Talk:King's Privy Council for Canada/Archives/2021/March

Use of the letters "PC"

I am wondering to what extent the letters "PC" are used in Canada and to what extent such uses are considered to be correct.

In the UK members of the Privy Council do not use the letters "PC" after their names - or rather, should not use them. The style "The Right Honourable" ought to be sufficient to indicate membership of the Council. An exception is often made in the case of peers - barons, viscounts, and earls are styled "The Right Honourable", marquesses "The Most Honourable", and dukes "The Most Noble" (or "His Grace"), so that "PC" is necessary to indicate membership. It is increasingly the case that "The Right Honourable" is used only for those barons, viscounts, and earls who are members of the Privy Council but this is not official practice and all barons, viscounts, and earls may (and arguably ought to) be styled "The Right Honourable". Arguably, it is not necessary always to indicate membership of the Privy Council. Membership is an appointment rather than an honour. On the other hand, post-nominal letters designating honours and decorations bestowed by the Crown, as well as appointment as a QC, should almost– always be used (an exception is a social visiting card, on which no post-nominal letters are appropriate - not even "VC" and "GC"). The letters "PC" might occasionally appear in a list of post-nominal letters that are given by way of listing a person's "credentials", in much the same way as "(Hons)" might be used to indicate that a university degree is an honours degree, e.g. in a list of school teachers - otherwise (for example when addressing an envelope) "BA (Hons)", "BSc (Hons)", etc is considered inappropriate. To use both "Rt Hon" and "PC" is generally no more appropriate than the use of both "Dr" and "PhD", or "Mr" and "Esq" (American usage in the case of lawyers may differ from British usage).--Oxonian2006 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The use in Canada, is that members are entitled to both the style "Honourable" and the post-nominals "P.C." PoliSciMaster 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Permission to marry

How can the Canadian Privy Council give permission to Prince Charles ( a foreign citizen, with no legal status in Canada) to marry? I don't think this is right. Astrotrain 22:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's because Charles is the future King of Canada and, in the case of Diana, his fiancee a future Queen and (at the time) the likely mother of a future Canadian King or Queen. AndyL 22:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• But on what legal basis do they give consent. There is no Canadian law that requires permission to be granted. And the privy council of Canada has no legal right to prevent a UK citizen to marry. Astrotrain 18:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• It is just a ceremony. In reality they probably couldn't have stopped Prince Charles from marrying Princess Diana but its a formality. All this is saying is that this was the last time the Privy council met. User:DowewMay 12th 2005.

One could argue that any progeny resulting from an unapproved marriage would be "illegitimate" in the realm that failed to approve the marriage, and therefore ineligible to succeed to the throne. Indefatigable 20:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Precisely, the result of the Canadian Privy Council not consenting to a royal marriage would be a split of the Canadian crown from the United Kingdom. Though it would never happen, presumably the Duke of York would have become the King of Canada, though it would be such a disaster that I can't imagine it happening like a smooth sucession. The UK Privy Council probably wouldn't consent to a marriage that would split the throne from the Commonwealth Realms anyway. Gabe 02:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wrong because the Canadian throne is decided only by the Act of Settlement 1707. The marriage would be legal in the UK, and thus descendents would be legitimate. Astrotrain 18:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Does the Royal Marriages Act 1772 not apply in Canada? I would think it must be part of the Canadian constitution in the same way the Act of Settlement 1701 is. Indefatigable 20:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing the rules of succession requires the consent of all 16 Commonwealth Realms --ibagli 22:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the Commonwealth Realms have no role in approving or denying marriage of the Royal Family. They are all UK citizens, and only subject to UK law. The Queen would approve the marriage on the advice of the British government only. Astrotrain 17:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

By the Statute of Westminster, 1931 the Commonwealth Realms must give their approval to changes in the line of succession. The marriages of all members of the Royal Family will not be affected by this, only those in direct line for the throne. As the marriage of the Prince of Wales was meant to produce children, the line of succession would therefore be affected. This issue will present itself again when the children of the Prince of Wales, Princes William and Harry, are married. --gbambino 20:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It only refers to changes in the rules regarding the line of succession- not automatic changes due to births and deaths. As the marriages are conducted in the UK, between British citizens, under UK Law, no foreign government/body can block the legality of any British Royal Wedding. The Statute of Westminster does not apply here. Astrotrain 20:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster is a part of Canadian Constitutional law (it's a part of the constitution of every Realm), as outlined in the ruling of Ontario Justice Rouleau 1. Thus, the marriage of the Prince of Wales (the first in line to the Canadian Throne), expected to produce children which would affect the legal line of succession, needed the consent of the Realms -- including Canada. Read the article on the Statute of Westminster, 1931 to understand the process, and find affirmation that the consent of the Realms was needed for the Prince's marriage. --gbambino 20:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken- the Realms cannot legally prevent marriage. Royals marry in the UK under UK law (The Royal Marriages Act, and the relevant Marriages Act). These do not require consent from anyone other than the Sovereign. Only the UK government could advise the sovereign to with-hold consent under the Royal Marriages Act as this is a UK law, and is not related to the laws of succession.

