Elizabeth II was a historic figure. Elizabeth II is dead. Her (as yet) uncrowned heir is undeniably less popular, according to public opinion. His unpopularity isn’t the only reason some want to abolish Canada’s monarchy.

General anti-monarchism is a reason. Being against the symbolism associated with this particular dynasty in Canada. This reason is strengthened by serving an additional agenda, such as separatism and seceding from Canada. This symbolism may be the main reason Yves-François Blanchet suggested abandoning the monarchy.

Abolishing the monarchy is a figurative can of worms. Canada’s laws, institutional relationships and constitutional provisions are too entwined with the “The Crown.” The focus required to abolish the monarchy should be used to solve the country’s more pressing problems.

Right or wrong, these counter-arguments are prevalent. Whatever average Canadians think, evidence indicates none of the country’s collective institutional wills wants to open this “can of worms.” So pragmatism says we must have a “Crown.”

The new argument

We have options. In 2017, Philippe Lagassé wrote that there is no Canadian law of royal succession in the exact sense. He was even cited about it in the National Post. Of course, this was related to speculation on appointing another “Windsor” as monarch in Canada. But by the same legal provisions, we don’t need the Windsors. If some “simple” legislation is enough to change the sovereign, let us appoint a new dynasty for our country from the descendants of an elected sovereign. One who can reasonably prove Aboriginal descent in Canada of any level.

Establishing the dynasty

The first monarch in the new dynasty will be elected from eligible candidates. They will take any binding oaths and sign any binding documents required by the hypothetical legislation starting this process. The new sovereign will pass down the position to their heirs. Candidates will be determined by eligibility criteria.

Electing a monarch with Aboriginal ancestry to establish a new Canadian dynasty is more in line with “right” than any claim put forth by the Windsors, writes Abdallah Al Alfy. #Monarchy #Colonialism

The criteria can be simple. Let’s begin with Canadian citizens who can reasonably prove descent from one or more Aboriginal Peoples of the lands that constitute modern-day Canada. This isn’t about ethnic purity, simply inheritance rights. This doesn’t exclude people who are predominantly from other ethnicities. Proving they have at least one Aboriginal ancestor in their family tree is enough.

DNA analysis cannot be a requirement for proving the relevant ancestry for all candidates. Available technology may be unable to decisively confirm or deny a person’s distant descent from a particular group. Reliable documentation of Aboriginal descent would be sufficient.

Optionally, further criteria could be established to ensure the candidate elected as Canada’s new sovereign is prepared.

Ethical background

The House of Windsor’s justification for their many monarchies is the doctrine of “Divine Right,” which states kings and queens have a divine right to rule. This doctrine is comparable to the “Mandate of Heaven” concept that justified the rule of past Chinese emperors, but not completely similar. Ethically, this means nothing to Canada. Separating church and state means someone telling us God gave them a “right to rule us” has no bearing.

Beyond this, Canada is land that was forcefully stolen from its Aboriginal inhabitants. As a first-generation immigrant to this country from the Middle East, I am deeply ashamed of my part in denying the descendants of Aboriginal Canadians their rights. I am not one of the first Europeans to take Aboriginal lands by lethal and coercive force or deceitful treaties.

But I do contribute to the system that committed these atrocities. And that continues to commit transgressions. Hailing from Egypt, a country that suffered from British colonialism itself, it distresses me to support another system born of British colonialism. As a Muslim without any Aboriginal ancestors, it is distressing that my actions contribute to the continued existence of a system that stole so many North American lands.

By right, a much older right than the doctrine of “Divine Right to Rule,” lands belong to first claimants and these claimants’ heirs. It has been so since people first understood the concept of “territory.” I can reasonably claim descent from first claimants in many parts of the world. North America is not one of them.

And since the concepts of “first claimant rights” and “inheritance rights” are older than the doctrine of “Divine Right to Rule,” since pragmatism decrees that Canada needs a sovereign, then electing a monarch with Aboriginal ancestry to establish a new Canadian dynasty is more in line with “right” than any claim put forth by the Windsors.


A monarchy such as the one I’m proposing is much fairer than the one we have now. This monarchy won’t right all historical wrongs. But it would make Canada more just than it is.

Abdallah Al Alfy was born and mostly raised in Cairo, Egypt (but also a little in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), Alfy is a writer and author based in Toronto. Being a bit of a polymath, Alfy is also a licensed pharmacist in some jurisdictions. Because of this diverse background, Alfy is fortunate enough to write within a wide variety of fields and genres, from science and medicine and critical review, through fiction and poetry and onto historical and political commentary. Alfy is the proud author of Islam Versus Muslims. Read Alfy’s blogs on Medium , or if you’re out of free reads, you can catch a lot of the same content on his website .

Keep reading

The author writes that “... lands belong to first claimants and these claimants’ heirs.” I disagree. It makes more sense to eliminate the concept of land ownership altogether; it is responsible for the astronomic price of land that makes it unaffordable for the average person, leading to that person being unable to join in as a full member of society.

Not that it detracts from your argument, but I believe the doctrine of the divine right of kings (at least as to the British monarchy) was put to rest by the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

Any god worth believing in would do better than Charles. Come on?