Are you saying that the Queen granted a knighthood to the Official Secretary to the Gov-Gen without being advised to do so by the Australian Government?
Because on an issue of political controversy (should Aussies get knighthoods), I would have thought she only acted on the advice of her Australian government.
Could you provide detail? What
Canadian did she want to give the Garter to?
The Queen hasn’t managed to stay on the throne for 65+ years by acting in an unconstitutional fashion. Nor does she do things that are likely to cause an international diplomatic row, and in the process get a substantial number of her own citizens upset at her.
So the hypothetical is deeply flawed.
Vincent Massey. If I remember correctly, she tried both Diefenbaker and Pearson before giving up. (And I think Pearson was actually okay with it, but he took it to his cabinet and they rejected the idea.)
There’s a “personal” order of awards the monarch gives out for direct service to them and their household rather than public service and activity - so it might be that people in an overseas country who’ve gone above and beyond to organise a visit might be offered one, but I’d imagine courtesy would dictate that the relevant government would be consulted first.
Yes. The example that Lord Feldon gave of the knighthood awarded to David Smith in Australia in 1990 is a case in point. Sir David was made a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, which is an order awarded at the personal discretion of the sovereign for distinguished personal service to the monarch, a member of the Royal Family, or a representative of the monarch (e.g. a governor-general).
It’s awarded at the personal discretion of the sovereign, which means not on the advice of government ministers. Still, it is doubtful (to put it no higher) that it would be awarded without consultation with the relevant government, or at any rate that it would be awarded if the award might be embarrassing or controversial. It’s relevant that (apart from a brief moment of madness in 2014-15 which is unlikely to be repeated) neither federal nor state governments in Australia have recommended the grant of knighthoods since 1990. The monarch, in her monarchical discretion, has exercise a similar restraint since that time.
…Which is apparently the only reason is no Sir Shane Warne.
“Lord” Conrad Black, Canada’s weak answer to Rupert Murdoch, wanted to buy a lordship. Canada has an agreement with the UK that all titles awarded to Canadians had to be approved by the Canadian government. Conrad “con” Black was shocked and appalled, verily, that the Liberal government he’d been trashing for years would deny him his right to be pretentious. So, he renounced his Canadian citizenship in order to buy a Lordship. However, despite financial shenanigans that earned him jail time in the USA, this non-Canadian still gets to reside in Canada while other foreign felons are turned aside at the border. “The rich are different from you and I…”
It was actually St. Laurent and Diefenbaker, and Diefenbaker checked with Pearson to see how loudly it would be opposed, and Pearson was okay with it but Dief’s cabinet was not. (St. Laurent had filed the proposal in a box somewhere and done nothing.)
Not “in Australia”, but “to Australians”. As others have noted, there are indeed some dynastic orders which, to this day, are awarded by the Queen personally rather than on the advice of the Prime Minister of the realm in question; membership in them is thus considered to be thje Sovereign’s personal gift. The most prestigious of them is the Order of the Garter, but that is limited to England (the Order of the Thistle being the Scottish equivalent). Some of these orders are, however, open to citizens of other Commonwealth realms, who are, after all, considered subjects of the Queen.