The Statute of Westminster only requires consent for changes in the laws of succession. It does not mention requirements for consenting to Royal marriages. Astrotrain 21:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain is right. The Statute of Westminster requires consent from the Commonwealth Realms before the laws governing succession can be changed. Gbambino's reading of it is most strange. Proteus (Talk) 21:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet, the consent of the Realms was needed for the marriage of Edward VIII to Wallace Simpson, and was denied by all. It was thus agreed amongst them that he should either deny himself the marriage and retain the Crown or renounce the Crown in favour of his younger brother. All Realms gave their approval to the eventual abdication in 1936. --gbambino 21:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Edward VIII did not need consent to marry Wallis Simpson, the Royal marriages Act did not apply to the sovereign. However, the British government advised him not marry Wallis, and he was bound to follow their advice. It was the British Prime Minsiter who saught the opinions of the realms on the matter- and they were against. But the realms could not legally block a marriage just as the British government could not under legislation in force at that time. The King could marry, but was bound to follow advice as King and the constituional role he played. Other Royals have no constituional role, either in the UK or the realms, and are not bound to follow government advice from the UK governemnt or any others. Astrotrain 22:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you're right that the Royal marriages Act would not apply to the Sovereign. However, Edward VIII was King of Canada as equally as he was King of Great Britain. As much as he had to heed the UK Prime Minister's advice, he had to heed the Canadian Prime Minister’s (and that of the PMs of the other Realms). There would be a real crisis if the King followed the UK Prime Minster's advice go ahead and marry, and ignored the Canadian PM's advice not to. --gbambino 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed information until further input can be garnered. However, it is worth noting that the Canadian Department of Justice had to make a decision as to whether to the Privy Council should be called together for discussion of the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles. They wouldn't have done that for nothing. --gbambino 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It is probably just for ceremony. Do you really think if the Privy Council refused to consent, a marriage held in the UK under UK law between two Brtish citizens could be prevented from happening? Astrotrain 22:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If those "British citizens" were to produce heirs to the throne, then yes, I believe that if the Privy Council advised the Prime Minister to advise the Sovereign to disallow the marriage then the ceremony would not take place. Especially if the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister was in contradiction to that of the UK PM. I think this is why the Department of Justice had to decide whether to call the Privy Council to meeting or not over Prince Charles' marriage to Ms. Parker Bowles. The Department of Justice does not deal with ceremonial activities, that would be within the jurisdiction of the Department of Canadian Heritage. --gbambino 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Sovereign only gives consent to the marriage due to the Royal Marriages Act, a UK Act of Parliament. Therefore only the UK Prime Minister can advise the sovereign on this matter. The Canadian PM cannot advise the Sovereign on matters of UK Law, just as Blair can't advise the Queen on Canadian matters. If the Canadians were against a marriage they can't really do anything about it, unless they can get the UK government to agree with them. Astrotrain 18:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Royal Marriages Act is a part of Canadian law. However, apparently because the RMA is a piece of legislation which predates the creation of the Canadian Privy Council, it allows only the consent of the British Privy Council to hold any power. The meeting of the Canadian Privy Council was therefore indeed only ceremonial.

That said, the Canadian Prime Minister still has the right to advise the Monarch to withhold consent to a Royal Marriage. Should he, or other Realm PMs, do so would cause a conflict for the Monarch -- she cannot heed the advice of some PMs and ignore that of others. She would, in that instance, most likely then withhold her consent. Still, by the RMA, even the consent of the Sovereign is of no importance as the member of the Royal Family wishing to be married can go and seek approval from the UK Houses of Parliament. Should they achieve permission from those bodies, they may marry despite the lack of consent from the Monarch.

As UK marriages are recognised in Canada, the Royal Marriage would be legal within Canada.

Essentially the RMA within Canadian law is one which stipulates that the permission for Royal Marriages is deferred to either the UK Privy Council or the Houses of Parliament. It could be repealed by the Canadian Parliament and new legislation enacted in its place, but this has never been done.

I apologise for my misunderstanding about the Privy Council of Canada having no legal effect in the UK -- however, it is not because the members of the Royal Family are UK citizens, it seems to be merely because of the wording of the RMA as it stands within the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

While perhaps my response is somewhat untimely, perhaps I can be of some assistance. The consent of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada is required for a Royal Marriage to have force and effect in Canada. However, if such a withholding of consent was not relatively unanimous among Commonwealth Realms, and the marriage took place notwithstanding the opposition of the Privy Council for Canada, then the Supreme Court of Canada would likely declare the Council's opposition to be unconstitutional, as it would undermine the unity of the Crown. FiveParadox 09:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Prince William and Kate Middleton

According to the above discussion, the QPC was supposed to have given its consent to the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton. However, I have found no indication that they did so; the only official Canadian premarital recognition I found was a congratulatory statement by the Prime Minister on their engagement. Of course, the couple's 2011 royal tour of Canada, including the adoption of Prince William's personal Canadian flag in anticipation of their tour, could be seen as implied consent; but I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the QPC formally consented. Is there anything indicating that the QPC gave their consent? --RBBrittain (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I only found one Order in Council on the PCO website with the keywords "marriage" or "wedding" since 1 January 2010: PC Number 2011-0750, authorizing a one-time C$50,000 payment to the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary on behalf of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge. Perhaps that's implied consent? --RBBrittain (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we should start interpreting such things as consent. We need a reliable source that affirms the QPC gave consent to the marriage. However, I, too, know of none (and don't understand why such is the case). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't comment on whether, to what extent, or even how, the Royal Marriages Act might form a part of Canadian law. But the assumption that even in the UK the Privy Council's consent is required is mistaken: the Act requires the consent of the Sovereign. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

Actually, it is you who are mistaken. The Sovereign would provide such consent on the advice of Her Privy Council. As far as the operation of the Act in Canada, it has not been consistent. In this case, it is quite possible that consultation occurred informally with other Commonwealth governments before the United Kingdom Privy Council gave the advice to consent to the marriage.PoliSciMaster (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that I am mistaken. The Royal Marriages Act explicitly states (s. 1) that it is the Sovereign's consent that is required; it does not refer to "His Majesty in Council". Granted, that consent must be "declared in council"; but a declaration in council is not the same as an order in council. I have no idea whether formal British ministerial advice is involved, but if it is, it is not through the mechanism of the Privy Council.

After a bit of poking around, I've found a copy of the declaration here (on page 4). Contrast the language used with the order in council on page 13: the declaration is in the first person, and makes no reference to the "advice" of the Privy Council.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC).

That does not prove that the consent is not being given on advice either of the Council as a whole or any of its members (ie. the Prime Minister).PoliSciMaster (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Firstly, the Prime Minister wasn't present at the Privy Council meeting. Secondly, the point raised was in relation to the statutory requirement, not on whether ministerial advice or approval is given in accordance with the usual workings of constitutional convention. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Sigh? It is I who am sighing. The point was raised in the context of what the constitutional realities are. The explicit wording of the statute itself is irrelevant, as it was written a few hundred years ago and has not been amended to reflect the evolution of the constitutional realities surrounding the progressive limitations on the Sovereign's personal discretion in the exercise of most prerogative powers. Furthermore, whether the PM was present at the Council or not is irrelevant, as his advice could have otherwise been given, be it formally or informally.PoliSciMaster (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

None of this, though, relates to Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Conrad Black

How can Conrad Black remain a member of the Council after he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 ? Is there some way that he can be kicked out as in the British Privy council ? User:Dowew May 18th 2005

As far as I know, there is no requirement that councillors be citizens.Indefatigable 12:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

-but when he renounced all his rights and priviliages as a Canadian shouldn't the ones he had gained as a Canadian be stiped as well ? User:Dowew

