A future where the UK abolishes the monarchy but Canada retains it

Mitchell Hundred

I can actually see how it would be easier for the United Kingdom to get rid of the monarchy than it would be in Canada, as the UK is a unitary state while Canada a federal one. Canada would need reaching a mutual agreement on a mended or entirely new constitution between all 10 provinces and The Crown, not a fun proposition.

Could a scenario ever emerge where Canada says it's just not worth the incredible hassle and possible disunity of the country, that regardless of what Britain does, Canada will retain its monarchy and institution within. Would various members of the Royal family potentially move to Canada as a result?
 
Last edited:

Dancing Fool

Mitchell Hundred said:
Could a scenario ever emerge where Canada says it's just not worth the incredible hassle and possible disunity of the country, that regardless of what Britain does, Canada will retain its monarchy and institution within.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I think this has some potential. :)

Perhaps somewhat related is the Portuguese colony of Angola. What if through a combo of stable leadership + luck, Angola ends up the bigger economy, its voters dominate parliament, Portugal itself has an independence movement, and so on, and so forth. Angola might invite the royal family and they’d be happy to accept.

Even more streamlined for Canada and the Commonwealth monarchy. If you’re writing an 80-years-in-the-future sci fi, for example, just accept this as a given with maybe 3 sentences.
 

YYJ

Canada is the only country in the world that still celebrates Queen Victoria's birthday.
www.officeholidays.com

Victoria Day in Canada in 2024 | Office Holidays

Read about Victoria Day in Canada in 2024. Victoria Day is a federal Canadian statutory holiday observed on the Monday before May 25th each year. It marks the birthday of Queen Victoria on May 24th 1837.
www.officeholidays.com
 

wwbgdiaslt

Declan

This can occur if there is some sort foreign military takeover of the UK and a new republic is set up while the royals flee.
Basically if Operation Sealion was a success and WW2 ended with a Germany vs US(slightly USSR) Cold War. In such a case, the royal family escapes to Canada while the Nazis set up a client state. Initially, the Royals aim to do a Free France sort of government in exile. But as this Cold War drags on, the empire inevitably disintegrates without British troops. The settler dominions, change their laws to become de jure independent. As such the British monarch receives separate titles in the settler countries instead of the monarch being the sovereign of the former dominions.
Possibly a detente occurs, and as a condition, the royals are forced to renounce their claim on what was the UK.

Otherwise, I don't see it happening. Especially with Canadian political impasse being a cause. The UK is very much the beating heart of the Commonwealth as a personal union. If it goes, so does the rest. This still applies to Canada despite the constitutional problems.
Secondly, the reason the Commonwealth personal union exists is to keep a bond with the UK. If the UK severs that bond itself, it completely renders the perosnal union useless. The amount of monarchists who support a king because his claim is "just" are far and few between.
Thirdly, if the UK abolishes it yet Canada keeps it, there exists a possibility for the Royals looking to Canada and its taxpayers for some upkeep of rpyal property. Just no.

All in all, despite Canada's constitutional process being easily derailed by minor problems, the UK's abolition of the monarchy would cause a consensus to occur, quickly at that, in Canada to amend the constitution to make it a republic.
 
Last edited:

Titanium49

Declan said:
All in all, despite Canada's constitutional process being easily derailed by minor problems, the UK's abolition of the monarchy would cause a consensus to occur, quickly at that, in Canada to amend the constitution to make it a republic.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. The process of repatriation of the constitution led to a process where all 10 provinces need to agree. Like the US & Australia, there is some tendency for the small provinces/states to take the attitude that if the big guys want it, it's going to increase their power & that must be bad for us small guys. Although a referendum is explicitly not required, I can see 1 province saying we'll have a referendum, then all the others fall in line like they did with the Charlottetown Accords. PEI, Newfoundland & Labrador & Alberta would all be provinces where the combination of conservatism & a scare campaign would lead to a No vote.
 

