The Monarchy and CF

[daftandbarmy]

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.

The Crown is already Canadian... and Australian, Belizian, Scottish, Diego Garcian, Pitcairn Islander etc etc.

That's why, as a form of responsible and representative government, Constitutional Monarchies like ours work so well.

 

[Spencer100]

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.

yes I heard that one too.

Still my question. If we can amend with the succesion act of 2013. (I did read profs and such thought it may not be legal) But Harper was able to do it. So we just go one tiny step more. Put someone in place (House of Windsor or something more Canadian) Leave everything else the same.

Pick a FN Heredity Chief call him/her King/Queen. (then rotate through the different chiefs as time comes) And Bob's your uncle. lol

 

[FSTO]

yes I heard that one too.

Still my question. If we can amend with the succesion act of 2013. (I did read profs and such thought it may not be legal) But Harper was able to do it. So we just go one tiny step more. Put someone in place (House of Windsor or something more Canadian) Leave everything else the same.

Pick a FN Heredity Chief call him/her King/Queen. (then rotate through the different chiefs as time comes) And Bob's your uncle. lol

That’s so crazy it just might work!!

 

[Remius]

yes I heard that one too.

Still my question. If we can amend with the succesion act of 2013. (I did read profs and such thought it may not be legal) But Harper was able to do it. So we just go one tiny step more. Put someone in place (House of Windsor or something more Canadian) Leave everything else the same.

Pick a FN Heredity Chief call him/her King/Queen. (then rotate through the different chiefs as time comes) And Bob's your uncle. lol

We couldn’t even pick a First Nations GG without having someone complain about something lol. Good luck picking a king or queen.

 

[Spencer100]

We couldn’t even pick a First Nations GG without having someone complain about something lol. Good luck picking a king or queen.

Ok I got it.....fix all the problem with one stone

We just give a "promotion!" to a certain fellow

Justin Trudeau you get to be the new King! (you get no power!) He would play the role well! He gets to dress up, go on trips and look important! But most importantly he is not heard from!

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Ok I got it.....fix all the problem with one stone

We just give a "promotion!" to a certain fellow

Justin Trudeau you get to be the new King! (you get no power!) He would play the role well! He gets to dress up, go on trips and look important! But most importantly he is not heard from!

I honestly would relocate to another Commonwealth Realm if he was given more power (even if symbolic) than he already has or feels entitled to.

Our Westminster style constitutional monarchy has stood up well between numerous threats and crises in our 155 years of Confederation. Don't fix what ain't broke.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I honestly would relocate to another Commonwealth Realm if he was given more power (even if symbolic) than he already has or feels entitled to.

Our Westminster style constitutional monarchy has stood up well between numerous threats and crises in our 155 years of Confederation. Don't fix what ain't broke.

Magna Carta 1215 enters the chat:


Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[6]

Magna Carta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Edward Campbell]

yes I heard that one too.

Still my question. If we can amend with the succesion act of 2013. (I did read profs and such thought it may not be legal) But Harper was able to do it. So we just go one tiny step more. Put someone in place (House of Windsor or something more Canadian) Leave everything else the same.

Pick a FN Heredity Chief call him/her King/Queen. (then rotate through the different chiefs as time comes) And Bob's your uncle. lol

Which is, roughly, how Malaysia does it.

 

[lenaitch]

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.

I'd really like to see whoever dreamed that up to provide their legal analysis, if they have one. It would require a complete legal overhaul in both Canada and the UK. I don't really much see the point of replacing a Canadian-born Head of State (since '52 as noted), with a B-team foreigner. Do we advertise?

There are all sorts of permutations of forms of government; parliamentary, republican and a few that are combinations. Some have a combined Head or State/Head of Government, some elect their Head of State. All have their pros, cons and warts. I don't get those who see the Monarchy as the source of our ills and simply becoming a republic will somehow solve them, or that it is a sign of a lack of national maturity. When I became all grow'd up and left home, I didn't renounce my parents. Assuming we would still retain a separate Head of State to occupy Rideau Hall, moving away from the Monarchy wouldn't save us any money or make us anymore grow'd up.

