When Did Canada Stop Being Part of the English Monarchy?

Factual Questions
1

My co-worker informed me today in no uncertain terms that Canada’s head of state is NOT Queen Elizabeth, Queen of England. I was pretty sure that our official head of state was still good ol’ QEII, but my co-worker was absolutely certain that she isn’t. I’ve been doing searches to try to figure this out, but all the info I can find is at least a couple of years old.

How about it, fellow Canadians? Have you heard anything about QEII not being our monarch and head of state anymore? If so, when did this happen?

2

Your friend is quite badly mistaken. Queen Elizabeth remains the head of state of this country.

If you don’t believe me, believe the government of Canada:

http://canada.gc.ca/howgoc/glance_e.html

The section on Her Majesty quite specifically refers to her as “our head of state.”

You might want to ask your friend why, if she is no longer our head of state, she’s still on the money. And if he’s still convinced she’s not, maybe he should call the government and let them know, because they still think she is. :slight_smile:

3

To split hairs, your friend is technically correct. Elizabeth II, Queen of England, is not your head of state. However, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, is. It’s a separate crown.

4

Probably she’s misled by the intra-Canada nomination and en-office-ing (is there a proper technical term for that?) of the Governor General. But even I know that QE2 is the Canadian head of state.

Toss her a dollar – given its popular name, it’s the proper value of her comment! :smiley:

5

Not strictly correct, I think. It’s a separate title for the same crown. Nobody but the UK monarch can be proclaimed as head of state of Canada (unless, of course, Canadian law on this subject is changed in the future), and the UK monarch is head of state of Canada from the moment she becomes UK monarch, even before any separate proclamation or any special Canadian title is conferred.

The Canadian Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, do not create a separate Canadian crown or monarchy and, indeed, do not create a head of state at all. There is, for example, no provision for succession to the crown of Canada. Nothing in the Canadian constitution or Canadian law says who will succeed QEII when she dies. The “Queen” (undefined, but clearly the British monarch) is more or less taken by the Constitution as a pre-existing given, and various powers and functions are conferred upon her.

6

And IIRC she’s not even Queen of England, since the crowns of England and Scotland were merged into that of Great Britain, right?

OTOH, she IS Queen of GB&NI, of Australia, of Canada, of the Bahamas, of St. Lucia, etc., etc.

Which creates the delicious historical “what-if” scenario of a successional crisis arising in which different parts of the Commonwealth recognized different pretenders

7

Correct – and the crown of Great Britain into the crown of the U.K. at the merger with Ireland in 1801. However, she is the Queen of England in the same way that GWB is the President of Texas – formerly that was an office in an independent republic, now it’s a state of the U.S., which has one president for 50 states (and D.C., P.R., etc.) so GWB can be regarded as the President whom Texas recognizes as its national chief executive, albeit as part of a larger nation of which it is now a part.

This was actually addressed at the Abdication Crisis in 1936, and there is some methodology worked out by which all the Commonwealth nations agree to recognize the same monarch – I don’t know the details, but hopefully someone who does will post what they are.

8

I’m a little bit vague on some of the detail, but as I understand it the position is as follows.

Succession to the British crown is regulated by the Act of Settlement, 1701. The crown passes to the heir of Sophie, Electress of Hanover, provided that person is a Protestant.

Canada, Australia, etc, started out as colonies, politically and constitutionally completely dependent on the British crown. The British monarch, in his or her capacity as the British monarch, was at the head of the governmental hierarchy. There was no question of separate crowns being held by the same individual (as was the case with English and Scottish crowns from 1603 to 1707, and with the English/British and Irish crowns from 1536 to 1801).

In due course the larger (and, initially, the whiter) colonies moved towards self-government. Canada was granted “dominion status” in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, and so forth. Initially this meant, in effect, internal representative self-government. Canadian electors voted for a Canadian parliament from which a Canadian prime minister was appointed and the monarch (represented by the Governor-General) acted on the advice of Canadian ministers in matter relating exclusively to Canada. There was no question, however, that a separate crown had been created; just a separate set of advisers to advise the undivided British crown in relation to matters exclusively affecting one particular territory.

