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

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.
The PM is telling half the country to pound sand and expects to survive an election? Over the monarchy? Which doesn't affect 99.9% of Canadians on a daily basis? Any PM who suggested something so ridiculous would get demolished in an election.

The PM would (rightfully) be seen as the irrational one. This whole argument isn't going to be about the monarchy, it's going to be about provincial rights. And the PM just took a huge shit on them. There's no way every province agrees to such insanity, and the PM can't make the provinces agree to it.

All any province has to do is say, "Add ______ to the agenda or I say no." Boom, no opening the constitution.
 
Everything I hear about Canada's constitution tells me fiddling around with it is more trouble than it's worth, whereas all Britain needs is a majority in the House of Commons. While I think majority opinion in Canada would turn against the monarchy before the British you only need one province to torpedo the effort, not exactly hard to imagine.

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.
Screw over the entire country to replace one ceremonial figurehead with another, terrible idea. The opposition wouldn't cave they'd go after the government and win in the court of public opinion, the government would back down embarrassed and probably lose the next election.

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.
Why would this be so important to Canada? And it doesn't matter what they want, it matters what they can do and how much political capital it costs to do it. Re-opening the constitution and restructuring the country is more trouble than it's worth until not doing so has negative electoral impacts. Which it probably won't for a long while outside of a King Andrew scenario.
 
This scenario is very unlikely given the state of public opinion in Canada and the UK. Polling suggests senitment in Canada currently is very republican, but the whole issue has a very, very low saliency with the Canadian public at the same time. And indeed, why bother when the governor-general is essentially an appointed president anyway?

Monarchism in public opinion-terms is in a significantly stronger position in the UK.

One imagines if the UK ever seriously opens a debate about potentially abolishing the monarchy, then the Canadian political elite would rapidly start laying the groundwork for that as well. The prospect of Canada, as the largest commonwealth realm other than the UK, potentially getting into the waters of a resident monarch would force the issue, constitutionally-speaking, and would likely make it much more salient an issue with the Canadian public.

The royals fleeing to Canada in the first half of the 20th century due to revolution or war is I think an utterly separate issue to what would happen today and should be treated as such.
 
Last edited:
There is a scenario out there where Canada takes the former British monarchy after Britain goes red. One of the only stories I know having such a plot. Here.

There's also a book series on Amazon, by James Young I believe, where King Edward VIII surrenders Britain to the Germans and the rest of the Royal Family flees to Canada.
 
Polling suggests senitment in Canada currently is very republican,
It wouldn't matter if literally every Canadian was in favour of removing the monarchy. Once the constitution is opened all it takes is one province to torpedo the negotiations over some pet project (language, # of senators, provincial autonomy, aboriginal rights, equalization..., etc.), and there's always going to be one province willing to fight the feds on something.
 
The PM is telling half the country to pound sand and expects to survive an election? Over the monarchy? Which doesn't affect 99.9% of Canadians on a daily basis? Any PM who suggested something so ridiculous would get demolished in an election.

The PM would (rightfully) be seen as the irrational one. This whole argument isn't going to be about the monarchy, it's going to be about provincial rights. And the PM just took a huge shit on them. There's no way every province agrees to such insanity, and the PM can't make the provinces agree to it.
Screw over the entire country to replace one ceremonial figurehead with another, terrible idea. The opposition wouldn't cave they'd go after the government and win in the court of public opinion, the government would back down embarrassed and probably lose the next election.
Both of these arguments are the same so I'll address them here. Both of you assume this process is occuring in a vacuum and there is some sort of convention where the PM is asking for any amendment ideas only to rule out the ones to his liking. But I need not say that the UK abolishing the monarchy would change this dynamic.

If the UK abolishes the monarchy, there's almost a certainty Canada will move in lock step(as I've already explained here before). This means that this constitutional amendment process has a singular goal from before it even started: abolishing the monarchy. That's it. A one singular goal. And the Canadian people would be expecting this one singular goal as well to be met. As I said prior, this entire process should be more of a beaucratic paperwork thing, not a lenghty debate. The PM ruling out any other amendment is essentially keeping Pandora's box closed and is line with all this. By and large the Canadian people would agree with this point. This amendment should only be about turning Canada into a republic.

