Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 2

Send in the Crowns

Gbambino 1: "I'm not contesting that there are conflicting opinions on Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy-- they do exist and should be acknowledged." Gbambino 2: "This is not a small debate, it is a non-existent debate."

There seems to be a contradiction between previous and later statements, Gbam. -SV

If I might insert my point here: As Peter Grey explained above, differing opinions about Canada remaining as a kingdom, differing opinions on the logic of sharing a monarch, differing opinions on the current House of Windsor, etc. do certainly exist. What does not exist are differing opinions on the constitutional reality of Canada's sovereignty, her relationship to the Crown, and the organization of the Commonwealth Realms as laid out in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster. --gbambino 14:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Republicans certainly do argue that having a non-Canadian monarch impugns Canadian sovereignty and yes, republicans like Jeffrey Simpson refer to the Queen as being "British" rather than Canadian (he refers to it as a "foreign monarchy"[1]) so obviously the question of sovereignty is a question even if you claim it doesn't exist.

As for the "organization of the Commonwealth Realms as laid out in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster" this is a straw man argument, there's nothing in the article that says the realms are not constitutionaly equal and I haven't proposed saying such a thing (indeed, if you read the passage you'll see I've written the exact opposite). Indeed, many of the things you've said, gbambino, have nothing to do whatsoever with what's actually in this article. Please get focussed. AndyL14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy L: "It's not a major debate. However, the contention that there are "multiple Crowns" and, the corollary, that therefore there can be and is a "Canadian monarchy" is an important part of monarchist ideology and it merits a mention."

This sounds a bit confused, frankly, Andy. It seems like youre not quite sure what the argument is, but youre trying to represent it as well as you can ATM. If you concede that your explanations are a bit confusing and therefore somewhat misrepresentative of actual points made in the debate, then you can sort of understand how Gbambino's tendency toward wholesale exclusion can, in a superficial way, appear to be legitimate.

Naturally, conservatives of all shades and nations seek to exclude rather than include, so in that respect, youre correct that Gbambino is simply representing a conservative point of view. Whats not clear is what agreement can be reached with regard to how to sort and organize this argument. You say its small. Gbambino said it "should be acknowledged" and then changed this to 'it is "non-existent,"' which I consider to be likewise "confusing."

A zealous Christian can, for example, come to Wikipedia and cite the Bible, claiming on various talk pages that Biblical views are preeminent to other views, like culture, history, etc. Likewise, lawyers may cite the law in any local context, and claim that the law supercedes all culture, poltics, debate, and dissent. In other words, it seems clearer to me now. Republican arguments are scattered and unfocused, while Loyalist arguments are narrow and verbatim to doctrinal law, regardless if such law was the product of a democratic consensus or not. While it appears that Andy's arguments seem to be reflective of a minority view, Gbambino's assertion that such views are Andy's alone, (when he himself cites two different recent cases of legal court challenge toward the "trancendent" "single Crown," which is somehow separate for each "Realm," and yet bound "by commitment" to be the "same individual," referred to as "the Crown" over "the Crowns" although each Realm may determine its "own line of succession...") appear to be a bit overstated. It all perhaps sounds like a bunch of legalese nonsense to anyone living in any country not occupied by any formalized genetic aristocracies. Ceremonially established ones, anyway.