Over time, dominion status was enlarged. The governor-general ceased to be chosen by the Westminster government, and instead was chosen by the dominion government. Dominion governments played an increasing role in foreign affairs, initially with their immediate neighbours but in time with states further and further away. Dominions armed forces grew larger and more diverse, and they relied less and less on British forces for defence, and so on.

Their legal powers were enlarged also. In (I think) 1927 each dominion was given power (by British legislation) to enact its own legislation conferring titles on the crown for use within the dominion. And the (British) Statute of Westminster 1931 allowed a dominion to pass legislation altering existing British law in force within that dominion, and forbade the British parliament to make laws having force within a dominion except at the request of that dominion. This is generally regarded as marking the formal legal and political independence of the dominions. Certain constitutional legislation was ring-fenced and the Statute of Westminster did not apply to it, but the various ring-fencing provisions have been progressively removed since then.

It is now open to the various dominions to enact constitutional legislation creating a separate crown to be held by the person who holds the British crown (assuming that person agrees, of course) but none of them have done so. Those former dominions which no longer wish to be constitutionally to the British crown have moved to republican status, e.g. India, Ireland, South Africa.

If the British parliament were now to enact legislation altering the Act of Settlement (e.g. by providing for parity as between men and women in the succession to the crown, or removing the requirement that the monarch be a Protestant, both of which have been mooted) that legislation would not apply in any dominion, unless that dominion requested and accepted it. Indeed, that has been used as a reason to avoid altering the succession; most of the dominons have more pressing issues to worry about and, if the British government were to raise this as an issue requiring attention, the forseeable result would be to reinforce in a number of dominions the idea that the link to the British crown is, for them, a distraction and an irrelevance, and to impel them towards republicanism.

The term “dominion” is not much used nowadays but, when it is, it describes those member states of the British Commonwealth which have the British monarch as their head of state. There are some members states which have a separate crown with a different monarch (e.g. Tonga); they are not regarded as dominions. Quite how a state would be classified if it had a separate crown occupied by the same person as the British crown is not clear, but the point is not likely to arise; there is no logic to breaking links with the British Crown but retaining Elizabeth of Windsor as head of state.

9

It’s a grey area. My understanding is they are in fact separate crowns, but they all came into existence simultaneously at the one coronation in London, so I’m not arguing that the crowns aren’t linked in law, but I’m sure they are distinct entities. She is Queen of Australia as a distinct crown, rather than a manifestation of the UK crown. When the Queen’s car moves through the streets of Sydney or Melbourne, it flies the personal flag of Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. This is a different flag to the one her car would fly in London.

When the republic was overturned during the referendum in Australia several years ago, it was remarked that if the embryonic UK republican movement ever gained legs, and the United Kingdom itself became a republic, there would be the bizarre situation where Lizzie would still be Queen of Australia until we passed our own constitutional changes. I think the Canadian case is similar or the same.

10

With reference to the OP, I think cow-orker may be confused by the fact that the GG is the head of state when Liz isn’t in town. The GG is the Queen’s viceroy, i.e. the person who acts in place of the Queen in a place which is difficult for the monarch to rule personally.

11

I think not. In British consititutional theory (which Austrlalia will, of course, have inherited, except to the extent that Australian law varies it) the crown is perpetual and indivisible. No new crowns come into existence at the coronation, or at the succession of one monarch upon the death of another; you have a new king or a new queen, but the same crown.

That’s a different royal standard, not a different crown. There are different royal standards in England and Scotland, but quite clearly one crown. Similarly, the queen has different “styles and titles” in different commonwealth countries (and indeed frequently has different styles and titles at different times in the same country), but none of this amounts to the creation of separate crowns.

It may have been remarked, but that doesn’t make it true. I think the correct position is that there would be a lacuna; Australian constitutional law makes no provision for the possibility that the British crown might cease to exist.

The preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act refers to Australia as “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, and section 2 says that “the provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”. Australia could alter these provisions so as to create an independent Crown, but (so far as I can find out) hasn’t done so. There is no other definition of “the crown” in Australian law, and no way to find out who is the monarch except by looking at who is the monarch of the UK which is, naturally, a matter of UK law.

