No, it hasn’t. Sovereign in this context specifically means King or Queen.If the monarchy would be absolved, there would be no sovereign. And it hasn’t been tested because there is no need to test it.
I actually doubt a divorce would be messy because the most likely abolition of the monarch would be that the current younger members of this generation - or the next (George, Charlotte and Louis) all say “enough.” But there is something to be said for tradition, tourist dollars, and a figurehead - and Britain has really been fortunate in having competent figureheads since Victoria (except Edward).
I know Charles isn’t terribly well liked, but his image has mellowed with age, and his boys are well liked.
It has been tested. It’s what happened in the Irish Free State in 1922, when what had been Crown property became State property, and it’s what happened in each colony which transitioned to independence as arRepublic. Most notably,the extensive properties at one time vested in the crown of India now belong to the Republic of India, and not to the heirs of the last King-Emperor. It’s also what happened in the English Civil War.
Which Edward would that be – VII, or VIII? Because while most people dreaded him becoming king, Edward VII ended up doing a pretty good job.
(His grandson and namesake, on the other hand, was a complete dumbass, and I think the world is really lucky he chose to abdicate. Lord only knows how things would’ve turned out)
The Crown lands in Canada are public lands under public control. The technicality that they’re registered with Land Titles as being owned by Her Majesty doesn’t mean they’re her personal property.
If Canada went republican, the various governments would just pass transitional legislation: "All titles in the name of Her Majesty are now deemed to be registered in the name of the Province of [insert name here].
A little matter like a change to a republic wouldn’t upset two centuries of law that Crown lands means lands owned and administered on behalf of the people.
Don’t bank on it. There’s longevity in his genes, plus he doesn’t have the same lifestyle habits (smoking, drinking, overeating). There could be successive monarchs surviving as centenarians, with the younger ones doing the more visibly energetic things.
Thank you for the information about the tax pound flow … I thought this was the case with the Queen from something I read many many years ago but I wasn’t sure …
Ellipses for gender equality … no one should be judged by their periods …
Some rosey predictions for the monarchy above - I’d tend toward the view that the only way is down. QEII is THE monarchy, and has such unrivalled status and respect that any talk in a republican direction is completely untenable, for now. It would be unwise to extrapolate from her, though, as if it was some sort of median state of affairs, when in reality she’s very much an outlier. We won’t be seeing the likes of QEII any time soon (we can already see that her children are not of the same material), making the role of the monarchy a much more pointed conversation after she departs.
Right now we’ve got a raft of minor royalty hanging off our tits, oxygen thieves like Princess Michael of Kent who the general public would happily chase back to Germany even today. Her and her ilk benefit very significantly from the Queens patronage and stature maintaining the status quo of the monarchy, an extreme haircut [think sheep shears, or a scythe] can be expected here under the next regime [there are indications that Charles knows the score here and has already put people on notice].
This also goes for other commonwealth countries - it might seem like an intractable consitutional problem, that no one has the appetite for anyhow, when you’re talking about Elizabeth as Head of State. That could soon change with someone else in the chair who was, say, lazy and indifferent to their duties overseas - I think this would be unlikely, as the royal family know which side their bread is buttered, so a complete arsehole on the throne would not be permitted. But certainly attitudes will change with weaker monarchs.
The monarch’s chief duty in the case of Canada is simply to exist. It’s not a very onerous job, and even someone who was lazy and indifferent should manage perfectly well.
I was wondering that myself. While I do not keep up with the monarch’s role in Canada or Australia, and of course can’t speak for the UK not being British, it seems to me that while the role in Britain of the monarch is minimal, in Canada it seems even smaller. Which oddly enough seems (and I may be wrong) to lead to a less passionate Republican movement there since the monarch is not as visible or relevant and so getting rid of them would not change much if anything.
The monarch’s role in Canada is to appoint the Governor General, as advised by the Prime Minister, i.e. the PM tells the Queen who the new GG is and she nods to make it official. The GG is then responsible for executing all the powers of the Crown - Royal Assent to acts of Parliament, dissolving Parliament, etc, all of course as advised by the PM. The Queen is not involved in any of that except insofar as it all is done in her name. (Northern Piper will be along to tell you that I’ve missed one or two other things Liz is responsible for, but they will be largely immaterial.)
I think the Republican sentiment here is invisible largely because there’s no coherent movement. Canadian republicans are all over the map with regards to what a republican system would look like, and even if like me you’re inclined to be theoretically in favour of a republican form of government there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of good arguments for actually implementing any specific republican option. If you’re going with a weak president/parliamentary republic where the president is just the GG with a new name and selection process, then most Canadians would say what the heck is the point? The new system is the same as the old system, and we have to go through a decade of constitutional debate deciding how to pick which old fuddy duddy lives in Rideau Hall instead of just letting the PM pick someone for the Queen to rubber stamp? No thanks. On the other hand, if you want to go with a strong president, most Canadians are going to be unenthusiastic about significantly changing our system of governance which has been working fairly well in its current form thank you very much. Probably especially at this particular moment in history. We live right next to a republic with a strong president, you see.
Gorsnak nailed it. The only other two things that only the Queen can do are issue the Letters patent constituting the Office of the Governor General, and appoint extra Senators.
The current Letters Patent were issued by King George VI and haven’t needed any amendments, so HM has never had to exercise that power.
She’s the only one who can appoint extra senators, but that power has only been used once since Confederation (by Elizabeth), so not a major thing.
If she’s in Ottawa she can open Parliament, give the Speech from the Throne, and grant Royal Assent, but the Gov Gen can do that when the Queen’s not around.
It’s not an intractable problem at all. There are more countries of which Queen Elizabeth used to be queen than there are of which she is currently queen. Lot’s of commonwealth realms (independent countries with the British monarch as head of state) have transitioned to being republics. It’s a well-trodden path, and there are abundant precedent for addressing both the political and the legal aspects of the transition.
The thing is, I can’t think of any case in which the transition to a republic was driven by anybody’s views about the character or fitness of the person who happened to be monarch at the time. Nearly always the decision is about the country’s self-image, and its vision of its place in the world.
The majority of countries who stood down QEII as head of state did it immediately, or shortly after, independence from the UK, so the ink was not yet dry on their constitution - it was a time of massive upheaval. Saying Australia or Canada could smoothly transition to republics just because Uganda, Kenya and Malawi did in the early 60s is not a sensible analogy.
I certainly agree it could happen, as I said. But whether the appetite for republicanism would ever exceed the ballache threshold of getting it done is harder to say. In stable times, without some sort of geopolitical impetus, it does seem difficult.
I think that QEII will play a role, just because she does a huge amount to legitimise the obvious anachronism of having a large, visible, (semi)active royal family here in the UK. When she goes and that unravels, hard to see how this wouldn’t add weight to existing republican sentiment in other countries.
That’s assuming it “unravels” under Charles. I don’t think that will happen. He may not be as popular as his mum or his son, but he’s spent his life preparing for the monarchy and knows the rules. When you’re in your seventies, you’re generally more cautious anyway.
