King Charles or King William?

[g_bambino]

I am sure the SCC would have a different interpretation if it is faced with a constitutional deadlock as a result of an abdication.

There would be no deadlock as a result of an abdication since an abdication can't take place until there's full agreement.

[TimG]

There would be no deadlock as a result of an abdication since an abdication can't take place until there's full agreement.

If the abdication has been authorized by the UK parliment then there has been an abidication. The only question is how to get the corresponding change passed here if a provincial governments tries to exploit the issue. Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[g_bambino]

If the abdication has been authorized by the UK parliment then there has been an abidication. The only question is how to get the corresponding change passed here if a provincial governments tries to exploit the issue.

If the UK were to properly adhere to the convention spelled out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, then there would be no abdication until there was unanimous consent from all the Commonwealth Realms.

If, however, the UK chose to ignore that "treaty" (as the Ontario judge calls it), the other Commonwealth Realms would not be compelled to follow suit. By changing its sovereign without the other Realms agreeing to and making the same change for themselves, the UK would effectively have removed itself from the personal union relationship. Canada and the remaining Realms could then sort out amongst themselves what to do with Charles as their respective king.

[+]

Edited December 7, 2010 by g_bambino

[TimG]

If, however, the UK chose to ignore that "treaty" (as the Ontario judge calls it), the other Commonwealth Realms would not be compelled to follow suit.

If Charles says he wants to go it is unlikely the UK parliament would stand in his way. I suspect many Britons would welcome it.

Canada and the remaining Realms could sort out amongst themselves what to do with Charles as their respective king.

Canada already has the right to do what it wants with the succession. The barrier is our own constitutional process. If this situation arises there are three possible outcomes:

1) Am amendment with all 10 provinces agreeing.

2) An amendment by the federal parliament supported by a "interpretation" of the law by the SCC.

3) Charles agrees to perform the legally required duties while the ceremonial duties are assumed by William.

1) is unlikely given the position of Quebec.

2) is plausible.

3) is the fallback.

[August1991]

Simple answer. Neither should be king, and certainly not in Canada.

I would be insulted to see the visage of either of these men on our coins, and our $20 bills.

------

My favourite thread and poll: Vote.

Edited December 8, 2010 by August1991

[g_bambino]

If this situation arises there are three possible outcomes:

1) Am amendment with all 10 provinces agreeing.

2) An amendment by the federal parliament supported by a "interpretation" of the law by the SCC.

3) Charles agrees to perform the legally required duties while the ceremonial duties are assumed by William.

The interpretation of the law would be that the consent of all eleven legislatures is necessary. But, even in the fantasy scenario where the Supreme Court ruled that S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982 could somehow be ignored for an amendment "in relation to... the office of the Queen" (namely, who's to occupy it at that time and in future), I don't see how any objecting province would tolerate having its chief executive replaced by Ottawa or Ottawa and a group of supporting provinces; such a move would run entirely counter to the principal of equality amongst the parties in Confederation.

I think the circumstances in which a provincial party in power would try to block the process of replacing King Charles with King William before the death of the former would be very specific and highly unlikely. If it did occur, one possible resolution would be for Charles to, on the advice of the federal Cabinet, issue letters patent permitting William to exercise all powers that are Charles' as king of Canada, making William a regent, in effect. If anyone challenged that in court, it would then be up to the justices to decide whether or not that qualified as an amendment to the constitution. In my completely amateur opinion, I don't think it would.

[g_bambino]

I would be insulted to see the visage of either of these men on our coins, and our $20 bills.

Better start packing your bags, then.

[TimG]

The interpretation of the law would be that the consent of all eleven legislatures is necessary.

There are often many ways to interpret the law when a scenario is not covered explicitly. Lawyers build careers on such things.

If it did occur, one possible resolution would be for Charles to, on the advice of the federal Cabinet, issue letters patent permitting William to exercise all powers that are Charles' as king of Canada, making William a regent, in effect.

Another variation on Option 3).

[g_bambino]

There are often many ways to interpret the law when a scenario is not covered explicitly.

S.41 is quite explicit: "An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province: (a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province..." A change in soveriegn is very clearly an amendment that relates to the office of the Queen and S.41 leaves no vagueness about what's required for such an amendment to be made. If Charles wants to abdicate and a province votes against an amendment to the constitution to allow such a thing, then Charles remains on the throne, in Canada, at least. Whatever happens after that, I'm not entirely sure; it would have to be worked out amongst the governments.

[TimG]

A change in soveriegn is very clearly an amendment that relates to the office of the Queen and S.41 leaves no vagueness about what's required for such an amendment to be made.