All that out of my system, Im quite happy with both of the general responses, and I feel much better informed about the nuance of the issue. Both of your comments have been quite telling of the great naive confusion, or otherwise convoluted lack of confusion, involved. Now, as a newbie to all of this, I was curious about a number of things cited by Gbambino, and while reading his entire post I simply bracketed those items which I was unclear of to link them, so that I can re-read it and get a deeper gist. For starters, theres no MLC article, so I hope someone will correct that. The concept of the Crowns as distinct from (and yet the same as) the Crown, certainly needs looking at. I really think that Gbambino, your response was extremely coherent and informative, and would like to see all of that in a single coherent article, provided more detail about the opposition and any dissenting jurist views are given. Sinreg and goodnight, friendly neighbors. -SV|t 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC) PS Correction: I linked about 2 dozen items in Gbam's point by point walkthrough, but lost those changes, while copying my own text. Alas, Im loathe to go through and re-link tonight.-SV|t 05:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't concede that there is any misrepresentation. There is no contradiction between the Crown being a "shared Crown" and "the British Crown" at least Rouleau did not find any such contradiction when writing his ruling. Remember it wasn't that long ago that the international body former colonies belonged to was the "British Commonwealth" and it wasn't that long ago, that Canadians were "British subjects" - both phenomena postdate the Statute of Westminster and I believer our status as British subjects may even postdate the late 1940s Citizenship Act (but I may be wrong about that). Anyway, gbambino is a bit confused here, the argument in this article is not whether or not the Crown is "British" but whether there are competing views on it being "multiple Crowns" or a shared "single Crown". As Peter Grey now concedes, at least as far as Canadian constitutional law is concerned it's the latter, notwithstanding Monarchist League of Canada propaganda suggesting the contrary. AndyL11:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you should mis-represent Peter Grey by putting words in his mouth. Neither he nor I have ever denied the "single Crown"'s existence. We've both acknowledged that the situation is far more complex than simply that, given the agreed relationship between the 16 Commonwealth Realms through the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster, combined with the individual constitutional structure and framework of each Realm which creates each country as a seperate and sovereign kingdom. --gbambino 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

First off, this all sounds like playing with words, so "propaganda" naturally is a suspicion. Second, I understand the difference between merely citing the law, and representing both sides in an argument. What is the argument? Is it that Canadas republicans claim it should excersise a legal right to seceed completely from The Crown? Its seems like the statutes made things uniform for all "Realms," and therefore the deal is either accepted or broken, but not changeable. So, its a binary issue. Either Canada has the monarchy its been given, or it has none. But you raise some interesting points that there have some apparent contradiction in either explicit law, statute, rhetoric, or culture, which Loyalists appear to want to gloss over. This is an interesting aspect, which of course requires documentation, and no doubt would be a long-term research project. Suffice it to say, there is some debate going on, and its worthy of a separate article, which explores these contradictions. -SV|t 13:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An "operative" agreement

I certainly agree that the issue of the operation of the Crown in and over the Commonwealth Realms needs to be carefully looked at and dealt with on Wikipedia. The issue has arisen elsewhere (Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/5 Of the United Kingdom?, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/13 Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/16 Elizabeth II of Canada, Talk:Elizabeth II of Canada), and due to confusion or lack of knowledge has been dismissed or pushed aside for later attention. However, I believe we need to be careful here, because this is a comlplex matter with many nuances open to interpretation, as well as established facts which are not. For example, if Canada chose to separate from the other Realms under the "British Crown", it does have the added option of setting up its own resident monarchy, as was done by Malaysia, Tonga and Lesotho. There is also the possibility, however unlikely, that Canada could alter its line of succession while remaining with the House of Windsor, thereby meaning one Windsor sovereign would reign over Canada, while another would reign over the UK.

But one point which cannot be debated is the existant, established, legal relationship between the Realms under the Crown, and the operation of the Crown within each Realm. This is not a matter of 'playing with words' or 'glossing' anything over, as it is all written out in black and white in law itself, as well as in court rulings, constitutional committee reports, and essays by constitutional scholars. I think it's clear that this issue of the Crown in and over the Realms is a given fact immune to any republican/monarchist or conservative/liberal point of view. Some politically motivated republicans may want to pull out selective pieces here and there and manipulate them to make it appear as though the situation is something which is patently is not, but it always remains just that -- manipulation and conjecture.

