An Independent Canadian Monarchy?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Frozen Royalist

Aristocracy
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
201
City
Raleigh
Country
United States
Okay, we talk about nations that could become monarchies while also talking about the popularity and maintaining of existing monarchies, how about we talk about something specific?

What I'd like this thread to be about is Canada having its own royal family outside of the Commonwealth Realm, I'm talking about Canada going from being the Dominion of Canada to the United Kingdom of Canada (It is a federal state and it would be best in my opinion that would be United Kingdom of Canada rather then simply Kingdom of Canada because of Quebec), a Canada that isn't sharing with the UK in terms of Head of State.

I would like discussions about Canadian republicanism and Windsor-loyalism to stay out of this thread because it is primarily hypothetical meaning in theory. Meaning just discuss about there being a Canadian Royal Family in general, don't say it's impossible, don't say it would be more likely for Canada to form a United North American Republic with the US, just talk about an independent Canadian monarchy.

So what are your thoughts of an independent Canadian Royal Family? How should it be established? Should somebody from the House of Windsor be voted as the first monarch? Perhaps somebody from the House of Bourbon because of Quebec? Or a different dynasty entirely form Europe or a prominent Canadian family? How would you like there to be a United Kingdom of Canada?

The reasons I'm asking is because I have recently received a new perspective of Canadian Monarchism, some people have pointed that the polls I've seen about the monarchy in Canada are rather rubbish like the Serbian Restoration polls. While thinking I'm afraid I received a brain fart and thought about how cool it would be for Canada to have its own royal family. This would mean that there is an independent constitutional monarchy in the Western Hemisphere (I'm not saying Canada isn't independent I'm just saying Canada would be independent of the Commonwealth Realm) which in turn could cause the idea of monarchism to become more popular or resurface even further in Brazil and maybe even Mexico, crazier things have happened.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Once again the purpose of this thread is just to talk about stuff that is in theory, hypothetical, etc. I hope the rules make sense.
 
I don't think it would have a snowballs chance...
 
This is a what if scenario, meaning stuff about likelihood and what not is completely irrelevant. Meaning what if an independent Canadian monarchy came to existence despite all the odds for or against it.

-Frozen Royalist
 
The big question for me would be how would Canada even start to figure out just who the Royal Family of Canada would be? Who picks and chooses or do they hold an election and elevate someone to "royal" status? Do they import someone like Greece did that is already deemed to be "royalty" to be King or perhaps someone with a royal pedigree that somehow relates to Canada?

Basically to me, it would be the same scenario as becoming a republic and figuring out who would be the President of Canada.

BTW: If I'm remembering right, in Australia, there is only the Queen of Australia (HM, Elizabeth II) and no royal family of Australia. :D
 
Not realistic indeed but I've entertained the thought of having the queen's other children as the monarch's of other commonwealth countries (especially the bigger three) when Charles ascends the throne as it doesn't seem to make sense to have a very British head of state if you are on the other side of the planet.

Canada could go to Anne and the next queen would be Canadian-born queen Autumn!

My main concern would be Andrew. I have a hard time picturing him as king (of Australia or New Zealand). Edward and Sophie would do fine imo.
 
Last edited:
I'm game. I'm thinking about who would fill the role of monarch under each of the 4 possibilities you mentioned:

1: House of Windsor
I don't think Harry would go for it but I could see the Duke of York wanting it big time. It would be a way to ensure his daughters are active royals. But would the Canadians want him? Are there any Windsors who are closely aligned with Canada and are popular?

2: House of Bourbon
I don't know enough about this family to even know who to consider.

3: Other European
I have no ideas here. I can't imagine going for a total outsider

4: Canadian
I would like to see a chief of one of the first nations take the role. This would have historic weight on its side and would appeal to the Canadian spirit
 
Last edited:
The big question for me would be how would Canada even start to figure out just who the Royal Family of Canada would be? Who picks and chooses or do they hold an election and elevate someone to "royal" status? Do they import someone like Greece did that is already deemed to be "royalty" to be King or perhaps someone with a royal pedigree that somehow relates to Canada?

Basically to me, it would be the same scenario as becoming a republic and figuring out who would be the President of Canada.

