Getting to the specifics of the OP’s question, the power that the monarch has in each Commonwealth realm will depend on the constitutional provisions of each realm.
In Canada, Her Majesty has the following powers:
[ul]
[li]appoint the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada; Her Majesty does this on a regular basis every five years;[/li][li]give the Governor General instructions on how to exercise the powers of the office of GovGen, on the advice of the PM of Canada; HM has never had to do this, because her father George VI gave a set of instructions in the 1940s on the advice of the then-PM of Canada, which are still in force;[/li][li]give royal assent in person to acts of the Canadian Parliament, on the advice of the PM of Canada; HM has never done this; her father did on one occasion;[/li][li]give or deny royal assent to bills of the Canadian Parliament reserved by the Gov Gen; HM has never had to do this, which is a vestigial power from Canada’s colonial days; would now exercise this power on the advice of the Canadian PM;[/li][li]appoint additional Senators under a special provision of the Constitution to allow the Government to pass its legislation in a closely divided Senate; done on the advice of the PM of Canada; HM has exercised this power once, the only time it has ever been used.[/li][/ul]
This isn’t quite right: Her Majesty gave Royal Assent to the Canada Act 1982 in Britain in March 29, 1982, since it was an Act of the British Parliament. She didn’t give assent in person, but through Commissioners, which is the standard way now for Royal Assent to be signified. The date of March 29, 1982 was chosen because it was the 115th anniversary of the date of Royal Assent to the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Canada Act 1982 in turn implemented the Constitution Act, 1982. However, neither Act came into force immediately. Rather, either Her Majesty or the Governor General had to sign a proclamation bringing the Constitution Act, 1982 into force. That’s what Her Majesty signed in front of Parliament on April 17, 1982: a statutory instrument, bringing the Constitution Act, 1982 into force.
It would have been even less dramatic than that, unless it happened to be at the end of a parliamentary session. Since the 60s, Royal Assent is simply given in writing to each house, taking effect when both speakers have announced it.
Since it hasn’t been mentioned yet. In theory the Queen can order her governor general to dismiss the Primer Minister of a Commonwealth Country even against the wishes of the ruling political party. This actually happened in 1975 in Australia.
Or rather in this case the governor general took it upon himself to dismiss the Whitlam government and gained the assent of the Queen to do so.
The Queen never “assented” to it and did not need to do so. The Constitution of Australia states that a minister’s term is “during the pleasure of the Governor-General.” The article you linked even has a copy of the letter from the palace in which it refused to go near the issue:
She indirectly assented by indicating she would try to delay things if the Prime Minister asked for the Governor General to be dismissed.
“That seems to point to the Queen, quite directly in the deliberately indirect way of a modern monarch, expressing her view. And there is no doubt that the clearly implied support of the monarch would have been an immense comfort to the governor-general, who feared he might be out of a job if he tried to put Whitlam out of his.”
That’s a different issue and it’s certainly far from her “instructing” the GG to dismiss the government. The situation was an impasse between the upper and lower houses of parliament, and the issue was how best to let the voters resolve it.
Canadians accepting British titles (there are no Canadian titles) need the consent of the Canadian prime Minister… plus whatever hoops they have to jump through in London to get the title.
You can read about the case of Conrad Black, Lord Sing-Sing, who was an extreme conservative and anglophile. He had secured a Lordship (based on connections and money in London) and was surprised the Liberal Canadian prime minister denied the British government permission to grant the title after Black had slagged said prime minister in his newspapers. In return, Lord Whatsis renounced his Canadian citizenship to get into the house of Lords. Of course, after he was convicted of shady business practices in the USA, and deported, he had to beg to come back into Canada as a convicted felon - something the conservative government of the day granted him for some reason. (Money and connections?)
Yes, but its happened once and it could happen again. The result would almost certainly be that the country in question would quickly vote to become a republic, but in terms of the Queen’s current power, in countries with a similar Governor General system she could probably dismiss the government… once and once only. Its incredibly unlikely but in theory she has that power, since if a Governor General does not do as she says, she can dismiss the Governor General.
I’m afraid you’re not familiar with the Canadian constitutional amending formula. On this issue, it’s highly unlikely any quick switch to a republic would be possible.
I think this was covered earlier but this is not true in general for “Commonwealth Countries”, especially the ones that are republics. I don’t think being a commonwealth country means anything from a government organization for many of the republics, and in essence is nothing more than a social club for countries that have historic ties (wanted or unwanted) with Britain.
The only time I recall the GG of Canada contemplating unsolicited action, was when the government of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau decided to unilaterally change the constitution of Canada. It was a very contentious issue - strong feelings on both sides. The GG considered vetoing legislation that serious and significant without all-around consensus. In the end, other forces - ending in referral to the Supreme Court - forced a need to find consensus, which was done, and the GG did not have to decide what to do. Opposition forces considered petitioning the Queen and the British PM also, since changing the constitution to Canada’s control needed the British government to pass the bill.
Recently, when Harper wanted to stick it to the other political parties a few years ago, he managed to provoke them into forming a coalition who were going to make a motion of no confidence. Harper had a minority, but assumed some other parties did not want a no-confidence motion to bring down the government so soon after an election - they wouldn’t be ready for another election. Instead, they planned to petition the GG to offer the coalition the option to form a new government. technically, she could have done this. Instead, Harper cut them off at the pass, and she followed the Prime Minister’s recommendation and prorogued (closed) parliament and the coalition fell apart before it resumed. The presumption was that had the coalition endured, once parliament resumed they would have presented a new non-confidence motion. Once the government was defeated, they would have no option but to resign; at that point, the question would be - since it had only been a year since the last election, should the GG instead offer the collation the government or call a new election? A year is recent enough to skip the election and let the other parties try in some traditions.
One presumes the Queens response to the Canadian GG’s request for advice would be limited to “here’s relevant precedent from around the commonwealth, but don’t drag me into this…” Somewhat a similar to her response to the Australian GG.
Britain is an independent country and needs no “permission” from foreign powers to make internal constitutional decisions such as appointments to its own legislature. The Blair government chose not to proceed as long as Black was a Canadian citizen and Chretien was yelling at them about it, but that was a diplomatic decision, not a legal conundrum that could only be avoided if Black wasn’t a citizen.
Not quite; there’s one leftover from the days of New France, but the barons haven’t actually lived in Canada for a few generations. There’s also a few British peerages that were granted to Canadians and/or reference Canadian locations.
Yes, they could do what they want - but why piss off Canada and break an agreement? It’s been an agreement since the 1930’s IIRC, about titles and Canadians.
There’s also a few square yards of Stirling castle that are (were?) nominally declared part of Nova Scotia, since the Baron of Nova Scotia was invested there, and barons of Scotland had to be invested within their own barony. It was easier than bringing baron and king to the New World.
The 1970s were a different time in terms of the level of devotion shown to the Queen / Royal family. If something similar was to happen today I think the response would be very different.
Is that a power in the Australian constitution? If not, then any assumed theoretical hangover from colonial days would be long defunct, at least since the Statute of Westminster. If so, then it’s entirely a matter for Australian voters only. If they finally agree on how to install a republic, a president would presumably replace both Queen and GG, but could still face the same conundrum in the event of budgetary deadlock in Parliament. One or other would have to face the judgement of the voters.