As I've said, numerous times now, if AndyL would care to provide some secondary sources to back up his claims that there is a debate (whatever size, and aside from his own) then I think we would all have to accept that it exists. However, so far he as provided nothing but his own interpretations and opinions. I don't think I'm being unfair in pointing out that that constitutes original research. --gbambino 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I neglected to add that MLC stands for Monarchist League of Canada. --gbambino 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Given that you are now conceding both the "British crown" point and the "single crown" point I don't see how you can say that any of that is "original research". I'm impressed by how far Peter Grey's and your views have shifted towards mine, it's a shame you can't admit you were wrong in the first place but I guess that's human nature. AndyL16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Now conceding? Your attempted trickery is humerous. You can't seem to grasp that everybody with any knowledge about this realises and accepts that the one "British Crown" and the multiple Crowns within the Realms are the same thing. This alone demonstrates that you have no knowledge about this. Your questioning of the established status of the Crown over and in the Realms is 'original research', and until you can provide other respectible sources which back up your claim that there is a debate on this matter, it will remain 'original research'. --gbambino 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, your claim of original research is itself original research: "one "British Crown" and the multiple Crowns within the Realms are the same thing". I can't imagine why anyone would view that as inherently contradictory or an act of sophistry. Andy 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not contradictory, and it's been reality in the Commonwealth for over 70 years. The key to AndyL line of reasoning is trying to combine 'British Crown' in it's general sense with 'British Crown' as subject to the authority of the UK Parliament. The only contradiction seems to be the one AndyL introduced. Peter Grey 17:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It must torture you then to think that your own beloved Rouleau is also inherently contradictory as he too refers to both the single "British Crown" and the "Crown of Canada". How do you deal with that? --gbambino 17:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I cope. Anyway, the mediator doesn't seem to have picked up your "original research" accusation and Peter confines his original research accusation to the Royal Style and Titles Act which isn't mentioned in this article. I'm afraid you haven't convinced anyone, not even your ally Peter. Are you willing to drop it?Andy 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And look at what you have resorted to -- an attempt to simply dismiss the whole thing when faced with a question you can't answer, an attempt to cause a rift between Peter Grey and myself, an attempt to dictate what the mediator has and has not done, an attempt to reduce the credibility of my argument by simply saying it's "not convincing." Sorry, I don't think the mediator has made any real decisions yet, Peter Grey is perfectly right in contesting your Royal Style and Titles Act theories as 'original research', and I will continue to point out that your "one crown or several?" questioning remains 'original research' as well, whether Peter wants to aid with this or not.

YNGAWT!

You're not getting away with this-- so instead of changing the topic, answer the question: why does Rouleau refer to both the "British Crown" and the "Crown of Canada" when he says "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16....Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada," and "the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain"? --gbambino 17:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I see no support for your original research claim and your arguments seem to be based on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what original research is and is not. Given the lack of support for your view, your admission that everything in the passage is factual and your failure to identify one questionable sentence or word I see no reason to entertain your fallacious claim of original research for one more second, particularly as you don't seem to even understand your own argument. Andy 17:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Answer the question, Andy. --gbambino 17:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry. Canada is bound to the British constitution as a result. The question is whether the opposite is also true and that's a matter for debate. Andy 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether he meant equality or identity is open to interpretation (since both could apply), but it's very clear that he did not mean "under". Peter Grey 17:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Except, of course, that he said "under". Claiming that Rouleau didn't mean what he said is original research, is it not (or at the very least pure conjecture). Andy 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

He said Canada was under the Crown (true by definition in a monarchy), not that one crown was under another. This same misrepresentation of the quotation was pointed out a long time ago. Peter Grey 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah so Canada is under the British Crown (a slight omission on your part there) but the Canadian Crown isn't. Clear as mud. Andy 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If things are in a symmetic relationship, then one can't be under the other. Peter Grey 18:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

He said symmetry under the British Crown, not symmetry with the British Crown. Andy 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. He said Canada was in symmetry with the United Kingdom. Why do you waste people's time with these games? Peter Grey 18:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"He said Canada was in symmetry with the United Kingdom" You really need to distinguish between what is actually written and what you think should have been written. What he actually said was "symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown". Andy 18:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry." You acknowledged some time ago that the Australian Crown exists, and you now acknowledge that the Canadian Crown exists. We now all agree that they are both separate but both a part of the larger Crown (refered to by Rouleau as "the British Crown"), so that affirms that there is indeed a multiplicity of crowns within one (we have 3 of 16, so far).

However, I now want to ask, do you acknowledge the status of equality of the Realms, incuding the United Kingdom, under the Crown as laid out in the Balfour Declaration: "[The United Kingdom and the Dominions] are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations," and the Statute of Westminster: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion"?

"Canada is bound to the British constitution as a result. The question is whether the opposite is also true and that's a matter for debate," The Statute of Westminster binds Canada's alterations to the line of succession to Britain's as much as it binds Britain's alterations to the line of succession to Canada's, and binds Canada and Britain to every other Realm in the same fashion. Otherwise, why does Rouleau state: "if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to he maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth," and "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16...Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster"? --gbambino 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Canada is bound by Britain's constitution. Britain is not bound by Canada's constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is trumped by an 18th century piece of anti-Catholic legislation that had a purpose in British constitutional history but is quite irrelevent to Canadian history or Canadian reality and is actually anathama to Canadian values. Given the fact that 40% of our population is Catholic, Canada would not in and of itself devised a mechanism to exclude Catholics from the "Canadian throne", it must accept this device because it's in the British constitution.

