Some friends and I started playing Crusader Kings 2 recently. If anyone wants a thorough education in the weirdness of feudal monarchy, I highly recommend it, half the game is manipulating weird inheritance laws/scenarios to grow your holdings.

Much like how one of the princes of Andorra is the same person who is president of France.

Is that true?

“”” Charles III, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. “””

So in my head canon, he is the King of the UK and Canada … the same person and the same office. Ie there is no King of Canada officially - the title is always King of UK (first) and of other places as well … in short whilst Canada has a King, there is not a title “King Of Canada” that he can hold as well as holding “king of UK”

Do you have different rules for succession to where it might eventually be a different person?

If it walks like King Charles, and quacks like King Charles, then it must be...

Coincidentally, that has been true for a while, through multiple kings/queens of Canada.

The King also works remotely from home with only the occasional trip in...

I guess the Axiom of Extensionality doesn’t apply to kings. Interesting.

There is an even more pedantic objection to your claim: there is no such person as the “King of England”; this is like saying Donald Trump is the President of California.

Exactly. Isn't it strange that the Queen of England, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia ALL died on the same day? WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!

Kind of! There's nothing on paper that says the King can't just decide that democracy is over and dissolve Parliament. Another example is that the King's representation in Canada, the Governor General, unilaterally gets to decide whether or not to give any passed legislation "royal assent." However in practice, they always do and they otherwise never put their thumb on the scale. Doing so would be a constitutional crisis that would likely end our relationship with the Monarchy more formally and put pen to paper that no, you don't actually have any real kingly powers.

The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).

Technically. The king here has as much power as he has in the UK. And, likewise, if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy.

In practice Taylor Swift might have more.

If by 'their king', you mean 'the king of England'. No, the king of England holds no power in Canada or Australia. However, the king of Canada holds limited power in Canada, and happens to be the same person as the king of England, and it's expected that that will continue as all countries that share that monarch have agreed to the same rules of succession.

Constitutionally, the king of Canada is the commander in chief of its armed forces, provides consent or assent to all laws passed by Parliament, has some immunity from prosecution, and has a pardon power. In actual practice, most of those powers are performed perfunctorily by delegates based on either action by Parliament or by recommendation of ministers determined by the Prime Minister.

In 1975 the British Queen instructed her representative the governor general to dismiss the Australian prime minister, dissolving the Australian parliament.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...

In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.

The legal landscape is very different now, that triggered a constitutional crisis that basically ensured it will never happen again. A lot of things were also formalised after that by Acts of Parliament like the Australia Act 1986 which cut off basically all legal ties (like any remaining ability of the UK Parliament to make laws in Australia)

I feel a citation is needed for that, since it seems in direct conflict with the given history of the word which was that Cartier heard the local indian youths at the village of Stadacona call their village "kanata" (village) and believed that it was the word for the entire area. There was no "invader's village" to even refer to at the time.

Obviously not as US does not have king in their legal system at all.

Canada is no longer part of the British Empire. Neither is the US, since the end of the War of Independence. That’s what independence means.

King Charles holds the title of King of Canada!

[dead]