So long and thanks for all the, err, wool?
I think most people in Britain wouldn’t be too bothered one way or another. It might spark some sort of debate on our own attitude to the monarchy, especially if it happens after QEII is dead.
It’ll be ‘Meh’. We’ve got enough on our plates, and quite frankly, in English-speaking Canada at least, when the Queen’s not here, the monarchy is so far down on the priority list that it might as well be invisible.
Here’s an interesting article about why it would be very, very difficult for Canada to become a republic (or otherwise replace the current monarchical dynasty).
Many realms that had Elizabeth II as head of state already became republics, while remaining members of the Commonwealth of Nations, so I can’t imagine it’d cause any problem if Australia did the same. As Baron Greenback points out, it could spark a debate on the monarchy in other realms.
One of those reasons, at least for Canada’s sake, is that it’s an immediate distinguishing factor from the U.S. Take away the vestiges of the British crown, become a republic, and you’re even closer to becoming the 51st-60th states.
Well, in 1950 India said, “we’d like to become a republic within the Commonwealth, as opposed to becoming a republic and leaving it, but whatever you guys decide, we’re becoming a republic.” And George VI suddenly became “a symbol of unity” as opposed to “obligatory head pf state” for Commonwealth nations.
Are Canadians so uncertain of their identity that they think being a monarchy, which really does not affect our daily lives in any way, is largely what makes them different from Americans?
British and Australian (or for that matter Canadian) politics have diverged widely since 1945. The sort of political co-ordination which used to take place, e.g. automatic participation in military action, no longer happens. At one time many if not most Dominion residents would have had family ties with Britain (or Ireland) and were frequently first-generation immigrants themselves but new waves of immigration into these countries have come from other parts of the world which feel less, or little, affinity with Britain. An older generation of Australians would refer to Britain as ‘home’ even if they’d never been there but these attitudes are now seen as old-fashioned, as does the ‘cultural cringe’ which used to see anything Australian as naturally inferior to it’s British equivalent. Britain’s joining the Common Market in 1973 was a significant landmark in this process as it required the UK to start abrogating the preferential trade agreements it had in place with Commonwealth nations and give preference to other EEC Member States. Many Commonwealth countries had to work hard to find new markets for their exports and resented Britain ‘turning it’s back’ on them. Now Commonwealth citizens no longer have the automatic right to come here and work here as once they did (a covert attempt to control coloured immigration rather than the ones coming from the so-called White Dominions) but EU law would have required us to discriminate against them, and in favour of EU nationals anyway by now.
My feeling is that the Commonwealth in its present form may not long outlast Elizabeth II. Many British politicians view it as a rather irritating irrelevance to which they are obliged to pay lip service because the Queen likes it and it gives her something to keep her out of mischief. Whether Charles will be accorded the same reverence and popularity remains to be seen - I doubt it.
I agree, the Queen commands a LOT of respect personally in the commonwealth. When she visited India and Pakistan (as she has on several occassions) it was common for it to be said by even fervernt nationalist politicians openly that they “were still her loyal subject” long after the coming of the republic.
Can’t see Charlie being given the same reverance. HM gets it because
i) She was in many cases a former Head of State of those countries who are republics and
ii) She is the last direct link to the Imperial Era.
You’re correct. It’s because the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that Her Majesty’s assent is necessary to appoint extra senators. Section 24 provides that the GovGen has the authority to appoint the regular members of the Senate, in the name of the Queen, but section 26 provides that to appoint the extra ones, the Gov Gen needs the Queen’s assent:
The reason for this restriction is that the British government was concerned that the federal government might be tempted to use this power too easily, and so required that Her Majesty’s consent would be necessary. Of course, in 1867, Her Majesty would only exercise that power on the advice of her British government, so this was a substantial check and balance. Now, since Her Majesty only acts on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister, it’s not such a serious restriction. However, having to go to Buck House for the appointment of the extra senators highlights how unusual it is, so the requirement still serves a useful purpose.
I see. So when the Constitution was written, this was a point on which the British government could override the Canadian federal government (but changes in constitutional tradition have made it largely moot).
Has this provision ever been tested out in practice? And do we know the particuars of HM’s action when presented it?
I ask because it seems likely to me that there may have been an intentional parallel to the situation in the U.K. prior to Lords reform, where the monarch, i.e., the actual person reigning as King or Queen, possesses discretion in whether to accept or reject the advice of his/her Government – or, more specifically, possesses the right to set conditions on if, when, and how he/she will consent to a mass creation. This was played out in 1832 and 1910, when the threat to flood the Lords with new peers caused that house to back down from an obstreperous stance. It may very well be that the intent of that passage is to provide an “appeal to Caesar” clause for the resolution of constitutional crises by theri submission to the free judgment of the monarch, paralleling in the creation of new Senators the British experience with the Lords.
Yes. When Brian Mulroney was attempting to pass the highly unpopular Goods and Services Tax in the early 90s, he asked the Queen to add extra senators in order to ensure it would pass. As far as I know, she did, without fuss. AFAICT it would have been just as impossible for her to refuse that as to refuse any other request from a Prime Minister with the confidence of the House.
I believe that there was an attempt by Prime Minister Mackenzie to have extra senators appointed at one stage, when he took office after the Macdonald government was swept out by the Pacific scandal. I’ll have to check.
Canadian pro-monarchists (and anti-monarchists) are a tiny minority. Most people don’t really care one way or another.
If the Prime Minister finds his ‘advice’ rejected by the King then he must resign.
I think he’s supposed to commit suicide in protest, no?
So in theory, HRH QE could decide she really likes back bacon and hates tea, and abdicate as Monarch of Great Britain, while still retaining Queenship of Canada and Australia?
Presumably then, Britain would have King Charles as head of state who could shake hands with his counterpart and mum Queen Elizabeth of Canada?
One of the Canadian constitutional experts can confirm, but I seem to recall that previous discussions here on the board have stated that countries like Canada and Australia designate as their monarchs, whoever the current valid British monarch is, so as soon as the holder of the British throne changes, it changes automatically in the other countries.
I could be wrong though.