Theoretically, Britain must get the permission of Canada and the other realms before changing the succession rules however, in practice, it can act unilaterally as under the concept of parliamentary supremacy the actions of one parliament do not bind its successors. Rouleau is correct in that from Canada's perspective the Statute of Westminster is "like a treaty". However, from Britain's perspective, it's just a statute. Andy 19:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Act of Settlement is a part of the patriated Canadian constitution. --gbambino 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Answer my question: If Britain is not bound to have the same line of succession as Canada then why did the UK have to wait for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, as Rouleau points out?

Answer my question: If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out? Your 'parliamentary supremacy' argument failed before. --gbambino 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Statute of Westminster 1931.

The myth is that since the legislative powers of Parliament in the UK are unlimited, it can amend the Statute of Westminster and then somehow the leap is made to implying that the versions outside the UK would change with it. If you think of Parliament abrogating the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and then going on to, say, abolish the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you can see how silly the idea really is. Peter Grey 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Poor analogy as there is no constitutional link between the United States of America and the United Kingdom (and as a treaty cannot be unilaterally rescinded. As I said, the Statute of Westminster may be "like a treaty" as far as Canada is concerned but it is just a statute for Britain - incidentally Rouleau was drawing an analogy, he did not say the Statute *is* a treaty). Gbambino conceded that Canada was bound to the UK constitution, the question is whether the relationship is reciprocal and it isn't. If Canada tried to unilaterally change the Act of Settlement a Canadian court would be bound to strike down that change given the Statute of Westminster. If Britain passed a law unilaterally amending the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster no British court would have a reason to strike down the measure given parliamentary supremacy. Now of course Canada could pass a constitutional amendment but we're talking about our situation under the current constitution, not under a hypothetically amended one.

And regardless of whether Canada would be bound to follow Britain's lead in changing the succession, the fact remains that the only reason the succession in Canada is the way it is is because of an archaic British law that has no relevence to Canadian reality. Andy 19:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical future is meaningless (to an encyclopedia)

Hypothetical future situations are meaningless to an encyclopaedia. Now, again, answer my questions. --gbambino 19:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

(BTW-- Britain cannot simply alter the Statute of Westminster at its whim -- the statute is a law touching the succession to the throne, and as the statute itself says: "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne... shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." And, the statute states: "4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion," so any alteration to the Act of Settlement or the Statute of Westminster in the UK would have no effect in Canada.) --gbambino 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm talking about the current constitution, not a hypothetical future one. Our current constitution does not allow Canada to unilaterally change the succession while Britain's current constitutional arrangement does allow this.

The reason why the Act of Settlement, a discriminatory document peculiar to British history, is part of Canada's constitution is also not "hypothetical", is it?

Answer my question: Why were the governments of Canada, Australia and the other realms *not* consulted in regards to the marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles when they were consulted in regards to the proposed marriage of Edward and Mrs. Simpson (Canada, South Africa and Australia favoured abdication while New Zealand and India had "no firm views)? Tony Blair was consulted on Charles' marriage but the other PMs were not. Why was this?Andy 19:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement has a every important place in the Canadian Constitution, not only does it outline the Succession, it also ensures Judicial independence. Stipulated in the Act of Settlement is the clause stating that Judges remain in office during good behavior. Prior to this, Judges remained in office during the Pleasure of the Monarch. User:Eddo

Ironically, Canada could authorize the UK Parliament to change the succession with an Act of the Dominon Parliament, but it would require (according to Rouleau) a section 41 Constitutional amendment in order to take effect in Canada. Peter Grey 19:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC) --Was the passing of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, not an example of Canada giving authorization to the UK Parliament to change the succession? --gbambino 20:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As long as the Statute of Westminster is a part of Britain's constitution, Britain's constitutional arrangements do not allow it to unilaterally alter the line of succession. And even if it did alter the Statute, or breached the convention, whatever changes they made would have no effect in Canada, as I said above.

