POD of 1920, make it happen. Bonus if it happens postwar, Double Bonus if later than 1982.
Conditions: no secession, no WWIII.
Conditions: no secession, no WWIII.
Even today it is improbable since it would take all 10 provinces to agree. It's a constitutional can of worms, because so many other issues (Quebec, the Senate, equalization) would get dragged into it.
Was the fact that South Africa, with Afrikaners outnumbering anglophones among the whites, was a unitary country (with the provinces not being nearly as autonomous as those in Canada and hence with less of a constitutional need for agreement on an issue like this) one reason as to why it became a republic so quickly after a referendum for it in 1960? (Of course, many Afrikaners hardly wanted any more British influence either.)
Yes, it was. The Afrikaners and the British never got along, still don't to some extent. The British were rather brutal to the Boers in the 1899-1902 war, not so much against them in battle but the concentration camps they set up killed about four times as many people as those killed in battle. Over 1/2 of all the lives lost in that war were women and children. That has not been forgotten. After the National Party took over, the end of the Union in favor of a Republic was inevitable.
So it sounds like the British were kinder to the French Canadians than to the Afrikaners?
Easy as pie. After King Edward IX of Britain is found out, after the end of a more brutal Second World War, to have been a proponent of a separate peace and a borderline Nazi collaborator, there is such an uproar in Great Britain that the monarchy is abolished by referendum.
Another possibility is where Queen Elizabeth dies of a massive heart attack right in the middle of the Princess Diana death fiasco, leaving Charles as the heir to the throne. He then makes a series of extremely serious, extremely public gaffes, which enrages the British public to the point of abolition of the monarchy via referendum.
Both of these actions would leave Canada without a head of state. Most likely, the current Governor-General would be confirmed as the acting head of state, and a constitutional convention would be called to deal with this problem. I would guess that the system would change very little, with Canada being confirmed as a federal republic with an appointed, ceremonial head of state, called either the President or the Premier.
No, they wouldn't. The Queen reigns separately in Canada and the UK; even if the monarchy is abolished in Great Britain, the monarch would still continue as monarch of Canada. Of course, in either of your scenarios, there'd almost certainly be calls to abolish it in Canada as well - but it wouldn't happen automatically.Both of these actions would leave Canada without a head of state. Most likely, the current Governor-General would be confirmed as the acting head of state, and a constitutional convention would be called to deal with this problem. I would guess that the system would change very little, with Canada being confirmed as a federal republic with an appointed, ceremonial head of state, called either the President or the Premier.
POD of 1920, make it happen. Bonus if it happens postwar, Double Bonus if later than 1982.
Conditions: no secession, no WWIII.
It would be interesting to see the royal family reigning in only a handful of small countries after the bulk of them abolish the monarchy. Imagine Elizabeth taking up permanent residence in Kingston.No, they wouldn't. The Queen reigns separately in Canada and the UK; even if the monarchy is abolished in Great Britain, the monarch would still continue as monarch of Canada. Of course, in either of your scenarios, there'd almost certainly be calls to abolish it in Canada as well - but it wouldn't happen automatically.