So Prince Charles shouldn’t vote, either. But Prince Andrew could? And the Princes William & Harry could, too?
She’s deemed Duke of Normandy (which encompasses just the Channel Islands for these purposes) because the duchy cannot pass to a Duchess (Salic Law) – so when the monarch of the U.K., who holds the Duchy, is a woman, she is notionally the Duke. Lancaster is similar – it passed in the male line until Henry IV, who was Duke of Lancaster, took the throne, then it passed with the throne, including when a woman inherited the throne. But she’s notionally the Duke to comply with the writ.
(Most titles go into abeyance when they pass back to the throne, but Lancaster is special – a lot of the Queen’s personal income comes, not from being Queen, but from being Duke of Lancaster, the Duchy holding a lot of high value land rented or leased out for high income return.
Likewise, most of Prince Charles’s income comes not from being Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, but from being Duke of Cornwall – that being the other surviving duchy with large land holdings in the royal family, and it always aand automatically inheres with the heir to the throne, apparent or presumptive.
And the Queen is Duchess of Edinburgh separately from everything else, as the Duke’s wife.
It’s those in line for the throne up to a certain point – nobody’s ever specified exactly what the cutoff is, in anything I’ve read – who are barred from voting by custom.
There are a couple of Royals that would be well up in the line of succession – 20th or so – who were dropped from the succession under the Settlement Act because they converted to Catholicism or married a Catholic – and presumably they can vote.
Not quite. The Dukedom of Cornwall can be held only by an heir apparent who is also the oldest surviving son of the sovereign. If the heir apparent is the sovereign’s grandson, he won’t be Duke of Cornwall (e.g. George III when he was Prince of Wales). Nor could the Dukedom of Cornwall be held by an heir presumptive who was, say, the next younger brother of a childless sovereign (e.g. William IV when he was the Duke of Clarence).
Because of the estates connected to the Duchy of Lancaster, it has remained as a separate title, but always held by the monarch.
However, the title of Duke of York doesn’t carry that same separate status, and is traditionally given to the monarch’s second son, if the title is available - i.e. there is no current Duke of York. For instance, Her Majesty’s second son, Prince Andrew, was created Duke of York in 1986.
Historically, the title has gone extinct on several occasions, making it available for re-granting. For instance, Edward IV’s second son, Richard, who likely died in the Tower, was Duke of York, as was George III’s second son, Frederick (who incidentally was “the Grand Old Duke of York who had 10,000 men” 
). Since both died without issue, the title reverted to the Crown.
Alternatively, on several occasions the second son has succeeded to the throne, and the title is again free for re-granting (e.g. Henry VIII, Charles I, James II, George V and George VI were all Dukes of York prior to succeeding).
So the monarchy is always one royal action away from being demolished? No wonder there are so few left.
This is the plot premise of Bernard Shaw’s play, The Apple Cart
(Removed spoiler tag)
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.
In Australia, were voting is compulsory, does the Governor-General (or a state governor) get an exemption because s/he’s the Queen’s representative?
The next time, King-in-all-but-name Oliver Cromwell came in and kicked everyone out.
I don’t think so. If you’re eligible for enrolment, it’s compulsory to enrol. And if you’re enrolled it’s compulsory to vote. In practice, of course, this amounts only to a requirement to attend a polling place, have your name marked off the roll, receive a ballot paper, take it to a voting booth, and place it in the ballot box. I don’t think any exemptions are given to the various vice-regal representatives.
septimus, your lengthy list of Her Majesty’s titles erroneously refers to Ireland and not Northern Ireland. It also omits the 15 other nations which are no longer British dominions but of which she remains queen, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. See: Dominion - Wikipedia.
The omission of the other realms isn’t inaccurate, because by agreement amongst the members of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty has different styles for each Commonwealth realm, as summarised by the preamble to the Royal Style and Titles Act of Canada:
Thus, Her Majesty’s Royal Style and Title as Queen of Canada is:
Since Septimus’s list refers to “the British Dominions beyond the Seas”, it is inclusive and consistent with the understanding of the Commonwealth heads of government (except for that Ireland thing, of course).
But they’re not “dominions” any more. That term is now out of use.
It remains legally valid but symbolizes an outmoded state of affairs in the minds of most Commonwealth members. This Wikipedia section summarizes the change in attitudes quite well, IMO.
Well, for Canada, until there’s a constitutional amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 the term “Dominion” is still valid:
It is also the term used in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which is a key part of the constitutional structures of Canada, Australia and New Zealand:
Again, constitutional amendments in Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be needed to replace the term “Dominion” in this Statute.
So, the term “Dominion” may not be used as much as formerly, but it is still a legally valid term, as Polycarp notes.
I don’t think a constitutional amendment would be needed to amend the Statute of Westminster as far as it affects Australia: an ordinary act of the Australian Parliament would do it. However, I doubt if they’d want to change the definition of “Dominion” there, unless an additional territory was being added – for example, in the extremely unlikely event of Western Australia becoming a separate country, you might want to add it to the definition of “Dominion” there.
If you used the word “Dominion” in a current legal document in Australia, you’d need to define it, though that might just be by reference to the Statute of Westminster.
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?
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.
What do Canada and New Zealand style themselves as when speaking of themselves as independent nations distinct from their Commonwealth membership or shared monarch? (As in “Republic of the Congo” or “Kingdom of the Netherlands”) Kingdoms? (I know the formal style of Australia is “Commonwealth,” predating the inernational use of the term to represent the nations united in allegiance to the British Crown.)
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. 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. According to Wikipedia, the Australia Act 1986 made some amendments to it, which made the Australian States independent of the Imperial Parliament.
Even though it’s an act of the Imperial Parliament, the Australian Constitution cannot be amended by either Parliament: it can only be amended by the process prescribed in s. 128 of the Constitution, which requires a referendum being passed by a majority of voters in a majority of the States.
I suspect that any attempt to get around s. 128 would be truly revolutionary: ss. 8 & 9 of the Statute of Westminster would have just been dotting the i’s. If the Australian Parliament tried to repeal those sections, I don’t think it would be interpreted as having the effect of repealing s. 128 of the Constitution, because the Australian Parliament simply does not have the power to repeal or amend it.