Skip to content

God Save the Queen!

Note: This editorial was originally published 21 May 2007. I have chosen to re-post it because I believe it is important to be reminded of our history. As well, calling this holiday the "May-Two-Four Weekend" just plain irks me.

Note: This editorial was originally published 21 May 2007. I have chosen to re-post it because I believe it is important to be reminded of our history. As well, calling this holiday the "May-Two-Four Weekend" just plain irks me. - David


Queen Victoria

HM Queen Victoria


This weekend is known by a few names: "Sovereign's birthday," "Victoria Day," "May Two-Four", and "May Run." (The latter I only heard on Friday, on the CTV "local" news. It seems that’s how it’s known in the Timmins area.)

I’ve always known it as "Victoria Day." In fact, I can recall a time when we really celebrated the day for what it was. However, over the years it has become just a time to begin gardening, head out to open the camp for the season, or just enjoy a backyard bar-b-que.

In many cities in Southern Ontario, however, it is still a big celebration. Some even make this a bigger event than Canada Day, and have their only fireworks display for the May holiday.

The Sovereign's birthday has been celebrated here in Canada since the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901) and 24 May, Queen Victoria's actual birthday, was declared a holiday by the Legislature of the Province of Canada in 1845. Parliament established this date as a legal holiday in 1901, following her death, giving it the name Victoria Day.

The precedent of celebrating the birthday of the reigning sovereign extends back as far as their have been sovereigns. Sometimes it was celebrated on the actual day, and others — especially if the birthday was in the winter — were celebrated in the spring or early summer when the weather was more favourable.

The first official birthday celebration of Queen Elizabeth II, in 1952, was celebrated in June, but subsequent birthdays have been observed on Victoria Day. This date was formally adopted, with Her Majesty’s approval, in 1957.

Of course the question usually arises: "Who cares?"

Some, perhaps many, do not see the relevance of the Monarchy. Admittedly it is a somewhat antiquated institution, and certainly not without its controversy.

For me, the Monarchy has an intangible quality that is difficult to put into words.

It represents our a connection with our past, with the country from which many of our ancestors hailed. It, great Britain, is the country that laid claim to and shaped the Canada that we know. Wars were fought, with battles both won and lost, and concessions made which led to the cultural mosaic that is Canada today.

The influence of the French cannot be understated, and certainly there are regions — Quebec, New Brunswick — where the French culture flourished and became the foundation for the society that developed in those regions. But overall, Britain was the model for the institutions of governance and societal structure from which the Canada we know today evolved.

There are those who will acknowledge the past, but prefer not to dwell on it. There is always merit to looking ahead to the future, but we ought always keep an eye on our past, as well.

There is a republican movement within Canada that would seek to completely sever ties with the Monarchy. The argument is that as an independent country Canada does not need to cling to the apron strings of the mother country.

Perhaps there is some merit to that position, yet when we look at the governments we have elected over the past few decades, can we really say that we would have chosen any of those leaders to be our supreme Head of State? Hasn’t there always been just a small part of us that is quite glad that our elected officials are just that, temporary occupiers of an executive office?

That the Queen is our true Head of State lends us a stability that we would not otherwise enjoy.

Think of the Joe (Who?) Clark, Kim Campbell, or John Turner governments, each of which only lasted a few months. Should we change our Head of State on a political whim or due to political gamesmanship?

I am quite willing to dispense with any romanticism associated with days of yore, knights of old, chivalry and other such notions. I recognize those days were just as rife with politics, corruption, disease, and pillaging as any in history.

It isn’t just the pomp and ceremony — although I do appreciate that aspect — but there is something about having ties to a Monarchy, and all its history, that I find comforting.

If nothing else, it helps to distinguish us from our American neighbours who, in the course of gaining their own independence, soundly rejected the Monarchy. And yet, when any of "The Royals" pay a visit, Americans line the roads for a glimpse, just as we do. Perhaps they, too, recognize that intangible something that compels us to retain our own ties with the Monarchy.

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, recently celebrated her 86th birthday, and is currently celebrating her Diamond Jubilee -- sixty years on the throne. While her official schedule has been reduced somewhat, with the "junior" Royals assuming more responsibility for the numerous official visits, she is reported to be in very good health. She has clearly stated her intent to fulfil her duty as Sovereign until her death, and appears to be on track to becoming the oldest reigning Monarch in British and Commonwealth history this coming December.

Should she still be reigning on 9 September 2015, at age 89, she will surpass Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning Monarch. At that time His Highness, Charles, Prince of Wales, will be 64, and still waiting to become King.

So, this weekend, whatever else it may be called, remember that it is "Victoria Day," and the day that Canadians officially recognize the Sovereign's birthday.

God Save the Queen!
 


What's next?


If you would like to apply to become a Verified reader Verified Commenter, please fill out this form.