You can use that style of cause, but it’s not mandatory, according to the relevant federal Act, the
Crown Liability and Proceedings Act
If I’m drafting a claim against the federal government, I may mention both the Attorney General and the specific agency in the style of cause and the Claim, just to cover all the bases, but I don’t mention Her Majesty.
Well, the Statute of Westminster dates back to a much smaller, clubby, Commonwealth, so there may well be questions about whether the constitutional convention set out in the Preamble is still in force. I think it’s quite clear that one Commonwealth country can go republican without being in breach of the Statute and the constitutional convention, since that doesn’t purport to change the succession. But what if Canada decided, in light of Charles’ low popularity and the swell of support for Her Excellency, Governor-General Michaëlle Jean, to pass a constitutional amendment that said upon the death of Her Majesty, Ms. Jean succeeds to the throne, at least the throne of Canada? That would clearly be contrary to the constitutional convention set out in the Statute, and could create a crisis within the Commonwealth.
UDS and I argued this point a few years ago in this thread, but without convincing each other: When did Canada stop being part of the English monarchy?
I (obviously) don’t know much about British law, but this strikes me as very unlikely. A situation could arise where UK has Charles, Australia has Wills and NZ has Harry! It would be like the Popes however many centuries ago… :eek:
I didn’t realize that to alter the Succession would take all that. Much easy to put the “troublesome one” away and install a Regent. We could argue who that Regent should be, but I’m sure it would be Charles (unless he was the “t.o.”).
Canada isn’t part of the Commonwealth? 
off to read that thread…
I can’t see it happening either, but you’re quite right on the practical effects. That’s why the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster sets out the principle, as a constitutional convention within the Commonwealth, that any changes to the Succession require the consent of all the countries that have the Queen as their head of state.
The current Regency Act provides that the regent will normally be the person next in line to the Crown, unless that person is not qualified to succeed to the Crown, or is not a British subject of full age domiciled in some part of the U.K., or is incapable of inheriting, possessing and enjoying the Crown under terms of the Act of Settlement (i.e. - Roman Catholic, or married to a Roman Catholic, or not willing to enter into communion with the Church of England.) That means that if the Queen goes off her nut (oops, I mean, “if Her Majesty starts finding the stress of office beyond her” - yeah, that’s what the press release from Buck House would say), then Charles would be the Regent.
I don’t see why that would be such a problem. The Commonwealth Realms theoretically have independent Crowns, after all.
IMHO, it would be more likely that, should problems arise at the Palace, Canada would Canadianise the monarchy or eliminate it entirely (and choose a head of state in a different way), rather than just choosing a different menber of the House of Windsor.
Theoretically, I think that the independent Crowns imply independednt successions, but AFAIK this has never been tested. Presumably, Canada cannot affect the succession in the UK, just the succession for Canada.
Canada is part of the Commonwealth. But as I mentioned in the other thread, not all Commonwealth countries have Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. Some are republics, and at least one has a different monarch (Tonga).
A Commonwealth Realm, on the other hand, is one of the 16 countries that acknowledges the Queen as head of state. I think they are all in the Commonwealth.
Hold on. The Duchess of Cornwall, Charle’s wife, is a Roman Catholic isn’t she? How will this work if the Queen is indisposed?
Oh, oh! I know this one! Camilla won’t be Queen-ever. She wouldn’t anyways, since she only married into the family. Now, Diana would have been called Queen, but not have been Diana Regis (Regulus?). Just like good ole Phil isn’t called King–but Prince.
If you ain’t got the blood, honey, you don’t get the rood.
besides, it’ll be alot like Vicky and Bert–she’ll(Liz) live forever (her mum lived to be what-104?), and Chuck’ll die soon after. Cammy-knickers will go live in retirement and William will be King (yum). Cammy-knickers will come out of seclusion to say embarassing things about other Royals at weddings etc.
And Diana will haunt them all.
<very happy over here, playing paper dolls with Royals>
You know more about this than I do, but what I heard is that the Preamble of the Statute of Westminster is not actually part of the law itself, and thus cannot be enforced. However, as Sunspace says, this has never been tested in court. So we cannot say if a Commonwealth Realm unilateraly choosing another method of succession to the Crown would cause a constitutional crisis or not. What I would assume is that if one of these countries decides to “nationalize” the monarchy by naming a domestic monarch (I assume that’s unlikely to happen) or decides to become a republic (more likely, and you already mentioned this), there would be no problem. However, if one of the Commonwealth Realms chooses another member of the House of Mountbatten-Windsor as monarch, the other countries might wonder why and ask for explanations.
Those sedate Bentleys tend to go 0-60 in 6 seconds, though the Continental and Flying Spur do it in about 4.5 seconds. Now if only there was a video somewhere of one of them smoking a Lancer EVO or WRX STi that would be fun
Actually, I think Camilla not being made Queen Camilla has more to do with seemingly everyone disliking her than actual tradition. If she were universally liked, they’d probably make whatever changes were necessary to allow her the title. At the moment, I believe she’s Duchess of Cornwall, but there are probably other titles (Duchess of Rothesay?) that she’s inherited from Charles because of their marriage.
