King Charles of Canada just 18 months away?

[TorontoDrew]

Personally I could care less if we kept things the way they are or lost the Monarchy's ties to our Government. It has zero impact on my life.

[Acajack]

Just checked and the vast majority of Commonwealth members do not have QEII as head of state.

Only about 15 out of 60 or so members have her as the HoS.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's entirely possible to be a Commonwealth member and not have the London-based Queen/King as your head of state.

That said, I am not aware of what the constitutions are like in the other countries where the British monarch is the head of state, so no idea if it's an easy change to make.

In Canada's case though it is virtually impossible to make this change. The monarchy as currently enshrined is effectively padlocked. You'd need the unanimous consent of all of the provinces plus the federal government to get rid of it.

Is that true after the Harper government changed the rules of succession without the consent of the provinces? I thought that had been upheld by the courts, specifically rejecting the argument that provincial consent was required. If so, who personifies the "Crown" is probably just a matter for the Parliament of Canada, no?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I guess one could have a discussion of "need", but here's the GofC's 101

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...wn-canada.html

When you boil it down then, the only neccesary roles of the GG are:

• Summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament.
• Setting out the government’s program by reading the Speech from the Throne.
• Giving Royal Assent, which makes acts of Parliament into law.

And my question is, while the GG could theoretically choose not to carry out one of these functions, is that realistic? And since the GG is appointed by the PM anyway, what does it matter? Could a PM not just put a stooge in there who would somehow allow tyranny, despite the rest of parliament?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Support for the monarchy will more or less plummet once QEII leaves us. We're so used to seeing her around, on our currency as one example, that seeing someone else will be a reminder that we're still apart of monarchy and that moving on from QEII will prompt serious discussion over why we're still under their thumb, legally-speaking. Nobody really gives the Queen a second thought when she's so visible in our day-to-day life but I imagine the discussion is different when it's literally anyone else.

This is IMO inevitable but I don't think the questioning will ever get to the point where clear majorities in all provinces are in favour of ditching it, which would lead to all 10 legislatures plus the federal Parliament voting to ditch it.

Which is what would be required constitutionally.

[milomilo]

While my opinion is that we should get rid of the monarchy here, I don't actually care much and wouldn't want it to become a national debate. There are far bigger things to be worried about to be wasting time on something that doesn't really matter.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by milomilo

While my opinion is that we should get rid of the monarchy here, I don't actually care much and wouldn't want it to become a national debate. There are far bigger things to be worried about to be wasting time on something that doesn't really matter.

I doubt anybody actually cares much, absent some sort of crisis. That is why things are very unlikely to change. I doubt even the Queen and her successor care much - they'd undoubtedly take the position that it's entirely up to Canadians to decide.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's entirely possible to be a Commonwealth member and not have the London-based Queen/King as your head of state.

That said, I am not aware of what the constitutions are like in the other countries where the British monarch is the head of state, so no idea if it's an easy change to make.

In Canada's case though it is virtually impossible to make this change. The monarchy as currently enshrined is effectively padlocked. You'd need the unanimous consent of all of the provinces plus the federal government to get rid of it.

The institution is padlocked, but the person who holds it is not. Our Parliament could modify the law that determines the line of succession to name anybody as the Queen's successor, so we could in theory create our own royal family without any constitutional changes.

The Canadian throne is legally independent from the British throne, two separate offices that happen to be held by the same person. We have the right to determine the rules to our own throne. When they changed the succession rules a few years ago to make them gender neutral, we had to modify our own law on the matter to match Britain's changes.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by CityTech

The institution is padlocked, but the person who holds it is not. Our Parliament could modify the law that determines the line of succession to name anybody as the Queen's successor, so we could in theory create our own royal family without any constitutional changes.

That is my understanding, at least since the courts upheld the changes to the law of succession under the Harper government.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

would we get charles on the money or still her?

The historic practice has been to have the ruling monarch on the backside of coins, so those will almost certainly change. I’m not as sure about $20 bills though. I imagine both will be replaced with Charles.

[Acajack]

So what you're saying is that Constitution says we will pretty much always need "a Queen" who is the head of state and holder of ultimate power. But that the legislation that defines who that "Queen" is is easier to change and could be amended to make the "Queen"... some random dude?

[MonctonRad]

If there is any part of the country that would put its foot down regarding getting rid of the monarchy, it would be Atlantic Canada, especially NS and PEI. Since unanimity is necessary for abolition, it will never happen.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If there is any part of the country that would put its foot down regarding getting rid of the monarchy, it would be Atlantic Canada, especially NS and PEI. Since unanimity is necessary for abolition, it will never happen.

In spite of the loophole other have alluded to, my guess is that for a whole bunch of reasons, the monarchy with a London-based Queen or King, is effectively "padlocked" as far as Canada is concerned.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

If there is any part of the country that would put its foot down regarding getting rid of the monarchy, it would be Atlantic Canada, especially NS and PEI. Since unanimity is necessary for abolition, it will never happen.

And "deep Ontario" (Loyal she remains ...).

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So what you're saying is that Constitution says we will pretty much always need "a Queen" who is the head of state and holder of ultimate power. But that the legislation that defines who that "Queen" is is easier to change and could be amended to make the "Queen"... some random dude?

That's my understanding. The line of succession to the throne is merely federal legislation.

One of the principles of the Westminster system is parliamentary supremacy over the executive. The Crown exists at the pleasure of the parliament(s).

[kwoldtimer]

One thing I would expect is that Charles, as King if not Regent, would take steps to streamline the 'Royal Family". At the moment, there are simply too many of them floating around trying to play some sort of public role. The latest business with Andrew just highlights the problem (and creates the opportunity to fix it).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

One thing I would expect is that Charles, as King if not Regent, would take steps to streamline the 'Royal Family". At the moment, there are simply too many of them floating around trying to play some sort of public role. The latest business with Andrew just highlights the problem (and creates the opportunity to fix it).

I agree this is highly likely. But while Andrew gives them the excuse to act, it's highly unlikely that the "cull" would ultimately exclude the King's siblings or his children (William and Harry) from the public lens.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I agree this is highly likely. But while Andrew gives them the excuse to act, it's highly unlikely that the "cull" would ultimately exclude the King's siblings or his children (William and Harry) from the public lens.

I don't know, I could see Harry being (quite happily, I suspect) cut free. It is notable that Princess Anne's kids are not "royal" and that Harry and Meaghan's kid carries no royal title (yet?). I suspect one could underestimate the attraction that having a normal life could have for some of them. On the other hand, not sure how Beatrice and Eugenie would react .... . I suppose Charlotte and Louis are "safe" for the time being, since they'll be "spares" for the next thirty years or so.

[esquire]

I don't pay much attention to the royal families in other countries like Spain, Denmark, etc., but do they have the same magnitude of hangers-on as the one in the UK, where you have a gaggle of third cousins or whatever living the royal life? If not, perhaps that's a suitable model to follow.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't pay much attention to the royal families in other countries like Spain, Denmark, etc., but do they have the same magnitude of hangers-on as the one in the UK, where you have a gaggle of third cousins or whatever living the royal life? If not, perhaps that's a suitable model to follow.

I don't think so. Wasn't it the King of Sweden who recently streamlined things for the Swedish royals?