Royal Prerogative refers to the powers Her Majesty wields,
either of her own accord or under advice from her ministers.
They are vast and somewhat poorly understood. They are also
rarely used unilaterally. Even so, their mere existence has at
times led to calls for them to be taken away or modified in
some way.

In Canada the most obvious examples of powers that some
want limits placed on would be the power to prorogue
parliament, dissolve parliament, and call by-elections. As it
happens Britain has modified some of these powers so it
might be instructive to look at what results it has produced.

Westminster is known as the Mother of all
Parliaments. It is what our parliament and
many others base their structure on. This
can sometimes obscure the fact that the
British Parliament didn't stop evolving in the meantime. The
Westminster Parliament our own sought to emulate is very
different these days. One of the ways it has become different
only ​went into effect in 2011. The Canadian Crown may
dissolve Parliament (usually on the advice of the prime
minister). The British Crown has lost this ability. In technical
terms those powers were put into abeyance. James Bowden
over at the Parliamentum blog has an in-depth look at the
Fixed-term Parliament Act (the legislation that now governs
when parliament is dissolved in Britain).

The act was passed so that prime ministers could no longer
time elections in their favour. Now, this strikes me as a bit of
a solution in search of a problem. After all, their is good
evidence that voters punish politicians who blatantly try to
​game the system in this way. Which is something the British
Prime Minister ought to have kept in mind back in 2017 when
she used the act (and a willing opposition) to get an early
election called and returned to parliament politically
weakened.

You might expect this to mean the government would have a
short life. Normally, you would be right but the most
immediate effect of the Fixed-term Parliament Act has been
to make it harder for governments to be defeated. It is no
longer the case that merely losing a vote is seen as a matter of
confidence, it has to be explicitly stated in a separate motion.
Which means MPs can vote against a bill while later voting to
keep the government alive. And even if a confidence motion
does succeed parliament still has 14 days to find a new prime
minister and avoid an early election.   

This has had some pretty nasty effects on good governance.
The British Conservatives have been able to remain in
government while engaged in a civil war within their own
party. With both the Conservative and Labour Parties
statistically tied since the end of 2017 the Conservatives
want to avoid an election if possible. It has gotten so bad the
Queen has started to have to gently remind MPs to do
their job.

This means that MPs never face a reckoning for how they
vote in Parliament. Had the previous method still been in
effect Britain would likely by now have gone through an
election ​and a new parliament would have been sworn in. This
would have had two positive effects;
1. It would calm demands for a second referendum since
there is little chance the election campaign wouldn't become
an unofficial referendum on Brexit. 
2. Having just fought an election the various factions in
Parliament would be in no condition to fight another one.
This is part of the reason why new governments are given a
bit of leeway in setting the agenda.

Would this have prevented the Brexit votes from reaching the
heights of absurdity that they have now? It is a definite
maybe. At the very least it would avoid the deadlock I often
​decry in the American system. An important safety valve has
been removed from the British state and one would hope it is
restored promptly.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The good news is that, barring an absolute disaster, it is not
likely to happen. The bad news is that due to the negligence of
a certain prime minister Canada doesn't really have a plan to
​deal with the situation either.

The roots of the problem go back to Canada's evolution as a
country. During the colonial period and later during Canada's
time as a self-governing dominion the question of regency was
effectively a question of British law. However, prior to 1937
Britain approached the issue on an ad hoc basis with laws
being passed when needed and for specific situations.

In 1937 a more permanent law was enacted in Britain which
remains in place to this day. This being seven years after the
Statute of Westminster it did not automatically apply to
Canada. Hindsight being 20-20 Canada ought to have acted
then. Alas, Prime Minister Mackenzie King was not known for
being overly proactive.    

During World War Two the issue gained new urgency with the
German invasion of Denmark which cut Iceland off from its
lawful sovereign. Fearing that the Germans might actually
invade Britain and cut Canada off from its monarch it was
agreed action should be taken. At this point a regency act 
might have been agreed to but, for reasons that escape me,
Mackenzie King still didn't see the need.

Instead, the Letters Patent, 1947 were issued. While the
letters patent provided for the governor general to exercise
the monarchs authority under exceptional circumstances it
did not provide for a regency scenario. And this is as far as the
law has gone on this issue.

The result is that legal experts are not sure how a regency
would be arranged in Canada if one were needed.