BTW: If I'm remembering right, in Australia, there is only the Queen of Australia (HM, Elizabeth II) and no royal family of Australia. :D

Well I suppose there is that, I had the idea of somebody from the British or Spanish (The reason I bring up Spain is because of the Bourbon Dynasty and Quebec, the Bourbons originated from France, the current Spanish branch have claimants to the French throne and Quebec was established during the days of Bourbon France, Royal Families being asked along with the Canadian Parliament having an extensive debate about he subject. They'd finish and somebody would be asked.

-Frozen Royalist
 
4: Canadian
I would like to see a chief of one of the first nations take the role. This would have historic weight on its side and would appeal to the Canadian spirit

Oh this approach is totally unique and the one I like the best. :D
 
I'm game. I'm thinking about who would fill the role of monarch under each of the 4 possibilities you mentioned:

1: House of Windsor
I don't think Harry would go for it but I could see the Duke of York wanting it big time. It would be a way to ensure his daughters are active royals. But would the Canadians want him? Are there any Windsors who are closely aligned with Canada and are popular?

2: House of Bourbon
I don't know enough about this family to even know who to consider.

3: Other European
I have no ideas here. I can't imagine going for a total outsider

4: Canadian
I would like to see a chief of one of the first nations take the role. This would have historic weight on its side and would appeal to the Canadian spirit

I think Prince Andrew is too controversial as it is and might not be the greatest of choices. Maybe ask one of Prince William's children in a few decades.

-Frozen Royalist
 
Oh this approach is totally unique and the one I like the best. :D

I suppose asking one of the first families of Canada would make sense, just which family though?

-Frozen Royalist
 
1: House of Windsor
I don't think Harry would go for it but I could see the Duke of York wanting it big time. It would be a way to ensure his daughters are active royals. But would the Canadians want him? Are there any Windsors who are closely aligned with Canada and are popular?

Does being a Canadian, born and raised in Canada count? In that case I repeat my suggestion:

Queen Anne & prince consort Timothy
Crown prince Peter & crown princess Autumn
Hereditary princess Savannah

Other members of the royal family:
Princess Isla
Princess Zara & Mike Tindall
Mia Tindall

With a line of succession consisting of 5 members and one on the way, succession is rather secure as well.
 
As it stands now Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada has its own royal family independent of Britain.

There is a quote from 1983 when The Queen was leaving America after a visit.

She was asked where she was headed to next and she replied “I’m going home to Canada”
 
Last edited:
I suppose asking one of the first families of Canada would make sense, just which family though?

-Frozen Royalist

The more I looked into this, the more I come to realize that should Canada elect to have a head of state that is of the First Nations, it wouldn't resemble anything like a monarchy. Monarchies are a predominately European construct and played no part in the lives or the governing of the people of the First Nations.

"With regard to government, Indian societies ranged from very loose democracies in which all discussed important decisions to the more formal confederacies, such as that of the League of Five Nations (also called the Iroquois Confederacy). In general, cross-cultural studies suggest that communities with 500 or fewer individuals tend to be egalitarian without formal leadership roles. Most of the so-called “hunting and gathering” tribes would fall into this category. However, as population increases there is a need for a more formal governmental structure. With a population of about 2,500, societies tend to have formal, political hierarchies. With regard to American Indians, many of the agricultural tribes would fall into this group."

Indian Chiefs | Native American Netroots
 
The more I looked into this, the more I come to realize that should Canada elect to have a head of state that is of the First Nations, it wouldn't resemble anything like a monarchy. Monarchies are a predominately European construct and played no part in the lives or the governing of the people of the First Nations.

"With regard to government, Indian societies ranged from very loose democracies in which all discussed important decisions to the more formal confederacies, such as that of the League of Five Nations (also called the Iroquois Confederacy). In general, cross-cultural studies suggest that communities with 500 or fewer individuals tend to be egalitarian without formal leadership roles. Most of the so-called “hunting and gathering” tribes would fall into this category. However, as population increases there is a need for a more formal governmental structure. With a population of about 2,500, societies tend to have formal, political hierarchies. With regard to American Indians, many of the agricultural tribes would fall into this group."

Indian Chiefs | Native American Netroots

Well, although it would make sense only a small portion of Canada's population is indigenous, roughly 4.9% to be exact. So would it make sense to have a monarchy that came from 4.9% of the population, I know the Windsors are German and all but that isn't what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure the other 95.1% of the population would really be on board with a monarchy that originated from the Native Canadian population. Considering that the majority of Canadians are of European decent I guess it would only make sense for the royal family to of European decent as well.