That's not really a question for us. The fact is that he remains a member of the privy council to this day. Remember, the Queen's Privy Council for Canada was formed 80 years or so prior to the first Citizenship Act. AndyL 16:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

-I see, although I still think Black should be kicked out. Hopefully his criminal activities in England will do the trick Dowew 20:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stockwell Day and Lucient Buchard

Why are Stockwell Day, Lucien Bouchard and Gilles Duceppe not included in the list of current members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada ? They were the leaders of the official opposition. Dowew 01:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opposition leaders are not automatically sworn into the Privy Council (Gilles Duceppe was offered but refused), indeed, they are not normally sworn in, exceptions are made when the government deems it necessary to brief an opposition leader under the Official Secrets Act. Day, and Duceppe are not members of the Privy Council. Bouchard is a member of the Privy Council by virtue of having been a cabinet minister under Mulroney and *is* listed under Cabinet ministers.AndyL 01:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would add only the following: when in doubt check the official source: http://www.pco.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=informationresources&Sub=PrivyCouncilMembers&doc=PCMembersCurrentList_e.htm. HistoryBA 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

McWhinney

John Aimers' words were originally posted on the Monarchist League message board, and were subsequently published in Canadian Monarchist News. I currently don't have that copy of CMN, but this website 1 has a copy of Mr. Aimers' original post:

"Professor McWhinney is free to advance the Manley agenda and advocate a Canadian republic, but he is naive and mistaken to imagine this fundamental change to our governance could happen "quietly and without fanfare" by Ottawa's merely refusing to proclaim Charles King at the time of our Queen's death.

"What makes McWhinney imagine that the provinces - who derive their powers in Confederation from The Crown, represented by their Lieutenant Governors, would passively accept such an extra-legal power grab by the feds?

"Does he think Canadians are so supine as to allow Ottawa to resort to technical machinations rather than to insist on debating the issue openly and resolving it through the processes entrenched in the Constitution?

"Speaking of The Constitution Act, 1867, Sections 9 and 17 are prescriptive, not permissive. Executive government in Canada is "vested in The Queen"; Parliament consists of "The Queen" and its two chambers.

"Academics do a great deal of mischief by suggesting such outlandish theories. Ottawa may continue to misrepresent the Governor General as Head of State, draft legislation to establish a Council of State, remove the Crown as a symbol wherever possible and seek legal by-ways to concentrate all power in the hands of the political elite; but an inquisitive public's respect for the rule of law - and loyalty to the Crown - will not smooth their way down this most dangerous path."

Dr. Toporoski similarly posted more academic words on the MLC message board, and I believe had an article published in CMN as well. His words on the board have long since been deleted, however I have asked there if the issue number and date can be provided. --gbambino 16:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

We try to avoid phrases like "It has been pointed out" or "some people say" on wikipedia. If you have a citation then include it in the article. Homey 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the article Monarchy in Canada is full of "monarchists claim" and "republicans have stated" with no direct references at all. Much of what constitutes the Republican and Monarchist Arguments sections there is merely lifted from posts on the CCR and MLC message boards, with no names of specific individuals attached. So, to state "some people say" can sometimes be accurate. In this case there were two identifiable people -- Dr. Richard Toporoski and John Aimers, but there were also some other individuals on the MLC board who refuted McWhinney's claim. Because their posts have since been deleted from the board due to their expiring does not mean they were never there, and does mean that "some people say" McWhinney's theory has no ground. --gbambino 20:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You said "It has also been pointed out..." which is incredibly vague and does not the answer the question "who said that?" either specifically (John Aimers) or broadly (monarchists). The section you cite in the Monarchy in Canada article does identify arguments as having been made by monarchists or republicans. You did not define your speaker be it an individual such as Aimers or a category such as "monarchists" leaving the obvious question of who is bringing forward the argument your are citing? The courts? Academia as a whole? Transubstantiationists? Satanists? Everyone in the world except for McWhinney? Thus you were denying readers the ability to assess the source of the argument and imbued it with some sort of status as a universal truth. Homey 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What did McWhinney actually say

I suppressed McWhinney's "proposal" pending verification of what he actually said. His proposal was that elimination of the monarchy in Canada as a political goal could be promoted by reducing the visibility of the Crown beginning with omission of the proclamation of a new monarch. Journalists have misquoted this to imply there such an action would have some constitutional, as opposed to political, significance. Peter Grey 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to suppress it until you actually provide proof that the reference is inaccurate at which point it can be corrected. All we have, at the moment, to contradict the press accounts that have been cited is your undocumented claim. The current passage of the article is supported by the linked to press accounts. Until you provide proof that the press accounts are wrong there's no justification to suppress or remove the passage.Homey 01:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Start with the citation that's already there: it's a political strategy - it has nothing to do with a 'de fact republic', whatever that's supposed to be, and it has nothing to do with the Queen's Privy Council. Peter Grey 02:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter, when a monarch dies, who in Canada is responsible for "proclaiming" a new one? Are you suggesting it's someone or something other than the Queen's Privy Council for Canada? Homey 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

His proposal was that elimination of the monarchy in Canada as a political goal could be promoted by reducing the visibility of the Crown beginning with omission of the proclamation of a new monarch.

Could you provide an actual quotation that supports what you are saying since your claim directly contradicts the following direct quotation? McWhinney states the constituion could be changed "more subtly and by indirection, through creating new glosses on the Law of the Constitution as written, without formally amending it."

The issue can be dealt with, he says, "quietly and without fanfare by simply failing legally to proclaim any successor to the Queen in relation to Canada."

I think "de facto republic" is a fair and accurate description of a country that is officially a monarchy but has no monarch.