With some difficulty. As this most definitely touches upon the
'Office of the Crown' all of the provinces would have to agree
to the proposed act. An almost guaranteed opportunity for
mischief. But lets put that aside for now.

The British regency act is solid and would probably work
for Canada too as the regent (being a member of the Royal
Family) would be known to Canadians. But, no matter how
smoothly the regency goes republicans would likely use it as
an opportunity to cause trouble.  

Another option would be to specify that no individual enters
the line of succession until they reach the age of majority. On
a certain level it sidesteps the issue of regency rather nicely.
However, negating a royal's hereditary rights on the simple
basis of age doesn't sit entirely well with me either. Even if it
would benefit the realm to avoid a regency.

As it stands the need for a regency law is low and is likely to
remain low. But if a future prime minister decides he wants to
open the constitution for other reasons maybe sneak a
regency provision in at the same time. Ok?

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

If you've been paying attention
to national news at all over the
last few years you'd know the
Canadian Senate is currently
stuck in a never-ending scandal
regarding expenses. The scandal
has produced a number of
possible remedies. Prime
Minister Stephen Harper upped
the ante last week by saying he
would not appoint anymore
senators in an effort to try and
bring the provinces to the table
(their support being needed if
the Upper Chamber is to be
changed in any meaningful way).
Given how much the Senate Scandal has burned the Prime
Minister I can't imagine he is in any hurry to appoint anyone
else to that body. However, this strategy is already being
challenged in court by Aniz Alani, a BC lawyer. He is
seeking to get the courts to rule on whether the Prime
Minister is constitutionally required to name senators or not.

So what does the constitution say on the matter? Section 24
states that "The Governor General shall from Time to Time,
in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of
Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and,
subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so
summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and
a Senator." Note that the constitution refers only to the
Governor General, not the Prime Minister. This is a vital fact
being lost in the whole story. Mr. Alani's court challenge
focuses on whether the Prime Minister has to render advice to
the Governor General. However, this advice is a convention,
not a law or legal precedent. And as any student of Canadian
law will tell you the courts don't rule on conventions. So it
would appear that the main thrust of the court challenge will
fail. The courts may weigh in on another issue though. The
courts may well state that the Governor General must make
appointments to the Senate. This would be in line with what
the constitution actually says. The courts have already stated
that the Senate cannot be allowed to simply whither away 
through non-appointment. Another ruling would cement this
principle.

So where would this leave us? If the Prime
Minister still refuses to advise the Governor
General we may witness the rarest of political
birds: the death of a convention. Governor
General David Johnston would be the one in the 
position of having to create a new rule for Senate
appointments. Normally, when the Governor
General has to act outside of established convention it either
provokes, or is caused by, a constitutional crisis. In this case
the sheer unpopularity of the Senate and the slow pace of
Senate appointments gives His Excellency some breathing
room to find a solution. Here is how it would possibly go:

The Governor General tries to convince the Prime
Minister to reconsider and give him names. He might
even mention that by long tradition he has a Right to be
Consulted. His Excellency could warn the Prime Minister that
his actions were set to trigger a constitutional crisis. And His
Excellency could encourage the Prime Minister to appoint
new senators (hopefully men & women of higher moral fibre).
In short, the Governor General would make use of Bagehot's
Three Rights of the Crown.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper still refused to
appoint senators the Governor General may decide to
wait him out. Perhaps the next Prime Minister would be
willing to advise the Crown on this matter. This strategy has
two flaws though. 1. The party most likely to take over from
the governing Conservatives doesn't want to appoint senators
either (for that matter they don't want the Senate to exist). 2.
The Governor General can't delay on this matter forever. They
may have to do something before a more cooperative Head of
Government appears.

With all options for maintaining the current convention
exhausted the Governor General (and it may not even be
David Johnston at this point) would have to act on their own.
They could act on their own accord in making appointments
but this is unlikely. A non-elected official appointed members
of an unelected chamber no one likes would cause too much
damage to the vice-regal office. It may even damage the
monarchy. Any occupant of the Governor General's office who
respects said office would shy away from this option. And this
is assuming the newly-appointed senators were high quality.
If they were caught misusing public funds the damage would
be magnified. There is no political 'victory' with senate
appointments. The Governor General would need a different
strategy.

