I remember reading that some people in Australia wanted to not have her as Queen when the Olympics came around because they didn’t want her to open the games. Obviously that did not happen. I can’t recall, did she open the games or did she send someone else?
The Governor General, who is the Queen’s representative in Australia, but has no actual power, opened the games.
IIRC, Canada also has a Governor General.
All Commonwealth Realms have a Governor General. I thought they did have some power, as well.
Coldfire, I think you and hibernicus misunderstand what suzerain means. It means that there’s a feudal relationship between two rulers that makes one of them a vassal state with internal sovereignty (for Tonga, also external sovereignty). In the case of Tonga, the relationship is between the Queen of the UK and the King of Tonga. For Andorra, it’s between the King of Spain and the Bishop of Urgell as co-prince of Andorra.
In the cases of Netherlands Antilles, Greenland, and the Faeroes, there are no kings/queens/princes/whatevers of those places to have such a relationship.
I disagree with Little Nemo. Unilateral removal of the Queen by the United Kingdom would have no effect on her role as Queen of Canada. Canada’s Queen would remain despite the Unitied Kingdom removing her as its Queen.
The U.K.'s British North America Act, 1867, was rolled into Canada’s Constitution Act of 1867, which sets out in section 9 that: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.” This means that the Queen is the head of state for Canada, but does not specifically define who the Queen is. However, in a footnote to the fifth schedule, it is implied that the Queen is the Queen of the UK, as opposed to Queen of something else: “OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note.–The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with Proper Terms of Reference thereto.”
Section 12 of the Constitution Act, 1867, however, states that UK and Canadian colonial laws in existence at the time of confederation “. . . continue in existence and [are] capable of being exercised. . . .” unless they are “abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.” This means that unless changed or no longer possible, the Queen would be as set out in the U.K.'s British North America Act, 1867.
The head of state being relegated to a footnote to a schedule to a foreign statute is not very seemly, so since then, the definition of the Queen for Canada has been clarified. Canada’s Interpretation Act, 1985, sets out at section 35(1) that: “Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth." The schedule to section 35 lists some fifty-five nations which are members of the Commonwealth. Thus the Queen of Canada is defined as the corporate personality who head of state of many nations.
The question then is how the United Kingdom’s removal of the Queen of the UK affect the Queen of Canada. I submit that there would be no effect, and that the Queen of Canada would remain the Queen of Canada regardless of that the UK did. My grounds are as follows.
The preamble to U.K.'s Statute of Westminster, 1931, sets out that: “. . . 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 Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom . . . .” This means that the UK can not act unilaterally concerning who is Queen of the UK and the Commonwealth nations such as Canada. If the UK parliament did remove the Queen, it would be without right of law, and have no effect on Canada.
One might argue that the UK could simply amend the Statute of Westminster, 1931, to permit them to change the sovereignty unilaterally. I suggest that if they made such an amendment, the amendment would not be binding against Canada because at section 4 the Statute of Westminster, 1931, also sets out that: “No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion [Canada being defined as such a Dominion] as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.” Furthermore, Canada’s Constitution Act 1982, at Schedule B, Part VII, section 52(1), sets out that: “The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.” This permits the reading out and reading down of laws which are inconsistent with the Constitution. A unilateral removal of the Queen would be inconsistent with the Canadian Constitution as set out in the preamble and section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, so such a unilateral removal would be of no force and effect in Canada.
This still leaves the issue of section 35(1) of Canada’s Interpretation Act, 1985, defining Canada’s Queen as also being the Queen of other Commonwealth nations. I suggest that this can be addressed through Canada’s Constitution Act 1982, at Schedule B, Part VII, section 52(1), providing the power to read out, and the Interpretation Act, 1985, itself permitting itself to be read out. Section 3 of the Interpretation Act, 1985, sets out that: “(1) Every provision of this Act applies, unless a contrary intention appears, to every enactment, whether, enacted before or after the commencement of this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act apply to the interpretation of this Act. (3) Nothing in this Act excludes the application to an enactment of a rule of construction applicable to that enactment and not inconsistent with this Act.”
The issue then becomes one of simple construction toward which well established rules of construction apply. Specifically, section 12 of the Interpretation Act, 1985, sets out that: “Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.” The remediation would be to read out the United Kingdom from the list of nations of which the Queen is sovereign rather that to strike down Canada having a head of state, and the remediation would read out the United Kingdom as being part of the definition of the Queen rather than strike down Canada as having a head of state.
Lest there be any confusion during an interregnum, section 45 of the Interpretation Act, 1985, sets out that: “(1) Where there is a demise of the Crown, (a) the demise does not affect the holding of any office under the Crown in right of Canada.” Thus even if it could be seriously put forward that the UK had removed Canada’s Queen, the Canadian courts would retain the power to remedy, and Canada’s parliament would retain the power to enact, amend or repeal legislation, so judicial or legislative remediation would be binding.