Has Parliament actually passed the legislation necessary for her not to be crowned Queen Consort?
The whole question has been left in abeyance for the present, probably to give population time to get used to seeing her around.
Currently, English law relating to the Succession does not recognise any such thing as a morganatic marriage; this was the stance by HMG which denied Wallis Simpson the possibility of such a status in 1936.
Ahhh yes, but as a private personage? I can well imagine the headlines:
( in an attempt to offend in one single sentence the entire population of the U.K., homosexuals worldwide and lovers of the law, I pray I have succeeded. )
Ok. Seriously? Is not British history ( and that history of all monarchies to be fair to the Brits ) rife with the odd insane ruler? Granted, the law wasn’t what it is now but is there not precedent for wanting to hold a sitting ruler legally liable for things like murder? Then again Henry VIII had, shall we charitably say, relationship issues. Was he held legally liable for any of the deaths of his many betrothed? ( I am asking, I truly don’t know. )
Nixon and Clinton came close to Impeachment, as have other Presidents and our Republic is 220 years old, give or take a few months.
elanorigby, can I come over to play? 
Cartooniverse
With the Queen driving.
<plummy british accent>
Take that, Joe Tuner from Agincourt!
</pba>
:: vroom ::
Only two of Henry’s wives were executed (Anne Boleyn and Kathryn Howard), and both of them had first been found guilty in a court of law; Boleyn for adultery, incest, and plotting to murder the King, Howard for treason. Of his other marriages, two were annuled (Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves), one wife died in childbirth (Jane Seymour), and one wife outlived him (Katherine Parr).
So, no, Henry was never held legally liable for any of his wives’ deaths, because he didn’t murder any of them.
Cartoony -yes, come on over! Here- you can be Charles. (heh).
Some of these situations are becoming bizarre, to say the least–can anyone see NZ picking say, the Castle Harold guy (I do not know these guys’ names and title, folks!) to be HoS? How would that NOT create some kind of crisis? And aren’t they all related to one another, at some point (by now) on the family tree, anyway? Di and Chuck were, IMS.
Think of the postage stamps alone! :eek: Plus, this carving up of the Commonwealth couldn’t be done in secret,so there would be public knowledge of it all, with much commentary by all involved (including the international press/media) etc.
I have MORE trouble with that whole aspect than I do of Lizzie joyriding or lifting some fags (she’d more likely steal dog treats, no?). If she were declared insane, as her great, great howevermany uncle was and eased off the scene, that would be enough of a “crisis” (another annus horribulus) for all citizens, no?
Can’t you see it? The republicans militantly marching to end the monarchy entirely, the staunch royalists (royalists are always staunch) defending Chuck’s longings to be feminine hygiene products as a hallmark of good kingliness etc. It would be a blood bath without adding an odd version of British musical chairs to it. Who gets the Falklands? Or Ireland?
Then there would be bids for those bits of leftover Commonwealth that no-one wants to deal with–poor Edward! He looks a born patsy.
–eleanorigby, hugely enjoying herself
Not necessarily. If for some reason we decided we wanted to drop the current dynasty and assume a new one (the Jean dynasty), we could, just as the various other monarchies that used to be Commonwealth Realms did. (Besides Tonga, there’s also Lesotho and Malaysia, although the latter doesn’t really have a dynasty per se.)
But we wouldn’t be able to pretend it was the same monarchy as before, with a simple disagreement as to who accedes to the throne; we would cease to be a Commonwealth Realm and simply be a member of the Commonwealth with a separate royal dynasty.
The real nastiness would come in if we said we didn’t think Charles ought to inherit the throne and it should go to someone else in the house of Windsor, i.e. assert that someone else had a legitimate claim to the role of monarch of the Commonwealth Realms that only we recognized.
The current idea is that even though all the thrones are separate, they are necessarily embodied in the same person. We can’t really get around that. If we wanted a separate monarch, we’d have to abandon that and set up a completely separate dynasty, with no claim to continuity.
Isn’t that what Lady Jane Grey’s family tried to do? Obviously, not in Canada though. IIRC it didn’t go so well, for her atleast.
Yes. And then I could become Duke of Toronto! Bwa ha ha haaa…
:: ahem ::
Sorry about that. Carry on.
I don’t see how the multiple-Crown-in-one-person part necessarily follows. Why couldn’t we choose a different member of the House of Windsor?
Because, per the Statute of Westminster, any change to the succession to the throne requires the consent of all the Commonwealth Realm parliaments. So we can’t have Canada saying that one person succeeds and everyone else saying that someone else succeeds. Everyone would have to agree.
That’s also one of the reasons why the Charter of Rights can’t be used to attack the Act of Succession’s exclusion of Catholics. (More importantly is the fact that the Act of Succession is part of our constitution, and one part of the constitution can’t be found to cancel out another part.)