The Monarchy in Canada

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I was listening to CBC radio today, and they had 2 people on debating changes to the monarchy to stop giving preference to men.  I understand that part, but they were also talking about Canada being the only member of the Commonwealth who still has the Queen as their Head of State, and that that should be changed too.  It has always been my understanding that the Governor-General was basically the Head of State like in Australia, although the Queen is technically the head of state, but really in name only.  But they were talking about Australia being different than how it's set up in Canada.

I'm not too up-to-date on the issue, so I was wondering if some of our Canadian posters could fill me in, and is this really a big issue in Canada right now?

[ag]

The only difference I can see is that each Australian state is, in a way, a separate monarchy, whereas in Canada it is more of a unitary arrangement. But that same difference would not exist with New Zealand. Constitutional arrangements, obviously, would be somewhat distinct across countries, but there isn't that much unique about Canada in this respect.

[Joe Republic]

I understand that part, but they were also talking about Canada being the only member of the Commonwealth who still has the Queen as their Head of State, and that that should be changed too.

That doesn't sound accurate.  By my count (well okay, Wikipedia's count) there are fifteen countries other than the UK with Elizabeth II as their head of state.

[Cincinnatus]

My understanding is that the Queen is the figurehead of Canada just like in the UK.  Albeit, most Canadian's don't share the same opinion and tradition as English.  My Aunt worked in a government position in Canada and had to swear loyalty to the Queen.  The Governor General is meant to represent the Queen in government.  Some people recently, even in England are asking why they still have a monarchy.  Even if it's just in name.

I believe, but am not sure, that Australia has the same basic system.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If William and Kate's first child is a girl, it'll be interesting to see if all, none, or some of the Commonweath realms decide to make the girl the heir apparent instead of just the heir presumptive.

I do sincerely hope that if the couple do have a girl, they have the good taste and common sense to not name her Diana.

[J. J.]

If William and Kate's first child is a girl, it'll be interesting to see if all, none, or some of the Commonweath realms decide to make the girl the heir apparent instead of just the heir presumptive.

I do sincerely hope that if the couple do have a girl, they have the good taste and common sense to not name her Diana.

Ah, the would be worse names, e.g.,  Zenouska, Tewa, Senna, Shavannah, Xan, Columbus, and Cassius, to name a few. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I understand that part, but they were also talking about Canada being the only member of the Commonwealth who still has the Queen as their Head of State, and that that should be changed too.

That doesn't sound accurate.  By my count (well okay, Wikipedia's count) there are fifteen countries other than the UK with Elizabeth II as their head of state.

Well, that was the republican saying that, so his "evidence" may have been a little more skewed against the monarchy.

[Mr. Morden]

I've also heard a republican in Australia make the reverse claim: That Canada doesn't have the Queen as their head of state, and they get along just fine, so we should dump the Queen as well.

But of course, that isn't true either.  Both Australia and Canada have QE2 as their head of state.  I think it's just useful propaganda to think "We're the only ones left with this anachronism, so it's high time we got rid of it."  But of course, it isn't true.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is this really a big deal in either country?  I can understand chaning the line of succession to better include females, but do Australians want Australians to have the ability to become King/Queen like the Canadian republican was saying about Canadians?

[bgwah]

If William and Kate's first child is a girl, it'll be interesting to see if all, none, or some of the Commonweath realms decide to make the girl the heir apparent instead of just the heir presumptive.

I do sincerely hope that if the couple do have a girl, they have the good taste and common sense to not name her Diana.

But that would be so sweet! What better way to warm the hearts of the populace and ensure they want to keep their pointless monarchy?

[Phony Moderate]

How can anyone defend the idea of a country having a head of state who doesn't even reside in that country?

[Mr. Morden]

Is this really a big deal in either country?  I can understand chaning the line of succession to better include females, but do Australians want Australians to have the ability to become King/Queen like the Canadian republican was saying about Canadians?

I'm only a visitor here (having lived in Oz for about 2.5 years now), and am not intimately familiar with the history of republicanism here, but my understanding is that the majority of Australians simply want to dump the monarchy altogether and become a republic.  With the head of state then being a president rather than a king or queen.

While the majority of people may favor dumping the monarchy, it hasn't happened yet because 1) It's a 5th or 6th tier issue, like reforming the electoral college in the US.  2) People would have to agree on what the new system would look like.

While monarchy vs. republic may be a 5th or 6th tier issue, having a monarchy in which women are skipped in the line of succession vs. one in which they have an equal chance of reaching the throne.....that's probably about a 20th tier issue.  I really can't imagine anyone here caring about that.

[Globus Cruciger]

How can anyone defend the idea of a country having a head of state who doesn't even reside in that country?

Well the Head of State used to reside in their country. It's not her fault that Canada left the Empire.

[The Mikado]

Just make various members of the Royal family Duke of Ottawa, Duke of Canberra, Duke of...not Wellington, there can only be one Duke of Wellington...Auckland?  Then make them all heads of state.  There you go.  The Duchy of Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand, all with their final ties to the UK cut.  It's an easy solution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, in the case of Canada (or Quebec if it ever gains independence) if they ever do decide to no longer have the monarch of the United Kingdom be their Head of State, I think the House of Longueuil should be the new Head of State if they decide to maintain a noble head of State instead of an elected one.

[Verily]

Actually, in the case of Canada (or Quebec if it ever gains independence) if they ever do decide to no longer have the monarch of the United Kingdom be their Head of State, I think the House of Longueuil should be the new Head of State if they decide to maintain a noble head of State instead of an elected one.

Seems kind of pointless as the House of Longueuil all live in Britain anyway. Might as well have the Queen.

[Foucaulf]

The Queen is the Canadian Head of State, supreme authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Since she is a very busy person, she is represented by the Governor-General within the federal government (and consequently the territories) and by Lieutenant-Governors in the ten provinces. This is why the GG asks different people to form government, why laws must pass through "royal assent" and why Canadian immigrants swear loyalty to "the Queen" before being given citizenship.

It wouldn't take too much trouble to replace the English Monarchy, since Canada has already developed a self-regulating system when it comes to appointing viceroys, judges and forming government. The Governor-General can be replaced with a nonpartisan President, like most European parliamentary republics.

The big obstacle is that any change in the Monarchy would require changing the Constitution, and that uncorks a shipload of worms. Think back to 1982, when the federal government wanted to patriate the Constitution--create one that was uniquely Canadian*. It ended with the provinces at each other's throats and PM Trudeau having to get the last signatures in a hotel kitchen before Quebec's premier knew what happened.

The Monarchy exists as a stopgap, a unifying force that binds the country together. Some people pay more attention when there's a royal visit, but that doesn't last long. Governors-General, being the ones who have to deal with the problems, are important in their own right.

*Any shuffling from the Monarchy's side wouldn't work unless the Canadians approve it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is this really a big deal in either country?  I can understand chaning the line of succession to better include females, but do Australians want Australians to have the ability to become King/Queen like the Canadian republican was saying about Canadians?

I'm only a visitor here (having lived in Oz for about 2.5 years now), and am not intimately familiar with the history of republicanism here, but my understanding is that the majority of Australians simply want to dump the monarchy altogether and become a republic.  With the head of state then being a president rather than a king or queen.

While the majority of people may favor dumping the monarchy, it hasn't happened yet because 1) It's a 5th or 6th tier issue, like reforming the electoral college in the US.  2) People would have to agree on what the new system would look like.

While monarchy vs. republic may be a 5th or 6th tier issue, having a monarchy in which women are skipped in the line of succession vs. one in which they have an equal chance of reaching the throne.....that's probably about a 20th tier issue.  I really can't imagine anyone here caring about that.

Yes, QEII is head of state of Australia, like in Canada there is the Governor-General to act on the Queen's behalf.

