Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 23

RFC on inclusion of Peter Boyce quotation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for the proposed changes.The strength of the arguments advanced by both the sides to this discussion is good enough and cancel one-another.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the following quote be included in the article see diff:

According to constitutional scholar Peter Boyce in The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the fact that the change in the succession was initiated by the United Kingdom government is a reminder to the Commonwealth realms that "their crown is derivative, if not subordinate” to the crown of the United Kingdom.(source 1)source 2 (page 18).

See section above this one for more details. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• As the mover I am obviously in support. My arguments in favour have been extensively made in an earlier part of this Talk page. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, it's a remark about all the non-British Commonwealth realms, not just Canada. Hence, it's already included at Perth Agreement and Commonwealth realm. If it were included here, it'd have to be added to all 14 other articles on the Commonwealth realms that aren't the UK. Secondly, it's a minority view; since the late 1920s, the majority opinion has been that the realms are all independent of one another and equal in status (see the Balfour Declaration of 1926, Statute of Westminster 1931, and dozens of sources used in this article, at Commonwealth realm, and other articles). Highlighting Boyce's opinion gives it undue weight; especially so if it's put into 16 articles. It's place in the aforementioned two is (more than) enough. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Response Mere inclusion is not undue weight. A section or paragraph or extensive discussion of this issue within the article is not being proposed, simply a sentence or two. Also note that besides the fact that the book in which the quote appears even has Canada in the title (The Queen's Other Realms: The Crown and Its Legacy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand), this exact quotation from Boyce was used in the Canadian constitutional law journal Review of Constitutional Studies on page 18 of this article by Hazell and Morris so Canadian constitutional scholars have found it relevant to Canada. Lastly, as I argued in the discussion earlier on this page, this article is overwhelmingly reflective of the opposite view so, if anything, undue weight is being given to the so-called majority view, including this Boyce quote is thus important in the interests of balance and ensuring all reasonable views are represented. WP:UNDUE does not call for "minority views" to be entirely excluded, as Miesianiacal's citation of it implies, but just that they are not represented disproportionately and mere inclusion of this quote is not disproportionate given the overrepresentation of the "majority view" in this article. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say inclusion gave the opinion undue weight. I said giving a view that's supported only by one person equal footing with the opposite view that's been supported by many people over many decades is giving that fringe view undue weight. Adding that fringe view to all 15 articles on Commonwealth realm monarchies other than the UK's, which would have to be done for the sake of fairness and consistency if it were to be inserted here, gives it far more coverage than it deserves.

Once again (and I'm not sure why I need to repeat this), Boyce's opinion is included at Commonwealth realm and Perth Agreement, which puts to rest any claim his theory has been excluded. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional remark Further to my argument above, I'll add that Boyce's opinion on the subservience of the non-British crowns is based on one aspect of the 1936 abdication. Putting aside how other aspects of that event actually negate Boyce's conclusion (as noted by authors quoted elsewhere on this page by Hungarian Phrasebook), the application of his opinion to the changes in royal succession in 2015 is original research. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Response One reason it's not original research because it's cited by Hazell and Morris in a paragraph in which they discuss Perth. "Once again (and I'm not sure why I need to repeat this), Boyce's opinion is included at Commonwealth realm and Perth Agreement," We're discussing this article and your attempt to exclude Boyce from it. And if anything, the fact that you are not challenging the inclusion of the quote there (I believe you actually added it to Perth Agreement yourself (diff)) is a concession that you don't really think it's a fringe argument or irrelevant to the monarchy. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That response is two straw man arguments. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Include It is the majority view confirmed by Canadian ministers and the courts. It is irrelevant that the same comment applies to other realms, since the Queen's role is similar in all her realms and therefore there would be overlap between all these articles. TFD (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Source for the Cabinet and courts stating the Canadian Crown is subordinate to the British Crown, please. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose First, according to the Succession to the Throne article the change was initiated at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Perth in 2011. The fact that it was discussed prior within the UK (as it has off and on again been discussed there and in other countries) does not mean the change was initiated there, although perhaps the private member's motion provided an open to place the subject on the Heads of Government Meeting agenda. Second, this quote and reference applies to all of the realms equally, and we already have articles for that. It makes little sense to put in a minor details into 16+ separate articles when just one will do. Third, in reference to weight, it is giving undue weight even if it is just once phrase if we put it into 17 different articles. And fourth, "derivative" is a nebulous term so it is difficult to even understand what exactly the author means by this, although within its context its connotation seems to be that "their crowns" are somehow beholden to the British Crown. If this is the case, it is in clear contradiction to the law which has been clearly articulated in numerous court rulings. However, if the author simply means that these crowns were "derived" in the sense of "created from" then he would be correct, although that interpretation is not supported based on the context in which it is placed in my mind. trackratte (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Response According to all reports the change was initiated and proposed by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. For instance see "David Cameron proposes changes to royal succession" (BBC News), "Cameron consults Commonwealth on royal succession reforms: Prime minister proposes males should no longer take precedence as heir to the crown, starting with next generation" (The Guardian) - this despite the fact that the chair of the meeting was the Australian PM, Julia Gillard. Note that even an Australian report says "PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has backed the British government's move to change the rule of succession to have the oldest child ascend to the throne, irrespective of gender." So I'm afraid your claim that it wasn't initiated by the British isn't supported by the evidence. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"David Cameron has written to Commonwealth leaders proposing that the law be changed". Once again, the proposal was put forth in the UK by a private member, the PM put forth the proposal to the CHGM, and this proposal was initiated/agreed upon/gained traction at the CHGM meeting. I suppose it depends on what your understaning of the differnce between "proposed" and "initiated" is. Either way it is of no material difference to the reasoning. trackratte (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we should assume the source uses it with its ordinary meaning not some esoteric one. TFD (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not esoteric, both definitions are within the dictionary: "imitative of the work of another person, and usually disapproved of for that reason", and "something that is based on another source". One has derogatory connotations, and one does not. However, given the context of the clause within its sentence, it appears that the author is using the former, ie the Canadian Crown, for example, is not a separate creation which evolved out of the British Crown (latter definition), but is instead imitative and thus the Succession case serves as a "reminder" that the Canadian institution is in fact led from and driven by the UK (which is a legal and constitutional fallacy). Thus, the author is wrong using the former definition, and right using the latter, however context leads me to believe he is using the former. Not entirely material however, as my major arguments are points two and three above, with points one and four being supporting or ancillary, and with discussion raised by yourself and Hungarian focusing on these ancillary points. Of course I am happy to discuss them, I find them interesting, but they will not directly lead to any resolution. trackratte (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support, Boyce's quote acknowledges a specific perspective in a manner and source that justifies its expression in and balances this article (assertions about what will or ought be done to other articles is irrelevant to decision about the specific pending proposal for inclusion in this one, which alone is under consideration in this discussion). FactStraight (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Boyce's quote acknowledges his own specific perspective. As such, giving Boyce's perspective the same coverage as that which has been held by the majority for the last 60+ years is a violation of WP:UNDUE. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Boyce is a significant constitutional scholar, so much so that he is already cited several times in this article and others and you, yourself, added the quote to Perth Agreement (see diff) so it's clearly not a "fringe view" but simply a minority view and therefore, does merit inclusion. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's actually the opinion that the Canadian govt and courts have accepted. See recent court case.[1] TFD (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm unable to find in that source where the Canadian government says the Canadian Crown is subordinate to the British one. Could you point out or quote the words, please? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

They don't use the exact wording but say that whoever is sovereign of the UK is sovereign of Canada. TFD (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Which you have merely interpreted as meaning the Canadian Crown is subordinate to the British one. That is, of course, ignoring the parts of the same ruling that say Canada is sovereign and free to not assent to any amendments to royal succession in Britain.

(And it's the ruling of a provincial court, not the Canadian government.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a ruling by a federally appointed judge in superior court in favor of the government's official position. Canada of course is free to become a republic or choose its own monarch, subject of course to royal approval of course, but until it does whoever is sovereign of the UK is the sovereign of Canada. TFD (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Which you have merely interpreted as meaning the Canadian Crown is subordinate to the British one. Being subordinate means following orders. The Quebec court recognizing Canada's freedom to choose to assent or not to changes to royal succession in the UK negates any claim the court agrees the Canadian Crown is subordinate to the British one. (If anything, the argument's logical conclusion is, until the UK amends or repeals its Statute of Westminster, the UK is dependent upon Canada's assent to amend its own succession laws. But, that's neither here nor there in this discussion.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Being subordinate can also mean derivative, which is the other term used. And you do not seem to be reading the judgment correctly. Whether or not Canada assents, whoever is sovereign of the UK is sovereign of Canada. TFD (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The Quebec Court ruling states that " It was therefore as of 1931 that Canada and the United Kingdom had separate crowns, that is, separate heads of state, even if embodied by the same natural person", while also recognizing that Canada's succession law is simply the "rule of symmetry". You are confusing the mechanism of selection with the concept of subordination (defined: "lower in rank or position", or "a person under the authority or control of another"). Clearly the Court ruled that the two positions are separate heads of state, and one is no more subordinate over the other than the Prime Minister of Canada is to the President of Brazil.

