Elizabeth II is of course the Queen of the United Kingdom. But she’s also the titular monarch of a number of other countries such as Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, etc which are otherwise independent of Britain. (I realize I may be wrong on a few of these countries; my almanac is a few years old.)
Now is Elizabeth’s monarchy over these countries dependent on her being the Queen of England or an independent function? For example, if the British parliament abolished the monarchy and Her Majesty lost that throne, could she just relocate to Ottawa and maintain the family business? Or could Elizabeth decide to abdicate and pass the British throne to Charles, but keep her title to Jamaica as a retirement project?
It works rather like your Presidency. It’s not so much the person as the office. As the illustrious George W will, and Clinton currently does, represent the US as the incumbent Head of State, so does Quennie.
When she steps down (or dies), Charles (presumably Charles) will assume the throne and the award of any subsequent projects will be at his discretion. You don’t get to take bits and pieces of the world with you.
Of course, nothing is done contrary to the wishes of the people of any dependent territory or country.
If Parliament abolishes the Monarchy (unlikely without a very substantial mandate from the people), a replacement structure need to be put in place otherwise we ain’t got no Head of State. Presumably (nothing’s certain), it would simply be a matter ‘The King is dead, long live the President’ and all powers would pass from one to the other - assuming you’re not talking about restructuring the entire Executive branch of Government.
It would then be for those dependent territories or country’s to interpret their law and decide whether to remain subject to new British Head of State (the ‘Sovereign’ no longer existing) or become an independent nation. Independence is a formality as long as the usual pre-requisites are, Constitutionally, in place i.e. democracy, freedom of speech, etc and nothing untoward (for example, from the local military) is anticipated.
Wasn’t that Edward VII’s line when his mother, Queen Victoria died? The flags were at half mast and he asked why and they said, “The Queen is dead.” And he replied, “The King lives!” and they hoisted the flags back up?
This is one of the few royalty questions that intrigues me. Understanding the posts so far, I think the question is still on the table. Countries like Australia have or might become republics and drop the Queen as titular sovereign. I think the question is, if England did the same thing, would Queen Elizabeth automatically cease being the Sovereign of these other places, or could she take her billions and set up shop in Bermuda (or wherever) and still be Queen?
The Queen can’t simply “step down” if she’s tired of the rigors of the whole thing. She can only cease to be Queen by act of Parliament.
Also, when the Queen visits Commonwealth realms, she doesn’t use the royal standard (flag), but a personal . standard as sovereign of that country. Here is a picture and information about the Queen’s personal standard for Canada. This flag, and the personal standard of the Governor General actually have a higher precedence than the actual Canadian flag.
Also, personal standards for: Australia New Zealand Barbados Jamaica
In any other Commonwealth realm, she just uses plain blue, with the E in a circle design in the center. In Scotland she uses a variant of the royal standard, with quadrants representing England and Scotland switched. In other countries, she uses the royal standard, unless visiting in her capacity as sovereign of another realm (for example, visiting the US in 1959 as the Queen of Canada).
(Links may need to be refreshed a few times to work)
Not to dispute manhattan, but I feel the question has been addressed. Grienspace’s post especially made it clear that Elizabeth’s role as sovereign of Canada is dependant on her continuing role as Queen of the UK. Presumedly the wording of the equivalent documents in the other Commonwealth realms is similiar.
But what if some of the other Commonwealth countries didn’t want to go along with her removal. Possibly some (probably not many) feel that the British monarchy gives them asense of stability that they might otherwise not have.
This is a good question and subject for speculation.
I suppose that Belize or Jamaica or wherever could pass legislation to continue the royal line along the same rules as it was before, but I doubt they would bother, especially since the just deposed British sovereign probably has very little desire to move to some foreign country to take up a vastly lesser job. Canada or Australia might have some chance of pulling it off, but that’s pretty unlikely as well.
Its just my opinion, but if the U.K. dropped the monarchy, the whole fun and historical mystique would be gone for Canadians, and even the most ardent supporter of the monarchy like myself would say lets drop it. I dare say citizens of other commonwealth countries would feel the same. I know if Australia dropped the crown first, it would affect public opinion in Canada very litle, but on the other hand, we won’t stick around to be the last former colony to keep the Queen either.
Something just occured to me mulling over the idea of the Queen relocating. I don’t think the queen really needs the job at all. As I understand it the Royal Family has vast independant wealth, and I can just picture William and Harry telling us all to shove this job up our asses. I would.
According to the Statute of Westminster (1931), the Dominions and Great Britain must agree on the choice of a monarch if there comes a point where a decision is necessary. This was tested out five years later when Edward VIII abdicated. Fortunately there were only four dominions at that point (Canada, Australia, Ennzedd, and South Africa) and they all agreed that Prince Albert should become George VI.
Elizabeth is head of state, theoretically independently, of all her dominions and such, so I suppose it’s theoretically possible that the U.K. could go republican and she remain Queen of Australia, Belize, Canada, St. Vincent (and the Grenadines), and the rest of the list.
Note that she and Juan Carlos of Spain are the only two monarchs in a formal suzerain role to other countries, though neither amounts to a row of beans: The Kingdom of Tonga is an independent nation in fealty to the U.K. – its own take on Commonwealth membership – and the President of France and the King of Spain are joint suzerains of Andorra.
I realise it’s not quite the same, but Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is the Official Monarch for the Netherlands Antilles. While the Antilles are a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, they also have a constitutional Status Aparte which grants them full power of government. I think this comes closer to a suzerain role, effectively, than the Commonwealth structure - even though technically it is the same country.
Just thought I’d share this, as it is yet another option in the wide range of “how to maintain your colonies”.
Maybe it depends what you mean by “other countries”. Greenland and the Faeroe Islands are both part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but they have extensive autonomy and are usually considered “other countries”.
Hang on a second. The King of Spain isn’t co-prince of Andorra. It’s the Bishop of Urgell and the president of France.
There seems to be several levels of association with the UK that are possible. There are Crown Dependencies, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which I believe are portions of Normandy that the British crown held on to as Duke of Normandy. There are colonies, which I think are referred to as British Overseas Territories, or sometimes Dominions. These are not all equal. For example, residents of the Falkland Islands can vote for MPs, while residents of St. Helens cannot. Then there are Commonwealth Realms, which have the British sovereign as monarch (and I believe that matters of succession are decided by the British government alone). Lastly, there’s the rest of the Commonwealth, which recognizes Her Majesty as the head of the Commonwealth and nothing else.
Oh, yeah, and Scotland has a certain unique degree of autonomy as well.
And a piece of trivia for the day: In Scotland, the Prince of Wales is known by his title it the Scottish peerage, the Duke of Rothesay. At least, so I’ve heard.
Because the name Albert was so hyped up in the royal family.
Queen Victoria demanded that most of her descendents have her name or Albert’s included in their names.
Also, as Bertie, as he was called, might have remembered his grandfather, Edward VII, whose real name was Albert Edward.
Bertie Sr. (Edward VII), rejected his mother’s suggestion of using Albert Edward as his title.
Personally, Charles could be, let’s see…Charles Philip Arthur George…hey, wouldn’t it be neat for him to choose Arthur?