If some province decides to play smart and still do it. They would be the odd one out. There were would be no great political anethma to be PM being obstinate to their cause. In fact, the Canadian people would be behind this PM stick up against a province trying to piggy back ride its desired constitutional change off of the monarchy going down the drown. Afterall, if one province gets a concession why not another; best to give none.
Why would this be so important to Canada? And it doesn't matter what they want, it matters what they can do and how much political capital it costs to do it. Re-opening the constitution and restructuring the country is more trouble than it's worth until not doing so has negative electoral impacts.
It reflects badly though. Especially because Canada keeping it is not so much a function of them actually wanting a monarchy, but one or two provinces being obstinate to get their own selfish changes pushed through.
 
Both of these arguments are the same so I'll address them here. Both of you assume this process is occuring in a vacuum and there is some sort of convention where the PM is asking for any amendment ideas only to rule out the ones to his liking. But I need not say that the UK abolishing the monarchy would change this dynamic.

If the UK abolishes the monarchy, there's almost a certainty Canada will move in lock step(as I've already explained here before). This means that this constitutional amendment process has a singular goal from before it even started: abolishing the monarchy. That's it. A one singular goal. And the Canadian people would be expecting this one singular goal as well to be met. As I said prior, this entire process should be more of a beaucratic paperwork thing, not a lenghty debate. The PM ruling out any other amendment is essentially keeping Pandora's box closed and is line with all this. By and large the Canadian people would agree with this point. This amendment should only be about turning Canada into a republic.

If some province decides to play smart and still do it. They would be the odd one out. There were would be no great political anethma to be PM being obstinate to their cause. In fact, the Canadian people would be behind this PM stick up against a province trying to piggy back ride its desired constitutional change off of the monarchy going down the drown. Afterall, if one province gets a concession why not another; best to give none.

It reflects badly though. Especially because Canada keeping it is not so much a function of them actually wanting a monarchy, but one or two provinces being obstinate to get their own selfish changes pushed through.
That's exactly why it won't happen. At least one province will be obstinate enough to push it's pet project through and it will scuttle the whole thing. The PM can't force the provinces not to bring up their own project and that's what will crater the amendment. Look at the failure of Charlottetown. And that was case where there was broad consensus, prior to the BQ existing, a (debatably) pro western government, and aboriginal rights wasn't on the absolute forefront of government agenda.

It's not about the monarchy, it's about federal and provincial powers. There will be a lengthy debate because of how the constitution exists in this country as it stands and Quebec's place within it.
 
That's exactly why it won't happen. At least one province will be obstinate enough to push it's pet project through and it will scuttle the whole thing.
With all due respect, I don't believe this would occur. Not even a significant risk. The PM ruling out any other amendments in this process is not going to be a confrontational thing with a given province. But moreso nipping any ideas at the bud. The PM's statement would actually prevent a province from doing this. Not the other way around where there's a standoff.
The PM can't force the provinces not to bring up their own project and that's what will crater the amendment.
From a legal standpoint he can't. But there are many reasons why a provincial government won't. For starters, the vast majority of Canadians, even in said province, don't want this republic transition to be used as the springboard for whatever constitutional issues that provincial government wants to settle. They, and most Canadian politicians for that matter, just want a simple, controversy-less transition. If premier decides to do this, he would face electoral backlash within his own province for creating problems where there was none, alone may force him and the legislature to back down. This can easily devolve into a career suicide moment for said premier and his supporters; hence they won't even bother trying to force an issue.
Look at the failure of Charlottetown.
As I said, this won't be some sort of national conversation on the constitution. The ship on whether to keep the monarchy or not has already sailed. Now it's just a matter of updating the constitution to reflect this new reality.
It's not about the monarchy, it's about federal and provincial powers. There will be a lengthy debate because of how the constitution exists in this country as it stands and Quebec's place within it.
And here's where we reach an impasse. It is my firm belief that this will be about the monarchy and attempts to reframe it won't be successful.
 
Both of these arguments are the same so I'll address them here. Both of you assume this process is occuring in a vacuum and there is some sort of convention where the PM is asking for any amendment ideas only to rule out the ones to his liking. But I need not say that the UK abolishing the monarchy would change this dynamic.

If the UK abolishes the monarchy, there's almost a certainty Canada will move in lock step(as I've already explained here before). This means that this constitutional amendment process has a singular goal from before it even started: abolishing the monarchy. That's it. A one singular goal. And the Canadian people would be expecting this one singular goal as well to be met. As I said prior, this entire process should be more of a beaucratic paperwork thing, not a lenghty debate. The PM ruling out any other amendment is essentially keeping Pandora's box closed and is line with all this. By and large the Canadian people would agree with this point. This amendment should only be about turning Canada into a republic.