I also suggest that apart from all this legal analysis, removal of a head of state by another nation is such an imposition on sovereignty that such removal simply would not be accepted regardless of the legal basis. The removal of the Queen of Canada by the UK through unilateral amendment of past legislation would be no different that the removal of the President of the US by the UK through unilateral amendment of past legislation. It just would not wash with the affected nations.
Canada may or may not decide to retain the monarchy, but the decision will be made in Canada, not the UK.
A possibly relevant historical precedent: when the Portuguese monarchy was overthrown in the nineteenth century, the ruler fled to Brazil (then a Portuguese colony) where he became Emperor. I need to check up on the details.
In that vein, I think Argentina had a German Kaiser for a while as well. Not that Argentina was a colony of Germany, but because he seized power. Again, details will follow.
London-Calling:
Isn’t there a matter of the oath MPs take upon entering office that gets in the way of chucking the monarchy?
Didn’t go by the name of Diego Maradona at all - but German you say, sounds more like Franz Beckenbauer ?
Well Monty, we’re not exactly awash with precedents here. The abolition of the Monarchy hasn’t been done through the democratic process as it is now practiced.
I don’t know the details of the pledge MP’s make but it would be entirely consistent to think it would be to The Queen / Crown / Sovereign. However, it’s also important to remember we’re talking about Politicians.
That aside, nothing could happen without a very convincing mandate from the people. With that mandate translated into Parliamentary action, one could imagine many of the traditional vestiges of the system being cast aside. After all, a democratic mandate is a very powerful tool measured against an oath of allegiance to something contrary to the manifest will of the people.
There was an incident in November 1975 that might refute the notion that the Australian Governor General has no actual power. 
australianpolitics.com.au
The GG is appointed by the Crown, on the advice of the Prime Minister. In virtually all matters they act according to the advice of the Prime Minister of the day.
However, the GG is the head of the armed forces and retains the “reserve powers”. The GG appoints (and dismisses) the Prime Minister. When the PM wants to call an election he asks the GG for permission. The GG could refuse if there was an alternative who could command a working magority in the parliament.
hibernicus
Nope, because while Bessie Windsor is QEII of the U.K., she’s already plain ol’ QE of Oz.
As I understand the situation, should the U.K. turn republican before Australia does, QEII would continue to be the Australian Head of State as QE.
But would she emigrate? I think that of Head of State trading in Sandringham and Balmoral for a Federation style weather board cottage with verandahs, flyscreen doors and an oblique view of Lake Burley Griffin from the bathroom window would be a very nice gesture … but I can’t see it happening.
BTW, I forgot to mention that I agree with Muffin’s excellent analysis. I believe each country subject to the Crown has their own individual and internal Constitutional mechanisms to determine whether the Queen plays a Constitutional role or otherwise.
Wolly - I wouldn’t be to sure. One might be rather amused by the idea of a little sunshine.
Muffin, methinks you are getting a little carried away, although I can see why Canadian constitutional experts can demand big bucks. Why can’t our constitution be neatly packaged in a few pages in the almanac like America’s.
Although provisions of the Statute of Westminster were adopted in the Canadian Constitution I don’t think Canada was fully sovereign at the time, and I don’t think any representative of Canada was signatory to its enactment in the UK. In any case , one of the parties involved, the Union of South Africa, unilaterally disengaged from the commonwealth since then, which I would suggest would nullify any obligation to other parties on the part of the UK. Furthermore, I can not conceive any other country successfully challenging the UK if it wanted to drop the Queen.
Notwithstanding the earlier point I made, even if the UK dropped the Queen, nothing can prevent Canada from pursuing any course of action to restore her monarchy.
Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, gave us quasi-sovereignty in as far as any futher U.K. act would not apply to Canada unless Canada requested it and consented to it. Because it was a U.K. act, rather than a bilateral agreement, there was no need for us to be signatories, and because section 3 of this act is what gave us the power to make extra-territorial laws, we were not prior to the passing of the act capable of being signatories.
With such Canadian request and consent, in 1982 the UK passed the Canada Act, which included as its Schedule B the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 1 of the Canada Act, 1982, made the Constitution Act, 1982, law in Canada. Section 2 of the Canada Act, 1982, set out that no further U.K. legislation could be made to apply to Canada. Thus the Constitution Act, 1982, is the last piece of U.K. legislation applying to Canada, and signfies full sovereignty for Canada.
We did not have a clear break the way the Americans did, so our Constitution is not as tidy.