12

The problem with that argument, UDS, is that it implicitly gives the British Parliament the power to legislate for Canada, Australia, and the other Commonwealth realms - something that the British Parliament cannot do, under the terms of the Statute of Westminster and the Canada Act.

If the British Parliament abolished the monarchy and established a republic, that law is limited only to the U.K. and its possessions. The monarchy would continue to exist in the other Commonwealth realms, because the status of the Crown in those other Commonwealth realms can only be altered according to their own constitutional arrangements. In Canada, for example, the office of the Queen can only be altered by a unanimous constitutional amendment (Parliament and all 10 provinces). There’s nothing stopping the U.K. from going republican; but the Brits don’t have the power to decide the issue for the other Commonwealth realms.

As for the indivisibility of the Crown - it used to be dogma that the Crown was one and indivisible, but with the development of the Commonwealth, and the development of federations within the Commonwealth, that principle is no longer rock-solid. For all practical purposes, one can speak of “the Crown in right of Canada”, or “in right of the U.K.”, or “in right of Tasmania” and it means a separate political entity. The actual living wearer of the Crown is of course indivisible, but in practice there are a lot of Crowns, each with different political advisors and different constitutional structures.

I believe Lord Denning formally cast some doubt on the principle of indivisibililty in a case that arose at the time of the patriation of the Canadian Constitution; I’ll see if I can dig it up tomorrow at work.

13

I agree. So in theory we might have the bizarre situation that a raft of UK monarchical legislation would be repealed by the UK parliament, but still have the force of law in Australia and Canada because the UK repealing legislation did not have the consent of Australia and Canada. The result would be that the crown would still exist in Australia and Canada.

At least that is the result in principle, but when we look to the detail all kinds of problems emerge. For instance, what are we to make of s2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which refers to “Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”, when her heirs and successors no longer possess any sovereignty in the United Kingdom? When, indeed, the “United Kingdom” has ceased to exist, and been replaced with the “British Republic” or something similar? My point is that the Australian constitution identifies its head of state by pointing to the British monarch, established under British law. If British law ceases to provide a monarch, this aspect of the Australian constitution ceases to function.

The point is probably moot; any dismantling by the UK of its monarchical constitution would be preceded by consultation with the dominions, who would decide what action to take (probably the declaration of a republic, I guess). Many of the countries which were at one time dominions have already progressed to this point – Ireland, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, South Africa – so I don’t think any great sacrifice of principle would be involved.

I take the point. The legal and political reality here is that the queen acts on the advice of different advisers with respect to her different territories. Whether that means that there are several distinct political institutions which we can reasonably call different crowns is probably a matter of semantics. I think that the legal and political reality of these . . . emanations . . . of the British crown is that they would not continue to exist if the British crown ceased to exist as a matter of UK law so they are not, in that sense, separate, distinct and independent crowns. But they are certainly independent in the sense that the actions of the Queen (or her GG) in right of Canada should be (and presumably are) influenced wholly by the advice of her Canadian ministers, and not to any extent by the advice of her British ministers.

14

A minor point maybe, but if the Queen is Queen of Canada as a separate title, why is she not Queen Elizabeth I of Canada? I didn’t think Canada was a British Colony when Queen Elizabeth I of England was reigning from 1533 - 1603…

Did some Act of Parliament decide to unify the numbering of the monarch - I can see the point of doing so but interested in the process. Managable with only two possible Elizabeths but a nightmare when she goes and we have George VII as I understand Charles is going to call himself…

15

A fair question.

When England and Scotland were separate countries with separate crowns held by the same person (from 1603 to 1707) two sets of numbering were used, when appropriate. James VI of Scotland became James 1 of England. In Scotland he continued to be referred to as James VI. The issue did not arise with the two Charles’s (neither England nor Scotland had previously had a King Charles) but they were succeeded by a monarch known in Scotland as James VII and in England as James II.

He was succeeded by William and Mary. William would have been the third King of that name in England, but only the second in Scotland. He is generally known to history as William III; I do not know if he went by William II in Scotland. Next came Anne, the first monarch of that name in either England or Scotland.

