, including thousands of veterans whose contributions to Canada we observe every November 11th. Yet the writer would impugn their love of country!
As for the false and invidious comparison of Canada's monarchy with the US confederacy, the writer has a lot of explaining to do. In particular, how is it that slavery flourished for a century under a republican constitution that purported to affirm that all men are created equal? Meanwhile, British North America was a haven for escaping slaves and even today the "peaceable Kingdom" is, in practice, a far more liberal and tolerant society than the republic to the south.
I respect those who genuinely believe in the republican option for Canada. But I cannot respect those who question the patriotism of those Canadians who support the maintenance of Canada's monarchy. To suggest that such support is unCanadian is to betray both a staggering ignorance of Canadian history and a fundamental misreading of Canada today. There is no official or "correct" ideology in Canada to which all citizens must conform, lest they be accused of not being true Canadians. If there were, we'd be a lot more like the US, where dissidents have often been branded as unAmercian.
Canada, on this point, is not above reproach having been responsible for a systematic and deliberate segration of our aboriginal peoples that was so efficient, the South African government paid a visit, made notes and re-packaged it as 'apartheid' in their own country.
And to further erode the idea that a system of government headed up by a family born into it will be more immune to the concept of slavery -- please read your British history on the role the British played in the slave trade. Liverpool and Bristol were the greatest slave ports in human history. And, most importantly, it was the British that brought the slaves to America and the Caribbean to work on their plantations in the first place -- that would be back in the 17th century....(shall I spell this out?) when America was still a British Colony ... In other words, slavery in America was a legacy of British colonial rule in America.
Admittedly, it continued to flourish after Independence.
The only reason the British didn't bring slaves to Canada was because Canada didn't have enormous cotton and tobacco plantations that required huge amounts of manpower to maintain. But this is taking us away from the initial debate.
I believe the Canadian nature is more tolerant and open-minded than that of Americans (on the whole), due to many reasons, some of which may have to do with our British "upbringing", but that's not a good enough reason for us to stay under the British crown. My children's good nature and goodwill are most likely partly due to my parenting but that doesn't mean I want them to live with me for the rest of their lives either.
If you doubt whether a republican nation can be capable of truly inspirational, humane and visionary leadership, just read the Declaration of Independence -- a document truly ahead of its time. The words: "That all men are created equal" were revolutionary in their time, and though this wasn't fully realised for many years to come, Americans were still willing to defend those words against those Americans who felt they didn't apply to "all" Americans.
It has been a long road from there to Barack Obama's election but it has been one that has been paved by many inspirational presidents and civil rights leaders. And not a crown in sight.
Post a comment