To help us figure it all out, the Schedule to Schedule B provides a list of Canada’s Constitutional Documents from 1867 on to today. Of course without annotation, it is entirely incomprehensible, and it does not include constitutional documents prior to confederation, such as the Royal Proclamation, 1763, the Quebec Act, 1774, the Constitutional Act, 1791, or the the Union Act, 1840. Nor does it mention the written and unwritten U.K. Constitution which provides the foundation of our Constitution, as recognized in the first paragraph of the Constitution Act, 1867.
I believe that this utterly mystifying mass of constitutional material serves the very valuable purpose of causing both politicians and people to run screaming from the room.
Witness the failure of the Meech Lake Accord (1987), and the Charlottetown Accord (1992). At both, the politicians ran screaming from the room rather than force provinces into something which would be unworkable in the long term.
Concerning the people, just compare Canadians to Americans. Americans, with a relatively simple Constitution, are constantly getting bogged down. If you talk about health, or safety, or even the weather, they inevitably becomes trapped in an endless recursion of Constitutionally protected individual rights. Now put those same topics before a room full of Canadians, and you will not hear anything about Constitutionally protected individual rights, not because we don’t have them, but rather because at the first mention of the Canadian Constitution, smart Canadians run screaming from the room.
Due to being so stupendously dull and hugely confusing, the Canadian Constitution steers both politicians and people away from using the Constitution to shore up polarized arguments. It forces us to sit down and talk about our concerns, rather than argue about our rights. Out of such murkiness comes the necessity for us to either compromise, or (and you know what I’m about to say). . .
. . . run screaming from the room.
You’re right, I didn’t know that. I understand now.
And another thing I’ve learned (thanks to Coldfire’s link to the Netherlands Antilles), is that France and the Netherlands share a land boundary. That’s made my day.
As I mentioned before, there is an interesting historical precedent for this whole discussion. Here are the details:
In 1807 Napoleonic forces invaded Portugal due to its support of the British. The Portuguese royal family, headed by the Prince Regent, John (later John VI) fled to the colony of Brazil, where they were welcomed. The French occupiers declared that the monrarchy was deposed in Portugal.
Even though the French were driven out in 1810, John remained in Brazil, and ruled the mother country from the colony. (The Encyclopedia Britannica remarks that this is the only time this has ever occurred.) In 1815 Brazil was raised to the rank of a kingdom united with Portugal. Upon his mother’s death, John became king of both countries in 1816, and ruled Portugal and the rest of the Portuguese colonies in Africa and Asia from Brazil.
Due to continued unrest, John could not be induced to return to Portugal until 1821. He left his eldest son Pedro in charge in Brazil. When Pedro was ordered to return as well, he declared Brazil independent with himself as Emperor Pedro I. In 1825 this was recognized by his father, who pro forma took on the title of Emperor and then ceded it to Pedro.
After John’s death a dynastic struggle ensued over the Portuguese throne involving Pedro, his brother Miguel, and Pedro’s daughter. (In the course of this a regency was briefly set up for the daughter in the Portuguese colony of the Azores.) Pedro eventually ceded his claim to the Portuguese throne, and the succession in Brazil and Portugal proceded independently. The monarchy in Brazil ended with the abdication of Pedro II in 1889, and that in Portugal in 1910.
So there is definite precedent for a monarch continuing to rule in a colony after being deposed in the home country, and even ruling the home country from overseas. However, this does not have direct bearing on the legal status of the British monarchy vis-a-vis the Dominions and other members of the Commonwealth.
As far as I can see, oddly enough the monarch in Portugal always seems to have been referred to as merely a King (or Queen), even when s/he ruled an empire, while the Brazilian ruler affected the title of Emperor even when he only ruled Brazil. I could be wrong on this.
Not to hijack this thread, but I would be interested to learn more about Coldfire’s recollection on Argentina. As far as I can recall, the only other indigenous monarchies in the Western Hemisphere were those established in Haiti, and in Mexico shortly after independence. But there might be others.
To clear up any confusion, I am not talking about Native American kingships (Aztec, Inca, etc.) but talking about monarchies that were set up locally in former colonies, independent of the European colonial rulers.
I agree with muffin’s analysis: even if the Brits went republican, that would not affect HM’s status in the other Commonwealth realms, like Canada.
In fact, we discussed this last month, in Can the King of England abolish the monarchy?
I made couple of posts on this point, to which no-one responded, either because of the holidays, or because they were too long and boring - but I’m not bitter - I’m used to killing threads. This is what I said then, in part:
This mystified me at first, because I’ve read a bit on Argentinian history and could recall nothing of the sort.
Then it occurred to me that you might be thinking of Maximilian of Austria, a Hapsburg who was placed on the “throne” of Mexico (which didn’t exist at the time) by intervention of Napoleon III of France. Maximilian’s reign lasted 1864-1867. Abandoned by French troops, he was captured by Juarez and executed by firing squad.
Could this be it?