 

[torg003]

The idea of Canadianizing the monarchy is a bit strange as all members of the Royal Family are Canadian citizens (as well as Australian, NZ, etc., etc.). Again comes down to the fact that provinces don't do a good job of educating Canadians to be good, informed citizens, as most people don't realize that all the Royals are in fact Canadians. It seems the worst educated people tend to gravitate towards a job in the media, as these people tend to be the ones spreading the most disinformation about the Canadian Royal Family.
Someone mentioned if it would be possible to use another country's monarch as the Canadian head of state. In reality, the Royal Family is related to every other royal house in Europe (and probably some outside it). Don't be fooled, the House of Windsor was just a different name that was adopted during WW1 because of the anti-German sentiment. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is actually a cadet branch of the main Royal House of Wettin. All the heirs of Elizabeth II are also related (through Philip) to the house of Glucksburg (with 2 dots over the first U), a cadet branch of the House of Oldenberg. So the Canadian Royal House should probably be officially called Oldenberg-Wettin as that would be more accurate than Windsor. We could declare any other European monarch as the de jure monarch of Canada while recognizing the head of the House of Windor as the Head of the Commonwealth. Of course, most would ask, what's the point? Unless we were to declare the Danish Queen as the Monarch of Canada so that we could get control of Greenland (que evil laughter).

 

[RangerRay]

Do we advertise?

As I said, the proposal was to invite a bored member of the House of Windsor, who would have to renounce their titles and claims. I am not an advocate for this COA and think it’s constitutionally dubious at best but brought it up as one method to proposed to “Canadianize” the Crown.

But I agree with you: it’s not broken so don’t fix it. We have other problems in other institutions that have a greater impact on peoples lives.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The idea of Canadianizing the monarchy is a bit strange as all members of the Royal Family are Canadian citizens (as well as Australian, NZ, etc., etc.). Again comes down to the fact that provinces don't do a good job of educating Canadians to be good, informed citizens, as most people don't realize that all the Royals are in fact Canadians. It seems the worst educated people tend to gravitate towards a job in the media, as these people tend to be the ones spreading the most disinformation about the Canadian Royal Family.
Someone mentioned if it would be possible to use another country's monarch as the Canadian head of state. In reality, the Royal Family is related to every other royal house in Europe (and probably some outside it). Don't be fooled, the House of Windsor was just a different name that was adopted during WW1 because of the anti-German sentiment. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is actually a cadet branch of the main Royal House of Wettin. All the heirs of Elizabeth II are also related (through Philip) to the house of Glucksburg (with 2 dots over the first U), a cadet branch of the House of Oldenberg. So the Canadian Royal House should probably be officially called Oldenberg-Wettin as that would be more accurate than Windsor. We could declare any other European monarch as the de jure monarch of Canada while recognizing the head of the House of Windor as the Head of the Commonwealth. Of course, most would ask, what's the point? Unless we were to declare the Danish Queen as the Monarch of Canada so that we could get control of Greenland (que evil laughter).

And, of course, the 'Daily Prole' was, apparently, the first to proclaim the name change

British royal family change their name to Windsor - archive 1917

One hundred years ago, King George V changed the name of the British royal family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor

www.theguardian.com

 

[Blackadder1916]

The idea of Canadianizing the monarchy is a bit strange as all members of the Royal Family are Canadian citizens (as well as Australian, NZ, etc., etc.). Again comes down to the fact that provinces don't do a good job of educating Canadians to be good, informed citizens, as most people don't realize that all the Royals are in fact Canadians. . . .

And how did you come up with that nugget of wisdom?

A quick scan of the Citizenship Act did not elicit a single criteria for right to citizenship that would apply to any member of the Royal Family (or at least not any of those that made it to the government list) except if they followed the same process as anyone else who applied for Canadian citizenship.

As the question was raised when Harry and his American wife camped out in BC following leaving the firm this is one response that was reported.

Canada will not automatically grant the royal couple citizenship, and would need to apply to become permanent residents through the normal immigration process, Mathieu Genest, a spokesperson for the immigration minister, told the CBC in a statement.

 

[lenaitch]

And how did you come up with that nugget of wisdom?

A quick scan of the Citizenship Act did not elicit a single criteria for right to citizenship that would apply to any member of the Royal Family (or at least not any of those that made it to the government list) except if they followed the same process as anyone else who applied for Canadian citizenship.

As the question was raised when Harry and his American wife camped out in BC following leaving the firm this is one response that was reported.

it is apparently a matter of some debate within constitutional scholarly circles. It is argued that, since the reigning Monarch (Crown) is the personification or embodiment of the State, then they can't be citizens of said State in the traditional sense. In a sense, they would be a citizen of themselves. There is apparently no legal impediment to QEII or any of them to vote in a British election - it's just not done. Like so many aspects of UK governance, much is simply unwritten convention.

