The Queen and Canada: Residences, Governor General, etc...


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
This week, all Canadian representatives of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Canada (the Governor General & provincial Lieutenant Governors) met in Fredericton, New Brunswick. These 11 Governors represent the Canadian Crown in their own jurisdiction.

Via Canadian Crown Twitter

Pic
 
Congratulations to The Queen's former representative in Canada, the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is now the Colonel of the Royal Canadian Regiment in Kingston. #cdnpoli #cdncrown #onpoli

Via Canadian Crown Twitter

Pic
 
I read that, in 1957, the Queen made an official visit to the United States as Queen of Canada, rather than Queen of the United Kingdom. If a foreign country wanted to receive a visit from Canada , wouldn't the invitation be normally sent to the Governor General instead ? Further details would be appreciated.




EDIT: BTW, I checked an official site from the US State Department and Queen Elizabeth II is actually listed in 1957 as a visitor "from the United Kingdom" although Canadian PM Diefenbaker is listed as having accompanied the Queen. It looks like, for Americans, even for the State Department, it is difficult to differentiate between the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK as two separate legal persons.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
As Canada’s Parliament begins renovations in 2019, the Senate will meet in the Government Conference Centre. In the interim The Queen has gifted two throne chairs, made from wood from her Windsor Great Park, while Canada’s Throne & Senate Chamber are restored. #cdnpoli #cdncrown

https://twitter.com/x/status/1073949578230157312
 
This has to be the best stamp ever with HM on it. It has the Queen wearing my favorite accessory that she has. Her wonderful smile. :D
 
On Wednesday, 6th February, The Queen will mark the 67th anniversary of her accession to the Throne of Canada in 1952.
 
Canadian Crown @Canadian_Crown

Canada’s statue of Queen Elizabeth II on horseback is moving from Parliament Hill to allow for renovations. Her Majesty will be temporarily moved to the Sussex Drive roundabout between Rideau Hall & the Prime Minister’s Official Residence in Ottawa. #cdncrown #cdnpoli

https://twitter.com/x/status/1112347584293728256
 
Birthday wishes from the PM and Leader of the Opposition


"Today, Sophie and I join Canadians in wishing Queen Elizabeth II a very happy 93rd birthday, and continued health & happiness."

Via Justin Trudeau Twitter

"Happy 93rd birthday to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Long may she reign!"

Via Andrew Sheer Twitter
 
Last edited:
Today is Victoria Day in Canada. So happy birthday to HM. God Save the Queen.
 
I think the Monarchy makes our language problem even worse than it already is: the Francophones hate the Monarchy. Therefore, I think that Canada needs to be a real republic, but not like the United States, more like Ireland or Portugal or even like Germany or Italy.
 
Susan D said:
I think the Monarchy makes our language problem even worse than it already is: the Francophones hate the Monarchy. Therefore, I think that Canada needs to be a real republic, but not like the United States, more like Ireland or Portugal or even like Germany or Italy.
Click to expand...

The monarchy has nothing to do with the language/sovereignty issues. If we do away with the queen, Quebec is not suddenly going to want to remain.

The main concern is that the anglophone culture will assimilate Quebec. The anglophone culture isn't going to simply disappear if there is a republic and not a monarchy.
 
10 Sept 1939 Canada enters the Second World War. PM King asks George VI to approve the petition from the Privy Council.

EESFhZaXYAYpzED
 
Rudolph said:
10 Sept 1939 Canada enters the Second World War. PM King asks George VI to approve the petition from the Privy Council.

EESFhZaXYAYpzED
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thank you.

I find the date stands out since Britain had declared war on the 3rd.
 
Durham said:
Very interesting. Thank you.

I find the date stands out since Britain had declared war on the 3rd.
Click to expand...

That was precisely the point. In 1914, the Dominions were not recognized yet as sovereign states in international law. Thus , when the UK entered Workd War I , Canada was automatically at war too. That was no longer the case, however,, in 1939 according to the interpretation of the Canadian government and the King’s Privy Council for Canada had to petition His Majesty in his capacity of King of Canada to authorize a separate declaration of war.
 