The rule of symmetry is simply a mechanism of selection. For example, the Chief Justice of Canada is also Deputy to the Governor General and the Administrator of Canada, that does not mean that the office of Administrator or Deputy is subordinate to the Chief Justice. It simply means that whomever occupies one office may simultaneously and automatically be appointed to other offices as well. trackratte (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC) trackratte (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Administrator of Canada is a superior rank to Chief Justice.[2] Anyway you mixed up the law. The Chief Justice is not automatically a deputy GG and only becomes Administrator if the GG is incapacitated. And the "rule of symmetry" was the intention UK and dominion governments, not a law. TFD (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Exactly my point. 2. The person filling the office of Chief Justice is automatically the administrator as well as a deputy ("The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is, ex officio, the Deputy Governor General of Canada"). The point that was made, in line with 1., is that someone occupying an office by virtue of their appointment to another office in no way means one is subordinate to the other. This often happens in the business world as well with outside directors, where a position in one company means a position in another. The logic chain underpinning Canada being "subordinate" to the UK is deeply flawed, and is also unhinged from political and legal realities. 3. The "rule of symmetry" has been deemed by the court to be Canada's current and only succession law. trackratte (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As I just said The Chief Justice is not automatically administrator or deputy, or ex officio anything. Canada is not subordinate to the UK, but the Crown of Canada is subordinate to the Crown of the UK. Symmetry was the intent, not the rule, the rule is that whoever is Queen of the UK is also Queen of "her other realms and territories." TFD (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

1. The appointment for the deputy, and that of outside directors on corporate boards, was simply to illustrate a point. However, the quoted reference contradicting your opinion is plain as day. 2. The Crown is the legal embodiment of the state, so your statement that Canada is not subordinate to the UK but Canada is subordinate to the UK is a self-contradictory mess of an attempt at a logical argument. 3. The court stated that "Just as the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 incorporates into the Canadian Constitution the principle of parliamentary privilege and not the legislative source of that privilege, so the rule of recognition identifying the Crown in Canada as the person who occupies the throne in the United Kingdom is also incorporated into the Constitution, without the British law governing succession to the throne being incorporated". Which is to say the "rule of symmetry" is, according to the Court, law. trackratte (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IOW the crown in Canada is derivative of the British crown: whoever is sovereign of the UK is sovereign of Canada. And you just quoted the court as saying that the rule that the Queen of the UK is part of the Constitution, so it is the law. Symmetry is the intention of the law. Note that the recognition of the Queen as Canada's head of state is a relic of colonialism which is why the Constitution makes the position subordinate. TFD (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"whoever", i.e. the person is shared, not the office. Just because John Smith is the mayor of a town and also a little league coach does not make the office of mayor subordinate to the office of little league coach. The constitution does not make the office subordinate. Thus, the Court stating "[67] It was therefore as of 1931 that Canada and the United Kingdom had separate crowns, that is, separate heads of state, even if embodied by the same natural person." The office of Sovereign of Canada is no more connected with the office of Sovereign of the UK than it is to the office of the President of the United States. Which, as you notice, the Court also ruled changes to the rules governing succession in the UK have no effect on the office of the Queen of Canada, as they are completely separate, with the only law of succession in Canada being that of symmettry, i.e. recognizing the natural person holding a certain office as the holder of another, separate, office. trackratte (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless the the town had set up the little league club and passed a law stating that the major of the city would be the league's coach. TFD (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This academic debate is somewhat interesting, but, your personal interpretations are ultimately not relevant to the issue at hand. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This debate is irrelevant. We're not trying to determine whether or not Boyce is correct but whether his comments should be included. Disagreeing with his statement should not be a motivation for opposing its inclusion. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You must be remarking on a different debate. Nothing in the above seeks to determine whether or not Boyce is correct. The discussion quite clearly aimed to determine if Boyce's opinion is a lonely one or not. Evidently it is. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support/Include, per arguments already advanced above. BushelCandle (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional inclusion - If it's also added to the 14 other non-UK commonwealth monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anything that starts off with "according to scholar X..." is just a non-starter. Wikipedia isn't and should not be a collection of opinion from random scholars. We state facts. Not narrative. Not opinions. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The information is probably correct and properly sourced, but I don't see how its inclusion makes the article better. A reader endowed with normal intelligence will easily gather from the already existing content of this article the derivative nature of Canada's monarchy without this being explicitly rubbed in his nose. --Dailycare (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

At present the article actually emphasizes the opposite point. The Boyce quote provides balabce. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's the number of people, from the 1930s to the present day, who back the opposite point that provides the "emphasis". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional Support It makes a valid debatable point from a noted expert, but I'm not sure it stands on its own merit. Concurring viewpoints from other experts would give it more weight. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Include - It's obvious and without historical refutation that the Canadian crown is derivative of the UK crown, so the statement in question just points out the obvious. Those who wish it to be different need to change the laws on Canada in some way, otherwise, to preclude this from being part of the article is pure POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and User:Miesianiacal, stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Your opinion about every comment here is neither necessary nor helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: ... a reminder to the Commonwealth realms that "their crown is derivative, if not subordinate” to the crown of the United Kingdom. Given that 'their crown is derivative' is a matter of uncontested (and not pejorative) historical fact, about which none of the participants in the Perth Agreement or their respective governments, legislatures or law courts, nor any others, would need to be "reminded", the notability of Boyce's comment here depends on the purport of "if not subordinate", which is at least a peripherally contentious remark, and near-meaningless so far as the article is concerned in the absence of UNDUE expansion, and involves a possibly unintended grammatical ambiguity in the use of 'if'. Qexigator (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

If Boyce's observations are added to this article? then I'd recommend it be added to the monarchy articles of the other non-UK commonwealth realm monarchy articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It would help clarify whether or not we have consensus if you can indicate in the above section if you support or oppose inclusion. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Reaching consensus on this article, is generally quite difficult. Particularly when it involves the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There was a theory that the Canadian Crown was created in 1931 within its own laws of succession. Adherents argued that if the UK changed the succession rules the changes would have no effect in Canada where succession would be governed by the original succession laws. In theory therefore Canada could at some point have the different person on the throne from the UK. However, the prevailing opinion today is that Canada's constitution provides for the British sovereign to be sovereign of Canada, and it is a courtesy that Canada provides its assent to any changes in succession. Therefore, as Boyce says, the crown of Canada is subordinate to the crown of the UK. While this article should explain the various views, currently it presents an obsolete theory as fact. TFD (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be not so simple. From the last ruling in Quebec: "As such, the rule of automatic recognition means that the Queen or King of the United Kingdom is also the Queen or King of Canada, with no need to amend Canadian law for it to be so. If Canadian Parliament disagrees with the amendments to the rules governing the succession to the throne proposed by the United Kingdom, it may refuse to give its assent." If the Canadian parliament's assent is required per the Statute of Westminster--a constitutional document in both Canada and the UK--for an amendment to the laws of succession to take place in the UK, what happens if the Canadian parliament doesn't assent? Can the UK not change its laws of succession? If the UK goes ahead and changes its laws, does the change have no effect in Canada? If whomever is sovereign of the UK automatically becomes sovereign of Canada, regardless of the Canadian parliament's assent or lack thereof, why is the assent requirement in the Statute of Westminster at all, why did the Canadian parliament give its assent to the succession bill in the UK parliament in 2015, and why do the courts in Canada raise its importance in every ruling on the subject of succession? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The courts mention the Statute of Westminster because the plaintiffs use it as a basis for their claims. Then the courts explain that preambles have no legislative effect and section 4 was repealed. The government position is, according to Anne Twomey, "that succession to the Canadian Crown is, and always has been, determined by the rules of succession to the British throne." The rules of succession, such as the 1701 Act, are not "part of Canadian law and there was therefore nothing to amend."[3] I don't know why the judge said (at 109) that Parliament could refuse consent. That's obiter dictum, since Parliament did not refuse consent and probably is a reference to the decision in O'Donogue v Canada, which is what the judge was discussing in the paragraph. In O'Donohue, Rouleau J. accepted that the Succession Act was part of Canadian law and said that Canada's consent was probably required to change the succession, which was what expert opinion then was. TFD (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The judge didn't simply mention it at 109. He mentions it again in the conclusion on the aspect: "under the preamble of this statute [of Westminster], it [the UK] must by constitutional convention obtain the assent of the other member countries of the Commonwealth" (which leads to the question of whether, in this line of thinking, it's the UK that's dependent on the other realms and not, as Boyce thinks, the other way around). And "it falls to each of these countries to give its assent or not to an amendment of the rules of succession to the throne, under its own procedure". And "The Statute of Westminster is still part of the Canadian Constitution as patriated in 1982, and its preamble provides for Canada's assent in the event of an amendment to the rules of royal succession." So, what would happen if the Canadian parliament did not assent?

