Fiona McCade: Would anyone like some spare royals?

Published on Tuesday 28 June 2011 16:03

WHAT has Canada ever done to anyone? Given how huge it is, it's ever so quiet and never causes a fuss about anything. Never invades, never demands to use your air space, never throws a hissy fit in the United Nations.

It's got loads of oil, gas and gold, but it never goes: "Woo-hoo!" and waves them in our faces. It's even given the world maple syrup, perhaps hoping this would sweeten the blow for those of us unlucky enough not to be born Canadian.

Jammy Canada is also pristine, beautiful and far enough away from the UK to be able to forget about us. However, all this natural good fortune might be about to be endangered - by some crazy Canadians.

As future king and queen William and Catherine touch down in Ottawa today, the Monarchist League of Canada is putting forward a suggestion that maybe it's Prince Harry, rather than William - who already has enough on his plate - who should eventually become King of Canada.

Some members of the Monarchist League think that a permanent royal presence in their country would halt the slide towards republicanism and strengthen ties with Britain. Whether or not this is true, and whether or not you think that monarchy is a logical and sane concept in the 21st century, I don't care. I'm British, I pay for the Royal Family, so it sounds like a brilliant idea to me. All I can see is a quick and easy way of shedding a member of this ever-extending brood and sending them a whopping 2,300 miles away.

And why stop with Harry? We have so many minor royals sitting around, doodling, playing golf with gangsters or going on unfeasibly long gap years, it would be a great solution to the problem if we could just ship them overseas where they might actually find useful stuff to do.

In fact, the only trouble with this idea is that although dumping Harry on Canada would be good for us, we really should take pity on the Canadians. If we're going to farm out our unwanted royals to the Commonwealth realms and territories, the least we can do is try to match them up sympathetically.

Canada might fancy taking on the spare to the throne, but I doubt Harry would appreciate the calm charms of the chilly north. No, I'd deffo send Hazza to happenin' Oz, where he could break open a few tinnies and hold court on Bondi Beach with some bonzer Sheilas. If the Aussies would have him, of course.

And if they would, maybe there's an even bigger opportunity for the UK to find some uses for our under-employed blue bloods. Why stop at the Commonwealth? Maybe there are other countries out there that hanker for a bit of monarchist mystique? We could hire out the Windsors and finally make some money out of them. Take Mexico, for example. They haven't had an emperor since 1867.Maybe they'd like Prince Andrew?

Talking of Andrew: the only drawback to allotting a different royal to each overseas territory is that the York princesses are sure to bagsy the Bahamas and Barbados, and then we'll constantly have to suffer paparazzi photos of them bouncing around in unflattering bikinis.

Perhaps one way of avoiding this - because you know they'd take their mum with them and there are way too many toe-sucking opportunities in the Caribbean - is to make the realms bid for the royal of their choice. We'd get the revenue and the richer countries would get the best people for the job, thus ensuring that the more embarrassing candidates get relegated to quieter, less salubrious destinations.

As far as I can see, everybody wins. Countries that want royals can have them; we get rid of the hangers-on and get recompensed for our sad loss; while some royals (who wouldn't otherwise know a hard day's work if a footman presented it to them on a silver salver) get the chance to build flood defences in Tuvalu. And maybe, if we're really lucky, Princess Michael of Kent will end up on St Helena.