Links to the Crown

[limyjack]

Hey

For some reason I just clued into what is going to be a very interesting question for the CF, or I guess the govt in general. There has been much debate about maintaining links with the crown and most, even those that want to cut them tread very lightly around the subject.

So when HRH QE II dies, maybe not for 30yrs if the Queen Mom is any indication, what will the govt do about the Queen's crown versus King's crown emblems that grace this nation in amazing abundance - what if it were tomorrow????

Imagine the cost of re-issuing every single crest, sign, capbadge, emblem, piece of paper, flag etc, etc that has a Queen's crown, not just in the Military but across the federal and provincial govt's, the RCMP, municipal and provincial police forces and on and on it goes.

So, should we undertake to replace the QC with the KC, with a Maple Leaf, with perhaps a unisex specifically CANADIAN crown that would never need to be changed no matter the sex of the sovereign? Has anyone planned for this eventuality - not likely. Willthis be the thin end of the wedge to breaking ties with the crown - almost certainly, or at least there will be a substantial push for that when it when it happens. Of course the underlying cost issue is that the cost will have to be borne not matter what the replacement is - but replace it with what?

I understand that this issue could be divisive, so lets keep it polite and with reasoned arguments.

 

[wotan]

Hey Jimyjack,

  Her Majesty's official website "www.royal.gov.uk" provides the answer at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2494.asp
 
  The quote is:

Q: Kyle Leyden - Northern Ireland
It is often remarked that, upon the accession to the Throne of the present Queen, the Crown above the Royal Cypher and the symbol of the State changed from the so-called "King's Crown" to the "Queen's Crown". The former resembles the Imperial State Crown (prior to the lowering of the arches in 1953) and the latter looks more like the Coronation Crown of St. Edward. Was this change made simply because the monarch was a Queen Regnant (and if so, is it not true that Queen Victoria used the "King's Crown" in the latter part of her reign)? Or was there some other reason for the change? 

A:  You are correct in saying  that the present Queen's cypher incorporates a representation of St. Edward's Crown, with upright, domed sides, whereas George VI's cypher featured a crown with sloping sides more like the Imperial Sate Crown.

However, there are no strict rules regarding the changes in crown design used in a Royal cypher, nor is there a King's Crown used for male monarchs as opposed to a Queen's Crown for female monarchs. The cypher design changes, as does that of the coat of arms, upon the accession of a new monarch, and the new cypher is always different from the preceding monarch's. The design change may include the adjustment of the shape of the crown to distinguish the cyphers.

One discernible trend is that sovereigns named Edward - Edward VII and Edward VIII, for example - have tended to use St. Edward's Crown by virtue of the name association.

During Victoria's reign, the design of the cypher was not standardised and so there were variations in the shape of the crown featured in different media during her long reign."

  Hope that clears things up.  Cheers.

 

[limyjack]

First let me say that I am mazed that either you searched that out or that you knew that answer - in any case - well done.

The post certainly answers some questions, however I would still be interested in opinion of what Canada should do, especially since your post suggests the likelihood that there would be change.

Given the mood about the crown - do we continue to use the crown emblem?

 

[brin11]

See this thread for past discussion:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29390.0.html

 

[wotan]

  I would say that unless we become a Republic (constitutional wrangling, anyone?), we are at least obligated by protocol to do so and most likely by law.  Soldiers swear allegiance to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors according to law, not to Canada nor the government.  Our Parliamentary system is rooted in the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy.  Hence, emblems would change (not overnight by any means) and we would adopt Charles image on our coinage and other applicable items, but colours would change only in due crse, i.e. when they are replaced at the end of their natural lives.

  Any other thoughts out there?

 

[pbi]

I make the following comments being very mindful of both my Oath and my British heritage.

I believe (and I have commented on this elsewhere on Army.ca) that while we exist happily under the Crown now, it is inevitable, natural and quite healthy that we will evolve away from this. This may be driven by the ongoing change in our demographics, or it may occur anyway. It will not happen tomorrow, or next year, but it will happen.

I envision an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, process that will produce an amicable, civilized separation with full understanding on both sides. I would compare this to a child who grows up happily in its parents' home, content to be fully under their care and influence. Then, inevitably, a day comes when the child will reach adulthood and strike out on its own. The child still loves its parents, and does not forget what it owes them, and it will visit "the folks" now and then, but the child makes its own way in the world.

