The Last Empress - Part I

Recently a Canadian republican friend asked me to publish my thoughts on what will or could happen when the Queen's reign ends. While I generally don't like to discuss what is a fairly morbid topic, inevitability the Queen’s reign will come to an end; and the end of the reign could trigger the end of the monarchy in New Zealand, and other Commonwealth realms, including Britain. Understandably, the event is highly sensitive, and the following three-part series of posts represent my own views, and not necessarily those of the Republican Movement.

It's timely that February 6th was the Queen's Accession Day. The Accession itself occurred while Princess Elizabeth was in Kenya. By law, the Princess Elizabeth became head of state of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ceylon, Pakistan, South Africa, and Great Britain (including all of its territories, many of which became independent in the decades following), as soon as her father King George VI passed away.

As of today, the Queen has reigned for 58 years and two days, third after King George III and Queen Victoria. Unlike the reigns of Victoria and George, Elizabeth's reign has been typified by the decline in Britain's global dominance - ironically replaced by its most rebellious former colony. In total, the Queen has been head of state of 32 sovereign countries during her reign, but today is head of state of just 16. How the reign could end, and what will happen after the end of the reign to those final 16 realms, are the subjects of this series.

The first scenario for the end of the reign is abdication - and it is the least likely. For starters, the Queen is very religious and takes her Coronation oath very seriously. That oath, to which the Queen said "I will" requires a Sovereign to "solemnly promise" to govern the people of the countries she was head of state of. The Queen's Christian convictions have hardly diminished since - every Christmas Message makes some sort of reference to Christianity.

Secondly, there are no circumstances, like those that existed in 1936, that would cause an abdication. Edward VIII's abdication in that year would still be on the Queen's mind. Given the trauma it caused the Windsor family it's unlikely the Queen would want to abdicate.

Thirdly, abdication is also legally difficult to achieve – it would require abdication legislation to be passed by the 16 Commonwealth member states that retain the Queen as their head of state. Otherwise, a situation not unlike the Irish Free State on 12 December 1936 could occur - even though Edward VIII's abdication legally occurred on 11 December 1936 in Britain (and by extension, New Zealand and Australia - South African and Canada had to pass their own abdication acts). The Queen could remain Queen of Barbados while her son Charles became King of Jamaica, a ridiculous situation.

When the Queen's reign ends, it's not likely that it will be because of abdication. The next post will look at the issue of regency, and how that could be brought about.

Comments

Rich d'Rich's picture

I think if you look at the <a

I think if you look at the <a href="http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/whole.html#dlm94204">Constitution Act</a> it indicates that if the UK parliament passed an Abdication Act, it would, as "any other law relating to the succession to the Throne," have effect in NZ.

LJ Holden's picture

Ah, but the way I read that

Ah, but the way I read that is that any UK Act wouldn't affect New Zealand... that could be wrong.

Chair of the Republican Movement
Dr. Nes's picture

Constitution Act 1986, Clause

Constitution Act 1986, Clause 15:

"(1) The Parliament of New Zealand continues to have full power to make laws.

(2) No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend to New Zealand as part of its law."

Statute of Westminster 1931, Clause 4, as in force today in the UK:

"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."

Constitution Act 1986 is not in force in the UK, which means that the law of New Zealand, not the law of the UK, makes it impossible for the British to legislate for New Zealand. However, the Constitution Act 1986 - as far as I know - is not part of the law in Niue or Cook Islands, which both are, as far as British legislation and the Statute of Westminster are concerned, parts of the Realm of NZ, as the head of state for both of these tiny states is the Queen in right of NZ. That means, that - theoretically at least - the UK could legislate for Niue or Cook Islands, with the consent of the Realm of NZ, that is, both the islands and NZ proper.

To make complicated matters short, there is no way the Parliament of United Kingdom could alter any legislation in New Zealand without the consent of New Zealand after the passing of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 in NZ (at the time of the abdication crisis the Statute was not yet in force in NZ). And even with the consent of New Zealand, United Kingdom could only alter legislation in Niue or Cook Islands, and even that may now be impossible.

Dr. Nes's picture

And, yes, it is true that

And, yes, it is true that Constitution Act 1986, Clause 5 mentions "any other law relating to the succession to the Throne", but there is no reason to assume that could include laws that are not in force in New Zealand. After all, it is clearly the Throne of New Zealand, not the British one, that is referred to.
LJ Holden's picture

That's how I read it Dr Nes.

That's how I read it Dr Nes.

Chair of the Republican Movement
Dr. Nes's picture

Edward VIII abdicated in

Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, not 1935.
LJ Holden's picture

Well spotted. Fixed now.

Well spotted. Fixed now.

Chair of the Republican Movement
Craig Young's picture

No, I don't think she'll ever

No, I don't think she'll ever abdicate either. I agree with this analysis- that leaves incapacity* and consequent regency, or  her eventual death.

Granted, this may seem a morbid subject to some, but all human beings die, even reigning monarchs. As a republican organisation, it is therefore logical to consider the applicable contingencies.

*And as the Queen Mother was quite articulate at her time of death, that may further narrow the possible contingencies, if her daughter inherited the same stalwart neuroanatomy...

Latest Video

Latest Republican Movement video:

For more, see our video page.

Syndicate content