Why would any of the Dominions choose a separate King/Queen from any of the others? If change were contemplated, it would be far more likely that the model of a republic within the Commonwealth would be chosen, as Australia may well do in the future.
Which throne was that again? The throne of Canada, or the throne of the UK?
Well, yes, but this is theoretical arguing. 
Besides, id the specific problem was with the monarchy itself, rather than a desire for larger change within the Canadian system, I think it more likely that Canada would not move to a full presidential republic sustem, just Canadianise the head of state and keep everything else the same.
I think that’s the practical result. Preambles to statutes do not themselves have binding effect. The purpose of the reference to the Succession in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster appears to be to give a formal statement of a constitutional convention that all the member states of the Commonwealth have agreed upon.
If one of the member states chooses to depart from that convention, it may raise a question as to that member state’s continued membership. The key element of membership in the modern Commonwealth is recognizing the Queen as the symbol of the Commonwealth. If a member state chose to set up its own monarchy (per matt’s example of Tonga), but continued to recognize HM Queen Elizabeth as the symbolic head of the Commonwealth, there probably wouldn’t be a problem.
But if a state wanted to have a different monarch and wanted to have that person recognised as the head of the Commonwealth, there could be problems. (E.g. - suppose some states just really don’t wan’t Prince Charles and insist that the Crown skip to Wills, but other states think it’s best not to disrupt the Succession and are willing to put up with Charles (for what will likely be a short reign).) That could pose problems. It’s the latter situation that I think would create a constitutional crisis within the Commonwealth.
Her first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, is Roman Catholic, and her two children by him have been raised Roman Catholic, but I’ve not seen any suggestion that she herself is Roman Catholic. If she were, I can’t imagine Prince Charles ever marrying her, since that would eliminate him from the Succession, under the Act of Settlement.
Not quite. The Brits are okay with a Queen-Consort, but not a King-Consort. The wife of a King is eligible to be crowned Queen, as the consort of the King, but there’s never been a King-Consort - a husband of a Queen called King but without any royal powers.
Of the six queens-regnant of England and the U.K., two have had husbands with the title of King (Mary I/Phillip of Spain and Mary II/William III), three have had husbands with titles of Prince (Anne/Prince George of Denmark, Victoria/Albert, the Prince Consort, and Elizabeth II/Prince Philip) and one (Elizabeth I) remained unmarried.
Philip of Spain and William III were both exceptional cases. Philip was a foreigner from Spain, and the marriage was unpopular. However, he appears to have exercised royal powers with his wife (for example, the statutes of that time bear both their names), and his precedent probably established the reluctance for a Queen Regnant’s husband to be called King.
William III was king in his own right, by Act of Parliament and his succession from the Stuarts (Charles I was his grandfather). He and Mary II ruled jointly until her death.
Since then, no husband of a queen regnant has been referred to as “King”. The concept of a king-consort just doesn’t exist.
Camilla is intitled to be crowned Queen-Consort, but has indicated that she will not assert that right. So far as I know the Parliament has not been asked to enact any statute barring her from the title.
Just as long as they remember to flush… 
Northern Piper --yeah, that’s what I meant…
Bertie’s wife, Alexandria was Queen-consort, IMS. So was Queen Mary.
I, myself, think it high time you all had another Eleanor and I just <ahem> happen to know of one…I am completely WASP in heritage(not PC, but true). My maiden name fercryingoutloud is the same as a town on the Isle of Wight.
Please, can I be Queen?
Please?
All kidding aside, this has been a great discussion-thanks to all.
Do you have any German in you?
[spoiler]Would you like some?
[/quote]
I hear that’s how Charles got Diana
I hear that’s how Charles got Diana
[/QUOTE]
That took me a minute–bwah! Maybe I haven’t given Chuck enough credit. On second thought, yeah, I did…
No, I don’t have any German (that I know of)–I am Scots, Protestant Irish and English. I think there may have been a Hugenot in there somewhere. I have 7 relatives (most on my Dad’s side) who fought in the Revolutionary War.
Hell, I look English. See? (sorry, can’t post pics, 'cause don’t know how).
Then again, there was a man on my mom’s side of the family(early 1800s) who moved from Virginia to Kentucky and changed his name to Jones, and would never say what he had changed it from–he might have been German…
(like how I can beat a joke to death?)
How did I mess that coding?
Oh well, when I am Queen, someone shall do the coding for me.
Oh, and meant to say to post upthread–weren’t the charges against The Whore (Anne Boleyn) trumped up? I thought it was more a case of judicial murder, IMS. Lots of Kings have had people killed because they could. Beckett, the Princes in the Tower–I’m sure there are more. They might have dressed it up a bit, but the end result was the same.
Northern Piper, the post of head of the Commonwealth of Nations would seem to be completely separate affair from the royal succession (on whichever throne), isn’t it? Currently the head of the Commonwealth is the monarch of the UK, but could the Commonwealth choose someone else when Elizabeth passes on? Does it have to be tied to the UK throne?
On the good side or the other side?
I never quite figured out what English was supposed to look like (as opposed to Scots, etc), but I have had people say I look it. Ancestors in Sussex, Surrey, and Kent going back to 1606 might explain part of that.
As mentioned, Tonga, Lesotho, and Malaysia all did so, because they have traditional, indigenous monarchies of their own.
Doesn’t matter: per the S. of W., they’re all equal.
Sunspace -all depends on your POV, doesn’t it?
They were uppity colonists. I probably had some Royalists as ancestors --they probably fled to Canada.
Hmmm…looking “English” to me means: fair (very fair) skin, thick, wavy hair(I must get that from the Celtic part), fine bone structure, muted coloring of hair and eyes. By that, I mean eyes not a clear, ice blue, but darker (or green or whatever), not a white blonde aka Norwegian or Scandinavian, but golden, reddish blonde.
And this is about as generalizable as I don’t know what…but I do think there is a “look” to being English or Danish or Spanish or Greek. It depends alot on traditional and conventional facial characteristics, and doesn’t count the millions of immigrants who are also Brits etc, but what the hell. I know a guy from Cuba whose sister is blonde, but most people don’t think of Cuban when they see a blonde–that kind of thing.
God, I hope this doesn’t sound racist as all get out. Not meant to.
I hereby and forthwith do declare myself to be the Codemaster Royale, under Her Majesty Elanorigby of Hugenot.
The more time I spend under Her Majesty, the better my coding will be. -rimshot-
Keeper of the Rood?
(how rude!)
They may be equal, and they may all be currently embodied in the same person, but they are separate, right? So Canada could theoretically say, We want William as King, none of this Charles stuff, and that wouldn’t affect the succession in any of the other Commonwealth Realms, right? Or am I not getting something here?
[sub]This is starting to sound like a theology discussion.[/sub]
But that’s the thing: it can’t, because that would affect succession, which can’t be done without affecting all the other commonwealth realms.
There wouldn’t be a problem (besides the obvious) with dropping the monarchy altogether and setting up the completely separate Jean (or _mcl - hey, I have experience) dynasty. But deciding that William is going to inherit instead of Charles is changing the succession.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada is a separate legal entity from Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the UK, Australia, NZ, etc. But, per the S. of W., they’re all embodied in the same person, and that can’t be changed without destroying the legal entity and starting from scratch.