Originally Posted by Durham
I'm wondering whether the links between the so called CANZUK nations, symbolised by the crown, might become increasingly more important on a political level as the century goes on. All four nations are (the UK by recent choice of course) overshadowed by larger nearby blocs.
Relations between the four may become more important in the real world & not just based on some sentimental attachment & shared history.
As a common (although legally distinct) institution the crown might take on a new lease of life.
Just a thought. Not too political for the RF's I hope.
It would be great if posters from Canada, Australia and New Zealand could give their perspective on the topic. If you allow me, however, I would like to comment briefly on the situation in North America in particular.
According to the Wikipedia, the United States accounted in 2018 for 76.2 % of Canadian exports and 52.2 % of its imports. Geography and the relative size of the economies of the two countries make it virtually impossible for Canada not to have an economy that is closely integrated to the US, especially in some manufacturing sectors like motor vehicles and auto parts where Canadian industry consists mostly of cross-border American transplants, sometimes in neighboring cities on the two sides of the border.
Nevertheless, my humble impression is that Canada and the US always had a somewhat difficult relationship, which was actually openly hostile before the American Civil War (when the possible annexation of parts of British North America by the US was still a real threat) and turned friendly, but never "warm" later. English Canada was originally settled by the American loyalists following the War of Independence in the 13 colonies and Canada clung to the Crown and, later, to the Empire not least because it saw it as a defense against US expansionism and a way to reaffirm a distinct identity from the Americans.
For the French Canadians, on the other hand, it was a matter of national survival: despite Quebec's recent flirtation with separatism over the past 50 years, the historic truth is that the Crown, starting with the Quebec Act of 1774 (denounced BTW by Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence) and, then, much later, the BNA Act of 1867, which created the Confederation, offered the French Canadians a reasonable compromise, which enabled them to survive as a minority preserving their distinct language, culture and civil law in a much bigger Anglophone North America. Needless to say, under the United States, that would have been impossible as they would have been inevitably "assimilated" as other minorities were in the territories that the US gained from France, Spain and Mexico.
Nowadays, I don't think the Crown has the same importance in the collective national mindset and most Canadians are probably at best indifferent to it. However, Canada has been able (in my opinion successfully) to turn the Crown and the Queen into national Canadian institutions with characteristics that differ from those in the UK. We see it for example in the Canadian system of national honors, which replaced most of the old imperial orders (except for the Order of Merit and the Royal Victorian Order_ the latter only at grades of Commander or below), and in the role that the Governor General, as the Crown's representative, came to assume in the administration of that system (which is still established incidentally by LPs issued by the Queen).
Overall, I see the monarchy lasting longer in Canada than in Australia for example, not only because it is constitutionally difficult to abolish it (it requires the consent of the federal Parliament and of all 10 provinces), but because there is no good reason to do it and no alternative system to put in place which all regions of the country and all ethnic groups within the country can agree on. Unsurprisingly, unlike in Australia or New Zealand, there is no major Canadian political party calling for a republic now. Whether that will change when Queen Elizabeth II passes away, it remains to be seen.