I think Stoidela might merely (or also) have been referring to Canada’s “status” as a Commonwealth country. (?) That certainly would be the most commonly referred-to connection, I imagine…
Polycarp:
So, purely as a thought experiment, if there was ever a sort of “War of the Roses Part Deux,” we then could (depending on how they chose sides, see also The Duelling Popes) have a Queen of Canada that was not recognized as the Queen of Great Britain by all of the UK, or by some or all of the other Commonwealth countries?
theoretically, yes, but it would be dealt with by negotiations, I would assume.
The Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 reads, in part:
“And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Susccession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall thereafter require the assent of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom…”
That’s why, as Polycarp pointed out earlier, each of the self-governing Dominions had to consent to the abdication of Edward VIII - each dominion had to pass an Abdication Act, along the same lines as the U.K. Abdication Act.
Note that this has some significance today. Prince Charles has mooted the possiblity of doing away with the preference for male heirs, and going to a system of straight primogeniture, regardless of gender. The proposal would take effect with William’s and Harry’s heirs, so no vested rights in the line of succession would be affected.
Implementation of this agreement would require the consent of all the Commonwealth countries that are monarchical in nature, rather than republican. It would also likley require the consent of all the Commonwealth countries who recognize the Crown as the head of the Commonwealth.
an update - the Aussies defeated the republican plebescite on the weekend.
doesn’t mean Liz can sleep soundly, though - sounds like it was defeated by a combination of pro-monarchists, and republicans who thought the proposal didn’t go far enough.
Under the proposal, the President would be elected by the Commonwealth (i.e. federal) Parliament, not by direct election. The recent Constitutional Convention chose that option as being the least likely to change the overall parliamentary system, as a directly elected president might have the political legitimacy to take on the Prime Minister on a regular basis, instead of as an emrgency measure.
No-one seems to know what will happen next - another Convention, or let the matter drop for a few years.
As a die-hard Thatcherite monarchist, i think Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc should ‘ditch the monarchy’. Why? It makes no sense, she’s our queen, not their’s…in a way, it’s embarassing. These other countries should move on. I love the queen, and believe in the principal which maintains her as head of state (god forbid we ever have an embarassment like ‘cigar man Clinton’ as our head of state)…it’s almost indefensible, but i like it and it works
In case i may have given the impression that i don’t like Canada/Oz/NZ…i love these countries. In a way their status is flattering…in another way it’s awkward.
By the way, is there another word in the English language which has ‘wkw’ as a constituent?
Why is it that when any Irish person mentions the Queen in a disrespectful manner someone always mentions Mountbatten… It’s not like I killed him or anything…
I may be a Nationalist, but I’m a pacifist.
Dont tar us all with the same brush.
Australia nearly became a republic 2 weeks ago. Why would anyone want to be part of the Empire/Commonwealth?
I think the commonwealth has to be seen as no longer just an ex-empire arrangement, but simply as an international ‘club’, which has it’s uses. Just because you hate the British, it doesn’t mean you’d refuse to be part of the EU (much as I wish WE weren’t) does it?
It’s not really much to do with hating the British. Relations between Ireland & Britain are, for the most part, excellent - but equal. We don’t want Mrs. Tibbs on our coins, or have a governor-general, or be subject to the fritterings about on the woolsack. Nothing to do with us; you go ahead and enjoy it.
And the Commonwealth is an ex-British-Empire club, with the sole exception of Mozambique.
Android: you neglected to mention that the major cause of the defeat of the republic initiative in Australia was not in the concept of casting off the monarchy but that the population was not enamoured of the manner of selecting a president for the republic.
Although they don’t even have a president, they’re already arguing the merits between direct and indirect selection.
Chef, they might not be sleeping together anymore, but Quebec keeps slipping the English speakers some tongue. As for the Aussies vote, actually they voted FOR the republic. Since every thing is upsidedown there they mistook the word ‘NO’ for ‘ON’ as in “it’s on”. They are still reeling over the results, counterclockwise i think. Here is a link to Canadian place name origins http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/english/schoolnet/origin.html But here is the real story
So you got the Algonquins shouting out to the French, “keep back!” which the French heard as Que bec, meaning ‘that nozzle’, or possibly a comment about a certain young Algonquin maiden, ‘that Becky, ooh la la." Now we got the Canadian River ( named by some other frenchmen, exploring under Rene Baptiste[possibly because they ran out of wine in Chicago and kept saying " gimme a can a duh beer"{ since they had just left Louisianna it was Jax beer and not Moosehead,MooseJAW is in Saskatchewan which is Amerindian for "hard to spell’} They couldn’t drink whiskey because Bourbon County, Kentucky hadn’t been invented yet and and there was no Canadian Whiskey because the Baptists , or Baptistes ,in the texas panhandle had voted Canada dry, the reason Texans could control Canada will become apparent] long before the Arcadians [not the Greek ones,Prince Phillip not withstanding] became Cajuns, and has no connection with the dominion, ) the Canadian runs across the texas panhandle past the town of Canadian,Texas ( There’s the French connection to Canada) to the Arkansas River ( pronounced “R kanzus”, since Little Rock had not been found yet ) named after some non Algonquin Indians, the KansA. The Canadian is north of the Red River , no not that one, the Red River in Canada is the Red River of the North. The Colorado River (Spanish for RED River) runs across central texas and into the Gulf. Another Colorado is OVER THERE, (alla’ in Spanish NOT acca’.) and runs thru the Grand Canyon to another gulf. The Grand RIVER is in Ontario. So what do all these texas rivers have to do with Canada? Not much but the Stanley cup, which holds a LOT of beer, is in Texas now. But what does this have to do with the Queen of England ( who likes to sing and dance,probably the Can Can) and Momo’s plebicite? Which is bound to be racous, be sure and Mountbatten down the Hatchers. The only thing I can tell the Canadians about keeping the Windsor throne( which is much sturdier than a chair) is ,Yukon do what ever you want.How will the queen react? I dunno , next time I see her Alaska. Juneau she gonna be pissed though,from all that whiskey or whisky, whichever she likes.now since your thirstyhttp://www.moosehead.ca/
“Pardon me while I have a strange interlude.”-Marx
I was following old threads and came back to this one. I found I’d never replied to this inquiry from Monty:
So, with your indulgence for reviving an old thread:
it’s not the latest, but it is still in force and effect. It’s the basic outline of the federation, creating the federal Parliament and provincial Legislatures, and assigning them their legislative powers.
as Monty suggests, it’s not the latest Constitution Act. There have been several Acts passed over the years, the most recently the Constitution Act, 1982, which patriated the Constitution and enacted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
All of the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982 together make up the Constitution of Canada.
This being true I still wonder why as a Canadian taxpayer I have to support the Gov. General and the Lieutenant Governors with residences, servants and a salary. (For those of you who don’t know these people are the Queens “official” representatives in Canada)
There are only two things that are infinite…the Universe and Man’s stupidity…I’m not sure about the Universe though.