The Governor General could request Parliament render
advice on senate appointments. However, with two of
Canada's main parties opposing senate appointments this
may not work. If not the last foreseeable resort would be to
ask the provincial premiers for advice. There is one last option
that might be open to the Governor General but I will leave
that to another article.

His Excellency's job may well be about to become quite a bit
more interesting. All because of an upstart lawyer, a stubborn
prime minister, and a scandal-plagued senate.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Henry VIII is most often remembered for being gluttonous and killing his wives. This is unfair given the wide-ranging effects his religious reforms would have. But within those religious reforms were even more significant civil reforms that established secular authority as supreme within the English realm & its successors.

There are a substantial number of people who will argue that since the Queen is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England Canada is therefore a theocracy. After all, a theocracy is a government in which religious officials have secular power so on the face of it the claim makes sense. However, these people forget that in theocracies the secular leader holds power based on their position within a religious hierarchy. The Queen does not hold her position as monarch (in any of her realms) by virtue of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In fact the opposite is true. The Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England by virtue of her position as monarch. This 180 degree inversion of theocracy is known as Caesaropapism.

Henry VIII is the source of this development which was a major break with former constitutional theory. For hundreds of years popes had claimed that Emperor Constantine had transferred imperial authority over the lands of the Western Roman Empire (The Donation of Constantine) to them and as such the pope had the authority to make, and unmake, rulers in Europe. William the Conqueror being crowned by Papal legates after his conquest of England is one relevant expression of this theory. Likewise, King John (yes, that one) declared his realm to be a Papal fief in 1213. English constitutional theory therefore acknowledged a certain degree of authority for the Papacy within England. One expression of this was the right to appeal some rulings made in the courts to Rome.

This obviously would be annoying for any ruler but most just put up with it. Henry VIII was not 'most rulers'. He had power, ambition, and the ego to match.

Henry VIII's solution was the Statute in Restraint of Appeals (The Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532) which established the English Crown was imperial in nature and thus equal in status to the pope and, as a result, the king was the final legal authority in England. Henry VIII justified this by constructed a genealogy for himself which placed him as the direct descendant of Brutus of Troy, the mythical first settler of Britain. For the first time in English history secular power was truly supreme.

An excerpt from the act:

This principle was reaffirmed in the Acts of Supremacy and remains a part of the scattered documents that make up the Canadian Constitution. This has a few interesting effects.

Since the Canadian Crown is the final legal authority in Canada it is doubtful whether any law could be made that allows for appeals to a foreign body. Within Canada it is doubtful a tribunal or commission could possibly be set up whose rulings could not be appealed to the standard justice system (I'm sure those concerned about Sharia courts and over-mighty Human Rights Commissions will be comforted by this). Today Canada has a legal system that is secular in nature. Henry VIII's reform was the first step in making this possible.

A secondary effect is that due to the Statute of Westminster guaranteeing all of the realms 'equal status' Canada (and the rest of Her Majesty's realms) are legally empires.

Henry VIII's actions would also lead to the theory of divine right gaining ground in England. Even this would come to have positive effects but that is a story for another time.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Cross-posted from Until Philosophers are Kings…

By: Kevin Gillespie

In December 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper—attempting to postpone a confidence vote in the House of Commons—formally requested that the Governor General prorogue Parliament.  After much speculation in the media as to what the GG would decide to do, Michaëlle Jean granted the PM’s request for prorogation.  It has come to light however, that—had the GG refused the prorogation request—Stephen Harper was ready to appeal directly to the Queen.  In a Globe and Mail article from 2010, Harper’s then-director of communications is quoted discussing this possibility: “When… asked what other avenues the Prime Minister was exploring in case the decision had gone against them, he responded: ‘Well, among them, the Queen’” (Ibbitson, 2010).  As it happened, such an outcome was averted when the GG granted the prorogation request; nevertheless, the possibility of the Queen becoming directly involved in Canadian politics had been raised, leading to some interesting constitutional questions. 

