GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,197
- Points
- 1,160
King of Kensington?
The Monarchy and CF
- Thread starter TRIBALCLASS
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,714
- Points
- 1,260
Can I be the Duke of Saskatchewan? Or the Earl of Manitoba?
- Reaction score
- 27,828
- Points
- 1,090
Prince William clearly needs to be Earl of the 'Peg.
- Reaction score
- 3,100
- Points
- 1,160
I hereby proclaim myself the Duke of Dapp and Sherriff of Westlock County. Kneel, peasants.
- Reaction score
- 7,180
- Points
- 1,310
Manitoba would have to be a Duke too, you can have the local provincial lords outranking each other.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
I am not greedy I can settle for a minor Baronet.
- Reaction score
- 27,828
- Points
- 1,090
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,742
- Points
- 1,160
I like something along the lines of Idi Amin:
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, Victorious Cross, Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross recipient, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Uncrowned King of Scotland.
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, Victorious Cross, Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross recipient, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Uncrowned King of Scotland.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,519
- Points
- 1,160
The Principality of Sealand enters the chat....
The Principality of Sealand (/ˈsiːˌlænd/) is an unrecognized[4] micronation that claims HM Fort Roughs (also known as Roughs Tower), an offshore platform in the North Sea approximately 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) off the coast of Suffolk, as its territory. Roughs Tower is a Maunsell Sea Fort that was built by the British in international waters during World War II. Since 1967, the decommissioned Roughs Tower has been occupied and claimed as a sovereign state by the family and associates of Paddy Roy Bates. Bates seized Roughs Tower from a group of pirate radio broadcasters in 1967 with the intention of setting up his own station there. Sealand was invaded by mercenaries in 1978, but was able to repel the attack.
Since 1987, when the United Kingdom extended its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles, the platform has been in British territory.
en.wikipedia.org
The Principality of Sealand (/ˈsiːˌlænd/) is an unrecognized[4] micronation that claims HM Fort Roughs (also known as Roughs Tower), an offshore platform in the North Sea approximately 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) off the coast of Suffolk, as its territory. Roughs Tower is a Maunsell Sea Fort that was built by the British in international waters during World War II. Since 1967, the decommissioned Roughs Tower has been occupied and claimed as a sovereign state by the family and associates of Paddy Roy Bates. Bates seized Roughs Tower from a group of pirate radio broadcasters in 1967 with the intention of setting up his own station there. Sealand was invaded by mercenaries in 1978, but was able to repel the attack.
Since 1987, when the United Kingdom extended its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles, the platform has been in British territory.
Principality of Sealand - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 6,004
- Points
- 1,260
As others have pointed out, it is very, very difficult to amend the Canadian Constitution in order to get rid of the monarchy. One might suspect that, back circa 1980, some premiers believed that Pierre Trudeau was a republican and insisted on strong measures re: our form of government - a Constitutional Monarchy - in exchange for his Charter.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Canada will remain a Constitution Monarchy. If we can't get rid of the monarchy, can we change the monarch?
It's been done several times: the "best" way, constitutionally, is the way Henry Tudor did it in 1485: he defeated Richard III in battle and seized he crown by right. Other ways include (1689) forcing the King to "abandon" his throne and usurping it. But there might be another way - someone else, not long ago, mentioned the Nickle Resolution which never passed the Senate and never resulted in an address to the monarch but, still, did its job ... the monarch, as he was required. to do, Constitutionally (the one that's not written down anywhere), took note of the opinion of his Commons and, without being formally addressed, did as that Commons wished.
Suppose the Commons - the one in Ottawa - resolved that The Act of Settlement of 1701 is unacceptable to Canada due to the provisions (religious freedom) of our Charter. We might consider the case of Autumn Phillips (née Kelly) who was required (2007) to renounce her Roman Catholic faith so that her (former) husband Peter Phillips (son of Anne, the Princess Royal) could retain his (quite distant) position in the line of succession. Suppose the Commons resolved that while Canada remains steadfastly loyal to Her Majesty the Queen, we do not accept the line of succession. In other words, we are loyal to the Queen but we do not agree that Charles should be king when she dies. IF this was both resolved in the Commons and negotiated openly and honestly with the Royals, then I suspect that the monarch and her "lawful heirs and successors" (Charles, William, George ..) would have little choice but to agree. Good manners, alone, suggest that no one would lay claim to a throne which did not welcome him or her.
Then what?
Well, there is a provision for monarchies, constitutional or not, to continue when the monarch is not able to reign - it's called a regency. The last one that concerns us was 200+ years ago (1811 to `820) when King George III was barmy and his son, George, stood in for him as Prince Regent. IF Canada, for example, did not proclaim a new monarch on the sad death of Her Majesty then we would still be a Constitutional Monarchy, nothing in our Constitution would have changed, but we would be a monarchy without a monarch.
What to do?