If some province decides to play smart and still do it. They would be the odd one out. There were would be no great political anethma to be PM being obstinate to their cause. In fact, the Canadian people would be behind this PM stick up against a province trying to piggy back ride its desired constitutional change off of the monarchy going down the drown. Afterall, if one province gets a concession why not another; best to give none.

It reflects badly though. Especially because Canada keeping it is not so much a function of them actually wanting a monarchy, but one or two provinces being obstinate to get their own selfish changes pushed through.
If we abolish the monarchy, we have no legal relationship with the first nations

On that basis alone, a Republic would require signing new treaties with all 612 of Canada's First Nations bands...

Until that happens...Canada literally doesnt exist, as this country was created when the Crown negotiated use of land from the indigenous...
 
With all due respect, I don't believe this would occur. Not even a significant risk. The PM ruling out any other amendments in this process is not going to be a confrontational thing with a given province. But moreso nipping any ideas at the bud. The PM's statement would actually prevent a province from doing this. Not the other way around where there's a standoff.

From a legal standpoint he can't. But there are many reasons why a provincial government won't. For starters, the vast majority of Canadians, even in said province, don't want this republic transition to be used as the springboard for whatever constitutional issues that provincial government wants to settle. They, and most Canadian politicians for that matter, just want a simple, controversy-less transition. If premier decides to do this, he would face electoral backlash within his own province for creating problems where there was none, alone may force him and the legislature to back down. This can easily devolve into a career suicide moment for said premier and his supporters; hence they won't even bother trying to force an issue.

As I said, this won't be some sort of national conversation on the constitution. The ship on whether to keep the monarchy or not has already sailed. Now it's just a matter of updating the constitution to reflect this new reality.

And here's where we reach an impasse. It is my firm belief that this will be about the monarchy and attempts to reframe it won't be successful.
The constitution opens so rarely that this may be the only for a province to ever push its agenda, and the feds have to least pretend to play nice or risk that province scuttling the whole amendment process, which means that everything is going to be on the table and leads to the amendments all failing.

I just don't see why the provinces don't pursue their agendas, they've got nothing to lose. If the amendment fails they're exactly where they were before. The provinces can rally around their pet issues and the opposition can side with the provinces and bag on the majority party saying they're ignoring the will of the provinces.

I think we just have vastly different views on federal-provincial relations.
 
For starters, the vast majority of Canadians, even in said province, don't want this republic transition to be used as the springboard for whatever constitutional issues that provincial government wants to settle.

They, and most Canadian politicians for that matter, just want a simple, controversy-less transition.
These lines in particular make me think you're not Canadian.

The majority of us DON'T want our province pushing their agenda???

Our politicians want a simple controversy-less transition???

How do you think we got the current consitution in the first place?
 
I think I can confidently predict that some Canadian constitutional lawyers are going to increase their pension funds substantially what with TV appearances, newspaper articles and legal opinions.

#Kerching
 
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.
That... would be the second time this happened in Portuguese history.
 
Does the royal family get to keep their estates, holding, the Crown Jewels, etc, or does the British government overturn their previous agreements and take their family and personal possessions? It does make a difference for Canada if the royals come over with a part of their fortunate of If Canadian tax payers have to pay for them. Not that they would need to pay too much in comparison to Canadian elections and lots of unneeded subsidies to various industries. Might be interesting if the Scottish kept the monarchy and, perhaps, Northern Ireland. That isn’t involved in their scenario, though. Ahhh right. If the government does try to do this, then the Welsh and Scottish will be almost mutinous if it is done against their own wishes, even if they support the monarchy just to say screw-you to the English. Ahhh yes, will we assume Wuebec is still a part of this Canada?
 
The constitution opens so rarely that this may be the only for a province to ever push its agenda, and the feds have to least pretend to play nice or risk that province scuttling the whole amendment process, which means that everything is going to be on the table and leads to the amendments all failing.
"Rarerly". Wasn't there an amendment that passed literally last year?
Again, your political leverage is misplaced. All the cards, formal and informal, are in the feds hands.
I just don't see why the provinces don't pursue their agendas, they've got nothing to lose. If the amendment fails they're exactly where they were before. The provinces can rally around their pet issues and the opposition can side with the provinces and bag on the majority party saying they're ignoring the will of the provinces.
What about the converse? Ontario has no burning need to change the constituiton when compared to Quebec, or Alberta. Ontario as province would see no reason why there would be any controversy and would be rather annoyed at another province's shenanigans. So what would stop the Ontario government from stating, so as long as they're in power, that they'll simply never agree to any of those proposals? In a sort of retaliation move for another province delaying the process. Without Ontario, any amendment is practically doomed.
I think we just have vastly different views on federal-provincial relations.
Quite obviously.
 
