The Constitutional Problem of the King in Canada

This week, British subjects of the King have had to consider issues in relation to their sovereign that have long been dormant or thought inconsequential. As history repeats itself, so we are in a position that would have been familiar to the English in 1603. Our King has other loyalties and is separately the King of a foreign country. In the early 17th century, that foreign country was Scotland; today, it is Canada.

King Charles III, as he is known in all his realms, even those which were not part of the inheritance of Charles I or II, is the king of 15 Commonwealth countries. In each of these, the constitutional situation differs slightly, but is broadly similar to the form of monarchy enjoyed in the United Kingdom, with which it is shared and from which it is derived.

Thus, as King of Canada, he is advised by the Prime Minister of Canada and speaks, when opening Parliament or on other formal occasions, for the government of the day.

While I was Leader of the House of Commons, I was involved in the process of preparing what was then the Queen's Speech. The Palace was obliged to promote any policy that the government wished to include, even the banal ones about banning people from keeping a pet monkey, which was objected to by the more civilised elements of the government, who felt it was too trivial a subject to be included on such a an occasion, but not the Queen's private office. Its only insistence was that the speech be short, on the grounds of the late Queen's age, and that the only body for which Her Majesty could use the possessive was the armed forces – so our armed forces, but not the ineffably twee ‘our NHS’, it took the definite article instead.

This example shows that it is absolutely clear that the policy of such a speech is entirely in the hands of the advising government. This is how the King’s recent speech in Canada would have been constructed; albeit as a speech of exceptional constitutional diplomatic delicacy.

Canadians are understandably deeply upset by Donald Trump's attacks upon their nation and his hostility to Justin Trudeau, the former Prime Minister. Indeed, the victory of Mark Carney is one that was created in the White House, as Canadians responded to Trump's suggestion that it be swallowed up into the United States and, if not, would have high tariffs imposed upon it.

The Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre were well ahead in the polls before Trump's election, but their vote share collapsed as they were seen as being too close to him. Carney became the beneficiary, and has a strong interest in promoting Canadian independence.

There is a beautiful irony in this, because as Governor of the Bank of England, Carney was one of the most aggressive, and fortunately least successful, proponents of the UK's continued membership of the EU. He wanted us to be under the heel of Brussels, but at home wants his own country to be independent and not the vassal of a large foreign neighbour.