As an outsider I consider Canada and Australia - British Empire.
Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.
Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.
assert(king_of_canada === king_of_england);
Arguably, Buckingham Palace should be turned into a museum (like several other former royal residences, e.g. Tower of London, Kew Palace).
Once I was in London I saw Harry and William being ferried to the Clearance House while I was walking The Mall.
So only Elizabeth and Charles.
Should you care, here’s the link to correct Wikipedia:
Previous to that, the UK’s monarch had dominion over Canada. In 1984 the roles were made distinct.
“”” Charles III, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. “””
So in my head canon, he is the King of the UK and Canada … the same person and the same office. Ie there is no King of Canada officially - the title is always King of UK (first) and of other places as well … in short whilst Canada has a King, there is not a title “King Of Canada” that he can hold as well as holding “king of UK”
Reference: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-ca...
""" Queen Elizabeth II was the first of Canada's sovereigns to be proclaimed separately as Queen of Canada in 1953, when a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon her the title of "Queen of Canada". The proclamation reaffirmed the monarch’s role in Canada as independent of the monarch’s role in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. """
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_...
In Masai he's known as "The Helper of the Cows" (literally: he whom the cows love so much they call for him when they are in times of distress)
Jamaica has the monarchy. Jamaican forces were part of the US-led coalition that invaded Grenada in 1983, after the communists seized power. The communists found it politically expedient to maintain the structure of parliamentary government, and so the head of state of Grenada also remained nominally, Elizabeth II.
In practice Taylor Swift might have more.
If he does something that is openly obviously defying the will of the democratic majority, sure. But there are a lot of ways he can put his thumb on the scale in more subtle situations where the legal course of action is unclear.
For example, if the Queen had refused Boris Johnson's request to prorogue parliament in 2019 -- which was later ruled illegal anyway -- I doubt it would have led to the end of the monarchy.
The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...
In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.
I'm old enough to remember it and remember a statement from the palace saying something like "The Queen is watching events in Australia with interest" but I don't think she took an active part.
I quick search reveals this. I don't know this site but if true then some letters seem to confirm the above. She told the GG to obey the Australian Constitution.
https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
It's true that the palace was involved in discussions with the GG to a greater extent than most Australians though was acceptable though.
However this was before the 1986 Australia Act which cleared up the ambiguity around that.
Constitutionally, the king of Canada is the commander in chief of its armed forces, provides consent or assent to all laws passed by Parliament, has some immunity from prosecution, and has a pardon power. In actual practice, most of those powers are performed perfunctorily by delegates based on either action by Parliament or by recommendation of ministers determined by the Prime Minister.
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-s-secret-letters-re...
The local Indians have two words for settlements - one word for their own settlements, and another word for the settlements of other peoples who have come to their lands. Canada is the latter - it actually means "foreigner's settlement on our land" or "invader's settlement". Interestingly, I just tried to Google it and the only two websites I looked at - Wikipedia and some official Canada site - both conveniently leave out the part about it being a foreign settlement. Both simply translate the word as settlement, without the nuance.
"Our word for village is kanata, "canada" is a totally different word for the 'village of the invaders'"
Something like that.
I looked it up, and you are kinda right in the theory of it, and I was wrong in the practice of it. The practical power lies with the Cabinet.
From Wikipedia:
"A declaration of war by Canada [...] is an exercise of the royal prerogative on the constitutional advice of the ministers of the Crown in Cabinet and does not require the direct approval of the Parliament of Canada, though such can be sought by the government."
Americans had 200 year dramatic and violent head start and everyone has figured that out by now. The details of Canada’s status are understandably less well known.
So Elizabeth was a British monarch on Canadian money, and Canadian monarch on Canadian money, uniquely.
Of course she is no longer put on newly made money.