-Frozen Royalist
 
Does being a Canadian, born and raised in Canada count? In that case I repeat my suggestion:

Queen Anne & prince consort Timothy
Crown prince Peter & crown princess Autumn
Hereditary princess Savannah

Other members of the royal family:
Princess Isla
Princess Zara & Mike Tindall
Mia Tindall

With a line of succession consisting of 5 members and one on the way, succession is rather secure as well.


It is a silly thread, but if Québec ever became independent, rather than becoming a republic, they could offer the crown to one of the "legitimist" pretenders to the throne of France such as the self-styled "Duc d'Anjou".
 
Last edited:
It is a silly thread, but if Québec ever became independent, rather than becoming a republic, they could offer the crown to one of the "legitimist" pretenders to the throne of France such as the self-styled "Duc d'Anjou".
The Duc d'Anjou and his ancestors have been living in Spain for 300 years so he's not exactly French
 
I understand the rules of this include the fact that it is pure speculation. But what is happening is that the base idea is getting lost in opinions of specific personalities.

Its the principle that needs acceptance and then the who.

No one in the UK knew Sophie of Hanover or her son George but they worked out that it had to be someone who was part of the royal family ( even if they had to go way back) and had to be Protestant. Hence House of Hanover and George I

So what are requirements of this monarchy?
 
Okay, we talk about nations that could become monarchies while also talking about the popularity and maintaining of existing monarchies, how about we talk about something specific?

What I'd like this thread to be about is Canada having its own royal family outside of the Commonwealth Realm, I'm talking about Canada going from being the Dominion of Canada to the United Kingdom of Canada (It is a federal state and it would be best in my opinion that would be United Kingdom of Canada rather then simply Kingdom of Canada because of Quebec), a Canada that isn't sharing with the UK in terms of Head of State.

I would like discussions about Canadian republicanism and Windsor-loyalism to stay out of this thread because it is primarily hypothetical meaning in theory. Meaning just discuss about there being a Canadian Royal Family in general, don't say it's impossible, don't say it would be more likely for Canada to form a United North American Republic with the US, just talk about an independent Canadian monarchy.

So what are your thoughts of an independent Canadian Royal Family? How should it be established? Should somebody from the House of Windsor be voted as the first monarch? Perhaps somebody from the House of Bourbon because of Quebec? Or a different dynasty entirely form Europe or a prominent Canadian family? How would you like there to be a United Kingdom of Canada?

The reasons I'm asking is because I have recently received a new perspective of Canadian Monarchism, some people have pointed that the polls I've seen about the monarchy in Canada are rather rubbish like the Serbian Restoration polls. While thinking I'm afraid I received a brain fart and thought about how cool it would be for Canada to have its own royal family. This would mean that there is an independent constitutional monarchy in the Western Hemisphere (I'm not saying Canada isn't independent I'm just saying Canada would be independent of the Commonwealth Realm) which in turn could cause the idea of monarchism to become more popular or resurface even further in Brazil and maybe even Mexico, crazier things have happened.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Once again the purpose of this thread is just to talk about stuff that is in theory, hypothetical, etc. I hope the rules make sense.

Not that this has a snowballs chance in Hades of happening but:

Bourbon: definitely no. The French population of Canada is about 20%. There is also the lack of perceived loyalty of Quebec (the constant desire of many in the province to leave Canada all together). Going back to a throne that hasn't had power in Canada since the 7 years war (during the reign of Louis XV) that doesn't represent even close to a majority of the population of Canada, would make little sense.

Same with another monarchy: why would Canadians ever want say a Norweigan royal on the throne? What is the connection at all?

While Canadian first nations has some merit I don't think it would work. Not only is there too much division among the tribes, which one would you choose a king from, but the cultures don't match up with a monarchy. A government is meant to unify a country, and I don't see a native monarchy being able to do so.

The only chance a monarchy would have of standing is to be a Windsor one. Keeping the traditions and such we love, but making it 'our own'.

But to really make it our own, we could argue that should be 'Canadian'. There are two options really. One much closer to the throne, but there really isn't a need for them to be physically close.

