It’s nice they let that family pretend they are in charge of things. After all they need someone to put on the money.
Oh, they’ve known for a couple of centuries that they reign but do not rule.
By the way, this is correct as a matter of political reality, but incorrect as a matter of constitutional law; such is the nature of the Westminster system of responsible government…
Her Majesty appoints the Governor General. The Prime Minister does not have that constitutional authority.
However, Her Majesty only appoints on the advice of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The PM thus makes the political decision who should be GovGen of New Zealand, and takes the political responsibility for the appointment made by Her Majesty.
Here is an interesting fact. Britain recently changed its law of succession to primogeniture regardless of sex so that had Charles’s eldest been a female, she would be first in line to succeed him even if there were a younger male. This conflicts with the Canadian constitution of 1980 that provides for male primogenture. The Canadian parliament cannot amend the constitution and the procedures for amendment are so difficult that they will likely never be carried out. So Canada could end up with the younger son as its king, while Britain had a queen.
It’s not as clear-cut as that. There is a disagreement whether a constitutional amendment is needed, or if it is sufficient for the federal government to give agreement on behalf of Canada.
The federal government has passed an Act to implement the change to the succession law: Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. Some lawyers and academics say that is sufficient; others argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary.
Nitpick: William, not Charles.
Unless things have changed they only pay taxes on a voluntary basis which seems dumb to me. Somehow they are exempt from the normal tax laws.
It changed in the early nineties, as summarised on the Royal Family website:
Sad it took that long for the tax laws to change. Of course in the US super rich people have armies of tax lawyers to help them avoid taxes .
See, I think that’s what trips me up: technically she does a thing, but in reality, someone else does the heavy lifting.
Wasn’t there at some point in history a king who was King Whoever III (or something) in England but King Whoever I in Scotland?
The Windsors don’t interfere in Australian politics.
While the Australian Consituttion does prescribe (not describe) the Governor-General’s power, it make no mention of either the Prime Minister or Cabinet. So the Prime Ministers powers are bound by convention.
There is no obligation to consult with the Crown. Were the PM to ask something like: “M’am, I am considering appointing XXXX as GG, do you have any objections?” the response would be along the lines “Thank you for the notice but such matters reside with your goodself as the elected representative of the Australian people.”
Were the PM to advice the appointment of a particularly odious rodent who’d bring shame & derision to the office, or say one with rabid anti-monarchist views then QEII would make them her representative.
As one of those constitutional couriousities, the Australian Constitution provides that the Command-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Forces be vested in the Governor-General, while the corresponding Canadian provision vests the Command-in-Chief of the Canadian naval and military forces in The Queen.
** odious rodent who’d bring shame & derision to the office
In 2003 Peter Hollingsworth stood aside and subsequently resigned as governor-general, on losing the confidence of PM Howard after criticisms were aired over his conduct as Archbishop of Brisbane in the 1990s.
*** one with rabid anti-monarchist views
Bill Hayden (whilst not rabid) was staunch republican when appointed but became disturbingly enamoured with the trappings of the vice-regal office and “went native”.
That’s interesting, penultima thule, that the GG and not HM is constitutionally the C-in-C of Australia’s military. Are other royal prerogatives vested legally in the GG himself rather that exercised by the GG on behalf of HM? Is the monarch’s only constitutional role to appoint the GG selected by the PM?
What makes it so hard for Australia to become a republic? I understood that most Australians are republicans, but that republican referenda always failed because there wasn’t agreement on what to replace the monarchy with. Why not continue exactly as now, but with the (possibly renamed) GG appointed by the PM instead of by HM on the PM’s advice? That would seem to be the least disruptive option. Who besides hardline monarchists could object?
King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, so he’s sometimes called James I and VI, then a couple generations later King James II and VII.
Who would even have standing to sue? Barring some horrible tragedy it’ll be 2-3 generations before this becomes an issue.
To be fair a private conference with one of her Prime Ministers is the one occasion when the Queen get’s to voice her real opinion, whatever it may by. She still accept whatever the PM’s “advice” is unless it’s egregiously and unconstitutional (ie PM refusing to resign after losing an election).
Canadian public interest standing rules are much more generous than in the US. As well, any provincial government which is not satisfied with the federal bill could refer the matter to the provincial court of appeal, which could eventually end up in the SCC.
And, if there are doubts about the constitutional validity of the federal bill, wouldn’t it be better to have those doubts resolved now, when nothing is riding on it, rather than a situation in the future where there is a potential constitutional crisis because there are rival claimants to the throne?
That’s why the country is called the United Kingdom.
Yes, but there’s nothing in the Act of Union which addressed this issue, should there be a future king James or Richard or Constantine. There is Churchill’s proposal, of using the higher number, but that was simply his suggestion.
I think the nations Mexico, France, and Spain would disagree with that premise in the same logic of politics.
Isn’t it also true, as far as Australia is concerned, that she may NOT, personally, exercise any royal powers or prerogatives, and that her powers HAVE to be exercised through a Governor-General? I.E., all “royal powers”, other than appointment of the Governor-General (or his recall), MUST be exercised through the G-G as prescribed by the Constitution.
I found this bizarre, but Wikipedia says so, so it must be true, right?
New Zealand went the other way, and has a law saying that any place where a law says “Governor-General” also refers to the monarch. But things like that are easier when you’re a unitary state with a supreme parliament.