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

[Ish]

The three individuals behind the lawsuit have said they'll try to appeal it again.

 

[Rudolph]

Good luck with that.

Wednesday’s ruling notes that the citizenship oath is similar to one that senators and Members of Parliament are required to swear before they can take their seats. It can’t be challenged under the Charter, because “the Constitution cannot itself be unconstitutional,” and one part of the Constitution can’t be used to invalidate another part.

 

[Ish]

Oh, I agree. I don't think they'll be successful if they are able to appeal the decision. I hope that the Canadian Supreme Court refuses to hear the case as it seems like a waste of time and resources to me. The men come across as people who are republican and don't seem to understand (or care) that Canada isn't a republic.

 

[royalistbert]

When you take an oath to the Queen, I don't think you take an oath to what the person represents. I see it like a contract to your new country.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, exactly.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If you take an oath to a person you take an oath to a person and so the oath to The Queen is exactly that - a oath to a particular person.

I have taken that oath - many moons ago when I joined the army here - and even know of people who decided against joining the army at that time because they refused to take an oath to The Queen. I also know of two men who were able to avoid conscription in the 1960s - again as they were conscientious objectors and their objection was to that taking of that oath - being of Irish Catholic descent they refused to take any oath to HM The Queen and refused to become Australian citizens either. Since the new 'pledge' was introduced they very quickly took that to become citizens - why - because there is no mention of The Queen or her heirs and successors but it is to Australia and its people.

Way more meaningful than to swear a oath of allegiance to an individual on the other side of the world who is meaningless in the day to day life of the country to which you have chosen to belong.

The British have the option of swearing allegiance to The Queen or to the nation itself with no mention of The Queen - sensible option in my view as those who don't wish to tie themselves to The Queen can do so.

 

[Roslyn]

The British have the option of swearing allegiance to The Queen or to the nation itself with no mention of The Queen - sensible option in my view as those who don't wish to tie themselves to The Queen can do so.

Is this a new change, Bertie? My research tells me that applicants for UK citizenship still have to swear or affirm allegiance to HM, and then make a separate pledge of commitment to the UK.

 

[Rudolph]

I don't know about Britain but there is only one oath of citizenship in Canada

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II , Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

 

[Ish]

If you take an oath to a person you take an oath to a person and so the oath to The Queen is exactly that - a oath to a particular person.

I have taken that oath - many moons ago when I joined the army here - and even know of people who decided against joining the army at that time because they refused to take an oath to The Queen. I also know of two men who were able to avoid conscription in the 1960s - again as they were conscientious objectors and their objection was to that taking of that oath - being of Irish Catholic descent they refused to take any oath to HM The Queen and refused to become Australian citizens either. Since the new 'pledge' was introduced they very quickly took that to become citizens - why - because there is no mention of The Queen or her heirs and successors but it is to Australia and its people.

Way more meaningful than to swear a oath of allegiance to an individual on the other side of the world who is meaningless in the day to day life of the country to which you have chosen to belong.

The British have the option of swearing allegiance to The Queen or to the nation itself with no mention of The Queen - sensible option in my view as those who don't wish to tie themselves to The Queen can do so.

Like Roslyn, my search on this is saying otherwise. Would-be British citizens have to take an oath (or affirmation) and a pledge.

The Oath is:

"I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law.
​

The Affirmation is for those who object to swearing the Oath and is:

I, [name], do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British citizen I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

​

The Pledge is:

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfill my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

​

Except, once again, they have to take the pledge and either the oath or affirmation - they have to give their loyalty to the state and swear allegiance to the Queen.

In Canada, this oath and pledge are basically combined - in the Canadian Oath of Citizenship you swear allegiance to the Queen and vow to observe Canadian laws and be a good Canadian citizen.

From the CTV News article:

"The oath to the Queen of Canada is an oath to our form of government, as symbolized by the Queen as the apex of our Canadian parliamentary system of constitutional monarchy," Weiler wrote in her decision.


"Applying a purposive and progressive approach to the wording of the oath, with regard to its history in Canada and the evolution of our country, leads to the conclusion that the oath is a symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed."


If the reference to the Queen in the oath were eliminated, or made optional, wrote Weiler, such a remedy would only be a superficial cure for the complaint.


"Because the Queen remains the head of our government, any oath that commits the would-be citizen to the principles of Canada's government is implicitly an oath to the Queen."

The full article is here: Ontario appeal court upholds oath to the Queen in citizenship case | CTV News

 

[Humera]

Message from Her Majesty The Queen
September 9, 2014

“I was greatly interested to learn of the discovery of one of the long-lost ships of Captain Sir John Franklin. Prince Philip joins me in sending congratulations and good wishes to all those who played a part in this historic achievement.” Official Statement

 

[PrincessOfPeace]

In honour of the impending Royal Tour by The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, Royal Central takes a look a the history of Royal visits and tours of the North American country.

The Queen has been a frequent visitor to Canada making her first visit as Princess Elizabeth in 1951 with her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. We will take a look at some the highlights of the rich and varied history of Royal visits to the North spanning 228 years.