It's also intriguing how the judge is silent on the fact that the government's request and consent given on 10 December 1936 to the Abdication Act had the effect, per S.4 of the SoW, of bringing the Abdication Act into the laws of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Constitutional conventions are not binding. See the note on Parliament's website.[4] Just because the UK consulted with Canada does not mean the law otherwise would have been void. IIRC, sec. 4 of the Statute of Westminster was never considered to apply to the abdication and cabinet could have provided consent. There was no reason though for the judge to comment on it. TFD (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The courts all seem to disagree with you. The position of prime minister is a constitutional convention. So, too, is responsible government. The sovereign's right to prorogue parliament is a constitutional convention, which the Supreme Court outlined required a constitutional amendment to change. We can't, based upon our personal preferences, pick and choose which constitutional conventions are binding and which are merely decoration.

However, there is no sovereign above Britain's. So, if the UK did not get the Canadian parliament's assent to alterations in the British succession laws, what's to stop them from proceeding, anyway? At the same time, there's no sovereign above Canada's and, if the constitutional convention set in the preamble to a Canadian constitutional document requires the Canadian parliament's assent to a change in the British succession laws, and that assent is not given but the British parliament proceeds, anyway, it seems pretty clear the change in British law would be considered unconstitutional according to Canadian law (and possibly British law, as well) and therefore of no effect. If you hold the opposite view--that the Canadian parliament's assent, and therefore its opposition, is always irrelevant in the context of succession--you're arguing what everyone thinks happened in 1931 didn't happen and Canada is not a fully sovereign nation. That's an audacious claim. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

While we cannot choose which constitutional conventions are binding, governments can, since the courts have no jurisdiction for enforcing them. The sovereign's right to prorogue parliament btw is not a constitutional convention. What is a constitutional convention is under which circumstances that power is exercised. But when the Governor General prorogued Parliament several years ago, it did not matter whether or not she was breaking constitutional convention, because whatever she did would have the force of law and could not be stopped through a writ of mandamus. Similarly when Kerr sacked Whitlam, there was no judicial remedy. So in this case, the UK should obtain Canada's permission to change succession, but if they did not, the change still would have had effect. TFD (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The office of prime minister cannot simply be done away with without consequence because it is only conventional to have one. The Crown's power to prorogue or dissolve parliament is conventional; it is not spelled out in any constitutional document, yet is part of the constitutional order. The Federal Court ruled that the Crown's prerogative to dissolve parliament cannot be tampered with by mere statute; it requires a constitutional amendment. There is nothing, therefore, to say the convention requiring the Canadian parliament's assent to changes to succession laws in the UK is decorative. Everything says it has the same force as any other constitutional convention. The Quebec Superior Court said as much: "under the preamble of this statute [of Westminster], it [the UK] must by constitutional convention [all emphasis mine] obtain the assent of the other member countries of the Commonwealth".

The preamble to the Statute of Westminster in Canada is the same as the preamble to the Statute of Westminster in the UK. If the Canadian parliament refused assent to a change is succession laws in the UK and the British parliament went ahead and made the change, anyway, that change would be, according to a Canadian court, unconstitutional. As such, one cannot say whomever is monarch of the UK is automatically monarch of Canada; not outside of normal, hereditary succession, anyway (and assuming, for the sake of argument, the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 has any determination of succession). If it's a case of someone acceding because of legal changes, whomever becomes sovereign of the UK only becomes sovereign of Canada with the assent of the parliament of Canada, which, as the Quebec Superior Court said, is not automatic ("it falls to each of these countries to give its assent or not [emphasis mine] to an amendment of the rules of succession to the throne"; "If Canadian Parliament disagrees with the amendments to the rules governing the succession to the throne proposed by the United Kingdom, it may refuse [emphasis mine] to give its assent."). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"The preamble to the Statute of Westminster in Canada is the same as the preamble to the Statute of Westminster in the UK". The difference is that in the UK the Statute of Westminster is a simple statute that can be amended or modified by a subsequent statute. It doesn't enjoy supremacy (ie it's not entrenched) the way it evidently is in Canada. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can quote no better source than the Canadian Parliament: "conventions are not laws....It is generally accepted that the penalty for breaching a constitutional convention is political, not legal."[5] The Crown's power to prorogue parliament is not a convention, it is a law, and the power is delegated to the governor general through letters patent.[6] There is a clear difference between a law and a convention. If the government acts in violation of a convention, then the action is still legal and there is no recourse to the courts. Preambles to legislation have no legislative effect, they merely provide an explanation and history of the legislation. In other words, the constitutional convention is that the UK ask Canada to agree to a change in succession but if they do not the UK law determines the next monarch anyway and he or she becomes sovereign of Canada because whoever is sovereign of the UK is sovereign in Canada. If you want to believe that the Canadian constitutional scholars of the 1930s got it right and the courts are wrong, then fine. TFD (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, titles that are inherited with other titles (such as viscount inherited with the title earl) are often referred to as "derivative titles." The order of titles is reflected in her title in Canada "of the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.], Queen." TFD (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, when the premier of Newfoundland resigned in 1933, he was not replaced by another premier. And the position of Chief Minister of the Turks and Caicos Islands was vacant from 2009-2013. TFD (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Your parliamentary source is already faulty when it states the 1947 Letters Patent "delegated" the Crown's powers to the governor general. The phrasing of the Letters Patent contradicts that claim. Regardless, cite the written law that states the governor general or monarch is to prorogue parliament.

I note you ignore the office of prime minister, cabinet, responsible government, and other constitutional conventions.

If a preamble has no legislative effect, then you've undermined the previous government's and the Quebec court's assertions it's the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 that requires whomever is monarch of the UK to automatically be monarch of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous judgments do not say that the preamble to the 1931 has legislative effect, but recognize that "they merely provide an explanation and history of the legislation" as I said above. And as you should be aware, not all laws are written. As the parliamentary site explains, the fact that the Crown could call or dismiss parliament was interpreted as meaning that the Crown could also prorogue Parliament. If that conclusion is wrong then next time the governor general prorogues parliament you can apply to the courts for a prorogative writ to stop him or her. However if the governor general exercises this power against constitutional convention you cannot do that because constitutional conventions are not law. Anyway, let's not get distracted by tangential issues? Do you agree that constitutional conventions and preambles to legislation are not law and therefore cannot determine succession although they can explain how changes to the succession should be made? TFD (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, so you're admitting the power to prorogue parliament is a conventional one—i.e. not written into law—like the power to appoint a cabinet or parliament's power to grant or rescind confidence to the cabinet. Those can't be found even in preambles.

Since the previous government and the Quebec court claim it is the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867 that requires Canada's monarch to always be the person who is monarch of the UK, your own assertion that "preambles to legislation have no legislative effect" opposes the Conservative government's opinion you've otherwise claimed to support. If the preamble has no legislative effect, the twisted interpretation that says the preamble decides how Canada's monarchs are selected is rendered pointless; we'd have to look elsewhere for what does have legislative effect and sets out royal succession in Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference. Legal opinion is that the wording of the 1867 act allows the governor general to prorogue parliament. The interpretation of statutes is not the same thing as constitutional convention. The consequences of breaking a constitutional convention and breaking a law are different too. The consequences of the first are poltical, the consequences of the second are legal. If you break the law, you can go to gaol and the courts can reverse your actions. Anyway, you have provided no sources to support your opinion. As for preambles, we accept what sources say about them. In interpreting legislation, it is useful to understand the intent. For example, in Law, Politics and the Judicial Process, it quoteds the Chief Justice as saying the preamble "is not a source of positive law."[7] So it does not make the Queen the same person in the UK and Canada, but says that Parliament expects they should be the same. That helps us understand what the term "Queen" means in other part of the act. TFD (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the argument advanced by TFD and perhaps others depicting the Canadian Crown as "subordinate" to the British Crown is contradicted by the very reference used by Hungarian above which started off this RfD at the outset of this discussion: "The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 required the agreement of all the realms before it could be brought into force in the UK. This was because altering the rules of royal succession to make them gender neutral meant that all the monarchies had to agree lest different rules in different realms resulted in different people as monarchs. The realms were free to alter their constitutions without reference to the UK, but the UK could not do so on this occasion without seeking the realms’ consent; the realms were relatively freer to alter their constitutions than was the UK itself. This inversion of former imperial realities took some people by surprise. On the other hand, as Peter Boyce has pointed out, the fact that the initiative for change remains in the hands of the UK also reminds the realms that “their crown is derivative, if not subordinate.”