Declan

Titanium49 said:
I'm not sure. The process of repatriation of the constitution led to a process where all 10 provinces need to agree. Like the US & Australia, there is some tendency for the small provinces/states to take the attitude that if the big guys want it, it's going to increase their power & that must be bad for us small guys. Although a referendum is explicitly not required, I can see 1 province saying we'll have a referendum, then all the others fall in line like they did with the Charlottetown Accords. PEI, Newfoundland & Labrador & Alberta would all be provinces where the combination of conservatism & a scare campaign would lead to a No vote.
Click to expand...
I think it would.
You have to look at what would actually be discussed in this context. What even is the point of even one province creating some obtuse obstruction in this amendment process. As I said prior, the bulk of pro-commonwealth arguments rest of maintaining a link to the UK. But that link is already severed in this scenario. Fundamentally, there is no reason why anyone would raise and objection, certainly one to derail the entire process. This a debate would be already lost. Secondly, the unavoidable link between the UK in the monarchy would induce in many in the Commonwealth to follow the UK's example. Afterall, if the one who made it's colonies accept its king, only to disavow him, what use is that king to the former colonies?

A major chunk of thus process is basically bureaucratic paperwork: crossing out references to monarch/moanrchy and replacing it with president/republic. This is what happened OTL in many other commonwealth countries that become Republic. For example, South Africa and Trinidad & Tobago.
The only real heavy lifting is deciding how the president gets elected. Even then, Canada would likely just copy paste the precedent already set by Commonwealth republics: just let parliament elect them.
 
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

Mitchell Hundred said:
I can actually see how it would be easier for the United Kingdom to get rid of the monarchy than it would be in Canada, as the UK is a unitary state while Canada a federal one. Canada would need reaching a mutual agreement on a mended or entirely new constitution between all 10 provinces and The Crown, not a fun proposition.

Could a scenario ever emerge where Canada says it's just not worth the incredible hassle and possible disunity of the country, that regardless of what Britain does, Canada will retain its monarchy and institution within. Would various members of the Royal family potentially move to Canada as a result?
Click to expand...
Australia is a federal country as well, and we had one referendum on the Monarchy after all the states agreed to hold a referendum on the subject of the monarchy alone.
 
durante

durante

Declan said:
This can occur if there is some sort foreign military takeover of the UK and a new republic is set up while the royals flee.
Basically if Operation Sealion was a success and WW2 ended with a Germany vs US(slightly USSR) Cold War. In such a case, the royal family escapes to Canada while the Nazis set up a client state. Initially, the Royals aim to do a Free France sort of government in exile. But as this Cold War drags on, the empire inevitably disintegrates without British troops. The settler dominions, change their laws to become de jure independent. As such the British monarch receives separate titles in the settler countries instead of the monarch being the sovereign of the former dominions.
Possibly a detente occurs, and as a condition, the royals are forced to renounce their claim on what was the UK.

Otherwise, I don't see it happening. Especially with Canadian political impasse being a cause. The UK is very much the beating heart of the Commonwealth as a personal union. If it goes, so does the rest. This still applies to Canada despite the constitutional problems.
Secondly, the reason the Commonwealth personal union exists is to keep a bond with the UK. If the UK severs that bond itself, it completely renders the perosnal union useless. The amount of monarchists who support a king because his claim is "just" are far and few between.
Thirdly, if the UK abolishes it yet Canada keeps it, there exists a possibility for the Royals looking to Canada and its taxpayers for some upkeep of rpyal property. Just no.

All in all, despite Canada's constitutional process being easily derailed by minor problems, the UK's abolition of the monarchy would cause a consensus to occur, quickly at that, in Canada to amend the constitution to make it a republic.
Click to expand...
If the UK abolished the monarchy, it would take us ages to follow suit, because doing so would require a constitutional amendment, which would require parliament, the Senate, and the legislatures of BC, Ontario, Quebec, 2 Atlantic provinces and 2 prairie provinces to agree.

The last time that has happened was never.
 
durante

durante

Declan said:
I think it would.
You have to look at what would actually be discussed in this context. What even is the point of even one province creating some obtuse obstruction in this amendment process. As I said prior, the bulk of pro-commonwealth arguments rest of maintaining a link to the UK. But that link is already severed in this scenario. Fundamentally, there is no reason why anyone would raise and objection, certainly one to derail the entire process. This a debate would be already lost. Secondly, the unavoidable link between the UK in the monarchy would induce in many in the Commonwealth to follow the UK's example. Afterall, if the one who made it's colonies accept its king, only to disavow him, what use is that king to the former colonies?

A major chunk of thus process is basically bureaucratic paperwork: crossing out references to monarch/moanrchy and replacing it with president/republic. This is what happened OTL in many other commonwealth countries that become Republic. For example, South Africa and Trinidad & Tobago.
The only real heavy lifting is deciding how the president gets elected. Even then, Canada would likely just copy paste the precedent already set by Commonwealth republics: just let parliament elect them.
Click to expand...
They wont call it a President. Too American. That would be even worse than a monarchy. The proposals I've seen suggest "First Canadian".