Mbruno said:
That was precisely the point. In 1914, the Dominions were not recognized yet as sovereign states in international law. Thus , when the UK entered Workd War I , Canada was automatically at war too. That was no longer the case, however,, in 1939 according to the interpretation of the Canadian government and the King’s Privy Council for Canada had to petition His Majesty in his capacity of King of Canada to authorize a separate declaration of war.
Click to expand...

I did know about about the Statute of Westminster in 1931 & the evolution of the old dominions as fully independent states but I wonder why Canada took an extra seven days to make a decision whereas Australia & NZ declared war on the same day as the British.
 
Durham said:
I did know about about the Statute of Westminster in 1931 & the evolution of the old dominions as fully independent states but I wonder why Canada took an extra seven days to make a decision whereas Australia & NZ declared war on the same day as the British.
Click to expand...


Optics.

The then Prime Minister said that he was going to let Parliament decide if Canada went to war, and at the time the House of Commons was on break. The Canadian MPs were recalled on August 31st in anticipation of the war being declared, but because of the size of Canada and the speed of travel in 1939 it took a week for them to arrive in Ottawa.

The House then debated the issue for 3 days. There was opposition to joining the war from the Quebec MPs (the Quebecois did not have the same affection for Britain and Europe that English-Canadians did) and from the socialist CCF party.
 
Durham said:
I did know about about the Statute of Westminster in 1931 & the evolution of the old dominions as fully independent states but I wonder why Canada took an extra seven days to make a decision whereas Australia & NZ declared war on the same day as the British.
Click to expand...

Also, in 1939 Australia and New Zealand had not yet ratified the Statute of Westminster so it was not in effect for them as it was for Canada. Therefore, like in WWI, when Britain declared war on Sept. 3, 1939 Australia and New Zealand were automatically at war also. Canada, as stated in another reply above, debated the issue and parliament declared war a week later on Sept. 10, 1939.

As a personal aside: I remember being told as a child that my grandparents were annoyed/embarrassed that it took us an extra week to do the right thing.
 
Rudolph said:
10 Sept 1939 Canada enters the Second World War. PM King asks George VI to approve the petition from the Privy Council.

EESFhZaXYAYpzED
Click to expand...




I was doing some research on the topic and found a copy of the actual proclamation by King George VI declaring a state of war between Canada and the German Reich.


I am actually slightly confused, however, about that document. It bears the Great Seal of Canada affixed thereto and it appears to be signed by the Governor General of Canada (Lord Tweedsmuir), by the Attorney General of Canada, and by the Prime Minister of Canada (William Lyon Mackenzie King). However, it is not signed by the King with his own hands or "by warrant under the royal sign manual". Was the King's authorization for that proclamation to be issued on his behalf signified only by the royal sign manual George R I in the petition reproduced above by Rudolph ?



Why does it mean for the Governor General to be listed as a "witness" and for the PM to sign "by command " ?



Those questions relate to the broader issue of how letters patent of the British monarch are signed and who bears responsibility for them, which I find very confusing. Any help from knowledgeable posters that may help to clarify those issues wil be greatly appreciated.


Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Following up on previous discussions, I was also doing some research on the actual mechanism to appoint the Governor General of Canada.


The office of the Governor General is currently constituted under Letters Patent issued by King George VI in 1947, a copy of which may be read in this link .


Under the Letters Patent, the GG is appointed by a commission under the Great Seal of Canada. The LPs instruct then that the commission must be read and published in the presence of the Chief Justice and the members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada upon which the GG must take the oath of allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors, and the other specific oaths prescribed for the office.


Customarily, upon being sworn in, the GG causes a proclamation to be published giving notice of his / her inauguration. The link below shows the proclamation issued by GG Michaëlle Jean and published in the Canadian Gazette to make known her appointment and that she had entered upon the duties of the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. The link also shows, following the text of the proclamation, a copy of the actual text of her commission under the Great Seal of Canada and the royal sign manual.


https://web.archive.org/web/2011081...ves/p1/2005/2005-09-27-x8/html/extra-eng.html


It is fascinating to have an old-fashioned monarchy like Canada in North America. Too bad most Americans are completely unaware of the traditions of the Canadian monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
Following up on previous discussions, I was also doing some research on the actual mechanism to appoint the Governor General of Canada.


The office of the Governor General is currently constituted under Letters Patent issued by King George VI in 1947, a copy of which may be read in this link .