Canada could have convened the Privy Council to give or deny consent to the marriage of Prince Charles and Ms. Parker-Bowles, however, as the couple would produce no heirs to the throne, the Canadian government decided there was no need for debate or discussion, and so approval was automatic. --gbambino 20:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Answer my question: If Britain is not bound to have the same line of succession as Canada then why did the UK have to wait for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, as Rouleau points out?" -

The short answer is it didn't and here's the proof: the UK did *not* wait for Ireland to pass legislation allowing the abdication. The abdication occured and the Duke of York was proclaimed King one day before Ireland passed its "External Relations Act" recognizing the abdication.Andy 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Then why does Rouleau state: "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16...Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster"?

And my second question from earlier: If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out? --gbambino 20:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW- as tedious as this discussion is, we can now remove the "one crown or several?" secion as you've conceded that there exist numerous crowns within one. --gbambino 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, we can't because its contents are factual and relevent and because as Peter Grey says it is not the "legally correct" term to use in Canada and because the theory of mulitple crowns hold that they are equal when there is ample evidence that this is not the case and this is clear in Rouleau's wording.

Now answer the question. Is it a fact or isn't it that Edward VIII's abdication took effect in the UK without Ireland having passed legislation authorising a change in the succession? You hinged a lot on your Edward VIII abdication argument, the least you can do now is deal with the fact that you are wrong. Andy 20:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

They may be factual, but they're no longer relevant if you admit that the standing situation of numerous crowns in one is true and real. With that admission the question disappears.

I don't yet know enough about what happened in Ireland at that time to state whether what you say is fact or not. I can only comment on what we have before us. And what I am asking you about pertains to those things: the Statute of Westminster, the Balfour Report, Rouleau's ruling, etc. This is the second time I've asked you to do so for one, and the fourth for the other. So, before you try and create distractions, answer the questions. --gbambino 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well no because obviously the Irish example shows that, in practice, consulation with the dominions was a nicety rather than a constitutional necessity and that, in fact, the British Crown is superior to the others and not equal as the "multiple crowns" theory would have us believe. Andy 20:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"I don't yet know enough about what happened in Ireland at that time to state whether what you say is fact or not." Then look it up. I can wait. Andy 20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You've also failed to answer my question about Camilla which shows that the nicety of consulting other Prime Ministers in regards to the crown is no longer followed and the UK is quite happy to act unilatrally and expect the rest of the realms to lump it or leave it. Andy 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I did answer your question. Read before attacking people. --gbambino 20:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question at all: "Canada could have convened the Privy Council to give or deny consent to the marriage of Prince Charles and Ms. Parker-Bowles, however, as the couple would produce no heirs to the throne, the Canadian government decided there was no need for debate or discussion, and so approval was automatic."

But why did the Queen consult Tony Blair but not Jean Chretien? That's my question and you haven't answered it. You only provided a remedy Canada could have followed but you are not explaining why the British government was consulted while Canada, Australia etc were not. The point is that the UK (and the Queen for that matter) do not feel the need to consult the other realms on monarchial matters. The point is about what Britain did or did not do, not Canada's possible response. Andy 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Canada's "possible response"? A "remedy" Canada "could have followed"? What are you talking about? If it's important to you, then ask Paul Martin, as he was the PM then, not Chretien. But it's irrelevant anyway, the marriage of Charles and Camilla means nothing to the constitutional status of Canada's monarchy, hence there was no meeting of the Privy Council, and no formal approval needed from the Canadian Parliament. Your claims that you somehow know what the UK and the Queen "feels" about the Realms is unfounded conjecture, and also means nothing in relation to constitutional reality. So, let's stop wasting each other's time, and get on with the facts.

I'll try to find out what happened Between Ireland and the UK at that time. However, in the meantime, can you explain how alterations to the line of succession in the UK would affect Canada if the Statute of Westminster states that "4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion"?

And, can we now remove "one crown or several?" --gbambino 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, as Peter points out elsewhere there is no such thing as the "Canadian Crown" at least not legally. Andy 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Where did Peter point that out? And what of Rouleau's speaking of the Crown of Canada? And, what happened to your acknowledgement of the Australian Crown, and then your admitting to the existence of the Canadian Crown? As you said: "Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry." Seems to me that's an admittance of the existence of the Canadian Crown, as well as it being united with others under the larger body of the "British Crown". --gbambino 21:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)