BC and Alberta wouldnt agree without redressing the balance of Senators.

It would be a whole can of worms.

Now, if the monarchy tried to move to Canada and take up office, that wouldnt fly I dont think. But i could see us having a monarch who isnt a monarch for awhile.
 
Last edited:

naraic

durante said:
If the UK abolished the monarchy, it would take us ages to follow suit, because doing so would require a constitutional amendment, which would require parliament, the Senate, and the legislatures of BC, Ontario, Quebec, 2 Atlantic provinces and 2 prairie provinces to agree.

The last time that has happened was never.
Click to expand...
I believe some Quebec based politicians have indicated that while they disapprove of the Monarch was being abolished they would seek concessions to agree to a change in the constitution.

I'm not sure if that's a universal policy among those politicians parties.

Also I'm not Canadian so those quotes could have come from minor politicians and I wouldn't know.

I'm just trying to illustrate that it won't be an automatic agreement even from anti monarchy parties.
 
durante

durante

naraic said:
I believe some Quebec based politicians have indicated that while they disapprove of the Monarch was being abolished they would seek concessions to agree to a change in the constitution.

I'm not sure if that's a universal policy among those politicians parties.

Also I'm not Canadian so those quotes could have come from minor politicians and I wouldn't know.

I'm just trying to illustrate that it won't be an automatic agreement even from anti monarchy parties.
Click to expand...
Exaaaaaactly. Everyone will demand something, except probably Ontario.
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

durante said:
If the UK abolished the monarchy, it would take us ages to follow suit, because doing so would require a constitutional amendment, which would require parliament, the Senate, and the legislatures of BC, Ontario, Quebec, 2 Atlantic provinces and 2 prairie provinces to agree.
Click to expand...
Not to mention all those indigenous peoples who treaties were with the Crown, which leads to the assumption that it was with the monarchy directly rather than the Canadian government. One can't wish that away in that case.
 

Declan

durante said:
If the UK abolished the monarchy, it would take us ages to follow suit, because doing so would require a constitutional amendment, which would require parliament, the Senate, and the legislatures of BC, Ontario, Quebec, 2 Atlantic provinces and 2 prairie provinces to agree.

The last time that has happened was never.
Click to expand...
Well, this would be the first time then. There is no debate to be had really. As I said before, the UK abolishing the monarchy first renders the pro-monarchy camps in the commonwealth completely impotent. There would be agreement by virtue of no real opposition.
durante said:
They wont call it a President. Too American. That would be even worse than a monarchy. The proposals I've seen suggest "First Canadian".
Click to expand...
Sounds like something only the most pedantic, and fringe Canadians would oppose the use of "president". Pretty much every republic in the world uses "president" for its head of state. Only exception I can think of is the DPRK. And they're the only an exception because thye want Kim Il-Sung to remain the only president. Regardless, I doubt any serious Canadian politician would engage in this.
durante said:
BC and Alberta wouldnt agree without redressing the balance of Senators.

It would be a whole can of worms.
Click to expand...
This problem has a rather easy solution: the Prime Minister stating bluntly that parliament(well House of Commons) would simply refuse to approve anything unrelated to abolishing the monarchy, using his majority(or a coalition) to veto it. If this occurs, BC and Alberta would be seen as the irrational ones, holding up the process for an unrelated issue that has already been ruled out; and they would cave. Same goes if Quebec tries anything.
naraic said:
I believe some Quebec based politicians have indicated that while they disapprove of the Monarch was being abolished they would seek concessions to agree to a change in the constitution.
Click to expand...
See point above. By the Prime minister stating the House of Commons would refuse anything unrelated, it would discourage these sort of tactics

And there's another reason why I don't see this process being a major drawn out affair. Canada would want to avoid this exact scenario where it remains the last one standing in the commonwealth. They would try to do this quickly so that they don't get left behind when UK does finally abolish it.
Dan1988 said:
Not to mention all those indigenous peoples who treaties were with the Crown, which leads to the assumption that it was with the monarchy directly rather than the Canadian government. One can't wish that away in that case.
Click to expand...
I would imagine one of the last acts the UK's monarch would do is to settle treaties in his name. By declaring that a given state is take his place in a given treaty. In this context, designating the Canadian state itself to take his place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top