The source provided by Hungarian above itself contradicts Boyce's view, although acknowledging its existence. Boyce's view regarding 'a reminder of subordination or something near it' is also directly contradicted by British and Canadian law, political reality, and court decisions. As such, the statement itself is quite evidently both unsupported as well as abjectly fringe. Additionally, the statement that "the initiative for change remains in the hands of the UK" is also unsupported, as there is nothing preventing any realm to advance a change to the agenda of the CHOG meeting, and in fact the 2013 changes were initiated at the CHOG meeting itself and discussed by all of the realms where a consensus for changed was ascertained. While the fact that Boyce has an opinion on the matter is verifiable, that does not mean we must include it. If we do wish to include it, the opinion itself is not specifically made to Canada but to the realms, and as such any such inclusion would properly be in the Perth Agreement and/or Commonrealms article(s). trackratte (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, not only does Hungarian Phrasebook's own source say the UK is more bound by the other realms than vice-versa, the Quebec court case TFD has been pointing to suggests it, as well. As I said earlier in this thread: "The judge didn't simply mention it at 109. He mentions it again in the conclusion on the aspect: 'under the preamble of this statute [of Westminster], it [the UK] must by constitutional convention obtain the assent of the other member countries of the Commonwealth' (which leads to the question of whether, in this line of thinking, it's the UK that's dependent on the other realms and not, as Boyce thinks, the other way around)." People appear to be reading only what they want to. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As you say, it is a "constitutional convention" that the UK consult with other countries before changing the succession. It is constitutional law that whoever the UK selects automatically is king or queen of Canada. The difference between a convention and a law is that courts can enforce laws, they cannot enforce conventions. So a unilateral change of succession by the UK Parliament would be binding on the UK and Canada. Conventions are in fact frequently broken and sometimes changed.

The opinion that a constitutional amendment ratified by the Canadian parliament and ten province was required, turns out to be wrong. Canada has no say in the succession, although of course it could amend its constitution to change its derivative monarchy into a Canadian one. TFD (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what's to say a UK court wouldn't deem unconstitutional an amendment to the British succession laws done without the assent of the other realms' parliaments? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

UK courts do not have that power due to parliamentary supremacy. They arent like US or Canadian courts.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

As Andrew Heard writes in "Constitutional Conventions and Parliament", "Generally speaking conventions should be distinguished from other formal rules because they are not directly enforced by either the courts or the Speaker....If there is a direct conflict between a convention and a formal rule, the courts or the Speaker will enforce the formal rule over the convention." The argument that the change would be invalid is based on a view that that there was a constitutional rule requiring the consent of the Dominion parliaments - in fact the preamble to the Statute of Westminster says that. And while the preamble is not binding law, it says changes to succession required consent because any laws affecting the dominions required consent as recognized in the Imperial Conference of 1926. The Canadian government successfully argued that succession laws had no legislative effect, hence there was no constitutional rule requiring consent, merely a convention.

Of course, a UK court could decide it was a constitutional rule. But the UK Parliament is covered because the Canadian Parliament did provide consent.

TFD (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So, there's nothing to say a court couldn't overturn a succession law amendment made without the assent of the parliaments of the other realms, meaning this "the convention requiring assent of the other realms has no legal force because courts can't enforce conventions" claim isn't as sound as it's being made out to be. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It could not because of parliamentary sovereignty. Even if there was a law that the UK could not change succession without consent, the new succession act would overturn it. TFD (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, Christie Clark, contrary to constitutional convention, asked the lieutenant governor to dissolve parliament and the lieutenant governor, contrary to constitutional convention, refused her advice. There is no recourse to the courts. TFD (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the lg acted according to convention because a) she had lost the confidence of the house so the lg wasnt bound to accept her advice b) it was within 6 months of the last election c) due to the NDP-Green accord there was credible evidence that another party had the confidence of the house. But yes, even if the lg defied convention there'd be no recourse to the courts. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Convention is that the PM will not ask for an election if s/he is defeated in the speech from the throne or the budget. However, convention is that the lg will do whatever the premier asks. The only time in Canadian history the governor has rejected the first ministers's advice was 1926. Anyway the point is that the courts do not decide constitutional conventions. TFD (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Ms. Guichon had spent many weeks consulting with more than 30 experts from Canada as well as Britain and Australia – other Commonwealth countries that use the Westminster parliamentary system. These experts included viceregal counterparts, constitutional lawyers, legal experts and former MLAs.

By the time Ms. Clark arrived at Government House, according to an official familiar with the Lieutenant-Governor's deliberations, Ms. Guichon had largely made up her mind: Constitutional convention dictated that she should see if another party could realistically form a government before calling for an election."[8] Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "decide constitutional conventions" mean? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was that courts cannot enforce a constitutional convention. So in Canada, same sex couples who wanted to marry successfully sued in court to force the government to marry them, because they argued the government had broken a law (the Charter of Rights). But the courts cannot force government to follow a constitutional convention. Christie Clark cannot sue the lieutenant-governor to appoint her as premier and if the lieutenant-governor's decision had gone the other way, the opposition could not have sued to remove her as premier. TFD (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To bring this discussion back a bit, I don't understand the relevance of the convention debate. The fact that all of the realms will have the separate offices of sovereign occupied by the same natural person is not convention but is legislatively codified in the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which states "it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". And according to the Interpretation Act (Canada), "The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object", and according to the Interpretation Act (Ontario), "The preamble of an Act shall be deemed a part thereof and is intended to assist in explaining the purport and object of the Act". And from Adam Dodek's The Canadian Constitution in reference to the 1867 Constitution Act, "The preamble has served as the source of recognizing and incorporating many British constitutional principles into Canadian constitutional law". As a result, even if preambles themselves cannot generally create new laws, they can legislatively recognize already existing legal principles, and thus bring these principles into the realm of legislatively codified law. There are numerous examples of this within rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada. As such, unless the Canadian and/or British Parliaments repeal or alter the 1931 Statute (which they are free to do given Parliamentary Supremacy), the fact that the two countries must share the same natural person as their respective Sovereigns, and that the two must agree to any changes in the rules for appointing this shared person, are in fact legally binding and codified under current legislation. trackratte (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying. The preamble says that the UK parliament must receive consent from the Dominion governments, but OTOH since succession is changed by legislation of the UK parliament and they do not have to follow any previous laws, it places no limitation on them. And whomever their laws determine is monarch is also monarch in Canada. TFD (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not what the preamble says, as can be clearly seen by the fact that I just quoted it. It says "any alteration in the law...shall hereafter require the assent...of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom", i.e. alterations to succession laws will be done by complete consensus only.

Second, yes the Parliament of the UK is legally obligated to follow all previous laws until those laws are changed. Parliamentary sovereignty means they have the ability to modify, delete, and create all laws regardless of the opinions or actions of previous Parliaments, not that they are above the law. Thus, until such time as a piece of legislation is lawfully changed, it applies to any and all, which is to say the basic constitutional principle of "the rule of law".

The Statute of Westminster is a piece of legislation that incorporates a pre-existing legal principle and codifies it within legislative law. As such, the Parliament of the UK is legally bound to only achieve complete consensus before being authorized to change the rules of succession. They can exercise their Parliamentary Sovereignty by amending the Statute of Westminster 1931 in order to allow them to legislate unilateral change, but such an option has not been pursued. As such, the fact that the rules of succession are only subject to modification based on absolute consensus is a matter of British and Canadian law, and will remain so until the 1931 Statute is modified or repealed.

As a result, the entire discussion revolving around constitutional convention, and whether or not any given convention is enforceable in a given court is irrelevant to this discussion, as it is not one of convention, but one of very clearly articulate legislated laws. trackratte (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

They don't have to amend the preamble to the 1931 Act because (A) preambles are not legally enforceable and (B) any legislation on the succession automatically repeals any previous legislation on the matter. The preamble as you correctly pointed out recognized an existing "constitutional position," which was a constitutional convention that the UK would require the consent of Dominion parliaments in amending the succession. It would be very rude for Westminster to amend the succession without getting the Dominions' consent, but it would not be illegal. And Canada would not challenge the succession in court. TFD (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A) See Constitutional Preambles: A Comparative Analysis for example, which acknowledges that preambles are not generally a source of positive law (preambles can not legislate a new law), however, according to the Supreme Court of Canada "the preamble does have important legal effects" which can recognize and affirm legal principles or bring into written law what was previously unwritten law (remembering that the British Constitution is primarily unwritten, so legal principles are enforceable by the courts without expressly legislated laws).

As such, from preambles "the Court has inferred a number of other fundamental principles that are recognized in the United Kingdom. These include the doctrine of full faith and credit, the doctrine of paramountcy, the notion of the rule of law, the legislative privileges for Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and the interdependence between democratic governance and freedom of political speech. The Chief Justice pointed out that judicial independence is also an unwritten rule of Canadian constitutional law, because the United Kingdom has a tradition of judicial independence".

As you can see then, preambles are used for two reasons: 1) to illustrate the purpose and context of a law, and 2) to incorporate into written law certain pre-existing unwritten legal principles.