Under the Letters Patent, the GG is appointed by a commission under the Great Seal of Canada. The LPs instruct then that the commission must be read and published in the presence of the Chief Justice and the members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada upon which the GG must take the oath of allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors, and the other specific oaths prescribed for the office.


Customarily, upon being sworn in, the GG causes a proclamation to be published giving notice of his / her inauguration. The link below shows the proclamation issued by GG Michaëlle Jean and published in the Canadian Gazette to make known her appointment and that she had entered upon the duties of the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. The link also shows, following the text of the proclamation, a copy of the actual text of her commission under the Great Seal of Canada and the royal sign manual.


https://web.archive.org/web/2011081...ves/p1/2005/2005-09-27-x8/html/extra-eng.html


It is fascinating to have an old-fashioned monarchy like Canada in North America. Too bad most Americans are completely unaware of the traditions of the Canadian monarchy.
Click to expand...

Even more interesting would be to imagine how North America would have evolved constitutionally without the American rebellion, sorry revolution:lol:

A sort of uber Canada maybe.
 
Durham said:
Even more interesting would be to imagine how North America would have evolved constitutionally without the American rebellion, sorry revolution:lol:

A sort of uber Canada maybe.
Click to expand...


That question is always asked and discussed in the alt-history groups and there are actually a couple of alt-history novels that cover that scenario (fictionally, of course).


The answer is actually very complicated though. Judging from the examples of Canada and Australia, some people believe that US expansion and population growth in the 19th century would have been slower under the British crown than as an independent republic. A common theory for example is that Texas and the American southwest all the way to California, and maybe even Florida, would not have become part of British North America , although British North America would eventually comprise most of the current territories of the continental US and Canada minus the aforementioned states.



There is also the question of the impact that the American "rebellion" (as you put it) never having happened or having been defeated very early on (before other powers got involved) would have had elsewhere. For example, in Europe, would the French monarchy have fallen and would something like the Napoleonic wars have ever occurred ? And, without the Napoleonic wars, would Portugal and Spain have held on to their colonial empires in the Americas much longer than they did ?



Obviously, that is not the appropriate forum to discuss those issues, but the bottom line is that it is impossible to predict how the absence of an independent United States in the late 18th century would have changed the timeline because there are many possible ramifications. It is not so straightforward to say that the alternate US (whatever it is called) would simply be a "bigger Canada".
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
That question is always asked and discussed in the alt-history groups and there are actually a couple of alt-history novels that cover that scenario (fictionally, of course).


The answer is actually very complicated though. Judging from the examples of Canada and Australia, some people believe that US expansion and population growth in the 19th century would have been slower under the British crown than as an independent republic. A common theory for example is that Texas and the American southwest all the way to California, and maybe even Florida, would not have become part of British North America , although British North America would eventually comprise most of the current territories of the continental US and Canada minus the aforementioned states.



There is also the question of the impact that the American "rebellion" (as you put it) never having happened or having been defeated very early on (before other powers got involved) would have had elsewhere. For example, in Europe, would the French monarchy have fallen and would something like the Napoleonic wars have ever occurred ? And, without the Napoleonic wars, would Portugal and Spain have held on to their colonial empires in the Americas much longer than they did ?



Obviously, that is not the appropriate forum to discuss those issues, but the bottom line is that it is impossible to predict how the absence of an independent United States in the late 18th century would have changed the timeline because there are many possible ramifications. It is not so straightforward to say that the alternate US (whatever it is called) would simply be a "bigger Canada".
Click to expand...

Conterfactual history can be endlessly fascinating. I appreciate your taking the time to respond in such detail to my thinking out loud. Lots of food for thought.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wbenson
The Queen and New Zealand: Residences, Governor-General, etc...
2 3
Replies
61
Views
17K
eya
E
wbenson
  • Locked
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip: Visit to Canada and the US - June 28-July 6, 2010
6 7 8
Replies
212
Views
38K
JulieS
JulieS
K
  • Locked
The Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms post Elizabeth
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
18K
Ish
Ish
wbenson
  • Locked
The Queen and the Caribbean: Residences, Governors-General, etc...
2
Replies
48
Views
11K
wbenson
wbenson
E
  • Locked
  • Sticky
List of royal residences in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth
Replies
0
Views
9K
Elspeth
E

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom