Pontiac, War Chief of the Ottawa, and a 21st century Canadian republican hero. He led Pontiac’s Rebellion (or, as some still say, the Conspiracy of Pontiac) in defence of Canada in 1763. In the deepest history of the country today, some will say, he is just as important as the British monarchy – and for the longest term future, perhaps even more.

As the Ottawa Citizen has just noted, “opinion surveys have long uncovered a strong republican streak among Canadians.” So what are those of us who do not at all care for the British monarchy in Canada to make of the great flood of commentary on the monarchy’s Canadian future, induced by the current North American visit of the so-called Duke and Duchess of Cambridge? (It will end in California later this week.)

Well, to start with, there can be no doubt that new majority Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s new last gasp of official support for this particular relic of the 19th century in the old British North America has given something of a transitory late-career boost to the declining and falling cause of the Monarchist League of Canada.

Gerry Nicholls, who worked under Harper at a conservative think tank, says Harper previously wasn't a staunch monarchist, but he values it as a conservative symbol.

As Yvonne Yorke gushed early this past May in the Huffington Post, contemplating the California leg of the current visit, July 8—10: “This will be William and Catherine’s first official US visit, and also the first non-Commonwealth nation they will see as a couple … Many are hoping that the Duke and Duchess will visit Los Angeles where they will surely be feted as the ultimate reigning couple, if the enthusiastic US media coverage of their wedding is anything to go by. After all, as I’ve said before, the royals are the ultimate celebrities.”

Similarly, “Gerry Nicholls, who worked under Harper at a conservative think tank, said Harper previously wasn’t a staunch monarchist, but that he values it as a conservative symbol … ‘It plays into a larger strategy of creating this conservative ethos for Canada. But we’re never going to go back to God Save the Queen, the Union Jack or those kind of things,’ Nicholls told the AP.”

The ultimate bottom line : a new conversation on the future of the monarchy in Canada

Jeffrey Simpson. Some Canadians liked him better when he was a somewhat more resolute republican!

As improbable as all this sounds to ears like mine, Mr. Harper’s new majority government stature is at least prompting even some staunch old Canadian republicans like Jeffrey Simpson and Alan Fotheringham to trim their sails somewhat for the new era – as long as it may or may not last.

Not all that long ago Mr. Simpson was urging that a committee be struck to figure out a way of politely waving goodbye to the offshore monarch across the sea. He is now advising: “even if Australia, followed by New Zealand, ditched the royal link, Canada’s Constitution would make it nigh impossible to sever the link to Charles and Camilla and William and Kate and their progeny … So they will be among us, although not really part of us, for many Canada Days to come.”

The aging Foth is still asking “When will Canada grow up” and acquire “the courage to cut the irrelevant [and/or more and more archaically outdated] ties to Mother England” – now that, even in our mere British North American historical persona (setting aside our deeper and more authentic modern identity, going all the way back to 1497, say), we are a full 144 years old!

Allan Fotheringham : still crazy after all these years. But his country cannot refuse to grow up forever.

And yet, contemplating the latest “royal visit … zoo act” of “Prince William and the beautiful new bride Kate Middleton,” even Mr. Fotheringham feels obliged to conclude: “When will this immature, silly country eventually grow up? Not for a while.”

There are of course still worse cases of our own Canadian incarnation of Middleton Mania, from a republican point of view. But our own side of the fence has not gone altogether unrepresented.

The same Ottawa Citizen that has noted how “opinion surveys have long uncovered a strong republican streak among Canadians,” has also concluded :”The monarchy has been a crucial part of Canada’s history and development. Taking a close look at that relationship to determine whether it needs rethinking, has outlived its usefulness, or should remain as is, is a conversation the mature nation of Canada should not be afraid to take on.”

Right on John Ibbitson : “We could always abolish the monarchy and make the governor general an elected head of state”

Anna Jameson, 1794-1860, author of Winter Studies and Summer Rambles in Canada, first published in 1838. Opinion polls in 2011 suggest that women are more supportive of the British monarchy’s continuing future in Canada than men.

I disagree with the Ottawa Citizen’s first sentence here. At the bottom of things, for most Canadians since, say, at the very least, the end of the First World War, the monarchy has not at all been a crucial part of our history and development.

In some very shallow sense, it has been a kind of ongoing chick movie, to divert some among us from the recurrent winter ice and snow. (Women, both polling data and more up-front political experience suggests, remain notably more pro-monarchist than men.) In still deeper senses mindless worship of the British monarchy in Canada has always been what it still finally is now: a politically inspired Tory plot.

At the same time, I very much agree with the Ottawa Citizen that “a conversation” about the future of this old colonial institution is something the “mature nation of Canada should not be afraid to take on.”Â  In fact, fuelling this kind of conversation just may be the ultimate ironic impact of Mr. Harper’s current and perhaps a bit too aggressive promotion of the British royal family, as part of his larger strategy of creating some new “conservative ethos for Canada.”

Toronto community activist Charles Roach, who has lived in Canada for 57 years, and raised several born-in-Canada children, cannot become a Canadian citizen because his Canadian republican principles preclude his swearing allegiance to the British monarch, as (unlike in Australia) our current citizenship oath still requires in 2011.

Because when even the Ottawa Citizen also says that “no matter what your views are on Canada’s relationship with the British Royal Family, it is difficult not to feel a sense of warmth toward the young duke and duchess,” there are still increasing numbers of us who can only honestly say that, while we have no malice towards these young people from another country, we do not really feel any warmth towards them at all. (Why should we?)

Like Mr. Fotheringham, we want to see Canada grow up at last. We sense we are now gradually rising towards a real democratic majority status in the country (in both official languages) that transcends Mr. Harper’s current mere parliamentary majority (and indeed even includes substantial numbers of his own supporters!).

John Ibbitson receives writing award from Governor General Jean in 2008. N He doesn’t think it can happen politically, but he agress that, in principle: “We could always abolish the monarchy and make the governor general an elected head of state.”

It is true enough that many adult Canadians still say they just do not care about the British monarchy’s future, one way or the other. But if you are going to divide the electorate into those for the monarchy, those against, and those who do not care, we who are against already have the largest plurality, Canada-wide, in virtually all polls.

Other kinds of polls suggest that if and when the do-not-care voters have to decide, more of them will come with us than the monarchists. And we know we are growing in our own right – from oh-so-many private conversations.

As the still quite monarchist (but nonetheless excellent political journalist) John Ibbitson explains: “We could always abolish the monarchy and make the governor general an elected head of state.” He does not believe this is politically possible in any currently foreseeable future. But we think that is because he (and others like him) spend too much time listening at the feet of the rulers in Ottawa, and not enough time out here with the rest of us, who inevitably somewhat better understand the art of being ruled (in Canada).

We’re getting madder than hell, and we’re not going to be putting up with it all that much longer!

English poet (and monarchist clergyman), Robert Herrick, 1591—1674, had some good advice for the Monarchist League of Canada in the early summer of 2011: “Gather ye rosebuds while ye may / Old Time is still a-flying / And this same flower that smiles today / Tomorrow will be dying.”

None of our current various Canadian establishments (except perhaps in Quebec, but possibly not even there just yet) want to hear this particular news at the moment. But we “anti-monarchists,” in all our various incarnations, are getting madder and madder than hell. And we’re not going to be putting up with it all that much longer.

Since the early 1920s the crucial part of our political and constitutional history and development was signalled long ago by the eminent Lord Bryce in his short book  Canada: An Actual Democracy. In a democracy the majority finally does rule.

And, even with William and Catherine on board, there is no doubt at all that nothing remotely like a majority of Canadians even right now seriously supports the British monarchy in Canada!

So enjoy these fleeting moments in the sun while you can, Monarchist League of Canada. (“Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,” as Parson Herrick long ago advised). They certainly won’t be lasting forever.