I see that as an interpretation that does not necessarily follow from the wording. But that is just my amature opinion and I don't know what actual lawyers would say. Edited December 8, 2010 by TimG

[g_bambino]

I see that as an interpretation that does not necessarily follow from the wording.

I'm curious as to how a change in the occupant of an office is not a change relating to the office.

[Oleg Bach]

Word of advice to her Majesty...always install the most attractive and charismatic member of the family...as the front man....in other words get the handsome one to represent the company ...people are suckers for pretty.

[ToadBrother]

Well, that's not how the Ontario Superior Court interpreted it. Accodring to a ruling made by that court in 2003, S.41 of the Constitution Act 1982 does indeed apply to changes made to the Act of Settlement, which, as we know, governs the line of succession:

Charles could not abdicate the throne without the consent of the federal and all ten provincial parliaments.

[fix quotation]

The problem with this is that it would essentially short circuit the Statute of Westminster, which in fact does mention the Australian states and Canadian provinces elsewhere in its text, but explicitly deals with question of the succession within the context of the Federal Parliament. It could generate a dangerous constitutional crisis if there was a necessary change to the succession.

Still, it's a hypothetical danger.

Edited December 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

I'm curious as to how a change in the occupant of an office is not a change relating to the office.

That's rather how it works in most places. A new American President is elected, and yet the Office of the President of the United States remains as it was before the new President took office. The person and the office are not the same thing, and the same goes for the Sovereign. For instance, the rule of thumb throughout the Realms is that when the Sovereign dies, the Parliaments that have been sworn in under His or Her name still persist, their rights, powers and privileges resting on the office of the Monarch, and not the person of the Monarch alone.

The accession of a new Sovereign does not trigger a constitutional change. That's rather the point of the Act of Settlement, 1701, which answered once and for all the question of eligibility for the throne.

But all of that aside, it would be damned difficult enough to alter the succession to skip Charles even without the Provinces being involved. Charles will be the next king, unless he dies before his mother. There's no evidence beyond the mad musings of some British tabloids that he has any desire to step aside, that the Queen wants him to, and William has come out clearly stating he will not be king until his father dies.

Edited December 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Word of advice to her Majesty...always install the most attractive and charismatic member of the family...as the front man....in other words get the handsome one to represent the company ...people are suckers for pretty.

The Queen has no power to alter the succession. That lies with the Parliaments of the Realms.

[g_bambino]

The problem with this is that it would essentially short circuit the Statute of Westminster...

I don't understand what you mean.

[g_bambino]

That's rather how it works in most places. A new American President is elected, and yet the Office of the President of the United States remains as it was before the new President took office. The person and the office are not the same thing, and the same goes for the Sovereign.

In both cases, there are set rules for how the occupant takes office. We're now discussing the hypothetical scenario of making an exception to the rules of succession to the office of the Canadian monarch as they are presently written. This would require an amendment to the constitution, one that says Charles is no longer king, despite the provisions of the Act of Settlement. Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982 states that amendments "in relation" to the office of the Queen must be approved by the federal and all provincial legislatures. Changing the occupant of the office by necessary constitutional amendment would indeed seem to be "in relation" to the office.

[TimG]

In both cases, there are set rules for how the occupant takes office.

If the president chooses to resign there are set rules for selecting his replacement. The only issue is the act of settlement has no explicit provisions for resignations but there is a implicit provision which nobody would ever dispute (goes to the next in line). A consititutional change should not be required to invoke this implicit rule.

That said, I think we are missing the reason for the crisis with King George:

Under the Act of Settlement, succession of the senior descendant of the Electress Sophia is automatic and immediate, neither depending on, nor waiting for, any proclamation. Thus, during the abdication crisis in 1936, caused by Edward VIII's desire to marry Wallis Simpson, new acts of parliament were required throughout the Commonwealth realms to allow for Edward's stepping aside, and ensuring that any potential children of his would have no claim to the throne.

In hypothetical scenario we are talking about there would be no ambiguity introduced by future children of Charles.

[g_bambino]

The only issue is the act of settlement has no explicit provisions for resignations...

Precisely. Hence, for a sovereign to abdicate, an exception to the constitutional rules of succession has to be made. That would require a unique addition to the constitution of clauses outlining that, though his father, the most direct descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, still lives, and as such the Act of Settlement makes him king, William is to be king, anyway. An addition to the constitution is an amendment, and such an amendment is "in relation" to the office of the Queen, the approval of the federal and all provincial legislatures would be required.

[jbg]

I got the impression that if he couldn't continue his work, that he may say no and pass it on to his son. All this depends on the length of time the Queen has and the life experience of William. I'm sure he's in no huury to be king either.

Two questions:

1. Doesn't the person in the line of succession have to be crowned, and then abdicate; and
   
2. Why couldn't Charles continue his "work" as a Constitutional Monarch?