So, the 1931 Statute recognizes a pre-existing point of British law and codifies it. Stating that only legislation is enforceable by Canadian and UK courts is a very American POV and does not recognize the nature of British common law.

As a result, the evidence we have before us is 1) the UK Parliament, and all other dominion parliaments, are bound to achieve consensus before changing the rules of succession, and 2) the UK Parliament, along with all other dominion parliaments, sought and achieved consensus before changing the rules of succession.

We have a rule, and we see this rule applied in practice. To go back and say that the rule does not exist is interesting, but ultimately speculative. Absence evidence to the contrary in the form of a specific court ruling, or in practice in the form of a unilateral change of the rules of succession, there is no evidence to show that the UK and the dominions can unilaterally change the rules of succession. trackratte (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The "legal effects" of preambles are to explain the purpose of the law and to aid in interpretation, not to "incorporate" pre-existing laws. (I think you mean codify, since a pre-existing law is already incorporated into the law.) I did not say btw that only legislation can be enforced by the courts, obviously common law can be too. Don't know why you think the U.S. does not have a common law tradition too - read Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor if you don't believe me. Or watch The Paper Chase. But common law and constitutional convention are two different things. Common law is established by precedents in court decisions, and btw is overridden by legislation. Conventions cannot be enforced by the courts and if you disagree please provide an example. TFD (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Federal Court of Appeal enforced a convention in the case brought against the Crown by Fateh Kamel, affirming the Crown-in-Council's prerogative to deny passports to citizens. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the court did not enforce anything, it refused to force the minister of foreign affairs (not the Crown) to issue a passport. The concept of mandamus is that the Crown may question the reasonableness of its ministers in exercising their instructions. In this case the judge decided that the minister acted reasonably. TFD (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave you five examples quoted from the Chief Justice of Canada. And if something is codified into written legislation it is no longer, by definition, a convention. trackratte (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing unwritten constitutional law with unwritten constitutional convention. The first is enforced by the courts, the second is not. In the full faith and credit judgment (Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye) for example the court decided that judgments of courts of record should be considered conclusive proof of debt because that was the intention of the 1867 Act, which determined that judges are appointed by the Governor General-in-Council and their decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Of course parliament could pass laws to codify constitutional conventions. The reality is that did not happen in the preamble to the Statue of Westminster. And instead of providing original arguments, you need to provide secondary sources that make the same arguments you do. TFD (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, your argument would generally be correct, and could be, as we of course do not have a specific court decision. However, as has been my position all along, I see your position as lacking sufficient nuance when it comes to the unique status of the 1931 SofW, which is to say generally preambular language is not legally binding but this is not a general case. The 1931 SofW is an exception (or more properly there are solid grounds to believe it would be seen as such by a competent legal authority), where the preamble is seen as legally binding, particularly from a Canadian point of view. For example, here is an excerpt from the Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-13 Bill No 110 2012-13 RESEARCH PAPER 12/81, House of Commons, UK (italics added for emphasis):

"It is sometimes suggested that the UK is obliged under the Statute of Westminster 1931 to gain the assent of the other realms before making any changes to the rules of succession,9 although this argument is perhaps overstated...The argument derives from the provision in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster that, any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In general, preambular language does not have the binding force of the operative sections of an Act, although it may be used to assist in interpretation. The obligation may be regarded therefore as political rather than legal. However, the Statute of Westminster is an unusual instrument in many ways. Few other 20th century statutes have a preamble of this kind; Parliament used the Statute to limit and relinquish its own power and sovereignty; it governed what were effectively independent states, and which became undoubtedly so in the course of using its provisions; it allowed certain of them to take up its provisions at a time and to an extent of their own choosing; and it reflected prior agreements between them which were akin to a treaty. There is jurisprudence from Canada that asserts the need for agreement across the realms for any changes, comparing it to a treaty, suggesting that in at least one realm the commitment indicated in the Preamble is regarded as binding.1[9]

Obviously, my position is held from a Canadian point of view, and this is reflected as a valid and legally sound position within well-researched and official secondary sources. I also freely acknowledge that there are likely secondary sources corroborating your position, as it, generally applied, is valid, and I also freely acknowledge the validity of certain counter arguments. Once again however, this is not a general case and the SofW is an "unusual" statute, thus the requirement to allow sufficient room for nuance within an argument such as this. trackratte (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So Trackratte; by your own admission you have acknowledged that your position is only WP:POV, and therefore irrelevant. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre. No, the argument is made by reliable secondary sources. As it is a complex and untested legal issue, there are also valid counter-arguments. Unless by "POV" you mean a set of logically derived professional opinions presented in a neutral manner by experts highlighting both sides of the debate. trackratte (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your excerpt refers to RESEARCH PAPER 09/24, which says, "the precise nature of this requirement is subject to some disagreement." It then quotes two experts who say it has moral but not legal force. While you may continue to argue your Canadian point of view, the reality is that legal opinion has moved on, and the preamble is not seen as binding.

I think the confusion may come from the belief that the 1931 Act created separate crowns and succession was determined by the laws of each realm, similar to the situation with the UK and Hanover. So if the UK unilaterally changed its succession laws, it was possible that the UK and the dominions could have different sovereigns. The current opinion is that the sovereign of the UK is automatically sovereign of Canada. The "jurisprudence from Canada" is a reference to O'Donohue v Canada. It is not the "Canadian point of view," but comments by a superior court judge that set no legal precedent and were rejected by the Canadian government and a Quebec court.

TFD (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously "the precise nature of this requirement is subject to some disagreement", as I note above it is a highly complex and ultimately untested legal issue, which I just underscored on multiple occasions in my previous reply. You asked for secondary sources, and I pointed you to a very high quality professional secondary source put together by experts which present both sides of the debate. The fact that this same debate is reflected here is perfectly natural, and ultimately will not and cannot be resolved here, but is instead simply that, a debate. Absent a final ruling by the Supreme Court, neither side of the debate can be said to be wrong, as there are logical legal arguments underlying both sides. I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, or I am right, I'm saying there are merits to both sides of the debate. My issue is not with your position, but in completely ignoring the counter-argument (i.e. a lack of nuance in applying general principles to specific applications).

As for your second point, that also lacks nuance. The current opinion is not that the Sovereign of the UK (an office) is automatically Sovereign of Canada (a separate office), but more properly that the natural person occupying one office is automatically recognized as occupying other, separate, offices. As corporations sole, the Sovereign of Canada as a legal person has absolutely no connection or relationship with that of the Sovereign of the UK. In legal terms, the natural person does not exist, which is why Elizabeth II is not a British citizen and cannot have a passport, or why she cannot be arrested for example. However, when it comes to theoretical analysis, we separate the natural and legal persons. The natural person is shared (the rule of symmetry of succession), but the legal person is not. trackratte (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your source was written in 2012 and since then experts have looked at the issue and determined that the preamble had no legislative effect. The only source mentioned that said it did was an Ontario judge in 2003, which set no precedent. If you want a SCC decision you will have to wait until the old and new succession laws determine that different people should ascend the throne, which is unlikely to occur. We should accept that the opinion of the Canadian government and parliament, affirmed by the Quebec court and accepted by the UK and the other realms is the majority opinion. There is no necessity for the SCC to determine the issue since the decision of the Quebec court is binding.

And while the natural person who is sovereign of the UK becomes sovereign of Canada, it is because they are sovereign of the UK. The Canadian constitution recognizes the Queen of the UK as the Queen of Canada. If the natural person abdicates as Queen of the UK, she ceases to be Queen of Canada, but not vice versa.

TFD (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You continue to take a deliberately narrow, edited view. Even among those who believe the UK's succession law determines Canada's monarch, none have said the UK can amend its succession laws without the Canadian parliament's "assent". None, including the Quebec judge, remarked on it. It's your own person opinion the UK can do so, which is based on your own opinion that neither preambles nor conventions are of any effect, which is an opinion contrary to the last court ruling (in Ontario) that touched on the matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's up to you to present sources in support of your unique legal views. I cited RESEARCH PAPER 09/24 which quotes too experts who say it has moral but not legal force. Furthermore, expert opinion says that preambles have no legislative effect and that the parliament of the UK is not bound by previous legislation. Dicta by an Ontario judge does not set a precedent that Westminster must follow, it does not even set a Canadian precedent. If you want me to believe the experts are all wrong, you will need a better source. TFD (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just said your position is based on selective reading and your own interpretations. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I selected the best sources and interpreted them correctly. You on the other hand represent that a comment made by an Ontario judge who ruled on Canadian law and said that the UK cannot amend one of its own laws without the Government of Canada's permission is somehow more less selective than experts such as Robert Blackburn and Vernon Bogdanor. TFD (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Another remark based upon selective reading. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

See Vernon Bogdanor, The Monarchy and the Constitution (1997), p. 45: "Since today the sovereign is also the sovereign of fifteen other Commonwealth countries, there must be a common rule of succession, and it would be unconstitutional, although not illegal, for the British government unilaterally to alter the rule of succession."[10] I selected this source because it was cited in "RESEARCH PAPER 09/24 Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill." If you have a better source, I would be please to look at it. TFD (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A better source for what? You're asking me (us?) to debate your original research. It's tempting (because your OR is so shoddily built on edited readings and personal interpretations), but ultimately pointless because OR has no bearing on, or place in, Wikipedia article space. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am asking you for a source that contradicts Bognanor's statement that it would be "not illegal, for the British government unilaterally to alter the rule of succession" and supports your opinion that it would be illegal. TFD (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You have admitted to agreeing with Bogdanor, who states that it would be unconstitutional for the government of the UK to unilaterally alter the rules of succession, where according to Wikipedia the "constitution of the United Kingdom is a sum of laws and principles that make up the body politic of the UK". Unconstitutional means "not in accordance with a political constitution", whereas illegal means "contrary to or forbidden by law", and unlawful "not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules". In this way, the difference between illegal/unlawful (against or not in accordance with the law) and unconstitutional (against or not in accordance with the constitution) only exists if we consider that the constitution is not a "sum of laws".