As a nation we must learn to stand on our own two feet in all respects. To me, this means that eventually but inevitably all the means of self-determination and identity must reside in our own country. We are maturing as a nation, slowly. We must embrace the idea that gradually letting go of our association with the Crown does not and should not equate to fallingly helplessly into the vortex of US influence (in fact I think the two are no longer mutually exclusive, anyway-one might argue that the UK has recently been as heavily under US political inflluence as Canada has been...) If anything will affect that eventuality, it is sound national leadership (or the lack thereof...), not our Royal heritage.The gradual process of evolution that began in our Confederation, proceeded through the Statute of Westminster and the repatriation of our Constitution, will IMHO utlimately end in the final severance of our formal ties with the Crown, but not in a manner that many fear.

I am not sure that I will live to see this-quite likely not-but I do not dread it.

Cheers

 

[Neill McKay]

The flaw in your prediction lies in the fact that the Crown, as we have it today, is that of Canada and not that of the UK.  Our Queen is the Queen of Canada.  While the same individual is also the Queen of other countries, each Crown is its own entity.  So I would suggest that we have fully matured as a nation, with our own Crown.  Some have suggested that we should persuade one of the Queen's children (or grandchildren) to take up residence in Canada and act solely as our monarch, establishing a unique Canadian royal family.  There may be some merit to doing this, but it doesn't much alter the desirability of maintaining our government as a constitutional monarchy.

Nor is the system of constitutional monarchy necessarily outdated.  Norway is one, and its Crown dates from the early 20th century.

Finally, British heritage is not necessarily the determinant of someone's loyalty to the Crown.  Many immigrants from a variety of countries rightly see the Crown as a source of stability, as indeed it is.  By no means are its supporters all of British descent.

 

[pbi]

Perhaps. We will see, I suppose. I am not sure that in the long term any of the facts that you have  presented will have much impact. The monarchy in Canada will last as long as most Canadians consider it to be relevant and not harmful, and as long as it is not seen as a relic of long-past British colonial status. I do not really see much indication that those ideas will remain dominant in our society over the long term, although I realy do not know any more than you do. I predict that Australia will go first, followed in fairly short order by Canada.

Cheers

 

[winchable]

There's always a bit of a debate on this over here from what I've gathered, though the majority of the population still supports the monarchy (less than perhaps 50 years ago, but still a majority) there's always debate on what should happen after the current Queen (God save her) dies.
There is one woman, who is quite possibly the most annoying TV personality I have ever seen, who has a "revolutionary" (not evolutionary as pbi put, quite correctly too) idea on what to do.

http://www.janetstreetporter.com/jsp_TV_monarchy.html
There's actually not that much information there on her specifics ideas, but it does make one think, and on a personal note I don't agree with her ideas in the slightest and as I said above..annoying.

I'm not going to close or merge this thread yet because I think that although we have had a lot of discussion on the monarchy, there's never been specific debate about what should happen after the current Queen dies, not just within the military but in general.
I think it's a particularly notable topic because the majority of the people associated in any way with the monarchy can't remember another monarch and most likely have not witnessed the transition from one to another and the difficulties and feelings associated with such a thing.
We have gotten quite comfortable (for those of us who take note of it) with the current Queen and may be a bit apprehensive about a new monarch, since those words are going to be new territory for the majority of us.

Well any discussion on the topic is welcome, keeping in mind this is not a monarchy bashing thread and unless you can come up with something more than "Kill them all, that gene puddle is a bit dirty anyway" save us the headache of locking it, etc. etc. nag nag nag, everyone put on your grown up trousers.

 

[winchable]

Oh, spoke to soon, moving it out of the army thread and into...ahh..let's see..the dreaded politics forum?..hmm...should I kiss the idea of reasoned debate goodbye and brace for personal attacks from those of massive intellect? Yes.

 

[wotan]

  Hmmmm.....an intriguing scenario you have painted there, pbi, and you well may be bang on the mark.  What you describe seems, to me, to be the approach that would be most typically "Canadian".  I would certainly hope that if we part with the Crown that it is done respectfully and with at least a degree of affection.

  As well, the point Che makes about how folks might feel with a new sovereign seems equally valid.  It would seem logical that a debate will be instigated (re-newed) by those that wish to part ways with the Monarchy upon the passing of Her Majesty and prior to the coronation of Prince Charles.  Whether or not their efforts would be successful is another issue, but the timing would be right, politically, even if not from the stance of good manners.