Published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, Bruce Hicks writes that “[constitutional] scholars spend a great deal of time hypothesizing democratic justification for powers that they themselves argue have fallen into disuse” (2010).  As a result of a tradition of disuse and encouraged by the Letters Patent of 1947, it has been argued that the Queen has ceded most of her powers to the GG.  In her autobiography,former-GG Adrienne Clarkson makes the claim that “[even] many politicians don’t seem to know that the final authority of the state was transferred from the monarch to the Governor General in the Letters Patent of 1947” (2006, 189-90).  This claim suggests that it would be unconstitutional for the Queen to override a vice-regal decision, and appears to be supported by Andrew Heard—a prominent constitutional scholar.  In his book on constitutional conventions Heard claims that, “[although] the Queen remains Canada’s legal head of state, the only area on which she plays any ongoing role lies in the appointment of the Governor General” (1991, 16).  Here, Heard seems to be suggesting that a constitutional convention of disuse has arisen around the use of the Queen’s powers—a position which falls in line with Clarkson’s own interpretation.

Similarly, the argument that the Queen’s powers have been lost through a tradition of disuse is debatable.  Bruce Hicks gives one example in which the celebrated constitutional expert Eugene Forsey mistakenly comes to the conclusion that “a convention had emerged preventing the use of… the clause [in the Constitution Act, 1867] that allows the Queen to authorize the appointment of additional senators to break a deadlock between the two chambers of the Canadian Parliament” (2010).  This however turned out not to be the case, when in 1990 Brian Mulroney used this very provision to appoint 8 new senators in order to ensure the passage of his GST bill in the Senate (Plett: 2009).  There have also been several other modern instances in which the Queen has carried out some of her rarely used powers in the Canadian context: In 1957 & 1977 the Queen officially opened Parliament, becoming the first reigning Canadian monarch to read the Speech from the Throne (The Royal Houshold: 2013); in 1982, the Queen proclaimed the newly-patriated Constitution (Historica); and more recently, the Queen has approved the creation of new honours for her Diamond Jubilee (The Governor General of Canada: 2011).  While many of these duties are rarely used, or have traditionally been exercised by the GG, this has clearly not prevented the Queen from their performance.

Bibliography

Clarkson, Adrienne. Heart Matters. Toronto: Viking Canada (AHC).  2006. Print.

“Creation of the Diamond Jubilee Medal.” The Governor General of Canada. 2011. Web. 4 Mar. 2011.

Heard, Andrew. Canadian Constitutional Conventions: The Marriage of Law and Politics. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1991. Print.

Hicks, Bruce M. “The Crown’s ‘Democratic’ Reserve Powers.” Journal of Canadian Studies. 2010. Web. 26 May. 2013.

Ibbitson, John. “Stephen Harper pondered appeal to Queen over prorogation.” The Globe and Mail. 30 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 May. 2013.

Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General of Canada. 1947. Web. 26 May, 2013.

Plett, Donald N. “About the Senate – Senators”. Donald Neil Plett. 2009. Web. 26 May, 2013.

“The Patriation of the Constitution.” Historica. Web. 27 May, 2013.

The Royal Household. “Queen in Canada.” The Official Website of th British Monarchy. 2013. Web. 26 May, 2013.

The Letters Patent of 1947 are a rather misunderstood document. Many, including at least one Governor General, have misinterpreted them to be a transfer of power from the Sovereign. This is not the case. To understand the document you need to understand its historical context.

During World War Two Nazi Germany invaded Denmark. This put Iceland in a precarious position as they shared a monarch with the Danes. For obvious reasons the Danish monarch could not continue to fulfill his duties as sovereign of Iceland. Iceland's parliament was forced to pass an illegal declaration of independence (as it did 
not have royal assent).

This caused debate in the Canadian House of Commons about Canada's lack of a regency act in the event the king was captured or cut off from Canada. In 1947 the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada were issued. The issuance of these letters patent is also why Canada does not have a regency act.

The letters patent were significant, however. They allow the Governor General to exercise nearly all of the sovereign's prerogatives except, obviously, the ability to appoint a new Governor General. They notably do not prevent the sovereign from exercising those same prerogatives. As Kevin Gillespie over at Until Philosophers are Kings… point out there have been several instances since then when the sovereign has used their prerogatives instead of the Governor General.

As a creation of the monarch's royal perogative they cannot be repealed by the Canadian Parliament. By the same token they are not sufficient to fundamentally alter the office of the Governor General. It is clear from government correspondence from the time period that no one then thought of the letters patent as a transfer of power. However, since then either intentionally or unintentionally some have come to see them that way. The Letters Patent of 1947 were a response to the nightmare scenario of their times; a full scale Nazi invasion of Britain.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada

Effective October 1, 1947

"GEORGE R."

CANADA

George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith.

