Same thing happened with Andorra. The President of France is one of the co-princes, successor to the French monarchs.
Your thinking here is very modern.
The Duchy of Normandy, including the Channel Islands, was not entirely a part of the Kingdom of France in 1066 when the Duke of Normandy also became King of England. (Edited to clarify: it was a feudal holding.) In the 13th century, there was some unpleasantness between England and France, which resulted in continental Normandy going back to France, but insular Normandy remaining as a possession of the English monarch.
The Channel Islands have literally never been a part of France, and France has zero claim on them. Lots of historical polities are divided between two modern nation-states, so the only unique thing about Normandy is that its internal border is in the water.
It was a joke. I was going to add in stuff about retribution for England claiming France but then realized I needed a lot more coffee and hit POST instead.
Splitists!
I don’t think the first part is correct. The Merovingian dynasty, leaders of the Franks, controlled the Channel Islands. Modern France is their successor. When the Duchy of Normandy was formed, the Channel Islands were confirmed as part of France (see the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte).
But I’m not sure about the second part. The Duke of Normandy gave up claim to the mainland part of the Duchy, but I’m not sure if the King of France give up claim to the Channel Islands. Is there a specific treaty you have in mind where France gave up its claim?
Yes, this depends a bit on what you mean by “France” and what you mean by “Normandy.” But my claim was too strong to justify and I withdraw it.
The Statute now only applies in Canada and Australia, and has limited application in both, following adoption of the Canada Act 1982 and the Australia Acts 1986.
It no longer applies in New Zealand.
The preamble is considered to state a constitutional convention that governs Royal succession, but the Statute does not have legal effect in the realms established after 1931, as they are not included in the definition of Dominions in the Statute.
It depends on how easily the Constituion of each country can be amended. It’s generally easier in unitary states than in federations like Canada and Australia. In Canada, a change to the office of the King would require unanimous consent of both houses of the federal Parliament, plus all 10 provincial assemblies.
Would disposition of Crown possessions require approval from Canada? Or, is “King” in this case only the King of Canada, not the King of the U.K.?
Does the Crown of Canada have any possessions?
It only means the King in right of Canada. UK is a separate country and the King in right of the UK is not affected by constitutional changes in Canada that affect the Crown in right of Canada. The Crown in right of Canada has no role in relation to British territory.
As for crown possessions, the Crown in right of Canada owns 41% of land in Canada, while the Crown in right of the provinces owns 48%.
That’s not personal property of the King, of course. The land is held in the name of the Crown for the public.
So, what would happen if the King and the Comte de Paris both decided to visit Sark on the same day?
They are dependent on the Crown of the UK. If Charles Windsor ceases to embody the Crown of the UK, he has no continuing relationship with the Crown dependencies. The organ that succeeds to the Crown of the UK would stand in the same relationship to the Channel Islands and Man as the Crown currently does.
Contrast, say, Canada which has a monarchy that is not dependent on the UK. If Charles Windsor ceases to be monarch of the UK he continues (unless Canada makes other arrangements) to be monarch of Canada. (And UK laws dealing with, e.g, succession to the Crown that cease to have effect in the UK will continue to have effect in Canada unless and until Canada enacts its own succession legislation.)
The “What if…” is not that clear-cut for the case of Canada, based on the wording of the Constitution Act, 1867 and court cases interpreting the implementation of the Perth Agreement in Canada.
King Charles would treat the pretender to the French throne with royal courtesy, but would say nothing that would acknowledge the veracity of the claim, because the UK is on good terms with the French Republic, and he would not say anything that could be interpreted as the UK supporting the Comte’s claims.
He’s a male-line descendent of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip – shouldn’t that be “Charles Mountbatten-Windsor”?
If we’re being strictly correct, that’s up to him. It was his late mother’s intention that the male-line descendants of herself and Philip would use the double-barrelled surname, but he’s the king now, so all that matters is what he intends. And we don’t know what surname he intends to use if he is ever deposed. (He may not know himself.)
The legal concept is"the Crown in Parliament", not the monarch alone. The island governments deal where necessary with UK ministers and Parliament rather than the monarch personally.
I’d imagine the Seigneur and elected officials might have something to say about it.
I recall a train trip where we were in northern Ontario, among the muskeg and rock and lakes and trees, and nothing else, and a British visitor asked, “So who owns all this?”
I replied, “The Crown.”
“So the Queen [who was our monarch at the time] owns all this?”
“No the people of Canada do.”
" Huh?" He didn’t get it, that “the Crown” in Canada means “the people of Canada.”
“Duke of Normandy” is not a title used or claimed by British Monarchs — it hasn’t been since the 13th century.
In 1204 the King of France declared the Duchy forfeit and occupied its territory by force, except for the Channel Islands. The Kings of England disputed this for some time, but in 1259 by the Treaty of Paris Henry III renounced all claims to the title “Duke of Normandy” and the associated territory, except for the Channel Islands, which the Treaty provided he would retain in his capacity as Duke of Aquitaine (a title which he held as a vassal of the King of France).
The English subsequently lost Aquitaine in the Hundred Years’ War; Henry VI was the last English monarch to claim or use the title “Duke of Aquitaine”. Since then the Channel Islands have been considered to be directly dependent on the English (later British) crown.
In the Channnel Islands there’s a popular tradition of referring to the monarch informally as the “Duke of Normandy”, “our Duke”, etc, but strictly speaking this is not correct and has no legal or constitutional basis.