AFAIK Charles III is the monarch both for UK and Canada.

Doesn't this mean that Canada is, in a certain degree, dependent of UK?

monkeywork an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No - it means that Charles III is an independent monarch for two separate nations.

The monarchy is 99% ceremonial in Canada but it's important to note that the Canadian Crown isn't the UK Crown... Canada is not a dependent of the UK in anyway, simply the person that wears the Crowns is the same person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

>the Crown has had both a shared and a separate character: the sovereign's role as monarch of Canada has been distinct from their position as monarch of any other realm,[n 4][16][65][66][67] including the United Kingdom.[n 6][69][70][71][72] Only Canadian federal ministers of the Crown may advise the sovereign on any and all matters of the Canadian state,[n 7][70][73][74][75][76][77] of which the sovereign, when not in Canada, is kept abreast by weekly communications with the federal viceroy.[78] The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution and, in Canada, became a Canadian,[40][79][80][81] or "domesticated",[82] establishment, though it is still often denoted as "British" in both legal and common language,[40] for reasons historical, political, and of convenience.

▲

bryanlarsen 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's not just theoretical -- IIUC, if Charles, William and George get hit by the same bus, Charlotte would become Queen of the UK while Louis would become King of Canada.

I'm sure that in that scenario Canada would quickly update their primogeniture laws to give Charlotte primacy over her younger brother, but at the moment the primogeniture laws of the two countries are different.

▲

cperciva 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, all the Commonwealth countries changed their succession laws at the same time precisely to avoid this scenario.

	▲	bryanlarsen 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You're right. I thought Canada only agreed to do so, but didn't follow through. I was wrong.

▲

Gravityloss 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess if going in the UK gets tough the royals could move somewhere else to reign. Sigismund was king of Sweden and Poland, though he couldn't maintain both. Maybe we'd need some drama with usurpers and uncles and so on to keep the populace entertained. Without the civil war part...

	▲	scosman 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, Canada wouldn't actually welcome a local monarch. Ceremonial across a sea... sure, why not. A King moving to our shores, nope.

▲

cmiles8 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, it’s like Elon. He happens to be CEO of multiple companies but they are separate and independent companies (for now).

▲

amiga386 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let me introduce you to the Commonwealth of Nations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

These countries choose voluntarily to hold ties with the UK, and each other, and some accept the UK's monarch as nominal head of state, but don't be mistaken; they are all fully independent countries. Some are republics, some are kingdoms with their own monarch. They value each other's friendship, shared values and heritage, but they're not beholden to the UK or each other.

▲

singpolyma3 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. We have our own monarch who happens to be the same human is all

▲

foobarian an hour ago | parent [-]

So it's like two kubernetes pods happen to run on the same node.

	▲	Intermernet 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		More like a bunch of CNAMES pointing to a single record, but in this case the CNAMEs all start with "charlesv3".

▲

graemep an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. He is separately the monarch of the UK and Canada. You could just as well argue that the UK is dependent on Canada for that reason.

▲

afavour an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

No, he’s just the monarch of two different countries simultaneously.