Nothing much, actually ... we have a Governor General who has all her powers under the Letter Patent of 1947. It would be a stretch, but not a huge one, to say that she could, on the advice of her prime minister, appoint her own successor since there is no one else to do so. As long as we don't bugger about by changing how the GG is selected/appointed then we ought to remain on pretty solid Constitutional ground. The succession of GGs would be Governor Generals Regent while, theoretically, we looked for a way to reinstate the British royal family ... but we would never get around to doing that and by, say, 2125, no one would actually remember when there was a real sovereign.
Is that idea Constitutionally sound and legal? I don't know, but it's got a damned sight better chance of "working" than amending the Constitution ro make us republic does.I
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Canada will remain a Constitution Monarchy. If we can't get rid of the monarchy, can we change the monarch?
It's been done several times: the "best" way, constitutionally, is the way Henry Tudor did it in 1485: he defeated Richard III in battle and seized he crown by right. Other ways include (1689) forcing the King to "abandon" his throne and usurping it. But there might be another way - someone else, not long ago, mentioned the Nickle Resolution which never passed the Senate and never resulted in an address to the monarch but, still, did its job ... the monarch, as he was required. to do, Constitutionally (the one that's not written down anywhere), took note of the opinion of his Commons and, without being formally addressed, did as that Commons wished.
Suppose the Commons - the one in Ottawa - resolved that The Act of Settlement of 1701 is unacceptable to Canada due to the provisions (religious freedom) of our Charter. We might consider the case of Autumn Phillips (née Kelly) who was required (2007) to renounce her Roman Catholic faith so that her (former) husband Peter Phillips (son of Anne, the Princess Royal) could retain his (quite distant) position in the line of succession. Suppose the Commons resolved that while Canada remains steadfastly loyal to Her Majesty the Queen, we do not accept the line of succession. In other words, we are loyal to the Queen but we do not agree that Charles should be king when she dies. IF this was both resolved in the Commons and negotiated openly and honestly with the Royals, then I suspect that the monarch and her "lawful heirs and successors" (Charles, William, George ..) would have little choice but to agree. Good manners, alone, suggest that no one would lay claim to a throne which did not welcome him or her.
Then what?
Well, there is a provision for monarchies, constitutional or not, to continue when the monarch is not able to reign - it's called a regency. The last one that concerns us was 200+ years ago (1811 to `820) when King George III was barmy and his son, George, stood in for him as Prince Regent. IF Canada, for example, did not proclaim a new monarch on the sad death of Her Majesty then we would still be a Constitutional Monarchy, nothing in our Constitution would have changed, but we would be a monarchy without a monarch.
What to do?
Nothing much, actually ... we have a Governor General who has all her powers under the Letter Patent of 1947. It would be a stretch, but not a huge one, to say that she could, on the advice of her prime minister, appoint her own successor since there is no one else to do so. As long as we don't bugger about by changing how the GG is selected/appointed then we ought to remain on pretty solid Constitutional ground. The succession of GGs would be Governor Generals Regent while, theoretically, we looked for a way to reinstate the British royal family ... but we would never get around to doing that and by, say, 2125, no one would actually remember when there was a real sovereign.
Is that idea Constitutionally sound and legal? I don't know, but it's got a damned sight better chance of "working" than amending the Constitution ro make us republic does.I
tomydoom
Member
- Reaction score
- 147
- Points
- 910
Nicholas Horthy enters the chat.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,714
- Points
- 1,260
So....a Canadian Game of Thrones?
Do we have anyone that can match the wits of Tyrion Lannister? Or Rob Stark?
- Reaction score
- 6,004
- Points
- 1,260
I forgot his name - that's why I said "the last one that concerns us."
- Reaction score
- 7,180
- Points
- 1,310
Please no.
With our luck, it would end up with Michael Bublé or Justin Bieber some other obscure Canadian being awarded the throne à la Bran Stark.
OK, seriously, I think there may be a way to help make the Monarchy more Canadian in the eyes of the public. There could be a Ceremonial Rank that the Monarch holds. similar to Admiral of the Fleet, Marshal of the RCAF, and Field Marshal. This rank could be called Marshal of Canada (which would sound better than Supreme General of the CAF). The GG would still use the same special insignia that is used on CF uniforms now, no need to change that, when performing duties such as Remembrance Day and other events regarding the military. I suppose the old style supreme ranks mentioned above could be used depending on what uniform is worn. The insignia could be the same no matter what colour the uniform. I'd suggest a wider gold braid on the cuff and something similar to the old FM rank (crossed batons with a crown above, but with a wreath of maple leaves instead of oak leaves) worn on the epilates.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
He would have an even weaker claim then Henery VII did, it was his wife who had the actual claim (or her brothers who might not have been dead).If there is an attempt to "Canadianise the Monarchy", we might see Justin Trudeau declare himself king. I'm sure everyone here would love that.
Best to leave things as they are.