1) "Rarerly". Wasn't there an amendment that passed literally last year?

2) Again, your political leverage is misplaced. All the cards, formal and informal, are in the feds hands.
Numbering mine

1) No. There wasn't. There has literally never been an amendment to the Canadian constitution (which itself was never ratified by Quebec), and the last failed attempt was in 1992 and almost tore the country apart:


2) sorry but it's you have have misplace political leverage. It's also not as simple as waving a club at the premiers. The provincial legislatures have to pass the amendments.
 
I think a lot depends on what happens to the House of Windsor. If something occurs to end the British monarchy that delegitimizes its moral authority—something like at least some of the heirs doing Epstein-like stuff with the consent of the Palace would work—then I think you could get an avalanche.

One key issue in the Canadian context is that I do not think there pro-monarchism as such is broadly popular. I do not think there are large demographics which are invested in the survival of constitutional monarchy as a political issue, or an identity issue. Conversely, there is at least some latent republicanism, notably in a Québec not sentimentally very attached to the British fact.

My guess is that, if something happened to end the British monarchy, soon enough you would see a shift. There would be notable changes needed to make Canada a republic, but they would be much less significant than the changes needed to keep Canada under the House of Windsor after the monarchy ended in the UK. The effective head of state, the Governor-General, is already a Canadian; conversely, the House of Windsor is relatively distant.
 
Why would this be so important to Canada? And it doesn't matter what they want, it matters what they can do and how much political capital it costs to do it. Re-opening the constitution and restructuring the country is more trouble than it's worth until not doing so has negative electoral impacts. Which it probably won't for a long while outside of a King Andrew scenario.

I do think that, in the event of a disestablishment of the House of Windsor in the UK, that the change would be forced upon Canada. I have no idea how the mechanics of Canadian constitutional monarchy would be harmed by this disestablishment in the UK, but I suspect they would be significant. Canada would have to change to work.

Going ahead and creating a Canadian royal family under the House of Windsor would be hugely controversial, much more so than (say) enacting the relatively minor changes needed to make a Canada that is functionally mostly republican an actual republic.
 
I do think that, in the event of a disestablishment of the House of Windsor in the UK, that the change would be forced upon Canada. I have no idea how the mechanics of Canadian constitutional monarchy would be harmed by this disestablishment in the UK, but I suspect they would be significant. Canada would have to change to work.
Why? What effect would the abolition of the British monarchy have on the government of Canada? The British monarchy being abolished would not abolish the Canadian monarchy.
Going ahead and creating a Canadian royal family under the House of Windsor would be hugely controversial,
What do you mean by creating a Canadian royal family? King Charles is the King of Canada, a legally separate role to King of the United Kingdom, King of Australia, etc. The British royal family is the Canadian royal family.
much more so than (say) enacting the relatively minor changes needed to make a Canada that is functionally mostly republican an actual republic.
Restructuring Canada's government is substantially less difficult than forking out a stipend for the immediate royal family to live on.

Republicanism would probably increase as a result of Britain abolishing the monarchy and eventually the monarchy would likely go, but its a lot of effort to amend the Canadian constitution. This discussion has been litigated over the last few pages, I'd advise you to look into it.
 
Why? What effect would the abolition of the British monarchy have on the government of Canada? The British monarchy being abolished would not abolish the Canadian monarchy.

What do you mean by creating a Canadian royal family? King Charles is the King of Canada, a legally separate role to King of the United Kingdom, King of Australia, etc. The British royal family is the Canadian royal family.

Have they actual residences? Are Canadians likely to be friendly, even, to the idea of a resident monarchy? Having a resident royal family is a new experience and, judging by the problems of the House of Windsor in the UK, transferring this family over to Canada to play a leading role in our politics and society is going to be costly.

Republicanism would probably increase as a result of Britain abolishing the monarchy and eventually the monarchy would likely go, but its a lot of effort to amend the Canadian constitution. This discussion has been litigated over the last few pages, I'd advise you to look into it.

I have, and I am unconvinced. The British monarchy being dethroned in the UK but still around in Canada would have major implications for governance, theoretically and practically. How would indigenous rights be like? How would Canadians feel about their head of state being not a governor-general but a foreign-born monarch freshly dethroned?

I am reminded, here, of the tensions in Kaiserreich Canada. If anything, things could be worse since a lot of Canadian nation-building has happened, and Canadians and Britons have diverged in many notable ways.
 
Top