WI Commonwealth countries 'incentivised' to have Royals as GG?

In Canada, Vincent Massey was the first Canadian born GG. I suppose it's possible to get a Royal in afterwards, but it is certainly going to be a tougher sell.

Getting ONE royal for an OCCASIONAL stint as GG would be possible, but I doubt that either Canada or Australia would be willing to take one on permanently.

I think that the right PR push would work better than 'incentivising' to get it to happen, though.
 
The fact is the GG has some real powers in Canada, even if by tradition they usually aren't exercised (arguably more power than the Queen has over the government in the UK because the GG does sometimes exercise their power of the Commons). They are appointed (de-facto by the Prime Minister) but they are not a hereditary title and for the last 50 years they have been held by native born Canadians who are commoners, not Peers (no Canadians are allowed to be named Peers anymore). Appointing a member of the Royal Family would fly in the face of this custom, which would really rub most Canadians the wrong way (most of us Canadians under age 60 do not really view the country as a monarchy and the idea of a titled foreigner (complete with foreign accent) holding real power over our government by right of their bloodline would be a very tough sell. Thats not even to mention the reaction of Francophone Quebec! The idea of a British (and Prodestant!) Royal serving as GG would cause a huge uproar in post-Quiet Revolution Quebec, and with the threat of the referendum, I doubt even the staunchest monarchist PM would risk such an appointment. In short best bet for this is to get a Royal appointed GG in the mid 1950 ore better yet, pre-WW2, when GGs were generally British aristocrats anyway.
 
Australia is the same, which is why such an appointment would have to be 'bought' with government to government deals of a substantial nature. For example the Charles thing for us in the 70s could be sealed with an Invincible and a batch of Sea Harriers to replace Melbourne and the Skyhawks. A hefty price no doubt and one that would have to have an amount of plausible deniability with the public concerning the link between the two. But hey, what is an experienced Monarch worth to the British? You can't just go and get Monarchical powers training anywhere, its hard to come by and a couple/three of hundred million pounds for 5 years of it doesn't strike me as too steep. Given the arguments concerning Kerr exceeding his authority perhaps having an actual Royal who would not exceed his authority might be sold as a good thing.
 
Top