Why would Quebec and Canadian Red Indians (I have no idea what the correct term is in Canada, sorry) care one way or another about the fate of the Monarchy and British royals?
I can’t answer your main question, but in Canada the term is First Nations or Aboriginal peoples.
(I know the answer to that question because I needed to know terminology like that in my last job.)
Parti Québécois and other groups in the Quebec sovereignty movement and two plebiscites for independence (1980 and 1995) with the '95 result being a hairline result No 50.58%: Yes 49.42%.
She did, actually, comment on the Scottish Referendum. One Sunday morning, leaving church, just before the vote, she said to some of her fans/Royalists who had gathered to see her (and I’m paraphrasing here) “I hope the people of Scotland make the right decision.” I doubt many wouldn’t assume her ‘right decision’ is to stay in the UK.
Charles isn’t barking, bat-shit crazy, but I can’t see him doing any better than Liz has so far.
That’s not asking the right question. I imagine most Québécois would support abolishing the monarchy.
The right question, from the perspective of Quebec, is: “What power will Quebec have in the selection of the new Head of State?”
That’s a question about political power, not the royals. As soon as you ask a question about political power, each province and the federal government will have a different take on it. And they all have to agree to the constitutional amendment to replace the Queen with a new republican structure.
Just one “for-instance” : for the past 70 years, the position of GovGen has alternated between anglophone and francophone. Our current GovGen is an anglo, so the next one will be a francophone. And since most francophones are from Quebec, that means they’re have been a lot of GovGens from Quebec. That has important political symbolic value in Canada, recognizing the importance of the francophone minority at the highest level of our system.
But that practice of alternating between anglos and francos isn’t in the Constitution or anything. It’s simply the practice: for 70 years, the Government of Canada has advised the King of Canada, and then the Queen of Canada, to appoint the GovsGen in this way, alternating between anglos and francos. And King George and then Queen Elizabeth have duly followed that advice.
But if the Gov Gen is chosen by a national popular vote, that pattern will likely not continue. In a straight national popular vote, francophones are in the minority, so there would be no guarantee that we would again have a pattern of alternating GovGens. Most likely, we would see a succession of anglophone GovGens, which would have a completely different symbolic effect, telling francophones that they are simply a minoirty that will not have power at the highest levels.
Which points to the Quebec government being opposed to a straight national popular vote and instead wanting the GovGen to be chosen by a process that involves the government of Quebec in the selection of the GovGen. But the pattern in Canada is that if one province claims a power, the other provinces claim the same power. So do we need to devise a system to choose the GovGen that will involve all the provinces, but yet ensures that there will be a regular pattern of alternation between francophone and anglophone GovGens?
Go ahead, give it a go!
But that wasn’t about the monarchy at all. That was about whether Quebec should stay in Canada. Again, it was about power, not the symbolism of having the Queen on our currency.
With respect to First Nations, I would expect that they would have a different take on the issue than does Quebec, but their different take would likely introduce never more complications about designing the new head of state.
My understanding is that the First Nations view the monarchy as important to their own status as First Nations. When they signed treaties, they signed them with the Queen (Victoria, for the most part). They view that as a nation-to-nation treaty, a recognition that they were sovereign nations, dealing on equal terms with the head of another sovereign nation.
Just speculation on my part, but I would expect that if Canada were to go republican, First Nations would argue that they need to have some recognition of their position with respect to the new head of state, equivalent to their understanding of the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship that they assert they have with the Queen.
Again, the question is one of political power under the proposed republican Canada, not sentimental affection for the Queen, nice old granny that she is.
She has no real political power, but she has real legal power, which she only exercises on the advice of her government.
All acts of Parliament, orders-in-council passed by Cabinet, and certain Minister’s orders need her assent. She literally has to sign off on them all.
As a conscientious constitutional monarch (“She is the very model of a modern general monarch!” 
) she reads each document carefully, asks herself if the government has satisfied her that she has the legal authority to pass the OC or minister’s order, and then signs. If she doesn’t sign, they don’t come into force.
That’s what I meant by saying there are some legal and constitutional powers that she must exercise personally and cannot delegate to Charles, short of a regency.
It gets back to the sense of duty. Yes, she could just whiz through all the “sign here”
Stickies and get back to the corgis, but she’s got 6 decades of conscientiously doing her duty. If she got to the point where she couldn’t read or comprehend the papers, that’s when the regency looms.
Yes, I whole-heartily agree. Canada would not survive yet another failed attempt at amending the Constitution. This stable status quo is unpalatable, but better then that game of dice.
And if we went with the option that is likely to be least disruptive, a parliamentary republic that continues the status quo powers of the PM and Cabinet, we wouldn’t save any money on the Gov Gen’s salary. Other parliamentary republics (Germany. India, Ireland, etc.) have presidents, paid a salary out of public funds.
Which is incidentally is a continuing bone of contention between No 10 and the Palace. Over the past few administrations many PMs have greatly increased usesage of Orders in Council. Done often as a way to avoid back bench bench revolts on otherwise unpopular policies. The Queen has been known to dislike this.
Ideally, I’d also dissolve the pig-trough that is our Upper house.
Canada no longer has a land-owning aristocracy whose political will demands the Senate to balance the Parliament. And firing all those party cronies would be soooo satisfying. 
Anyway…since Charles and Di split; and Charles openly blinked horse face, he has been seen as an unappealing king.
Re Senate abolition: again, needs unanimous consent and most provinces oppose abolition, based on their positions in the Senate Reference.
PS - What land-owning aristocracy? We never had one.
orcenio, we have sort of hijacked this thread into Canadian monarchy/constitutional reform. I think I’ll bow out of that and stick more to the OP.
I cannot find a single example where a confederation-era notable person in our history wasn’t a moneyed landowner with close ties to the British Crown and/or military. I’m sure there’s some who didn’t have hereditary titles bestowed upon them, but I haven’t found them yet.
Yes, we should take this hijack to the Canada thread in MPSIMS
Well, that’s her right to warn, isn’t it?
What are you referring to? I think it’s generally accepted that his quiet diplomacy was influential in leading to the quiet entente with France, helping to advance the policy of the government to oppose Germany.
No, they wouldn’t have – most likely it would’ve been a morganatic marriage.