As for the status of the rest of The Firm, beats me, but I doubt they would be formal citizens of other Realm nations. They are State supported to varying degrees and international travel is always diplomatic (state-to-state) so the usual practices doesn't apply.

 

[Ostrozac]

it is apparently a matter of some debate within constitutional scholarly circles. It is argued that, since the reigning Monarch (Crown) is the personification or embodiment of the State, then they can't be citizens of said State in the traditional sense. In a sense, they would be a citizen of themselves.

That is certainly an… interesting interpretation of UK citizenship law. So the theory is that Princess Elizabeth was born in London as a British Citizen, but her citizenship was stripped upon the death of her father? And, similarly, her Uncle David (ex-Edward VIII) lost his British citizenship and spent his retirement as a stateless person? Or did he inherit Danish, German or Austrian citizenship from one of his grandparents?

It doesn’t seem to agree with the intent of the Sophia Naturalization Act which gave British citizenship to the members of the House of Hanover for the specific purpose of them then assuming the Crown. Why would parliament naturalize the future George I if he would then immediately cease being a citizen? Nor does the British Nationality Act seem to include an exception for the Monarch.

 

[torg003]

Okay, so officially the Queen and members of the Royal Family are considered Canadian. You'll find that in any gov't publication on the subject on the Monarchy ("Crown of Maples", for example). I added the word "citizen" which seems to have sparked some debate. Whether or not a monarch can be a "citizen" doesn't change the fact that the Queen is Canadian (and members of the Royal Family). It would seem that it may not remain the case if a member gives up their Royal duties. and become a private citizen.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Okay, so officially the Queen and members of the Royal Family are considered Canadian. You'll find that in any gov't publication on the subject on the Monarchy ("Crown of Maples", for example). I added the word "citizen" which seems to have sparked some debate. Whether or not a monarch can be a "citizen" doesn't change the fact that the Queen is Canadian (and members of the Royal Family). It would seem that it may not remain the case if a member gives up their Royal duties. and become a private citizen.

For example, Prince Harry is now a citizen of Coventry

 

[lenaitch]

That is certainly an… interesting interpretation of UK citizenship law. So the theory is that Princess Elizabeth was born in London as a British Citizen, but her citizenship was stripped upon the death of her father? And, similarly, her Uncle David (ex-Edward VIII) lost his British citizenship and spent his retirement as a stateless person? Or did he inherit Danish, German or Austrian citizenship from one of his grandparents?

It doesn’t seem to agree with the intent of the Sophia Naturalization Act which gave British citizenship to the members of the House of Hanover for the specific purpose of them then assuming the Crown. Why would parliament naturalize the future George I if he would then immediately cease being a citizen? Nor does the British Nationality Act seem to include an exception for the Monarch.

Well, it's a pretty esoteric topic; likely not unlike discussing the lineage (and probably citizenship status) of the Pope. The concept of citizenship is a matter of laws, and lawmakers can make, and others can interpret, pretty much any law they like (or, perhaps more accurately, what they can get away with).

 

[lenaitch]

Okay, so officially the Queen and members of the Royal Family are considered Canadian. You'll find that in any gov't publication on the subject on the Monarchy ("Crown of Maples", for example). I added the word "citizen" which seems to have sparked some debate. Whether or not a monarch can be a "citizen" doesn't change the fact that the Queen is Canadian (and members of the Royal Family). It would seem that it may not remain the case if a member gives up their Royal duties. and become a private citizen.

Yes. In a world of conventions and national and international niceties, 'considered' and actual, clear legal status may not always align.

 

[Kilted]

As I said, the proposal was to invite a bored member of the House of Windsor, who would have to renounce their titles and claims. I am not an advocate for this COA and think it’s constitutionally dubious at best but brought it up as one method to proposed to “Canadianize” the Crown.

But I agree with you: it’s not broken so don’t fix it. We have other problems in other institutions that have a greater impact on peoples lives.

I'm pretty sure that would be both unconstitutional and illegal. If you really want to further Canadianise the Monarchy, start creating the Duke of Saskatchewan, the Marquis of Toronto, the Earl of York Region, the Viscount of Meaford, etc.