The republic has largely dropped off the agenda - pretty much because it doesn't really have the political drive behind it. There are far more important things that people need to deal with.

There seems to be an acceptance within more moderate republican circles that, while support for a republic actually seems to have dropped here in recent years, that is largely based on a personal affinity with the Queen, and once she dies that shift to a republic will be pretty swift.

We had the 1999 referendum which was defeated 55-45% - however, the main debate was within the republican camp between those who wanted the parliamentary appointment option (which was the option voted upon) and those who wanted a direct election for president.

Assuming Australian still maintains the Monarch as head of state, there will be no issue in supporting a change to first-born over first-born male.

EDIT: New poll out today shows support for the Republic at 17-year low

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/25/3199690.htm

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is this really a big deal in either country?  I can understand chaning the line of succession to better include females, but do Australians want Australians to have the ability to become King/Queen like the Canadian republican was saying about Canadians?

I'm only a visitor here (having lived in Oz for about 2.5 years now), and am not intimately familiar with the history of republicanism here, but my understanding is that the majority of Australians simply want to dump the monarchy altogether and become a republic.  With the head of state then being a president rather than a king or queen.

While the majority of people may favor dumping the monarchy, it hasn't happened yet because 1) It's a 5th or 6th tier issue, like reforming the electoral college in the US.  2) People would have to agree on what the new system would look like.

While monarchy vs. republic may be a 5th or 6th tier issue, having a monarchy in which women are skipped in the line of succession vs. one in which they have an equal chance of reaching the throne.....that's probably about a 20th tier issue.  I really can't imagine anyone here caring about that.

But for all intents and purposes, they have that with the Governor General.  Personally, I don't see much need to separate the Governor-General from the Prime Minister, but I guess I'm coming at this from an American perspective.  Either way, when is the last time the Monarch has not appointed the Prime Minister's nominee?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Is this really a big deal in either country?  I can understand chaning the line of succession to better include females, but do Australians want Australians to have the ability to become King/Queen like the Canadian republican was saying about Canadians?

I'm only a visitor here (having lived in Oz for about 2.5 years now), and am not intimately familiar with the history of republicanism here, but my understanding is that the majority of Australians simply want to dump the monarchy altogether and become a republic.  With the head of state then being a president rather than a king or queen.

While the majority of people may favor dumping the monarchy, it hasn't happened yet because 1) It's a 5th or 6th tier issue, like reforming the electoral college in the US.  2) People would have to agree on what the new system would look like.

While monarchy vs. republic may be a 5th or 6th tier issue, having a monarchy in which women are skipped in the line of succession vs. one in which they have an equal chance of reaching the throne.....that's probably about a 20th tier issue.  I really can't imagine anyone here caring about that.

Yes, QEII is head of state of Australia, like in Canada there is the Governor-General to act on the Queen's behalf.

The republic has largely dropped off the agenda - pretty much because it doesn't really have the political drive behind it. There are far more important things that people need to deal with.

There seems to be an acceptance within more moderate republican circles that, while support for a republic actually seems to have dropped here in recent years, that is largely based on a personal affinity with the Queen, and once she dies that shift to a republic will be pretty swift.

We had the 1999 referendum which was defeated 55-45% - however, the main debate was within the republican camp between those who wanted the parliamentary appointment option (which was the option voted upon) and those who wanted a direct election for president.

Assuming Australian still maintains the Monarch as head of state, there will be no issue in supporting a change to first-born over first-born male.

EDIT: New poll out today shows support for the Republic at 17-year low

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/25/3199690.htm

That seems like the bigger issue to me... if people are unhappy with the selection process of the Governor-General, that could be changed without removing the monarchy.

[Mr. Morden]

Is this really a big deal in either country?  I can understand chaning the line of succession to better include females, but do Australians want Australians to have the ability to become King/Queen like the Canadian republican was saying about Canadians?