In a Canadian context it is relatively straight forward in that according to section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada". However, just because the UK does not have a written constitution does not mean that there is no such thing as constitutional law in the UK. And just because the UK does not have constitutional courts to enforce constitutional law does not, once again, mean that constitutional law does not exist, only that "courts are subordinate to Parliament and have not the last word over what the law means"[11], i.e. Parliament fills this role. In this way, Parliamentary sovereignty itself "is the most important part of the UK constitution", and quite obviously parliamentary sovereignty is one of the fundamental principles of UK law and has been upheld as such by the courts, such as Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke for example.

Given the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the fact that "Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation" means that the UK Parliament can, de jure, enact laws that are contrary to existing laws (illegal) or are contrary to the constitution (unconstitional), as Parliament essentially governs itself and acts as its own court. Just because there is no higher legal authority than Parliament within the UK does not mean that it is not bound by rules however. For example, any legislation, treaty, or principle is binding until changed, such as EU law and court rulings are binding within the UK because Parliament has legislated as such.

Which is to say that Parliamentary Sovereignty does not mean that Parliament is unbound by rules, only that it can change the rules.

As such, this debate is not about parliamentary sovereignty as such, it is not disputed that the UK Parliament could unbind itself from a shared succession, just as Canada or Australia could. This debate is instead about the currently in force state of affairs, which is that currently the UK is bound to have the consent of the other realms prior to changing any of the rules governing succession, and failure to do so, according to your own sources, would be unconstitutional. Thus, the UK cannot currently unilaterally alter its own succession laws unless the Parliament of the UK explicitly chooses to change the rules and unbind itself from this restriction. trackratte (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The British constitution consists of "Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions."[12] Unilateral change of succession would not break any constitutional law, but it would break a constitutional convention. Hence, as Professor Bogdanor said, "it would be unconstitutional, although not illegal." TFD (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, we are getting away from the main issue. Westminster can choose any succession laws they choose, and that successor automatically becomes Canada's sovereign because that's how Westminster wrote the British North America Act. The office of king or queen of Canada is subordinate to the the king or queen's primary office as sovereign of the UK. TFD (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Canada is not subordinate to the UK. trackratte (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That is correct, the Monarch of the UK and the Crown of Canada are two separate and equal offices that just happen to be held by the same person. It is not possible for the Queen to be subordinate to herself. Each country is free to define the Royal succession according to its own laws. The Constitution of 1982 gives Canada full sovereignty so it is not bound by any British legislation. Each country is free to define the Royal succession according to its own laws. This means, for example, that Canada is not bound by the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013. Canada passed its own Succession to the Throne act in 2013 to harmonise with the British Act; but it currently faces legal challenges on the basis of Constitutionality. If it is declared unconstitutional it would not affect the immediate line of succession, but might have repercussions for the future. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the discussion. The position of the Canadian government and current legal experts is that the Canadian Act was a merely formality because whoever is sovereign of the UK is automatically sovereign of Canada. Unlike other imperial laws, the succession laws never applied to Canada. In fact all the new law says is "The alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne set out in the bill laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and entitled A Bill to Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes is assented to." There is no constitutional challenge. Perhaps trackratte can explain why it doesn't work the other way round. TFD (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "other way around". And the position of the Qc court, and of the principle of symmetry is similarly not under dispute. What is under dispute is your position that Canada (Crown/Sovereign/Queen/State) is subordinate to the UK (Crown/Sovereign/Queen/State). trackratte (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If Canada were to adopt its own succession laws (let's for now ignore how it could legally do that) and a different person becamme king or queen of Canada, could you explain why that person would not become monarch in the UK. Say for example Canada enacted an act of settlement that said the next monarch would be Jim Carrey. So in the fullness of time he becomes king of Canada but not king of the UK. But if the UK passed an act of settlement making John Cleese the next king, he would become king of Canada as well. TFD (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why Canada could not develop its own succession laws. With the enactment of the constitution of 1982 we are now two completely separate and independent countries with our own legal systems. If the Canadian parliament decided to pass a law the the next and all future sovereigns had to be left handed and there was no Constitutional challenge, then that would be Canada's law; and the UK would have absolutely no say in the matter. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Until it does that, the office remains subordinate. (The Canadian constitution incidentally does not allow the Canadian parliament to develop succession laws - it requires that the Queen of the UK be queen of Canada.) TFD (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, the Queen cannot be subordinate to herself. And there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits succession laws. Even if there was, the Constitution is a "living document". Any part of it can be changed through he prescribed Amendment Process, and again the UK would have no say in the matter. Mediatech492 (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course the Queen cannot be subordinate to herself, no one has mentioned that and if you make any more remarks like that I will conclude you have no desire to discuss this matter reasonably. Offices may be subordinate to each other. For example, see the infobox for the Duke of Buccleuch, which lists subsidiary titles. The earldoms are subordinate to the dukedom. TFD (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That fault in your logic is that you are making an apples an oranges argument. It is a fact that Earls are subordinate to Dukes; but it does not follow from that the Queen of Canada is in any way subordinate to the Queen of the UK. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As I just said, the Queen of Canada is not subordinate to the Queen of the UK (they are in fact the same person) but the office is, because the position of sovereign of Canada is awarded to whoever inherits the crown of the UK. If it is any consolation to you, the office of queen of Ontario is subordinate to the office of queen of Canada, because whoever becomes queen of Canada is automatically queen of Ontario. Don't let the fact that the two offices are called "queen" confuse you. Just as there is a protocol in precedence for dukes and earls, so there is for kings and queens. Because the British sovereign is queen of the UK, she is called queen in every territory she acquires. That does not mean that the crown of the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (population 0) is in no way connected to the queen's main office. TFD (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are not the same person (they are juridical persons as well as offices). Elizabeth is a natural person, and is simultaneously British, Australian, Canadian, etc, and fills commensurately separate roles. However, each legal personality is wholly separate and unshared. Thus, it is important to understand the nature and differences between persons juridical and natural and the nature of corporations sole which go back to Socrates and Hobbes.

No they are not. They are separate and equal offices. There is nothing in the Constitution of Canada that subordinates the Crown of Canada, or the person that wears it; to any other office or person. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, what actually exists is a principle of symmetry or of mutual recognition. All of the realms must agree to any changes prior to implementation, thus the source that started this entire topic stating that "the realms were relatively freer to alter their constitutions than was the UK itself. This inversion of former imperial realities took some people by surprise". If Canada or the UK chose to break with this legal principle outlined in Statute, then this would of course be a break with the current rules and is beyond the scope of this conversation as we are discussing what is currently the case. So, to answer your question, if Canada were to break with the current succession and appoint Jim Carry as King of Canada why would the UK not recognize him as King? Well I think the answer to that is abundantly obvious as the rule of symmetry or of mutual recognition would no longer exist in this hypothetical scenario, and everything we have been discussing would no longer even apply, and neither would any of the court decisions or references cited so far.

As for the argument about the Queen of Ontario being subordinate to the Queen of Canada, it is a strawman as there is no such thing as the office of "Queen of Ontario". Nothing of the sort exists. The Queen of Canada can act in various different capacities, such as head of the military (Command in Chief), at the federal level (in Right of Canada), at the provincial level (in Right of Ontario), within Parliament (Queen in Parliament), as the executive (Queen in Council), and judicially (Queen on the Bench). None of these capacities are subordinate or superior to the office of Queen of Canada.

Your continued assertion of the rule of mutual recognition or that of symmetry somehow making Canada subordinate to the UK is contrary to current political and legal realities, and is illogical. The key point being a mutually agreed to legal and political principle of maintaining the same lines of succession across 16 independent realms, there is no subordination in play once so ever. If the UK changes the rules of the game and unilaterally changes their own succession, then the rule of symmetry simply no longer exists as they would have a different line than all of the other realms, and there is once again no point in speculating what would happen if the rules of the game are changed in a hypothetical future as we are not discussing a hypothetical future different game, but the currently in place rules here and now.