[SEAL]

To All To Whom these Presents shall come,

GREETING:

Whereas by certain Letters Patent under the Great Seal bearing date at Westminster the Twenty-third day of 
March, 1931, His late Majesty King George the Fifth did constitute, order, and declare that there should be a 
Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada, and that the person filling the office of Governor 
General and Commander-in-Chief should be from time to time appointed by Commission under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet:

And whereas at St. James' on the Twenty-third day of March, 1931, His late Majesty King George the Fifth did cause certain Instructions under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet to be given to the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief:

And whereas it is Our Will and pleasure to revoke the Letters Patent and Instructions and to substitute other provisions in place thereof:

Now therefore We do by these presents revoke and determine the said Letters Patent, and everything therein contained, and all amendments thereto, and the said Instructions, but without prejudice to anything lawfully done there under:

And We do declare Our Will and pleasure as follows:

I. We do hereby constitute, order, and declare that there shall be a Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada, and appointments to the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada shall be made by Commission under Our Great Seal of Canada.

II. And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada, and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to do and execute, in the manner aforesaid, all things that may belong to his office and to the trust We have reposed in him according to the several powers and authorities granted or appointed him by virtue of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1940 and the powers and authorities hereinafter conferred in these Letters Patent and in such Commission as may be issued to him under Our Great Seal of Canada and under such laws as are or may hereinafter be in force in Canada.

III. And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General to keep and use Our Great Seal of Canada for sealing all things whatsoever that may be passed under Our Great Seal of Canada.

IV. And We do further authorize and empower Our Governor General to constitute and appoint, in Our name and on Our behalf, all such Judges, Commissioners, Justices of the Peace, and other necessary Officers (including diplomatic and consular officers) and Ministers of Canada, as may be lawfully constituted or appointed by Us.

V. And We do further authorize and empower Our Governor General, so far as We lawfully may, upon sufficient cause to him appearing, to remove from his office, or to suspend from the exercise of the same, any person exercising any office within Canada, under or by virtue of any Commission or Warrant granted, or which may be granted, by Us in Our name or under Our authority.

VI. And We do further authorize and empower Our Governor General to exercise all powers lawfully belonging to Us in respect of summoning, proroguing or dissolving the Parliament of Canada.

VII. And Whereas by the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1940, it is amongst other things enacted that it shall be lawful for Us, if We think fit, to authorize Our Governor General to appoint any person or persons, jointly or severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and in that capacity to exercise, during the pleasure of Our Governor General, such of the powers, authorities, and functions of Our Governor General as he may deem it necessary or expedient to assign to such Deputy or Deputies, subject to any limitations or directions from time to time expressed or given by Us; Now We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, subject to such limitations or directions, to appoint any person or persons, jointly or  severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and in that capacity to exercise, during the pleasure of Our Governor General, such of the powers, authorities, and functions of Our Governor General as he may deem it necessary or expedient to assign to him or them: Provided always, that the appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies shall not affect the exercise of any such power, authority or function by Our Governor General.

VIII. And We do hereby declare Our pleasure to be that, in the event of the death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Governor General out of Canada, all and every the powers and authorities herein granted to him shall, until Our further pleasure is signified therein, be vested in Our Chief Justice for the time being of Canada, (hereinafter called Our Chief Justice) or, in the case of the death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Chief Justice, then in the Senior Judge for the time being of the Supreme Court of Canada, then residing in Canada and not being under incapacity; such Chief Justice or Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, while the said powers and authorities are vested in him, to be known as Our Administrator.

Provided always, that the said Senior Judge shall act in the administration of the Government only if and when Our Chief Justice shall not be present within Canada and capable of administering the Government.

Provided further that no such powers or authorities shall vest in such Chief Justice, or other judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, until he shall have taken the Oaths appointed to be taken by Our Governor General.

Provided further that whenever and so often as Our Governor General shall be temporarily absent from Canada, with Our permission, for a period not exceeding one month, then and in every such case Our Governor General may  continue to exercise all and every the powers vested in him as fully as if he were residing within Canada, including the power to appoint a Deputy or Deputies as provided in the Seventh Clause of these Our Letters Patent.

IX. And We do hereby require and command all Our Officers and Ministers, Civil and Military, and all the other inhabitants of Canada, to be obedient, aiding, and assisting unto Our Governor General, or, in the event of his death, incapacity, or absence, to such person as may, from time to time, under the provisions of these Our Letters Patent administer the Government of Canada.