While Anne is on the throne, we have the Act of Union, uniting the crowns. Anne is followed by the first four Georges, and the issue does not arise because, once again, there has never been a King George before. The question does not come up until the accession of William in 1830. Will he be William IV, following the English numbering, William III following the Scottish, or even William I of the United Kingdom?

He is, as far as I can make out, William IV. I cannot find that he was ever referred to as William III in Scotland. This establishes a precedent which has been followed whenever the issue arose since. Edward VII, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II.

If I recall correctly, there was a challenge to this practice in 1953, at the time of the proclamation of the present Queen as Elizabeth II. Somebody took court proceedings pointing out that, in the UK, there was no reason why the English numbering should take precedence over the Scottish. It was announced then that the practice would be to always to adopt the higher of the English and Scottish numbering. Hence, for example, were there ever to be a King Alexander of the UK, he would be Alexander IV, in deference to Alexander I, II and III of Scotland, despite the fact that there has never been a King Alexander of England, or of the UK.

Presumably some similar reasoning is applied in Canada, Australia, etc. The UK numbering is used to avoid confusion. Elizabeth II is Elizabeth II througout her dominions, even though most of them have never had an Elizabeth I.

16

Fascinating. This is more complicated than I had imagined. The bottom line, however, is still that I’m right and she’s wrong, right? :smiley:

17

Fascinating. This still means that the bottom line is I’m right and she’s wrong, right? :smiley:

18

Ah, crap. Stupid rassin’frassin’ hamsters.

19

Oh yes, quite definitely. The nice lady whose picture is on the stamps is the head of state, our monarch. She makes the statutes of Canada, by and with the consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.

Good luck making your co-worker back down, though. The people who are most wrong are often the most convinced of their rightness.

20

I understand your position, UDS, but I would respectfully disagree. Here’s why. I would say that those statutes of the English/British Parliament governing the succession to the Crown are not just British statutes; by the principle of the reception of English/British statutes in the colonies, they are also part of the domestic law of each of the Commonwealth countries that retains the Crown as head of state. Although the British Parliament can alter or repeal those statutes for the purposes of Britain’s domestic law, those statutes would still continue in force in the other Commonwealth countries, so there would still be a British monarch for the purposes of the domestic law of the other Commonwealth countries.

To elaborate a bit: under British colonial law, when a new colony was setted, the general laws of England/Britain automatically applied in the new colony. So statutes like Magna Carta and the Statute of Frauds became part of the laws of every British colony. It’s as if they were copied out and enacted by the colonial legislature. With certain exceptions, the colonial legislature would have the power to amend or repeal those received statutes, as it saw fit. I see no reason why the Act of Settlement, which establishes the rules for the succession to the Crown, wouldn’t have been received in this way, as part of the domestic law of each colony.

Of course, a colonial legislature couldn’t amend the basic constitutional laws which bound it to the U.K., since it was just a colony. That would include the laws governing the Crown - only the Westminister Parliament could amend those laws. However, the whole point of the Statute of Westminster was that the British recognised the independence of the other Commonwealth countries, and would only legislate for them at their request. Now, with the passage of statutes such as the Canada Act, the British Parliament no longer has the power to enact any laws for the independent Commonwealth countries. To the extent that the Act of Settlement is part of the domestic law of Canada, or Australia, or the other Commonwealth realms, it can only be amended or repealed in those countries by the provisions set out in their individual constitutions.

So, I would argue that even if President Blair decided to make it official, abolish the monarchy, and repeal the Act of Settlement, those changes would only take effect for the domestic law of Britain. As you comment, the Australian Constitution (as well as the Canadian Constitution and others) presupposes the existence of the Crown. Britain can’t change that, even if it repealed the Act of Settlement to the extent it applies in Britain. The Act would continue in force in each of the other Commonwealth realms, meaning that for the purposes of say, Canada’s domestic law, there still would be a British monarch, holding the Crown in Canada. The fact that as a matter of British domestic law there would not be a monarch would be irrelevant.

Any other result would mean that notwithstanding provisions such as the Statute of Westminster and s. 2 of the Canada Act (and parallel provisions for the other Commonwealth realms), the British Parliament still has the power to make unilateral amendments to the constitutions of the independent Commonwealth realms.