-King Peter, Queen Autumn and Princesses Savanah and Isla: Anne is firmly entrenched in royal life in the UK and her role there. Her Canadian daughter in law as a Canadian queen consort.

or a bit further from the throne but still Windsor blood:
-King George, Queen Sylvana and prince/ss Edward, Marina and Amelia

Both you'd have the whole transitioning private citizens into royals, but then again this is a new monarchy anyways. They have the royal blood, but no real link to the running of the family back in the UK. George though is heir to Kent, though I guess he could pass over his right in favor of his brother. Or Edward could remain heir to his grandfather, and Marina could be the future queen. I don't see Canada, if we had our own monarchy, embracing anything less then equal inheritance.
 
Representatives of the colonial powers (France and UK) can not become a royal family of Canada. One can presume that indigenous tribes in Canada have their own royalty/aristocracy, who can be elected/chosen to be a monarch.
 
Last edited:
Representatives of the colonial powers (France and UK) can not become a royal family of Canada. One can presume that indigenous tribes in Canada have their own royalty/aristocracy, who can be elected/chosen to be a monarch.

The construct of a monarchy and a related hierarchy is something that is foreign to the First Nations and their way of governing. I posted information on this back in post #13. With a First Nations head of state, its more likely to be a confederation rather than a monarchy.

I think we've pretty much ruled this option out. :D
 
Okay, we talk about nations that could become monarchies while also talking about the popularity and maintaining of existing monarchies, how about we talk about something specific?

What I'd like this thread to be about is Canada having its own royal family outside of the Commonwealth Realm, I'm talking about Canada going from being the Dominion of Canada to the United Kingdom of Canada (It is a federal state and it would be best in my opinion that would be United Kingdom of Canada rather then simply Kingdom of Canada because of Quebec), a Canada that isn't sharing with the UK in terms of Head of State.

I would like discussions about Canadian republicanism and Windsor-loyalism to stay out of this thread because it is primarily hypothetical meaning in theory. Meaning just discuss about there being a Canadian Royal Family in general, don't say it's impossible, don't say it would be more likely for Canada to form a United North American Republic with the US, just talk about an independent Canadian monarchy.

So what are your thoughts of an independent Canadian Royal Family? How should it be established? Should somebody from the House of Windsor be voted as the first monarch? Perhaps somebody from the House of Bourbon because of Quebec? Or a different dynasty entirely form Europe or a prominent Canadian family? How would you like there to be a United Kingdom of Canada?

The reasons I'm asking is because I have recently received a new perspective of Canadian Monarchism, some people have pointed that the polls I've seen about the monarchy in Canada are rather rubbish like the Serbian Restoration polls. While thinking I'm afraid I received a brain fart and thought about how cool it would be for Canada to have its own royal family. This would mean that there is an independent constitutional monarchy in the Western Hemisphere (I'm not saying Canada isn't independent I'm just saying Canada would be independent of the Commonwealth Realm) which in turn could cause the idea of monarchism to become more popular or resurface even further in Brazil and maybe even Mexico, crazier things have happened.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Once again the purpose of this thread is just to talk about stuff that is in theory, hypothetical, etc. I hope the rules make sense.

I'm going to break the rules of this thread in that we're not supposed to be discuss Canadian republicanism or Windsor loyalism. The reason I'm doing this is that I think the idea that there isn't a republican movement in Canada, or that there is a strong Windsor loyalism is a huge misconception.

There is a republican movement, although outside of Quebec it really isn't strong. What is a lot stronger is a laissez faire-type attitude towards the monarchy in Canada; most people simply don't care. A big part of the reason why republicanism doesn't have a political foothold in Canada (outside of Quebec, which is a special case) isn't because of any strong support towards the monarchy, but rather because no one involved in politics seriously wants to open up the issue that is the Canadian constitution. In order to get rid of the monarchy, or to simply get rid of the House of Windsor and adopt a new monarch, the constitution would have to be changed and that's a political nightmare. In order to change the nature of the Crown, it's required to have the unanimous consent of all the provinces and both Houses of Parliament. The attempts to amend the constitution since 1982 (when it was enacted) that have passed are the ones that don't require all the provinces to consent. The ones that have failed? Required all the provinces.
 
I think it's a bit challenging to have a discussion as its outlined in the OP.

To begin with, while the original post pays lip service to Canadian independence, most of the rest of the post seems to belie that lip service. The Dominion of Canada hasn't existed since 1982. Canada is already an independent constitutional monarchy in the Western Hemisphere. Canada achieved independence gradually from the 1830s to the 1930s, when Canada was independent except for the power to amend its constitution. That changed in 1982 with the repatriation of the Constitution.