Again Peter, it is the Privy Council that has the function of legally proclaiming the new monarch, is it not? Thus if McWhinney is proposing that a new monarch not be proclaimed it would be the Privy Council that would be "failing legally to proclaim any successor to the Queen in relation to Canada", is it not?Homey 02:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The direct quotation (like the rest of it) refers to a political strategy, and thus supports the assertion, it does not contradict it. A monarchy without a monarch is called a regency. And unlike, say, the constitution of Belgium, where a new monarch must be confirmed by parliament, there is nothing in Canada legally dependent on the proclamation. Peter Grey 03:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The direct quotation refers to a legal and constitutional strategy, hence the reference to "glosses". Homey 14:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A strategy for constitutional change is a political strategy by definition. Peter Grey 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try to get a copy of McWhinney's book (I was going to order it online but the paperback version doesn't come out until October and I suspect the hardcover version is too pricey).Homey 14:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Peter raises a good point in stating that McWhinney's proposal has nothing to do with the Queen's Privy Council. After all, what legal effect does the lack of a proclamation by the Canadian Queen's Privy Council have on the ascension of a monarch to the Throne? The Canadian Monarch is chosen by constitutional law, regardless of whether the actual act of ascension is broadcast by proclamation or not. A proclamation is merely an announcement and is not required by law to validate the legitimacy of a monarch's claim to the Throne. Only the Canadian Parliament (with the approval of the ten provincial legislatures) can have any effect on that particular matter. --gbambino 20:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

McWhinney's proposal is that Canada not proclaim a successor to Elizabeth II when the time comes. The body that would issue or not issue the proclamation of a successor is the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, is it not? (If not, please tell me who in Canada has the responsibility - in the past it's always been the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, AFAIK) Your comment, gbambino, speaks to the constitutionality/legality of McWhinney's proposal, not to its mechanics. Homey 21:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, gbambino, your analysis of the legitimacy of McWhinney's proposal may well be correct but that's neither here nor there. The question here is what is it that he is actually saying, not whether or not he's correct. Homey 21:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I realise my analysis is not that of an expert, and thus "neither here nor there." I was just stating that Peter raises a good point. However, on re-reading the only copy of an article re. McWhinney's proposal currently available1, I note that there is no mention of the Queen's Privy Council, nor the words "de facto republic." All it states is that if the Canadian government did not proclaim a new Sovereign on the demise of Elizabeth II then Canada could "cut ties" with the Monarchy. If his book actually specifically refers to a proclamation by the Privy Council, then the information should be re-inserted. However, for the time being we have no verification that he even considers the Council at all. --gbambino 22:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, which body in Canada proclaims the new monarch upon the demise of the old? According to this article "The full Privy Council meets to proclaim the accession of a new sovereign". Thus, if the "government" were to not proclaim the accession of a new sovereign which actual body of the "government" would it be that would have to not proclaim a new sovereign?Homey 04:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The proclamation is after the fact. (Also the coronation.) Succession occurs immediately upon demise of the Crown. McWhinney's proposal assumes no-one will feel silly referring to Charles as 'Her Majesty'. Peter Grey 15:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, my understanding is that the proclamation occurs not after the coronation but immediately after the demise of the crown.

According to Debrett's

A meeting of the Privy Council is held immediately after the Demise of the Crown (usually the next day) to give directions for proclaiming the new Sovereign. The proclamation takes place in London at St James's Palace, at Charing Cross, within the City Boundary at Temple Bar, and at the Royal Exchange, two or three days later. To this first meeting of the Privy Council of the new Reign, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, etc, of London, although themselves not Privy Counsellors, are invited. [1]

The above refers to the Privy Council in London but I think it's safe to assume that the Canadian Privy Council similarly meets upon the demise of the crown. Homey 15:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the succession has already occurred in law by the time the Privy Council meets to make the official statement. Peter Grey 19:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I concur with your edit to the article. It would be good, however, if someone could get their hands on a copy of McWhinney's book. Homey 15:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Andy/Homey, you forced the removal of any mention of Dr. Toporoski's rebut of McWhinney's theory because there was no "proof" to show that Toporoski had ever commented on the matter. Why then, when there is no "proof" that McWhinney refers to the Queen's Privy Council, do you insist on keeping the paragraph in the article? The only written text we have says the government of Canada -- no Privy Council. Until it's been verified that McWhinney refers to a lack of a proclamation by the Queen's Privy Council as having effect on the constitutional structure of Canada then the paragraph should be removed in its entirety. --gbambino 15:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, which body in Canada proclaims the new monarch? Rather than repeating the same point, ad infinitum, you'd do well to actually answer my question and think about what the answer means in the context of McWhinney's proposal. Homey 16:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have thought about it: in regards to McWhinney's proposal a proclamation by the QPC is only an announcement of the fact that by constitutional law a new sovereign has ascended to the Throne. The proclamation has no legal bearing what-so-ever. But as you said, that is "neither here nor there." So, rather than repeating yourself, provide a reference which actually mentions the Queen's Privy Council. Until then your claim that McWhinney is speaking of the QPC is pure conjecture. --gbambino 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The article states:

"The full Privy Council meets to proclaim the accession of a new sovereign"

Are you proposing we remove this sentence?Homey 16:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope-- the QPC does meet to proclaim the ascession of a new sovereign. But the article about McWhinney's theory (so far the only document we have on it) doesn't mention the Queen's Privy Council. Perhaps because the QPC's proclamation really has no effect on the matter -- it being only Parliament that does. --gbambino 16:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"the QPC does meet to proclaim the ascession of a new sovereign". Thank you. So is it logical to conclude, therefore, that for McWhinney's "non-proclamation" idea to be implemented the Queen's Privy Council for Canada would be the body not proclaiming the monarch? Please answer the question. Homey 16:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether logical or not, you're still making assumptions about McWhinney's theory. Why can't you admit that until we actually have his text in hand we don't know what he actually means? How do we know he doesn't mean a proclamation by Parliament? How do we know he doesn't mean that a lack of proclamation by the QPC would only diminish the Crown, but not sever ties with it (which makes more logical sense)? How do we know the media report doesn't misuse the word "proclaim"? --gbambino 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Since it is the role of the Privy Council to proclaim the monarch and as this is something that all constitutional scholars and texts agree upon, there's no reason to believe that McWhinney's proposal would refer to any other body but the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. I'm going to assume you're acting on good faith and not just looking for a pretext, however dubious, by which you can suppress reference to a proposal you dislike and find dangerous. Homey 16:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If McWhinney's proposal actually has anything to do with the Queen's Privy Council directly, then whatever he states about it should be included in the article. He may well refer to the QPC and its proclamation, but not in regard to any constitutional changes. It's difficult to include anything accurate unless we have McWhinney's text to refer to. --gbambino 16:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from getting a copy of the text and disproving me. But as you've already admitted the logic of the passage in question there's also no reason to remove it until you are able to disprove the statement.Homey 17:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A logical assumption is still an assumption, and thus un-encyclopaedic. This isn't a place to test theories. --gbambino 17:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it or is it not a fact that the Queen's Privy Council for Canada is the body responsible for proclaiming the monarch? If the answer is yes (and it is) then we're not dealing with "theories" are we? Your statement, however, that not having a proclamation would have "no legal effect" is an opinion, however, as it's never been tested in the courts (AFAIK). As an opinion, it should not be included until you can find a citation to support it (eg "Debrett's says that" or "According to Bagehot..."). Anyway, this has gotten immensely tiresome and as you've hit your 3RR limit I see no point in aruging the obvious with you any further today. Homey 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it or is it not a fact that you have no idea what McWhinney says, about the Queen's Privy Council, or anything for that matter? You have a Vancouver Sun article, and that's it -- and that article makes no mention of the QPC, only a "proclamation" (which could mean any announcement) by the "government of Canada." Again, you're giving far too much credit to your own personal opinions. --gbambino 17:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer my question and you'll answer your own. Anyway, I have to get back to work. Since you seem to have a lot of time on your hands perhaps you should go to a bookstore or library and look up McWhinney's book if you're so certain I'm wrong? Homey 17:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter, why are you trying to bury McWhinney in another article when you've admitted the QPC's role in proclaiming a new sovereign? The two actions are in contradiction. If you concede the QPC's function then it also follows that a reference to McWhinney belongs here. Homey 19:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