And it is a fact that the Queen of Canada is Canada as a corporation sole as the human embodiment of the state and is legally constituted as Canada (juridical person, as opposed to natural person). Which is to say that Canada=Queen of Canada; UK=Queen of the UK; so to say at the same time that they are equal and subordinate is of course a complete logical contradiction. Unless of course you are saying that Canada is subordinate to the UK. trackratte (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Online definitions for subordinate: "having a lower or less important position: a subordinate role, subordinate status." (CED). ..."Lower in rank or position. Of less or secondary importance." (OED)... "Something that is subordinate to something else is less important than the other thing." (Collins). Do those describe, in everyday parlance or constitutional theory or practice, the position of the monarch in UK and the same person in the "office" of monarch in Canada? Consider Charles I, on the death of his father James VI and I, becoming King of both Scotland and England, and neither of those positions being subordinate to the other (but in fact "wholly separate", except in having the same line of succession which continued while Charles II was in uncrowned exile) before the two kingdoms were later united, after parliamentary alteration in the line of succession, as the Kingdom of Great Britain, with one parliament for the whole kingdom, while the same person was at the same time monarch of the separate Kingdom of Ireland. Qexigator (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

One wonders: If the UK were to abolish its monarchy & become a republic. What would become of the other 15 monarchies. Assuming the other 15 would continue on, where would Elizabeth II choose to reside? GoodDay (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If the queen abdicated, then she would be succeeded by a president who would become king or queen of Canada. That's what "her heirs and successors" means. No doubt Canada would amend its royal styles and titles acts, at least dropping the "Queen of the United Kingdom" as part of the title, and probably declare a regency, otherwise they would be swearing allegiance to Boris the First. trackratte and Qexigator, it would be helpful if you would cite relevant opinions rather than providing your own. The Queen of Ontario is indeed distinct, see for example ex parte Quark which states that the queen of New South Wales and the queen of the SSGI are all distinct from the the Queen of the UK. They are all derivative offices, held by whoever happens to be Queen of the UK. And symmetry is not a law but the reason for a law. In order to have the same person as queen in Canada, Canada has accepted that the Queen of the UK should also be Queen of Canada. Of course Canada could change that and adopt its own succession laws, and then the crowns would be as distinct as was the case of Scotland and Hanover. But it has not done so. You act as if it is some kind of weird coincidence that Canada should have the same monarch as the UK, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Canada used to be a British colony or that there is the teeniest pro-British sentiment in having the Queen of the UK as Canada's head of state. TFD (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean if the monarchy were abolished. The queen's abdication would only make Charles king :) GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean King of the United Kingdom. Some editors will not recognize the abdication as King of Canada because it is a totally unrelated office in no way subordinate or to be confused with a similar office in the UK. TFD (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that if the Queen decided to abdicate the throne of the UK, an act of UK parliament would be required, and the heir apparent would succeed unless parliament enacted otherwise. We may surmise that some way of coping with royal assent would be engineered, and possibly some privy council accession proclamation. The effect of that in Canada or other realms would depend on what arrangements were made, and any legislation of a realm's own parliament such as would be upheld by that realm's judiciary. It could be that the UK act of parliament appointed the Queen's heir apparent as first president of the United Republic of GB & NI for a term of years, as the Queen's successor in the newly created office of UK "president", taking office without coronation, but possibly with such oaths of office as had before been required of the monarch. How a second and later presidents would succeed the first would be prescribed by act of parliament (e.g., popular vote of some kind and some sort of electoral college, and with whatever restrictions or conditions would be prescribed for eligibility). There can be no certainty about what would then be the position in any of the other realms, but the position of office-holders who had undertaken (by oath or affirmation) loyalty to the Queen and her heirs and successors could be a question for judicial determination, whether or not any part of the reasoning in Quark was considered to be relevant. It could be that under the current constitution of any realm, the throne would be declared vacant, as happened at the time of the flight of James II. Qexigator (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

All this is speculative and at best only peripherally relevant to the article. As far as I know there is no imminent abdication, or movement toward republicanism anywhere in the Commonwealth. So could we just keep to the facts on topic? Thanks. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It all ties in to Boyce's observation of Elizabeth II being the Canadian monarch 'only' because she's the British monarch. Australian monarch 'only' because she's the British monarch, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's very odd how TFD believes the effect of the preamble to one constitutional document (the Constitution Act 1867) is undoubted, yet the preamble to another constitutional document (the Statute of Westminster 1931) has no effect. One preamble states whomever is monarch of the UK is monarch of Canada (highly questionable; but, that's another issue). The other states the line of succession cannot be altered without the assent of the parliaments of all the other realms (which includes Canada). How could an amendment by the UK to its line of succession without the assent of the Parliament of Canada be recognised as having effect on Canada (who it's monarch is) when that act did not meet the requirement set in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster within the constitution of Canada? In other words, how can one preamble mean something and the other doesn't? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd or not, commenters here are aware that such events as a change in the line of succession or change from realm to republic usually involve intergovernmental discussion and negotiation. The legislative outcome in the case of the Perth Agreement varied from realm to realm. If the UK were to abolish its monarchy & become a republic (per GoodDay above), it could be open to the Canadian parliament to follow precedent and pass an assenting act, but in addition to surmount difficulties in the Canadian constitution and proceed to legislate for some other way for appointing a successor to the Queen in the office of Canada's head of state, whether or not becoming a republic at the same time. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, this is really about TFD's agreement with Boyce that the Canadian Crown is subordinate to the British one, an idea he builds upon the other idea that the monarch of Canada is always, invariably, no matter what, whomever is sovereign of the UK. The argument has to pretend what's spelled out in the preamble to the SoW (namely, the assent of the other realms' parliaments is necessary before a change in succession can take place) is ineffectual. Yet, the whole notion that the monarch of Canada is supposed to be whomever is monarch of the UK is supposedly justified by the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867. One preamble matters, but the other does not. It's nonsense. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

...TFD's agreement with Boyce that the Canadian Crown is subordinate to the British one... As above said (at RFC) the Boyce quotation does not support the proposition. It is barely intelligible, and gains nothing from the statutory preambles. What influences events and determines outcomes differs in Australia and Canada and all the other realms, due not only to the content of the constitutional documents resulting from previous events, and opinions about them, but due to the actual state of affairs when a time comes for decision-making by governments, legislatures, responsible office-holders and law courts. As I understand Wikipedia policy, editors should avoid composing articles with too much crystal ball discussion, especially in repect of questions which are not matters of current public debate. Qexigator (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Preambles explain the purpose of a statute and possibly historical facts, but have no legislative effect. The preamble to the 1867 Act is no exception. But note s. 9, which is binding, says "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." It notes that the Queen already had authority over Canada. While she inherited it, it originally went to her ancestors through conquest and cession and these concepts were clearly explained in cases such as Calvin's Case and explained by jurists such as Coke and Blackstone. Qexigator, the Queen's successor becomes sovereign of Canada, regardless of their legitimacy. I suggest that you read Blackstone and relevant precedents, such as Calvin's Case. And no, the office of monarch was not unfilled when, according to the Whigs, James II "abandoned" it, and there was no difference in the incumbent when Ireland took one day to acknwoledge the abdication of Edward VIII. You are relying on opinions expressed by Massey and others in the 1930s that have no support today. And the succession acts are not part of Canadian law unlike other imperial laws such as the British North America Act 1867. Since 1759 or 1763, whoever is king or equivalent of the UK is automatically sovereign of Canada, which is why it is a subordinate position. Of course Canada is free to change this, but has not. TFD (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, that is a false argument. The fact that one person holds two offices does not mean that one is subordinate. Elizabeth II is sovereign of Canada because she inherited the Crown of Canada from her father George VI. It has nothing to do with her being also Queen of the UK or anywhere else. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, she inherited the crown of Canada because it belongs to however holds the crown of the UK. That is the position of the Canadian government, upheld by the Quebec court and consistent with informed legal opinion. Of course the experts could be wrong and you are right, but policy prefers their opinions over your's. TFD (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong and the Quebec Superior Court judge says as much:

"In summary, because Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the King or Queen of the United Kingdom is the King or Queen of Canada. This principle flows from section 9 of the 1867 Act, in light of the preamble, which provides that Canada is 'under the Crown of the United Kingdom... with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom'.