From 1786 until 1951, a wide range of visits were made by members of the Royal Family from Prince William, the future King William IV visiting in 1786-1787 up until 1951 when then Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh carried out a coast-to-coast tour of Canada. During this time span a total 27 Royal visits took place.

Royal Canada: a history of tours and visits

 

[Rudolph]

Focus On Canada’s Royal Heritage | BCCTC

The Canadian Royal Heritage Institute Greater Toronto – Hamilton Area Branch supported by The English-Speaking Union of Canada, Toronto – Hamilton Branch
presents

Focus On Canada’s Royal Heritage
September 2014 Presentation

Monday, 29th September 2014 – 7:30 p.m.
Blessed Sacrament Parish Hall
24 Cheritan Avenue (on west side of Yonge Street), Toronto
(One block south of Yonge Street & Lawrence Avenue)
Entrance off Cheritan Avenue. Elevator entrance and wheelchair access from the Cortland Avenue (west side) driveway of the church.
“Interpreting the Constitution and the Crown”

Speaker: Dr Philippe Lagassé

 

[wbenson]

Message from Her Majesty The Queen

OTTAWA—The Governor General of Canada is pleased to share a message addressed to all Canadians from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the National Flag of Canada.

"On this, the 50th anniversary of the National Flag of Canada, I am pleased to join with all Canadians in the celebration of this unique and cherished symbol of our country and identity."

Elizabeth R.

 

[Humera]

Very nice message. The maple leaf flag is indeed a very unique and cherished symbol of Canada. Hard to believe that so many opposed it half a century ago.

 

[cepe]

This is a great piece entitled When the Queen is your boss

Insight about HMQ and her relationship with some prime ministers and governors general.

When the Queen is your boss | Toronto Star

 

[Humera]

That is an amazing article! Such fascinating insight into the Queen's personality, her sense of humour.
My favourite story was Michael Jean's and the royal family cooking her birthday dinner.
Jean Chretien's was really funny. I didn't realize he had such a close relationship with QE.

 

[cepe]

thank you. I should have given my source (so apologies to them). It was @Royal_beans on twitter who is Canadian.

 

[Rudolph]

Canadian citizenship oath to Queen to remain law - Telegraph

Immigrants to Canada will have to keep taking an oath to the Queen Elizabeth II after the Supreme Court of Canada refused on Thursday to hear a challenge to the citizenship requirement.

The decision by the top court leaves intact an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling.

At issue is a provision in Canada's Citizenship Act that requires would-be citizens to swear to be "faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors."

Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's titular head of state. Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth of former colonies.

Longtime permanent residents Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan challenged the law because they do not want to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

 

[Lumutqueen]

@CourtierUK: Canada’s Governor General David Johnston will remain in office until 2017 (when Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary), it’s reported.

 

[Rudolph]

David Johnston accepts extension of his term as Governor General, to remain Queen’s representative until 2017 | National Post

David Johnston will remain Canada’s Governor General until 2017 after being given a two-year extension of his term by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“His Excellency David Johnston has been an exceptional Governor General and Commander-in-Chief, working tirelessly to advance the interests of Canadians and to promote a greater understanding of our great country, both at home and abroad,” Harper’s said in a press release Tuesday.

“He has made remarkable contributions to Canada in his role as the Queen’s representative in Canada, performing his duties with dignity, wisdom and aplomb.”

Johnston, a lawyer and academic, was appointed in October 2010 to what is customarily a five-year term. Extending his term means he will be the Governor General in 2017, the 150th anniversary of Confederation, the PMO noted.

Both PM Harper and GG Johnston are strong monarchists

 

[Rudolph]

Officials from Buckingham Palace could soon be calling Canadian cities and towns named Windsor.

England’s Royal Collection Trust, which is responsible for the care of the Royal Collection and manages the public opening of the official residences of the Queen, will publish a book on the history of Windsor Castle in 2016.

Windsor Castle is the Queen's summer and weekend retreat. It is the largest and oldest continually inhabited castle in the world. It began as a Saxon village more than 1,000 years ago, and has been home to British monarchs since William the Conqueror in 1086.

"As part of research for the book, we have been looking into the history of other places across the world which share the Windsor name," Royal Collection Trust senior press officer Hannah Dolby wrote in an email to CBC.

More: Buckingham Palace comes calling for origins of Canada's Windsors - Windsor - CBC News

 

[Rudolph]

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada has approved the creation of the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers

Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers

 

[AdmirerUS]

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada has approved the creation of the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers

Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers

Rudolph (and out other Canadian members): Is this seen as a good thing or a bad thing? Or as no major change? OK - they get a lovely medal rather than a lapel pin but otherwise, why? What would be the point of bumping it up from the Governor General? I'm just curious.

And the medal is beautiful.

 

[Rudolph]

No major change I guess. Canada is probably the most pro-monarchy of the Queen's realms so this stuff doesn't get much resistance.

According to the law, the Sovereign of Canada is the authority for the creation of all official honours. Honours are created by letters patent issued by the Sovereign on the advice of the prime minister of Canada.

