# Why can't the queen vote? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 8, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741 "2010-05-08T13:13:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/41 "2010-05-14T21:19:43Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > What _do_ Canada and New Zealand style themselves as when speaking of themselves as independent nations distinct from their Commonwealth membership or shared monarch? I believe the standard long form of Canada’s name (the equivalent of “United States of America” and “Commonwealth of Australia”) is, simply, “Canada”. Some monarchists may claim it’s still “Dominion of Canada” as this form has never been officially replaced, but I don’t believe anybody but them uses it either. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/42 "2010-05-14T21:46:32Z")
Even in the 1867 act, the name was just “Canada”. > [@](#): > > It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/43 "2010-05-14T21:55:47Z")
I’d tend to agree with you, **Captain Amazing** , but some people are still arguing this (fairly uninteresting) debate over the name of Canada. The fact is, the formulation “Dominion of Canada” was used at some point by the government (see [this banknote from 1923](http://www.cointalk.com/attachments/58423d1253582354-dominion-canada.jpg) as an example). Now, was “Dominion of Canada” the official name of the country, or was “dominion” simply a common name, as in, “what kind of country is Canada? It’s a dominion.”? Some monarchists would argue the former, in order to emphasize Canada’s status as a Commonwealth realm. But nobody but them really cares about it. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/44 "2010-05-14T22:34:14Z")
I’ll give you a quarter for that opinion. But I agree with you. The name of the country was Canada, and the kind of country that Canada was was a dominion. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/45 "2010-05-15T14:55:14Z")
Yes, I agree with **Hypnogogic Jerk** and **Captain Amazing** that the name is just “Canada.” The point I was making is that “Dominion” is still an acceptable alternative to the term “realm” that is curently used to describe those Commonwealth countries that have Her Majesty as their head of state. It may be outmoded, but it still has legal meaning, as a result of its use in constitutional provisions. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/46 "2011-05-08T00:42:38Z")
Warning: here be zombies! But they’re fairly fresh ones. > [@septimus](#): > > Maybe her friends call her that, but wouldn’t it be more polite to use her full title? > > Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. > [@Frank](#): > > Google was not cooperative, but - yes - that was exactly what I was looking for, and it would have been in the OP had I found it. As it is by far too late to edit, please substitute. 🙂 Actually, you had her titles correct in your OP. Most of the bells and whistles cited by **septimus** have never formed part of the royal style and titles, the “of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas” was superseded over half a century ago, and by very definition the Queen cannot be “Duchess of Edinburgh”, “Countess of Merioneth”, or “Baroness Greenwich”. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > the [Statute of Westminster, 1931](http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1081723), which is a key part of the constitutional structures of Canada, Australia and New Zealand The _Statute of Westminster_ was repealed as part of the law of New Zealand by the _Constitution Act 1986_. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Does the Australian Parliament have the authority to amend the Statute of Westminster unilaterally? what about ss. 8 & 9, which continue the restrictions on the Commonwealth Parliament vis-à-vis the Constitution and the powers of the states - could the Australian Parliament unilaterally eliminate those provisions? By virtue of the _Australia Acts_, the federal parliament can only amend the _Statute of Westminster_ “at the request or with the concurrence of” the respective state parliaments. > [@](#): > > The reason I ask is that I would doubt that the Canadian Parliament could unilaterally amend the Statute of Westminster, which is a recognized part of our Constitution - would just be surprised if that weren’t the case with the Australian Parliament. By virtue of _Constitution Act, 1982_, an amendment to the _Statute of Westminster_ cannot be made unilaterally by federal Act of Parliament; a formal constitutional amendment would be required. ---
**Author:** ![A.Gwilliam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea5d25/32.png) [@A.Gwilliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Gwilliam)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/47 "2011-05-08T00:50:18Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Well, I’m really not sure. One possible path would be to request that the United Kingdom Parliament amend the Statute. However, I’m not sure that’s necessary. Not so much necessary as impossible. The power of the the UK’s Parliament to amend the _Statute of Westminster_ in relation to Australia was repealed by the _Australia Acts_. > [@](#): > > The Statute of Westminster was incorporated into Australian law by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, which was an ordinary act of the Australian Parliament, and so presumably can be amended like any other act. The _Adoption Act_ was passed in accordance with the provisions of the _Statute of Westminster_ itself. I suppose it might be an interesting exercise to determine whether the _Adoption Act_ could be repealed by the federal parliament… and if so, what the consequences would be! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2011, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741/48 "2011-05-08T12:33:39Z")
> [@ragerdude](#): > > Do American Supreme Court justices vote? There was one Supreme Court Justice ,John Marshall Harlan, who would not vote and would not applaud any statement, no matter how innocent, in any President’s State of the Union address. He took the idea of judicial impartiality very seriously. Justice Harlan was once introduced to New York Times James Reston and this subject cam up. Reston remarked that everybody at the NY Times voted. Justice harlan was amazed that anyone could think being a writer for the New York Times was on the same level as a Supreme Court Justice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-queen-vote/538741.md?page=2)