World's Biggest Bookstore doesn't have the hardcover and never has. They will have the paperback version once it comes out. Anyone else have any luck finding it?Homey 20:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems there is no hardcover version, the book itself is being launched in October - the media article much have been based on a rush of the book. In any case, I think it's rather absurd to argue that McWhinney's proposal has no relevence whatsoever to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. There should be some reference in the article. Homey 20:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• In other words, not only is the connection to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada unverifiable, the book itself doesn't even officially exist yet. Peter Grey 14:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a connection, as has been reported in major media, to the process of proclaiming a new monarch, a process mentioned in this article as the responsibility of the QPCC. Please don't waste my time splitting hairs (or heirs as the case may be). Homey 14:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Proclaiming a new monarch is not a "process", it's just making an official statement. You have the cause and effect relationship backwards, like saying that death certificates cause people to die. Peter Grey 14:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is with McWhinney, then, not with me.Homey 15:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You have no verification of McWhinney's words. You don't know what he says about the Queen's Privy Council. You don't know what is meant by the media report's reference to "a future government of Canada... failing legally to proclaim any successor to the Queen." Either call McWhinney and ask him what his thoughts about the QPC are, or get the book when it's available in October. Until then you're working on nothing but assumptions, and thus can only be trying to forward your republican agenda again. --gbambino 15:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you seriously think he might referring to something other than the QPCC.

"Until then you're working on nothing but assumptions"

I would be making an assumption if I were saying you and your tag-team partner are simply being obstructive for the sake of obstruction because you don't like what McWhinney says despite the fact that there is no logical reason to believe that when McWhinney speaks of "proclaiming" the Queen's successor he could possibly be referring to a body other that the QPCC, which has the role of making such proclamations. Anyway, read what the article says now on the topic of McWhinney - is it or is it not factually accurate and NPOV? Let's also get some disinterested editors to review the material - as it is I suspect your anti-McWhinney POV is driving your arguments rather than common sense.Homey 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

How can I not like what McWhinney says when I actually don't know what he says at all? Though you both seem to be republicans, I highly doubt that you know each other well enough to be in regular contact, and I also doubt you have access to his yet-to-be-released book. So, for all you blustering and pomposity, you really know nothing about McWhinney or his theory. As I said earlier, you give your personal interpretations of things far too much credit. --gbambino 16:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The only "personal theory" I see is this contribution by Peter:

His proposal was that elimination of the monarchy in Canada as a political goal could be promoted by reducing the visibility of the Crown beginning with omission of the proclamation of a new monarch. Journalists have misquoted this to imply there such an action would have some constitutional, as opposed to political, significance.

I actually thought when I read this that Peter had read the book and that McWhinney may have said his proposal was political not constitutional. It turns out that this is actually Peter's theory in regards to McWhinney. Homey 16:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Journalists have misquoted this"

This implied that Peter was familiar with the actual quotation (how else can one know if something is a misquote) but it turns out he isn't and he's simply assuming there was a misquote and stating this as a fact. Homey 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino, I'll agree to your current edit if you and Peter will drop the issue until October. Homey 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to read through this whole argument to make some sense of it. Setting aside for the moment whether this should or should not be in the article, I think that Homey's conclusion is correct. It is the QPC, not Parliament, that proclaims the monarch, therefore McWhinney's theory, although it does not explicitly refer to the QPC, only makes sense if the proclamation he is talking about is proclamation by the QPC. Proclamation in parliamentary procedure is normally a formality, but without that formality, what has not been proclaimed has no effect.

I think that McWhinney's theory, which may or may not stand the test of time, is interesting and merits mention in the article. Removing it because his book isn't out yet doesn't make sense to me: there is a lot of information here that is based on news media reports. If we dismissed all of it on the basis that "reporters make mistakes", we would have to delete a heck of a lot of content. If it can be demonstrated that the article is an incorrect representation of what McWhinney said, then anything based on that misrepresentation should be removed. but we do not have evidence for that now. Ground Zero | t 16:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a run at editing the article. Again, unless we have evidence that the newspaper article is wrong, we have to accept it at face value. Casting aspersions on the veracity of the article just because we don't like McWhinney's theory is not appropriate.

At the same time, I think that including John Aimers' rejoinder to McWhinney is appropriate comment. McWhinney's theory has not yet passed the test of expert scrutiny. Ground Zero | t 16:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On responses from other constitutional experts, we should look for book reviews this fall, particularly in Canadian academic journals, as they will likely be written by experts on the topic. Homey 17:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside that this is a thinly-disguised tactic of mentioning republican ideology in an article with no relation to republicanism, if McWhinney's speculation is mentioned, it also should be mentioned that the book is not out yet (apparently timed for the projected 2006 election), that eight months will have passed between the latest information and the publication of the book in it's final form, and thus no assessment of the merits of his arguments has been possible to date. Peter Grey 20:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, sounds like a thinly-disguised tactic to try to discredit what you view as "republican propaganda" by drowning it in minutiae. The book is out next month, book reviews by other constitutional scholars will be out as well by that time (if they aren't out already)as book reviewers are given advance copies so that their reviews can coincide with publication - the suggestion that it is somehow suspicious that an advance article on an aspect of the book hit the media several months before publication hardly makes the book or its arguments suspect (as including your suggested additions would misleadingly suggest), nor so does the allegation that its release may be timed for a possible election. By your argument (and I know you love reductio ad absurdum) we should never reference any books because they're put out by publishers who do suspect things like time releases for maximum sales or leak advance copies to reporters in order to give the book advance buzz. Homey 21:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The existence of the book is unverifiable - this is minutiæ? Peter Grey 22:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The existence of the book is unverifiable