All honours in Canada are created by the Queen and bestowed by the GG so in this sense it doesn't matter the name of the honour.

 

[Mbruno]

No major change I guess. Canada is probably the most pro-monarchy of the Queen's realms so this stuff doesn't get much resistance.

According to the law, the Sovereign of Canada is the authority for the creation of all official honours. Honours are created by letters patent issued by the Sovereign on the advice of the prime minister of Canada.

All honours in Canada are created by the Queen and bestowed by the GG so in this sense it doesn't matter the name of the honour.

According to the polls, there is a real possibility that Canada may have a left-wing government, pretty much for the first time in its history, following the upcoming October federal election. I wonder then what position the NDP holds on the monarchy. Is it a republican party like the Australian Labor Party ?

I would appreciate if the Canadian posters could please comment on this topic. Thank you.

 

[Ish]

According to the polls, there is a real possibility that Canada may have a left-wing government, pretty much for the first time in its history, following the upcoming October federal election. I wonder then what position the NDP holds on the monarchy. Is it a republican party like the Australian Labor Party ?

I would appreciate if the Canadian posters could please comment on this topic. Thank you.

If the NDP wins it won't be the first time a left-wing government is formed - the Liberals are a more left wing party than the conservatives, just not as left wing as the NDP.

As for the NDP's stance on the monarchy, I don't think it has an official stance. The monarchy isn't an election issue right now. The senate is, and the NDP is promising to abolish it (easier said than done), but there have been serious scandals with the senate in recent years which is what is causing the great push for reforming or abolishing it.

Even if the NDP do win outright (which isn't a guarantee; some polls put them winning by large margin, others put the Conservatives right behind them, and there is talk about a coalition with the Liberals), they aren't likely to win a majority and both the Conservatives and Liberals have pro-monarchy leanings.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If the monarchy had been on the NDP's agenda, had they then been able to abolish it? I've read / heard that it will be very difficult.

 

[Rudolph]

Unlike the change to succession which was done with an Act of Parliament (which may have been illegal) , to abolish the monarchy and remove the Queen as HoS would require a complete rewriting of the constitution. Next to impossible.

And although the NDP is a leftist party, it isn't a republican party per se.

I haven't heard a single major politician from any party even mention the monarchy. Its just not a priority. Canadians don't like change for the sake of change.

Monarchy is safe imo.

 

[Mbruno]

If the NDP wins it won't be the first time a left-wing government is formed - the Liberals are a more left wing party than the conservatives, just not as left wing as the NDP.

My understanding was that the Conservatives are a center-right party, the Liberals are centrist, and the NDP is leftist. In other words, the Liberals are to the left of the Conservatives, but they don't define themselves as a "democratic socialist" (or "social democratic" ?) party as the NDP does.

As for the NDP's stance on the monarchy, I don't think it has an official stance. The monarchy isn't an election issue right now. The senate is, and the NDP is promising to abolish it (easier said than done), but there have been serious scandals with the senate in recent years which is what is causing the great push for reforming or abolishing it.

Even if the NDP do win outright (which isn't a guarantee; some polls put them winning by large margin, others put the Conservatives right behind them, and there is talk about a coalition with the Liberals), they aren't likely to win a majority and both the Conservatives and Liberals have pro-monarchy leanings.

I see, thanks ! The reason I asked is that a Google search returned an article about an NDP MP who introduced legislation to remove references to the Queen from the oath of citizenship. I guess that same MP also referred to the monarchy as "outdated" or something similar to that.

On the Senate issue, I understand the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Senate can only be abolished if all 10 provinces of Canada agree thereto. If that is indeed the case, I find it unlikely that it will happen any time soon.

 

[Ish]

If the monarchy had been on the NDP's agenda, had they then been able to abolish it? I've read / heard that it will be very difficult.

It would be nearly impossible to do so legally.

The monarchy is a constitutional issue and has a distinct legal persona in each of the provinces and the federal government. In order to remove it the House of Commons, the Senate, and the legislative assembly of all 10 provinces have to consent.

This poses 3 major challenges to republicanism.

First of all, the House of Commons would have to be in agreement to abolish the monarchy. The Conservative party, under Harper, is pro-monarchy, and the Liberals' most recent party vote on the issue came in favour of the monarchy (or at least against abolishing it). If the NDP were to try to abolish the monarchy they would need support from the other parties, as they aren't likely to gain a majority. The only party that openly supports a republic is the Bloc Québécois, and allying with them will alienate the NDP.

Secondly, the Senate has to approve. Right now, the Senate has a Conservative majority, therefore isn't likely to support republicanism. There are 22 seats not filled, so theoretically the tide could be changed if the Independents were swayed to republicanism, however given Mulcair's strong anti-senate stance he'd lose some political clout if he filled those seats.

Finally, the relationship between the different provinces and the federal government can be described at best as somewhat dysfunctional. In 1982 the Constitution Act was passed and more than 30 years later it still hasn't been ratified by all the provinces (the hold out being Quebec).

The chance of the Commons, Senate, and all 10 provinces being in agreement on this and it not sparking any separatist movements is thin.