  I have no idea how a separation from the Crown would occur politically.  What would or would not have to be legislated to effect the change?  I would assume that  Bill would have to pass through Parliament and, strangely, gain Royal Assent in order to effect the demise of the Monarchy in Canada.  Any experts on this topic out there?

 

[Horse_Soldier]

Unless I'm grossly off track, detaching ourselves from the Crown would require an amendment to the Constitution - something which may be rather difficult in our fractious federation.

"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;"

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#IV

In other words, to rid ourselves of the Crown, all 10 provinces as well as the House and Senate would have to have a majority vote in favour.   Charlottetown accord anyone?

 

[pbi]

In other words, to rid ourselves of the Crown, all 10 provinces as well as the House and Senate would have to have a majority vote in favour. ¦nbsp; Charlottetown accord anyone?

And, as I reflected, at this point in our history, this seems unlikely. But I am not talking about this point in our history-I am referrring to the fact that this country is constantly changing and adapting over time. The Canada of 1914 was not the Canada of 1867, nor of 1950, nor of 1999, etc. We are changing slowly, but we are changing. My belief is that the change away from the monarchy will be gradual, evolutionary, amicable but certain, and will be seen by the people of that day (whenever that day will come) as an act of political maturation without disrespect.

Cheers.

 

[tomahawk6]

I suppose if the polls reflected a change in the public mood toward the Crown then the relationship would be altered. But I dont see that happening in the next 15 years anyway.

 

[winchable]

Actually depending on how the public receives Charles it might very well come in the next 15 years.
The King or Queen is one of the few public offices that (nowdays) is based completely, without any exception I believe, on the public perception of the individual occupying that office. Whereas a Prime Minister or President is chosen to a certain degree based on public perception of the party or person, one would hope that a majority of voters are choosing based on platforms, ideas, issues yadda yadda yadda.
Now, what happens when a media unfriendly King ascends to the throne. What happens when public perception is already soured slightly on the individual, and it's not as though he's got a party platform to prop up his wet towel personality and grumpy reputation as well as accusations of unfaithfulness to Diana. Coupled with the fact that alot of the majesty and mystery of the throne and the Royals in general is out the window thanks to the infiltrating ability of the media (not entirely a bad thing) the prestige of being King will already be taken away by the time Charles is crowned. Without that prestige the throne is lacking alot believe it or not.
I think that when Charles takes the thrown we will see a definite shift in the monarchy's popularity.
Now, provided William steers the course he's followed so far I think that he will be something to look forward to..as far as monarchists are concerned.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think there is an overarching constitutional principle which trumps everything else: the sovereign reigns but parliament rules.  That means that Her Majesty and her lawful heirs and successors are bound, without fail, to obey the will of parliament.

If parliament were to pass a resolution, not a law, just a resolution like the Nickel Resolution of 1919 which, just recently, former Prime Minister Chrétien used to tell Her Majesty that, despite the constitutionally correct advice of her British Prime Minister, she should not make Conrad Black a lord because he was, then a Canadian citizen and we, Canadians, had resolved that Canadians should not be awarded foreign titles, then the sovereign would be obliged to tell all her relatives that none was qualified to take the Canadian throne.  There would be no law against it, just a resolution â “ but it binds our Queen to our laws â “ even when she is double-hatted.  Lord Black did not take up the British Queen's ermine until he had renounced his Canadian citizenship because constitutional principles rule.

If our parliament were to pass simple a resolution declaring that we did not agree with the current rules of succession then Charles would not become King of Canada.  Nothing done anywhere, by any province or any state could change that.  Charles could not become King of Canada because he would be constitutionally prohibited from taking his Canadian throne.  We would still be a monarchy; nothing in our Constitution would change â “ not a word; there would be no need to consult with anyone, much less secure the agreement of provincial legislatures.  We would be a monarchy without a reigning monarch; this is not an uncommon situation â “ it is called a regency and there have been many down through the centuries and there is no reason why we could not have one now, right here in Canada.

In a regency the duties of the 'absent' or 'unqualified' monarch are performed by a Regent.  Who is Regent and under what circumstances the regency operates is a matter for parliament â “ our national parliament â “ to decide, as it sees fit.  We can call the Regent the Governor General, if we like, and we can select her or him however we see fit: political patronage, election â “ of some sort, or we can just take turns, in alphabetical order starting from, say, the tallest person in, say, Tofino or Massett.

I agree with pbi â “ times change and it is time we let principles help us out of the 19th century.