From Library and Archives Canada

McWhinney, Edward, 1924-
The governor general and the prime ministers : the making and unmaking of governments / 
Edward McWhinney. -- Vancouver : Ronsdale Press, 2005.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-55380-031-1 : $21.95
1. Governors general
I. Title.
JC405 M37 2005     352.23'3     0509

Homey 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

All this back-and-forth has made for good reading (for me, at least). However, this debate on matters constitutional fails to address a far more pertinent point: Most of that wordy paragraph - especially because of how it drifts off topic - doesn't fit in this Wikipedia article. I would highly recommend that these (interesting but misplaced) points be moved to another article (the one on the Constitution of Canada, perhaps?). I do notice that some of it can be found in the article Mr. McWhinney. Derekwriter 05:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act

What evidence is there that the Royal Marriages Act 1772 is a consitutional act, and part of Canadian law? The Act only governs the marriage of descendants of GII, it does not affect the succession to the throne. Astrotrain 19:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I was told this by Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, a lawyer, media source for monarchical information, and Chairman of the Ottawa branch of the Monarchist League of Canada. I believe the RMA must be a part of Canadian law (whether Constitutional or not) so as to make Royal Marriages legal in Canada, where no Act of the UK Parliament passed after 1931 has any effect. --gbambino 19:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So are the other UK Acts regarding marriage part of Canadian law? There is no consitutional requirement for Royal Marriages to be legal in Canada, or the UK as members of the Royal Family have no consitutional role. Astrotrain 20:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Royal Marriages Act became part of the whole 'Constitution of Canada' in 1982 when the Constitution was patriated. Other UK marriages acts are not part of Canadian Law. The Act of Settlement was also part of the laws that were patriated because they deal with the succession of the Sovereign of Canada. Eddo 18:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Only the Sovereign has a constitutional role in any Realm, but members of the Royal Family are in line to be the Sovereign. Thus, laws affecting the line of succession are a part of Canadian and British law, and a Royal Marriage may affect the line of succession itself. The laws affecting Royal Marriages must be symmetrical between the UK, Canada and the other Realms so as to ensure that the line of succession remains the same in each country; in Canada's case it seems the RMA defers any decision about a Royal Marriage back to the UK Privy Council or Parliament. Without the RMA in Canada what would make a member of the Royal Family's marriage legal within Canada, and their children thus legally entitled to the Canadian Throne? --gbambino 20:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• The RMA does not deal with succession, the Act of Settlement does. There is no requirement for UK royals to conform with Canadian law. In the case of Charles and Camilla, they gained permission to marry from the Queen, then married in a civil cermeony under the Marriages Act. This makes the marriage legal under UK law, Canada would recognise the legality of the marriage through the UK recognition. Astrotrain 21:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Act of Settlement deals with the line of succession, however the children born of a Royal Marriage will affect that line. This is why the RMA was instituted in the UK in the first place, stating that without the consent of the Sovereign or Parliament (deeming the proposed spouse acceptable to produce heirs) the marriage was invalid and the children would have no claim to the Throne. To maintain symmetrical lines of succession in the Realms both the Act of Settlement and RMA were inherited at the patriation of each Realm's constitution. Because the UK and Canada now have separate but identical laws, if the member of the Royal Family to be married abides by the law in the UK then they will by default abide by the law in Canada, especially as the Canadian RMA defers the approval of a Royal Marriage back to the Sovereign in Council of the UK or the British Parliament. However, they are still technically bound by Canadian law as well as British. If there were no RMA in Canada then a marriage valid under the UK Marriages Act would be recognised in Canada, but if that marriage was not valid under the RMA in the UK then the children would be legally entitled to the Canadian Throne, but not the British! --gbambino 22:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Give evidence that the RMA is a part of Canadian law. There is nothing in Canada's consitution regarding royal marriages. The RMA does not even address succession- it only efects claims to the throne by denying legitimacy to children of Royals who marry without the necessary consent. But the UK Marriages Act can also effect the succession to the throne in that case, as marriages illegal under this law will also produce illegitimate children. Astrotrain 15:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Children born of a Royal Marriage not approved by the Sovereign or Parliament will not have a place in the line of succession to the UK Throne. By the RMA within Canada this would apply automatically to Canada also. My point was that if the RMA did not exist in Canada a Royal Marriage illigitimate by the RMA in the UK would have legitimacy in Canada -- thereby meaning the children produced by that marriage would cause the line of succession in the UK to be different to that of Canada.

A marriage illegal under the UK Marriages Act would not be recognised in Canada either.

I have contacted the Canadian Department of Justice to see if they can provide information on this matter. --gbambino 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

RMA is not a Canadian law at least in sense that Canada cannot alter, amend or quash it. And, gambino's question above is wrongly set: there is no need to be some law in Canada specifically legitimizing a marriage. A marriage is valid in Canada if it is valid somewhere AND if Canada has not specifically prohibited it. Canada has prohibited succession rights to children of UK royals born of marriages without the requisite British consent, and probably also catholics. And apparently Canada has prohibited nothing else. (Britain has not prohibited non-Catholic marriages of its heirs who reside out of country, without consent. For example, royals of Norway - who are in line to commonwealth thrones - are perfectly validly married when marrying according to Norwegian or whatever laws, and if not Catholic, are still entitled to succession in UK etc).The line of succession would not be a long one, if all they needed British consent for marriages... An interesting question has always been that if a close royal prince(ss) lives abroad (as did Alfred of Edinburgh and Charles Edward of Albany, as well as Queen Maud of Norway) and decides to marry without royal consent, what would happen. Also, if Canada or some other commonwealth country decides to vacate prohibitions against catholics, the results in succession line would be interesting, and would give much enthusiastic work here in WP as certain people would write divergent lsts of successon... Arrigo 16:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• The RMA does not apply to the descendants of female royals who marry into a foreign royal house. Therefore the Norweigian Royal Family are not covered by the act as they are descended from Princess Maud of Wales who married into the Norweigian house. Interestingly this makes most of the UK royals appearently exempt as they are all descended from Queen Alexandra, herself a descendant of Princess Caroline of Wales (a daughter of George II). However they all still seek consent if this did not apply. I believe that the Hanovers who reside outside the UK also seek permission under the Act. Astrotrain 17:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have read that it also does not apply to those British male-line male dynasts who have "legitimately" become subjects of another state, such as the Alfred of Edinburgh, Duke of Albany, Dukes of Cumberland. Sovereign kings of Hanover as well as sovereign dukes og Gotha did not need seek UK consent, and their descendants neither, even if being of male line. Arrigo 18:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Until the 1950s, all descendants of Sophia of Hanover were British subjects under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705, therefore they may have been required to seek consent. Of course they may have saught permission just in case they became close enough to inherit the throne such as the Kings of Hanover. Astrotrain 19:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Sophia Naturalization Act is in force also today, afaik. And re Hanovers, actually they did not remind much of the Act until recent some decades ago, when they required citizenship, and received it. Thus, actually the sequence has been contrary to what you described. Do you have evidence that Coburgs have sought the consent, or the recent Hanovers? 217.140.193.123 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The Act was repealled in 1949. See [2]. Astrotrain 17:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Royal Marriages Act is, I would think, part of Canadian law by means of being received law.