X. And We hereby declare Our Pleasure to be that Our Governor General for the time being shall, with all due  solemnity, cause Our Commission under Our Great Seal of Canada, appointing Our Governor General for the time being, to be read and published in the presence of Our Chief Justice, or other Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, and of members of Our Privy Council for Canada, and that Our Governor General shall take the Oath of  Allegiance in the form following:-"I, ................. do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Sixth, His Heirs and successors, according to law. So Help me God"; and likewise he shall take the usual Oath for the due execution of the Office of Our Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada, and for the due impartial administration of justice; which Oaths Our Chief Justice, or, in his absence, or in the event of his being otherwise incapacitated, any Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada shall, and he is hereby required to, tender and administer unto him.

XI. And We do authorize and require Our Governor General from time to time, by himself or any other person to be authorized by him in that behalf, to administer to all and to every person or persons, as he shall think fit, who shall hold any office or place of trust or profit in Canada, that said Oath of Allegiance, together with such other Oath or Oaths as may be from time to time be prescribed by any Laws or Statutes in that behalf made and provided.

XII. And do further authorize and empower Our Governor General, as he shall see occasion, in Our name and on Our behalf, when any crime or offence against the laws of Canada has been committed for which the offender may be tried there under, to grant a pardon to any accomplice, in such crime or offence, who shall give such information as shall lead to the conviction of the principal offender, or of any one of such offenders if more than one; and further to grant to any offender convicted of any such crime or offence in any Court, or before any Judge, Justice, or Magistrate, administering the laws of Canada, a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions, or any respite of the execution of the sentence of any such offender, for such a period as to Our Governor General may seem fit, and to remit any fines, penalties, or forfeitures, which may become due and payable to Us. And We do hereby direct and enjoin that Our Governor General shall not pardon or reprieve any such offender without first receiving in capital cases the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada and. in other cases, the advice of one, at least, of his Ministers.

XIII. And We do further authorize and empower Our Governor General to issue Exequaturs, in Our name and on Our behalf, to Consular Officers of foreign countries to whom Commissions of Appointment have been issued by the Heads of States of such countries.

XIV. And whereas great prejudice may happen to Our service and to the security of Canada by the absence of Our Governor General, he shall not quit Canada without having first obtained leave from Us for so doing through the Prime Minister of Canada.

XV. And We do hereby reserve to Ourselves, Our heirs and successors, full power and authority from time to time to revoke, alter, or amend these Our Letters Patent as to Us or them shall seem fit.

XVI. And We do further direct and enjoin that these Our Letters Patent shall be read and proclaimed at such place or places within Canada as Our Governor General shall think fit.

XVII. And We do further declare that these Our Letters Patent shall take effect on the first day of October, 1947.

In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to made Patent, and for the greater testimony and validity thereof, We have caused Our Great Seal of Canada to be affixed to these presents, which We have signed with Our  Royal Hand.

Given the eighth day of September in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-Seven and in the 

Eleventh Year of Our Reign.

BY HIS MAJESTY'S COMMAND,

W. L. MACKENZIE KING,
Prime Minister of Canada

Today Canada enjoys the advantages of being a constitutional monarchy with a monarch who is above the partisan politics of the day. It was not always like this and for centuries monarchs had been heavily involved in political concerns. The transition from a partisan, executive monarchy to a non-partisan, ceremonial one is a long complicated series of events. However, one man certainly helped cement this change: Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Born in 1819 in the Saxon duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld he would marry his first cousin, Queen Victoria, at the age of twenty. Prince Albert was not initially popular with the British public but after an assassination attempt on him and the Queen he was praised in the newspapers for his courage & calmness under fire. His reputation began to improve.

Prince Albert was not made a peer (due to his initial unpopularity) but insisted he did not want to be made one. Indeed he would eventually refine a model of 'soft power' and moral suasion for the Royal Family. While Prince Albert found the position of consort to be constraining early on he eventually realized it was an opportunity to define the position in wider terms. He took on several public roles within the first few months of his marriage including the presidency of the Society for the Extinction of Slavery. Early on he would also express his support for eliminating child labour, improved schooling, and freer trade. He also found various ways to help his queen carry out her duties including assisting with government paperwork and modernizing the royal finances. The revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall would steadily increase under his watch. 

