The Monarchy and CF

[TRIBALCLASS]

With this being QEII 70th anniversary as monarch, there's been speculation that after she passes, some countries may leave the Commonwealth.

If Canada decides to follow this path, how will it affect the CF?

i.e.
a. will RCN vessels still use "HMCS"?
b. what about RCN or RCAF?
c. what about Queen's Commission?

I'm sure there are other examples.

 

[Remius]

With this being QEII 70th anniversary as monarch, there's been speculation that after she passes, some countries may leave the Commonwealth.

If Canada decides to follow this path, how will it affect the CF?

i.e.
a. will RCN vessels still use "HMCS"?
b. what about RCN or RCAF?
c. what about Queen's Commission?

I'm sure there are other examples.

Without a major overhaul to our constitution it’s impossible to know how it affects the CAF. It won’t change our job and it likely won’t get us money. So we’ll be the exact same thing we were minus a few decorative things like “Royal” and maybe a few crowns here and there.

You likely won’t be around when it all happens.

 

[FSTO]

We cannot even consider a change to the way we pay for health care, in what world does anyone think that we'll easily become a republic?

 

[FJAG]

We cannot even consider a change to the way we pay for health care, in what world does anyone think that we'll easily become a republic?

Trudeau's!

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . after she passes, some countries may leave the Commonwealth.

If Canada decides to follow this path, how will it affect the CF?

Membership in the "Commonwealth" has no bearing on who is (or is not) Head of State for any of the member countries. Of the current 56 countries that are members, fifteen are Commonwealth realms (with the Queen as head of state), five others are monarchies with their own individual monarchs (not Queen Elizabeth), and the rest are republics.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

It was baked into the Constitution Act of 1982 that any removal of the Crown would be a Constitutional Amendment and would require a majority vote in House of Commons, the Senate, and all 10 provincial legislatures.

I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning twice, while buying a winning lottery ticket, after having had a threesome with Scarlett Johanssen and Jennifer Lawrence than seeing that kind of National Unity.

Also, the AFN has stated that Treaties were signed with the Crown and would be challenged legally by any "Republic of Canada" that would stand up. They see the value of an apolitical Head of State, even if some Canadians don't.

 

[ModlrMike]

While s38 speaks to general amendments, and the requirement for at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces, I draw your attention to s41 which speaks specifically to changes to the monarchy:

Amendment by unanimous consent

41 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

• (a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
• (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;
• (c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
• (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
• (e) an amendment to this Part.

It is constitutionally impossible for Canada to become a republic without unanimous consent of the Senate, HoC, and all of the provincial and territorial legislatures. I recon the chances of that are microscopic.

S41 is generally referred to as the Hatfield Clause, and was allegedly designed to specifically prohibit the formation of a Canadian republic.

 

[Spencer100]

I have heard that there maybe case for the office of the crown and the GG to be the same person. And at the same time removing the Windsor bloodline with something agreed to by parliament. That would be an easier case that going full Republic. Just an appointed GG....with no queen/king and invested with the full powers.

But I'm not an expert. But I think a process that that the GG is the full head of state will sit better that going for the constitution remake.

And full constitution remake to republic would blow the country apart. That is my take.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Edward Campbell, a member on this site, has a theory about how it could maybe work, IIRC.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

IMHO, to remove the monarchy would do more damage to Confederation than it would do to solve any of our current democratic problems.

It's like burning the house down because you were scared of a spider.

 

[lenaitch]

I have heard that there maybe case for the office of the crown and the GG to be the same person. And at the same time removing the Windsor bloodline with something agreed to by parliament. That would be an easier case that going full Republic. Just an appointed GG....with no queen/king and invested with the full powers.

But I'm not an expert. But I think a process that that the GG is the full head of state will sit better that going for the constitution remake.

And full constitution remake to republic would blow the country apart. That is my take.

"Full powers" of what? The Crown holds Reserved Power, which is virtually the power to exercise no authority at all except that which the legislature asks it to.

An appointed Head of State with any actual power; an appointed Senate and appointed judiciary, balancing an elected HofC. Not a fan.

 

[brihard]

"Full powers" of what? The Crown holds Reserved Power, which is virtually the power to exercise no authority at all except that which the legislature asks it to.

An appointed Head of State with any actual power; an appointed Senate and appointed judiciary, balancing an elected HofC. Not a fan.

The constitutional principle is known as “responsible government”. The Queen or, really, the GG is only to wield any of their actual significant powers on the advice of or through the Prime Minister or the appropriate ministers. That basically seals the figurehead role of the viceregal. It’s not a principle that’s codified anywhere, but it’s very much recognized as part of our constitutional system.

The offices of the Queen and the Governor General are each separately established. The Constitution Act vests executive authority in the former, and the King’s Letters Patent of 1947 (also considered a constitutional document) established the latter. Arguably, the Constitution Act crystallized the Letters Patent such that changing the GG’s role would require s.41 constitutional amendment.

Wordy way of saying no, they’re separate, and constitutionally ‘locked in’.

I agree that, the amending formula for the position of the Monarch being what it is, we’re exceedingly unlikely to see it change.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I look forward to the absolute blizzard of court cases that arise when all the various agreements with The Crown become null and void on Republic Day +1.