Law in Canada was not written from scratch beginning in 1867. Rather, when colonies were established, the laws as they existed in Britain at a certain date were "received" and became the laws of the various colonies (date of reception varies but it was before 1867). In general, a received law remains part of Canadian law until it is superceded by a law passed by the federal parliament or a provincial legislature (depending on jurisdictional issues). Since no law in Canada has been passed regarding royal marriages, the Royal Marriages Act remains in effect in Canada until such a time as either 1) Canada explicitly repeals it 2) Canada passes a law that supercedes it or 3) the courts declare it unconsitutional.

(Received law is often confused with common law, there is an overlap, I believe, but they are different concepts as common law deals with traditions set down in case law (ie in courts presided by judges) while received law deals with statute law.

We should try to develop an article on received law, it's an interesting topic. Homey 03:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Not all British laws were translated into Canadian law in 1867. By that measure, the Acts of Union would be part of Canadian law, which is clearly not the case. The only laws that would have taken were those that specifically relate to Canada, or general laws such as Criminal laws etc. Specific laws relating to the UK did not cross over. Astrotrain 17:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The laws of succession, or those affecting the line, are relevant to Canada. They would have been translated into fully Canadian law upon the passing of the Canada Act in 1982, which severed all legal ties to the UK. Without those laws, Canada would have no control over the line of succession to the Crown in Right of Canada, a legal body completely distinct from the Crown in Right of the UK. --gbambino 19:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain - You would be correct in the case of laws dealing with, say, the city of Conventry or other statutes that were specific to particularly British locales but since the Royal Marriages Act dealt with the monarchy as a whole and the monarchy reigns over Canada as well as Britain (and since we specifically were ruled by the "British monarchy" at least before 1931) then laws such as the Royal Marriages Act, the Act of Settlement, the Bill of Rights etc would have been part of received law in Canada. An argument could be made that Canada's own marriages act superseded the Royal Marriages Act but that would be for a court to decide (and the chance of a Canadian court ever having a reason to consider the question is incredibly remote). Homey 19:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Imperial Privy Council

When did appointments to the imperial Privy Council in London cease? (Alphaboi867 06:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

1963, the last appointees were Georges Vanier and Lester Pearson. Afterwards, the Canadian Privy Council took upon itself the right to designate certain individuals as "Right Honourable", I believe, starting that year when Robert Taschereau became Chief Justice of Canada and became "Right Honourable" without becoming a member of the UK Privy Council. (see Right_Honourable#Canada). Homey 14:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

CPC -v- PC

Article is misleading in saying "the Canadian Prime Minister has the right to advise the Sovereign to withhold consent to the union, which the Monarch would be bound to follow. But the member of the Royal Family wishing to be married still has the ability to seek official approval from the British Parliament."

If the UK PC advised her to approve the marriage and the Canadian PC against it then she would be bound to approve it as the UK PC is *the* constitutional advisor and CPC has never been deemed to have such a legal position. [This is in a similar situation that was possible with Conrad Black mentioned above. Had the British PM insisted he was awarded a peerage and the Canadian PM advised against it the Queen would have award the peerage.]Alci12.

Anyway, I concur the passage you refer to is speculative. The only precedent would be the marriage of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson in which the dominion governments were consulted but as most of them agreed with Chamberlain's government it's unclear what would have happened had Chamberlain and the Dominion PMs given different advice. Homey 16:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, given that the sovereign's children are British subjects and have no official status in Canada (though they are accorded precedence and respect due to their relationship with the sovereign and as her representatives, they have no legal or constitutional status here) it is doubtful that Canada would have any right to advise the sovereign on family matters. For instance, while the British PM was advised on the seperation and then divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales and announced these events in the House of Commons the Prime Ministers in the other realms were not, as far as we know, consulted on these events ahead of time. Homey 16:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not just "doubtful", it's false. The Canadian Government and Privy Council can only give constitutionally binding advice to the Crown on Canadian matters, and the marriage of a non-Canadian outside Canada is clearly not a Canadian matter. Proteus (Talk) 16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the Queen's Privy Council for Canada has the right to take upon itself any matters that could, or would likely affect Canada in the future, including the marriages of any members of the Royal Family who would likely accede to the Throne. One must keep in mind that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the United Kingdom are two united but separate positions. I would imagine, though, that Her Majesty would place precedence on the advice of her Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, were a dispute ever to arise between he and the Prime Minister of Canada (unless, of course, the United Kingdom was obviously incorrect in an assertion). FiveParadox 09:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it all commonwealth PMs were informed before the announcement of the divorce but no consent was necessary or sought from them.

With regard to a marriage. Providing it was sanctioned by the monarch (who is expected but not legally required to gain consent in the UK) I see no way that the offspring could be excluded from the succession without an act of parliament in other countries as they would otherwise be bound to abide by the Act of Settlement.Alci12 16:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Jamaica also has a Privy Council

Jamaica also has a Privy Council as well. Its main function is to assist the Governor-General of Jamaica in carrying out his functions. I think that other Dominions in the Caribbean also have their own Privy Councils. I know New Zealand does, but appointments to the New Zealand Privy Council ceased in 1999. - (Aidan Work 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

New Zealand has never had a Privy Council. They used the Imperial Privy Council [3] Dowew 03:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Privy Council v.s. Executive Council

Article states:

Other Realms, as well as Canadian provinces, have Executive Councils which are the equivalent of the federal Cabinet in Canada.