Part of that misunderstanding, I think, is that lack of realization that there's no such thing as "the Commonwealth Realm". The Commonwealth isn't a realm, it's a confederation of 52 independent sovereign states. So to specify as an end goal that "Canada would be independent of the Commonwealth Realm" isn't a particularly meaningful statement.

As for the Commonwealth, I don't think a discussion of Canada having a monarchy unique from the UK monarch should ever presuppose that Canada leaves the Commonwealth.
 
The Duc d'Anjou and his ancestors have been living in Spain for 300 years so he's not exactly French

But he is a descendant of Louis XIV, so his claim to the Québec throne is stronger than that of the Orléans, who descend only from Louis XIII. Unfortunately, there are no living (legitimate) male line descendants of the last King of France who was also the sovereign of Canada, i.e. Louis XV.
 
Last edited:
Both you'd have the whole transitioning private citizens into royals, but then again this is a new monarchy anyways. They have the royal blood, but no real link to the running of the family back in the UK. George though is heir to Kent, though I guess he could pass over his right in favor of his brother. Or Edward could remain heir to his grandfather, and Marina could be the future queen. I don't see Canada, if we had our own monarchy, embracing anything less then equal inheritance.


As former PM Stephen Harper argued, the laws of succession to the throne are NOT part of the Canadian constitution. That is why Canada didn't have to amend its constitution (with the consent of the two houses of the federal parliament and of the legislative assemblies of all 10 provinces) to ratify the Succession to the Crown Act. According to the Canadian government, a bill "consenting" to the Sucession to the Crown Act was introduced in and ultimately passed by the Canadian parliament just to comply with the requirements in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, but otherwise had no effect in Canadian domestic law. Therefore, in a way, when the UK embraced equal primogeniture in the succession to the throne, Canada automatically did it too.


I know that the interpretation according to which whoever is the monarch under British law is also automatically the monarch of Canada has been disputed inside Canada. Nonetheless, so far the Canadian courts have not ruled otherwise, so I assume Stephen Harper's interpretation that Canada does not have its own law of succession still stands. I agree with Ish that having a separate monarch from the UK would, however, require a constitutional amendment and, then, Section 41 of the Constitution Act 1982 would probably apply.
 
The only chance a monarchy would have of standing is to be a Windsor one. Keeping the traditions and such we love, but making it 'our own'.

But to really make it our own, we could argue that should be 'Canadian'. There are two options really. One much closer to the throne, but there really isn't a need for them to be physically close.

-King Peter, Queen Autumn and Princesses Savanah and Isla: Anne is firmly entrenched in royal life in the UK and her role there. Her Canadian daughter in law as a Canadian queen consort.

or a bit further from the throne but still Windsor blood:
-King George, Queen Sylvana and prince/ss Edward, Marina and Amelia

Both you'd have the whole transitioning private citizens into royals, but then again this is a new monarchy anyways. They have the royal blood, but no real link to the running of the family back in the UK. George though is heir to Kent, though I guess he could pass over his right in favor of his brother. Or Edward could remain heir to his grandfather, and Marina could be the future queen. I don't see Canada, if we had our own monarchy, embracing anything less then equal inheritance.
Thanks for adding the St Andrews idea. Would the Canadians care whether their monarch is Anglican or Roman Catholic? The advantage of the future duke of Kent is that his elder children are already excluded from the UK throne, so fewer people who might have to give up their UK rights.

I don't see an issue with the Kent title. Could be kept imo.
 
Thanks for adding the St Andrews idea. Would the Canadians care whether their monarch is Anglican or Roman Catholic? The advantage of the future duke of Kent is that his elder children are already excluded from the UK throne, so fewer people who might have to give up their UK rights.

I don't see an issue with the Kent title. Could be kept imo.

I don't think they would care either way about the religion of the sovereign. Canada doesn't have an established church. The largest church in number of members is actually the Roman Catholic Church, which accounts for 39 % percent of the population according to the 2011 National Household Survey (I got the figures from the Wikipedia article on 'Religion in Canada'). In the same survey, Anglicans were approximately 5 % of the population only; "Protestants" in general were 24.1 % with the Anglican Church being actually the second largest Protestant denomination after the United Church of Canada, which accounted for 6.1 % of the national population. Besides Catholics and "Protestants", the survey listed the Eastern Orthodox churches as a separate category accounting for 1.7 % of the population and there was a separate column for "Christians not included elsewhere"(3 %), who, according to Wikipedia, are people who self-identify as "Christian", "Evangelical", "Born again", etc. but do not self-identify as "Protestant".