I'm only a visitor here (having lived in Oz for about 2.5 years now), and am not intimately familiar with the history of republicanism here, but my understanding is that the majority of Australians simply want to dump the monarchy altogether and become a republic.  With the head of state then being a president rather than a king or queen.

While the majority of people may favor dumping the monarchy, it hasn't happened yet because 1) It's a 5th or 6th tier issue, like reforming the electoral college in the US.  2) People would have to agree on what the new system would look like.

While monarchy vs. republic may be a 5th or 6th tier issue, having a monarchy in which women are skipped in the line of succession vs. one in which they have an equal chance of reaching the throne.....that's probably about a 20th tier issue.  I really can't imagine anyone here caring about that.

But for all intents and purposes, they have that with the Governor General.  Personally, I don't see much need to separate the Governor-General from the Prime Minister, but I guess I'm coming at this from an American perspective.  Either way, when is the last time the Monarch has not appointed the Prime Minister's nominee?

The monarch always appoints as Governor General whoever the PM tells her to.  So yes, QE2's authority over Australia is purely a legal fiction.  Australia is really an independent nation, even if it doesn't look that way on paper.

But that's not the point.  The people who want a Republic say that it's dumb for Australia to even have this symbolic deference to a foreign country.  Why should the UK play even a symbolic role in Australian government?  That's the argument.  Of course, the fact that it is symbolic explains why it's only a 5th tier issue.  There's no real urgency to change it, since it's not a "real" issue that impacts people's lives.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So then, it seems like the movement may be stronger in Canada?  I'm kinda disappointed we haven't had more Canadians weigh in on this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is this really a big deal in either country?  I can understand chaning the line of succession to better include females, but do Australians want Australians to have the ability to become King/Queen like the Canadian republican was saying about Canadians?

I'm only a visitor here (having lived in Oz for about 2.5 years now), and am not intimately familiar with the history of republicanism here, but my understanding is that the majority of Australians simply want to dump the monarchy altogether and become a republic.  With the head of state then being a president rather than a king or queen.

While the majority of people may favor dumping the monarchy, it hasn't happened yet because 1) It's a 5th or 6th tier issue, like reforming the electoral college in the US.  2) People would have to agree on what the new system would look like.

While monarchy vs. republic may be a 5th or 6th tier issue, having a monarchy in which women are skipped in the line of succession vs. one in which they have an equal chance of reaching the throne.....that's probably about a 20th tier issue.  I really can't imagine anyone here caring about that.

Yes, QEII is head of state of Australia, like in Canada there is the Governor-General to act on the Queen's behalf.

The republic has largely dropped off the agenda - pretty much because it doesn't really have the political drive behind it. There are far more important things that people need to deal with.

There seems to be an acceptance within more moderate republican circles that, while support for a republic actually seems to have dropped here in recent years, that is largely based on a personal affinity with the Queen, and once she dies that shift to a republic will be pretty swift.

We had the 1999 referendum which was defeated 55-45% - however, the main debate was within the republican camp between those who wanted the parliamentary appointment option (which was the option voted upon) and those who wanted a direct election for president.

Assuming Australian still maintains the Monarch as head of state, there will be no issue in supporting a change to first-born over first-born male.

EDIT: New poll out today shows support for the Republic at 17-year low

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/25/3199690.htm

That seems like the bigger issue to me... if people are unhappy with the selection process of the Governor-General, that could be changed without removing the monarchy.

People are quite content with the selection process for the Governor-General, as they generally are people like former Judges, state Governors, essentially non-controversial figures - people generally don't care.

The discussion about the 1999 Republican Referendum was in essence replacing the position of Governor General in the constitution with President. And that selection of the President would be made by the Parliament from a short-list... the argument came about because people thought "if we're going to all of this trouble to have a President... why aren't we involved directly"

The funny thing is that when you ask relatively knowledgeable people about this, they seem to think that Australia will become a republic before Canada or New Zealand. I'm pretty sure it'll happen within... 10 years of the Queen's death.