That is not true. An Executive Council is the same thing as a Privy Council, but not the same thing as a cabinet. The cabinet is a committee of the Privy Council/Executive Council.

The cabinet is composed of the head of government and ministers of cabinet rank. The privy/executive council contains, in addition to this, the monarch and (outside the UK) the monarch's representative (Governor-General, Governor, Lieutenant-Governor), current ministers not of cabinet rank, former ministers of any rank, and any other person the monarch or their representative sees fit to appoint thereto (e.g. senior judges). Upon ceasing to be a minister, normal practice is that former ministers remain members of the Privy/Executive Council for life, although their membership is of very little practical importance. (It does mean a little bit though: I can't speak for Canada, but until a few years ago in Australia all Federal Executive Councillors received written invitations to every state funeral -- but this was abolished during the 1990s to save money.) They can technically be removed from the council, but that would only be done if they had done something distasteful (e.g. murder or treason). As far as I am aware, this is true, in all the Commonwealth Realms, and also the Australian states and Canadian provinces.

So, a Privy Council and an Executive Council are exactly the same thing, except for the name. (Technically speaking, a Privy Council advises the Monarch, while an Executive Council advises the Monarch's representatives, but in practice this distinction is completely irrelevant.)

Thus, I will remove the abovementioned statement. --SJK 11:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would qualify it by saying "in practice" they are the same thing as I'm sure monarchists see the presumed direct relationship between the Privy Council and the Queen as being a distinguishing feature (as well as the right to be "The Honourable" for life instead of only while you're in office and the right to have letters after their names). Don't underestimate the importance many people attach to such things. Homey 11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

McWhinney response

Homey, what journal and response are you speaking of in regards to McWhinney? --gbambino 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In the fog that is my memory I seem to recall that McWhinney had an article published last year in which he put forth his thesis. If not, then certainly there must be published book reviews by now of his book on the GG's office. Homey 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Could it be the Canadian Parliamentary Review you're thinking of? [4] --gbambino 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Have there been any followup letters or articles published in the review?Homey 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was one letter published in response, but it was written by me. [5] So, I guess that discounts it from inclusion here. I've really heard of no credible reaction to McWhinney's proposal, except from John Aimers. --gbambino 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And, with all due respect, you're not a constitutional scholar. We don't know what other constitutional scholars think and I don't think we can presume to make a suggestion. For all we know someone has said something for or against at a confernce of polisci profs or at a symposium. In the absence of any evidence better not to say anything at all. I think it's fair to say the government hasn't endorsed McWhinney but given the number of polisci profs and constitutional lawyers out there I think it would be presumptious for us to say none of them have expressed support or opposition just because we can't find anything on the matter.

From my admission that my response wasn't admissable here I meant to imply that I'm aware of my status as a constitutional amateur, not that I was baised.

Regardless, it could be said that there is currently no widely published support or dismissal of McWhinney's theory. --gbambino 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I would word it as you just have, neither support nor dismissal rather than just say "no one has indicated support" or "no one has indicated opposition". Homey

Fair enough. --gbambino 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Douglas in the Privy Council

This is going to sound rather crazy but aparently Tommy Douglas was never sworn into the Privy Council. His official Parliament biography listed him as "The Honourable" and "P.C." for some time but when I didn't find his name on the offical list I e-mailed them to find out why he was missing. They have no documentation to suggest he was ever sworn in, and they have altered his biography and his Order of Canada citation, although his for the Saskatchewan Order of Merit continues to list him as "The Honourable" and says he was sworn into the Privy Council in 1984. I find it hard to believe that the Privy Council could loose an entry, so this must have just been an urban legend. Does anyone have an evident to suggest he was sworn in ? Dowew 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a Globe & Mail search and found a photo of Douglas, Mulroney and Sauvé with the caption "Prime Minister Brian Mulroney helps position former NDP leader T. C. Douglas for photo yesterday after Mr. Douglas was sworn in as a member of the Queen's Privy Council by Governor-General Jeanne Sauvé" this was Dec 1 1984 on page 5. Dowew 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little curious as to who you may have emailed, as he is listed on the Privy Council site. It is entirely proper that his Order of Canada citation would not list it, as the citation would appear as it did when he was invested -- three years prior to his being sworn into the Privy Council. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PoliSciMaster (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Stupid Question ...

Is it always the Queen's Privy Council for Canada? When the British (and, by extension, Canadian) monarch is a man, would it be "King's Privy Council"? I ask only because the Churchill article mentioned that Churchill was made a member of the Queen's Privy Council in 1941, when the monarch was George VI. Before I edited that article, I wanted to get my facts straight. Or at least, slightly less crooked – Plantagenet Palliser 00:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're dead on. When the monarch is male, everything changes. It is the King's Privy Council; lawyers so anointed are referred to as King's Counsel; the song becomes "God Save the King;" etc..PoliSciMaster 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Official Secrets Act. ...

Please correct reference to Official Secrets Act, as it points to the U.K. act, not the canadian act.

Rt. Honourable or just Honourable?

How come all members of the British privy council are Right Honourable, but the standard designation of Canadian privy counsellors is just Honourable? TharkunColl 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of Canada, is 'Right Honourable'. GoodDay 00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, select members of the Canadian privy council, such as the PM, are Rt. Hon., but most of them are just Hon. In contrast, all members of the British privy council are Rt. Hon. Why is this? TharkunColl 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why; good question. GoodDay 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do know that previously, Canadian Prime Ministers were sworn into the UK Privy Council and that is why they were Right Honourable as opposed to simply Honourable. Probably a carry-over from that. PoliSciMaster 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

PC vs P.C.

The article has "PC". The Privy Council Office has "P.C." with full stops. Also in Debrett's Correct Form, 1970 edition, page 80, "The letters P.C. follow all honours and decorations awarded by the Crown." Should the article be changed? I know it's nitpicky, but it's kind of a nitpicky subject. Dracunculus (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so; the common trend on Wikipedia seems to be to avoid the periods. It might be worthwhile to add to the article mention of how the post-nominals are rendered elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Employment or voluntary?

Is this a paid position, or a voluntary one? Maybe it's in the article, but I didn't see. Thanks. - 70.71.242.83 (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)