 

[torg003]

The biggest obstacle facing the monarchy in Canada is that, due to lack of national educational standards, most Canadians don't understand how the gov't works and the Monarchs role in it. There is also the media constantly referring to Her Majesty as the "Queen of England" instead of the Queen of Canada. Partisan politics are bad enough in the country, we don't need an elected partisan head of state.

 

[tomydoom]

The biggest obstacle facing the monarchy in Canada is that, due to lack of national educational standards, most Canadians don't understand how the gov't works and the Monarchs role in it. There is also the media constantly referring to Her Majesty as the "Queen of England" instead of the Queen of Canada. Partisan politics are bad enough in the country, we don't need an elected partisan head of state.

To make the “Queen of England” thing even more annoying is that there hasn’t been one of those since before 1707. Every British monarch since, has been King or Queen of the United Kingdom.

 

[Spencer100]

The constitutional principle is known as “responsible government”. The Queen or, really, the GG is only to wield any of their actual significant powers on the advice of or through the Prime Minister or the appropriate ministers. That basically seals the figurehead role of the viceregal. It’s not a principle that’s codified anywhere, but it’s very much recognized as part of our constitutional system.

The offices of the Queen and the Governor General are each separately established. The Constitution Act vests executive authority in the former, and the King’s Letters Patent of 1947 (also considered a constitutional document) established the latter. Arguably, the Constitution Act crystallized the Letters Patent such that changing the GG’s role would require s.41 constitutional amendment.

Wordy way of saying no, they’re separate, and constitutionally ‘locked in’.

I agree that, the amending formula for the position of the Monarch being what it is, we’re exceedingly unlikely to see it change.

Thank you. I kind of understood that.

My question. Can the parliament not just pick someone one else to be King/Queen or is it the House of Windsor?

My point is to not open the constitution and everything that goes with. Keep all the offices just "Canadianize" the top one some way.

 

[lenaitch]

Thank you. I kind of understood that.

My question. Can the parliament not just pick someone one else to be King/Queen or is it the House of Windsor?

My point is to not open the constitution and everything that goes with. Keep all the offices just "Canadianize" the top one some way.

You mean like just pick another Monarch, like Denmark or the Duchy of Fenwick ('The Mouse that Roared')? Other than an obvious dislike for the House of Windsor, what would that prove? Seeing as Canada has no resident royal lineage, isn't what you are proposing merely 'hiring Bob'?

Many aspects of the parliamentary system are embedded in unwritten convention, but to do what you propose would, in my mind and subject to others with greater knowledge, would effectively turn us into a de facto republic. Of course, it would require a change in our foundational legislation, which would be a Constitutional amendment, which completes the circle of, pretty much, no.

As to who occupies the throne, I believe that is governed by the British 'Succession to the Crown Act' which was amended in 2013 to move to first born from first male. I believe that all countries who have the British Crown as Head of State had to pass legislation supporting the change.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

My question. Can the parliament not just pick someone one else to be King/Queen or is it the House of Windsor?

This here is where a lot of people get mixed up with the whole Monarchy debate.

Monarchs are given their "power" (even symbolically) from the concept of "The Divine Right of Kings" . The House of Windsor maintains the right to rule based off it being the will of God. Del Gratia Regina "By the Grace of God" is more than just something we stamp on coins for the hell of it.

Parliament derives it's authority from the people to represent them, however, it derives its power from the Crown. The Crown being more than the person that wears it, but more the concept that it's willed by God through the monarch.

It gets messy trying to modernize and deomcratize something that is very much not a democratic institution. There is a reason the Declaration of Independence added the "all men are created equal" part; it prevents any one person to claim divine right within a republican ideal.

The issue arises in a Republic when you do get a tyrant (45) into a position of absolute power, however, the checks and balances in place fail spectacularly ( Impeachment, Senate Trial, etc.). In essence, we retain the monarchy as it is as a kind of... i don't know.. .compromise? to both ideals.

My point is to not open the constitution and everything that goes with. Keep all the offices just "Canadianize" the top one some way.

We Canadianize the office by having Canadian citizens appointed as the Vice Regal. That in and of itself is an anomaly and broke the mold of the position of Vice Regal. The concept of the Vice Regal was someone, usually a peer or a member of the Royal Family, was to serve in this position so that loyalty to the Crown was guaranteed. When Vincent Massey was appointed in 1952, it was the first time a Canadian citizen, without peer or title, took on the full powers of the Monarch within Canada. This became the status quo and will stay as such, lest we do something crazy and become a republic.

 

[Blackadder1916]

As to who occupies the throne, I believe that is governed by the British 'Succession to the Crown Act' which was amended in 2013 to move to first born from first male. I believe that all countries who have the British Crown as Head of State had to pass legislation supporting the change.

As we did.

Succession to the Throne Act, 2013

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

 

[RangerRay]

You mean like just pick another Monarch, like Denmark or the Duchy of Fenwick ('The Mouse that Roared')? Other than an obvious dislike for the House of Windsor, what would that prove? Seeing as Canada has no resident royal lineage, isn't what you are proposing merely 'hiring Bob'?

One proposal I had heard (not sure if it is legally or constitutionally valid or not) was that upon Her Majesty’s demise (long may she reign) that Parliament invite one of the more bored members of the House of Windsor (Edward, Harry, etc. ) to take the Throne of Canada. One of the conditions would be to renounce all claims to the Crown of the UK and other Realms, the place in the Line of Succession, etc.

Again, no idea if it’s a valid COA, but I did hear of it being one method of “Canadianizing” the Crown.