Going back to Canada not having its own law of succession as part of the constitution, I believe that the rules of succession to the throne have been challenged in the past on the grounds that they violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating against women and Catholics, but the Canadian courts consistently dismissed those challenges as "non-justiciable".
 
Last edited:
I think you should rephrase it, or else the Canadians will protest. The discussion is not about "a monarchy for an independent Canada" as Canada is already independent. As I understand it, the OP was suggesting instead a separate monarch (and a separate royal family) for the UK and Canada, which is completely different. As of today, the person who is the British monarch under British law is automatically the monarch of Canada (as controversial as that may sound, it has been confirmed both by the Canadian government and by some Canadian courts when the issue of ratification of the Succession to the Crown Act was raised).

The only caveat is that, because of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, the UK cannot change its succession law without the assent of the "parliaments of the Dominions" and that is the reason why the Canadian parliament, according to the Canadian government, had to pass a bill assenting to the Succession to the Crown Act even though the said act is not part of Canadian law per se and was not incorporated into Canadian law thereafter.

In other words, as odd as it may sound for an independent country, what the Canadian government and the Canadian courts have said is that Canada does not really have a law on the succession of its Head of State and actually delegates the power to change that law to the United Kingdom, which nonetheless has to ask for the assent of the Canadian parliament to do so. Quite complicated, isn't it ?

Going back to the OP, I don't see Canada ever choosing a new dynasty that somehow does not descend from the first monarch under the Dominion, i.e. Queen Victoria. As for Québec, on the other hand, if it breaks out from Canada and becomes a separate monarchy, I really think there is a strong case to offer the Crown to descendants of the old Kings of France. The only question is whether the Québec Crown should go to the Bourbons or the Orléans. On one hand, the Bourbons are genealogically closer to the last King of France to rule over Canada as they descend from Louis XIV whereas the Orléans descend only from Louis XIII. On the other hand though, since France lost Canada only in 1763, the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht excluding the descendants of Philippe d'Anjou from the French succession was already in effect and, in the absence of any legitimate male-line Bourbon descendant of Louis XV, the legitimate heirs to all of Louis XV's dominions, including Canada had it not been lost to Britain, would be the Orléans. A difficult question again !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be absolutely honest, I've found all of this discussion to be very informative and have learned more about the way things work in Canada in this recent discussions that I probably ever would have learned in my lifetime without it.

The more I think about it, establishing a purely Canadian monarchy would be tantamount to Egypt trying to revert to having a pharaonic head of state that dates back to the first pharaoh Narmer (Menes). Over time, too much has happened and too much has changed to revert back to what once was.

To me, the only move that may possibly happen is that Canada just abolishes all ties to any monarchy whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
To me, the only move that may possibly happen is that Canada just abolishes all ties to any monarchy whatsoever.

Regrettably, many Americans ignore that, at the time of the American Revolution, at least 20 % of the white population of the colonies remained actively loyal to the British Crown and, out of those loyalists, roughly 15 % (i.e. about 3 % of the white population of the colonies) left the new United States and settled in other parts of the British Empire, including what is now the eastern half of continental Canada (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), forming the original nucleus of Canada's English-speaking population. In a way then, one can say that the American Revolution actually gave birth to two separate countries: the United States and the future (English) Canada.

Loyalism played an important role in the divergent histories of the United States and Canada . In contrast to the United States, Canada showed that it was possible to follow a gradual path to independence via evolution under British law, rather than a violent revolution. In doing so, it also provided a successful template for decolonization that was later followed by other Commonwealth nations like Australia and New Zealand. It may be the case that, at some point in the future, Canadians may decide to sever their ties to the Crown permanently, but, if and when they do so, they will be turning their backs on an institution that was essential to shape Canada as we know it and, especially, to forge a separate English Canadian identity that differs from that of the United States.
 
Would the royal family reside in a royal palace? If Yes, in which city would the palace be located?
 
Back
Top Bottom