"This principle was not amended by the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, as the Parliament of the United Kingdom preserved the power to legislate and amend the rules governing succession to the throne, subject to the fact, however, that under the preamble of this statute, it must by constitutional convention obtain the assent of the other member countries of the Commonwealth."[13]

You see? Both preambles have effect. "[T]he Parliament of the United Kingdom... must by constitutional convention obtain the assent of the other member countries of the Commonwealth". Even sticking with the dubious idea that the monarch of Canada is always whomever is monarch of the UK (a notion made all the more dubious by the Quebec Superior Court judge's claim assent is needed by all member states of the Commonwealth of Nations), Canada is not subordinate to the UK because Canada is powerless in the selection of its head of state. Even if whomever is the monarch of the UK is automatically monarch of Canada, the UK cannot legally or legitimately amend its line of succession without the assent of the Parliament of Canada. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, the reasons you give for your opinion about Canada being in a 'subordinate position' are noted, and thank you for mentioning certain authoritative writers on the laws and customs of England, on a false assumption that they were unknown to me. I take your comment as not disagreeing with the obvious: that, while academics and others are inclined to argue such points indefinitely, if a time comes for contention to be actually resolved, this happens in the manner described in my comment above. Perhaps you will also agree that knowledge of the course of historical events in the development of English law and of the law of the United Kingdom, from and before the coronation of the Duke of Normandy as King of the English to and beyond the legislative change in the line of succession pursuant to the Perth Agreement, owes much to popular feeling, political expediency, and skilled legal drafting at the time, together with previous assumptions and aspirations for the future. That is unavoidably the background upon which depends any validity attributable to Boyce'e remark about reminding the Commonwealth realms that their crown is derivative, if not subordinate to the crown of the United Kingdom. Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Miesianical, I don't question that some people may consider preambles to be binding, it's just that they are not treated that way by the courts. In any case, constitutional conventions are not binding. So whoever becomes sovereign of the UK is automatically sovereign of Canada. Hence the Canadian parliament did not amend the succession laws, because they do not apply to Canada. In the same sense, the proverbial baseball club that names the mayor as its head does not have bylaws on how the mayor is chosen. Canada of course could develop its own succession laws or become a republic, the fact is it has not. TFD (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If, under today's laws, the next in line of succession will become monarch of UK and of Canada at one and the same moment of time, it does not follow that it can be aptly said that Canada's crown is subordinate to UK's. Qexigator (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

+ How can it be said that the Canadian crown is subordinate to the UK crown when all appointments of officers and all things done in the name of the crown and in executing the office of monarch are done in the name of or for the Queen of Canada, free from intervention on the part of the UK crown? Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

+ The declaratory judgment of Quebec Superior Court judge (Claude Bouchard), linked above by Mies., refers in para. 47 to the rule of automatic recognition and quotes "The Queen or King of Canada is, according to the long-standing rule of automatic recognition, whoever is the Queen or King of the United Kingdom." We know that the 1867 act, quoted by the judge in paragraph 140, states that Canada is “under the Crown of the United Kingdom", which could mean to that extent "subordinate", but that is superseded by current law. At the time of that judgment and today "the rule of automatic recognition" operates, but, as I understand it, noone would contend that the crown of Canada is today subordinate to the crown of UK in the sense of Canada lacking full sovereignty with the monarch as head of state. Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I quite literally just quoted a court ruling that disproves your assertions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Miesianical, that is misreading. The preamble begins, "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom...." That is not even a sentence, it is a clause that explains the reason for the legislation. Hence the judge wrote, "This principle flows from section 9 of the 1867 Act, in light of the preamble." The principle does not flow from the preamble, the preamble explains the principle. Q, that the kingship of the UK and Canada are, and we now know always have been separate, does not mean that one is not subordinate to the other. It is subordinate because whoever is king of the UK is automatically king of Canada, but not vice versa. And that fact was confirmed by the Canadian government, parliament and the Quebec court. TFD (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the preambles explain the conventions. The Constitution Act 1867: whomever is monarch of the UK is automatically monarch of Canada (questionable, at best). The Statute of Westminster 1931: the UK cannot alter its royal line of succession without the assent of the parliaments of the other realms. The (supposed) principle that the monarch of Canada is always whomever is monarch of the UK isn't even hinted at in S.9 of the Constitution Act 1867. It's the preamble that (supposedly) sets that convention. Since the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867 isn't ineffectual, then nor is the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931. And that means Canada is not subordinate to the UK because the UK is actually forced to obtain the assent of the Parliament of Canada before it can amend its succession laws, as the Quebec Superior Judge explicitly said: "under the preamble of this statute [the Statute of Westminster 1931], it [the Parliament of the UK] must by constitutional convention obtain the assent of the other member countries of the Commonwealth." Boyce's assertion may be allowable in Wikipedia because it's been published. But, it's certainly not in line with the majority opinion, contrary to what you keep claiming. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 appears to consent to the UK being able to change the Canadian royal succession. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Within the legal context under discussion, the changes that are being assented to are the rules of succession. There is no separate Canadian or British or Australian rules of succession, as it shared, which by definition means to "use, occupy, or enjoy (something) jointly with another or others". Thus the requirement for the unanimous agreement of all prior to proceeding. trackratte (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It says no such thing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

...Within the legal context under discussion... Given all antecedents from 19th century to 21st, it can be more exactly (if pedantically) stated that succession to the office or position of monarch, or head of state, or "crown", in each one of today's realms, including UK, is subordinate to the theory and practise of the rule of automatic recognition [la regle de la reconnaissance automatique] (per Bouchard JSC Quebec in Motard's case, para. 42, quoting Professor Benoit Pelletier's evidence to the Senate Committee studying the 2013 Act <correction> 47 quoting Professor Oliver's report, referring to the Preamble and section 9 of the 1867 Act to declare that the rule of automatic recognition applies: (quote) 104. The Queen or King of Canada is, according to the long-standing rule of automatic recognition, whoever is the Queen of King of the United Kingdom. The preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, refers to the desire of the Provinces of Canada to be "federally united under the Crown of the United Kingdom…with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom"(endquote)</correction>[14], such that if a change in the line of succession is proposed realms participate in the manner demonstrated by the Perth Agreement legislation. Thus, it is the line of succession that is shared, but it is only loosely and imprecisely said that the monarch of one is shared with any of the others. Consider the position of one person who is chairman/president of 16 corporations carrying on different businesses independently of each other, each one formed, established and operating in a different country: would we say that in a legal context, this person is "shared" by the corporations, even if s/he receives reports from all of them and gives instructions to each of them daily, wherever in the world or at sea or in flight s/he might happen to be at the time? Qexigator (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It does consent to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which was passed by the British Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian act assents to the change in the UK law, which is required by constitutional convention not constitutional law. Absent that consent, the law would still be binding. The Canadian Act says, "The [change in the British law] is assented to." The British Act merely mentions "the Crown," i.e., the crown of the UK. Notice Anne Twomey's opinion that Canada assented to a change in UK succession not Canadian succession.[15] She like the Canadian monarchists believed that the UK sovereign was not automatically Canada's sovereign, and Canadian succession was determined by Canadian laws. Hence the Canadain act did not change succession to the Canadian throne. While I think we should mention that view, we should also mention that Canadian and UK experts have come to a different conclusion. TFD (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Twomey's article is out of date and unreliable. She purported to be writing as a constitutional lawyer, but her comment that the way Canada has sought to resolve its own federal problems with Quebec is "quite bizarre" indicates that her article is more of a polemic from a less than objective point of view, under the influence of her understanding of how things seem to her to be in Australia. She also opined:

"It is likely that the Canadian Government took the gamble of this approach in order to avoid the hassle of obtaining the agreement of the Provinces while banking upon the likelihood that no one would have the standing or motive to challenge it. Moreover, if the Duchess of Cambridge has a first-born son, it will avoid the problem of having a female monarch of the United Kingdom and a younger brother who becomes the monarch of Canada. Hence, the chances of getting by with such a constitutionally shoddy arrangement are reasonable."

So far as Wikipedia npov is concerned, the simple fact is that Canada's parliament has legislated, the Quebec court has given its ruling, and there has been no further parliamentary or judicial proceedings to the contrary. That is how the matter rests, in respect of today's law of succession in Canada, and Twomey has shown where her emotions were influencing her writing. Qexigator (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to us to say who is right or wrong, but I am pleased to see you agree that the government position is the majority view and we can end this discussion thread. 22:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You may have noticed I mentioned Bouchard quoting Pelletier at para. 42 instead of (as intended) Oliver at para. 47, as corrected above. Qexigator (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It assented to the Succession to the Crown Bill 2013. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The 2013 Act which changed the succession to the office of Queen of the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Rfc nearing closure

Just so yas know, this Rfc is down to its final days. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to get more people involved from the broader community? Otherwise it looks like it's headed for relisting. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:CANADA, perhaps? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt many editors are interested or knowledgeable in the topic. The other problem is that most people's knowledge about the issue comes from discussion about the Statute of Westminster and the Abdication and legal opinion has changed since then. TFD (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So can we get an admin to review the discussion and make a determination on consensus? The bots have removed the RFC template but there's no determination of the outcome. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone not involved with the discussion can theoretically close, however, there is no consensus. trackratte (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Dispute resolution route is another option. I'll leave it for you to decide. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.