A champion of science he was the committee chairman of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations of 1851. The famed 'Chrystal Palace' was built to hold the exhibition. The entire event was a great success selling over 6 million tickets in five and a half months. It realized a profit of £186,000 which was used to help purchase land in South Kensington where the Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, and the Victoria and Albert Museum stand today.

Before Queen Victoria's marriage in 1840 she had supported the Whigs and even blocked a Tory Prime Minister (although given the circumstances I would have too). After her marriage it is suggested Prince Albert advised her to be less partisan in her dealing with Parliament. This may be why only one member of the Royal Family was identified with a political party during this time. Indeed, by the end of Queen Victoria's reign the principle that the monarch 'reigns but does not rule' was firmly established. That is not to say Prince Albert, or the Queen, thought the Royal Family shouldn't have a strong voice, as demonstrated above.

Before and after Prince Albert's untimely death at the age of 42 many places were named after him. Albert County (NB), Prince Albert (SK), and the Victoria & Albert Mountains (NU) are just some of the more prominent places named for him in Canada. The province of Alberta is not, however, instead being named for his daughter Princess Louise Caroline Alberta.

Prince Albert was an example of a royal that could have a prominent role in the nation without governing it and created the template future members of the Royal Family would follow. His early death prevented him from fully realizing this new model for the Royal Family and one wonders what he would have accomplished had he been able to. It is an interesting question to consider. 

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

The current Oath of Allegiance dates to 1689 and was used in all of the colonies that came together to form Canada. The oath for MPs is entrenched in the constitution while the oath for new citizens, as part of the Oath of Citizenship, is not. A source of trouble I will address further down.

"I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God."

Those with religious reservations may affirm rather than swear.

English Text:
"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."

French Text:
"Dorénavant, je promets fidélité et allégeance au Canada et à Sa Majesté Elizabeth Deux, Reine du Canada. Je m'engage à respecter les droits et libertés de notre pays, à défendre nos valeurs démocratiques, à observer fidèlement nos lois et à remplir mes devoirs et obligations de citoyen(ne) canadien(ne)."

The current Oath of Citizenship dates from 1947. There have been various changes proposed including making a reference to 'Canadian Values' (for now I'll ignore the absurd suggestion of removing the monarch). 

On this matter I share W. L. Morton's sentiment that because Canadians owe their allegiance to a monarch, rather than to an intangible concept like 'the People', there was no pressure on anyone to conform to a single 'Canadian way of life'; as he stated "the society of allegiance admits of a diversity the society of compact does not, and one of the blessings of Canadian life is that there is no Canadian way of life, much less two, but a unity under the Crown admitting of a thousand diversities."

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour

Recently Parliament passed a law changing the rules of succession so that the first-born child of the sovereign would inherit the throne regardless of gender. While generally appreciated there are some arguments that making such a change without amending the constitution is unconstitutional. As such, while the law currently stands it could be challenged and struck down at a later date. Monarchists should wonder whether they want to leave such a loose thread for future republicans to unravel at an inopportune moment.

Interestingly there is a possible solution that allows the change to happen while at the same time not opening up a wretched constitutional battle. The old succession rules stated that the eldest male child of the sovereign inherits the throne. Fine. Have Parliament pass a law declaring that the eldest child of the sovereign is legally male, even if that is not the case. Preposterous? Not really. There have been multiple examples in history where similar 'legal fictions' have been applied. It may lead to certain circumstances where a women has to reign as a king but that isn't all that odd either.

For instance Jadwiga of Anjou, King of Poland, was a women. It was noted at the time that while the law made no provision for rule by a queen it also did not specify the king had to be male. Poland would do the same thing with Anna Jagiellon later on. Likewise the Netherlands constitution specifies the ruler is the king despite most of their monarchs over the last century having been women. Currently Queen Elizabeth II holds two titles that are typically thought of as masculine; Lord of Mann and Duke of Lancaster. So there is precedence for this.

It should also be noted that the term 'king' is not inherently gendered. King means "one who descended from noble birth". 'Queen' is actually more problematic as it is gendered (it variously means 'wife' or 'wife of a king'). Some Asian monarchies used/use gender neutral terms for their rulers (even if women are barred from the throne). The ruler of Japan uses 'Tennou' which, while translated as 'Emperor', literally means 'Heavenly Sovereign'.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour