Talk:Court Circular

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Activities beyond Britain

Ah, a fresh talk page...

So, the Court Circular reports on the activities of the various members of the Royal Family not just in their capacity as Britain's Royal Family, but also as Canada's, Australia's, Jamaica's, etc. So, I can't see any issue with the statement that the Circular is a "record of all the engagements carried out by the Royal Family of the United Kingdom and of the other Commonwealth Realms." When the Circular talks about the Queen holding audience with the leader of the Loyal Opposition in her Canadian parliament, it isn't about her as Queen of the UK, but as Queen of Canada. Ditto for any other member of the Royal Family officially recognised as a part of Canada's Royal Family (Canadian Heritage: Royal Family) - they don't travel to the other Realms as foreigners. --gbambino 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Court circular published in Canada? That page lists people dead for over 3 years! Astrotrain 23:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? Because the list is outdated, it's invalid? It doesn't exist? Perhaps you think the Royal Family belongs to the UK only, and perhaps you think they have no role in Canada, but what you think doesn't matter. When Canadian Heritage outlines, in their section called Canadian Monarchy, who comprises the Royal Family; when the Governor General's Office refers to the Canadian Royal Family; when the Queen herself says she's a member of the Canadian Royal Family; and when there's at least two visits a year to Canada by members of the Royal Family where they ether participate in official functions, military ceremonies, or assisting organizations and charities, they clearly have a role to play in Canada. The Court Circular is issued by Buckingham Palace, and includes these Canadian engagements, as well as every other one, and so the fact that it originates in the UK purely has to do with the geographical location of the Palace, and in no way contests the fact that it lists the activities of the Royals acting in their various Realm capacities - British, Canadian, or otherwise. --gbambino 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so it's clear:

• Government of Canada list of Royal Family members, from the Department of Canadian Heritage Canadian Monarchy section: [1]
• Governor General of Canada's information on how to write to the Canadian Royal Family: [2]
• Text of the Queen's speech in which she refers to herself as a "member of the Canadian Royal Family": [3]
• Text from Peter C. Noonan's The Crown and Constitutional Law in Canada (1998): "Members of the Royal Family in the direct line of succession owe allegiance to the Sovereign in right of Canada. As such, they are Canadian subjects, although not Canadian citizens, strictly speaking. As Canadian subjects, they do not have an automatic right of abode in Canada, but they are entitled to Canadian consular assistance, and to the protection of Her Majesty's armed forces of Canada when they are outside of Her Majesty's realms, and in need of protection or assistance. Presumably, such assistance and protection would be extended to the members of their family and retinue who are not in the line of succession."

--gbambino 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Claim 1: Lists persons dead over 4 years, doesn't say "Canadain Royal Family"
• Claim 2: She doesn't write her own speeches
• Claim 3: No mention of "Canadain subjects" in Canadian nationality law. Astrotrain 20:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Specific list of Royal Family members in the section dedicated to, and titled, the Canadian Monarchy
• Her Canadian ministers advise her on what to put in her speeches, but incorrect assertions would not be permitted by her staff
• Doesn't preclude the notion of a subject of the Crown, or proove the constitutional scholar as wrong. See the reference to a 1957 court case (note, after the 1948 British Nationality Act) in the article on Princess Margriet of the Netherlands. --gbambino 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Astorian - here's the deal: The Canadian government, including the Governor General and the Queen, assert that there is a Canadian Royal Family. Though I currently don't have the same evidence for other Commonwealth Realms (including anything that states the Royal Family is British [are they even citizens of the UK?]), does it not follow that if all Realms are equal under the Crown - as per the Statute of Westminster 1931 - then the Royal Family is equally of each Realm (as heirs to that particular Realm throne, and owing allegiance to the Sovereign in right of that Realm)? If you can provide me with sound evidence that points to the negative, please do so. --gbambino 20:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is no legal definition of any Royal Family, either in the UK or Canada. These people have no constitutional role or obligations in the UK or Canada. They are obviously UK citizens under current British nationality laws, they are not Canadian or Australian etc. I can see no evidence of a Canadian Royal Family, other than the claims of Canadian monarchists. Astrotrain 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So, the list of evidence right above your post eluded you somehow? Please provide evidence that states the Dept. of Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Governor General, and the Queen herself are wrong. It might help you to better understand this if you left the matter of citizenship out of it - as it clearly, by your own words, and those of a constitutional expert, has no bearing on what a royal family is or giving them any singular nationality. --gbambino 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to get some other opinions on the matter. It seems silly to label British people living in Britain as a Canadain Royal Family. Astrotrain 15:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Other opinion can't be bad, but opinion doesn't outweigh factual evidence. If there's a real issue with this, perhaps it should be taken up with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Governor General of Canada, and the Queen. --gbambino 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting debate. If there is a "Queen of Canada" then ipso facto, there must be a Canadian Royal Family, given that the members of the Royal Family are heirs to the Canadian throne. Of the above, the most interesting fact is that the Queen herself used the phrase "Canadian Royal Family". Her speeches are written by very cautious courtiers. Such language would not be used unless they were 100% sure as to its accuracy. One's nationality is not simply based on where one lives. There are people who are legally French but have never lived in France, people who are legally Irish but never lived in Ireland. That the Queen resides in the United Kingdom is of no consequence in the debate. I don't think it would be necessary to explicitly state in law that the Queen and her family are citizens of each Commonwealth realm. That would be a given, because internationally only a citizen can become head of state. Constitutionally my understanding is that either the Queen is a citizen of each Commonwealth realm, or is a citizen of none (including the UK). The concept of the monarch being "above" the state, not "part" of the state is an old one. (In old law, one was a "subject of Her Majesty". How could "Her Majesty be a subject of Her Majesty"? It is the same as the old theory about how the Queen could not pay tax, because she'd be paying it to herself. So the monarch was presumed to exist somehow in the ether above the state. The idea has long been abandoned in terms of court cases, taxation, etc.)

As such I suspect that it is reasonable to presume that the Queen is a citizen of the UK (no longer a subject of herself). It is therefore not unreasonable to resume that, as she reigns in Canada as Queen of Canada, legally in her Canadian identity she is Canadian, and her family in Canada is the Canadian Royal Family, in Australia is the Australian Royal Family, in New Zealand is the New Zealand Royal Family, in the United Kingdom is the British Royal Family, etc. It would make logical sense. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points. But my concerns relate not to the Queen, who obviously has a constitutional role in Canada, but rather the idea that her family are a Canadian Royal Family given they have no Canadian nationality, and from what I can see on the Canadian nationality articles, no entitlement to it. Also, not all members of the Royal Family are in the line of succession eg Prince Michael of Kent. Thus how can he be a member of a Canadian Royal Family, as he is a British citizen, and not in the line of succession to the Canadian throne.

Also, apart from the Queen, no other Royal has any Canadian or Commonwealth titles. Astrotrain 16:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But, those in the line of succession to the legally distinct Canadian Crown are subjects of it - as stated by Noonan, and as outlined in the British court case I mentioned above. Nationality and citizenship are not the same thing.

Of course, by these same sources, Prince Michael, who isn't in the line of succession to either the Canadian or British Thrones, isn't a part of the British Royal Family either. Yet, he is by both the list of Royal Family members in the Canadian Monarchy, and the British Monarchy websites [4]. So, that's an interesting point.

The Canadian government has not given any other members of the Canadian Royal Family distinct Canadian titles, but they could certainly advise the Queen to do so. --gbambino 16:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This might be irrelevant, but surely the royal family is just the family of the monarch? Thus if she is Queen of Canada, then they are the royal family of Canada, even though they are not the "Canadian" royal family. Deb 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I've always seen it said is that there is no such thing as a Canadian Royal Family (or an Australian Royal Family, or a New Zealand Royal Family, etc.), as the status of the British Sovereign in the Commonwealth Realms is unique to them, and does not extend to their families, who have no legal or constitutional status in those Realms. The British Royal Family, for instance, are Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom, but they are not also Princes and Princesses of Canada, Princes and Princesses of Australia, etc. The only person with any kind of "of Canada" status is The Queen as "Queen of Canada". A Royal Family is not just a group of people who happen to be related to a monarch, it's a legal entity, and such a legal entity simply doesn't exist in the Commonwealth Realms. As a further example, the British Royal Family have British passports with "Prince(ss) of the Royal House" where I have "British Citizen" — they have no such Canadian or Australian equivalent. Proteus (Talk) 10:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The British Sovereign doesn't exist in any Realm aside from Britain. Each realm is a sovereign kingdom with the shared Monarch reigning there in his or her own right. The only difference between the fifteen outside the UK and the UK itself is the Monarch resides predominantly in the UK and not the others. This doesn't make the Queen any less the Queen of New Zealand than she is Queen of the UK.

As a Royal Family is made up of those related to the Monarch, and therefore in the line of succession to the throne (as defined by law), and the line of succession to the throne of Canada, at least, is, despite being identical to, still completely legally separate from the UK's, it follows that there is a separate Canadian Royal Family. They don't live in Canada, but they're undeniably in line for the distinct Canadian throne, therefore owing allegiance to the Sovereign-in-Right-of-Canada, making them subjects of the Canadian Crown.

Passports and citizenship are irrelevant in the debate - most may not hold Canadian passports, but they could certainly be issued them if the Queen, on the advice of her Canadian ministers, saw fit to do so, as has been done for Prince Philip. But, as they're not considered foreigners entering a foreign country when they arrive in Canada, they don't have to present any passports at all.

Nobody has yet been able to explain how, if there is no such thing as a Canadian Royal Family, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Governor General of Canada, and the Queen all make reference to one. --gbambino 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the most important point is that, in relation to this article, the Court Circular is a UK document. Thus even if there was a realm royal family, the court circular only deals with the British Royal Family. Unless Canada produces its own circular, this article should only deal with the idea of a British Royal Family. Astrotrain 19:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You tried this argument before, and it's fallacious. The Circular is not a "UK document", it's issued by Buckingham Palace, with no influence from any government, British, Canadian, or otherwise. It simply lists the activities of the Monarch and the Royal Family, including them exercising their duties within all of the other Realms when they are there. When they are in the Realms other than the UK they are not acting as the "British Monarch" or the "British Royal Family." To claim otherwise is patently false. --gbambino 20:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it is written, printed and issued in the UK and has been for approximately 300 years; is only printed in UK newspapers and a UK government website; and is headed with the UK Royal Arms- your claims that it is not a UK document is very strange. Astrotrain 20:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's issued in the UK because of the geographical location of the Palace, but given that the Sovereign and Royal Family whose activities are listed in the Circular are shared by fifteen others countries, that doesn't make it a "UK document." Because it is traditionally published by UK newspapers means little - the Toronto Star could begin to print it tomorrow. It simply doesn't. If the Circular reported the Queen and Royal Family members' activities in the UK only, there would be no problem with the wording you propose. But it is evident that it also includes their movements in the other Realms - where they cease to be simply "British." --gbambino 20:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

They are always British. The Queen is of course always Queen of the UK, just as she is always Queen of Canada. Note that when the Queen is in Canada, the circular still carries the UK arms. Astrotrain 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What of it? That doesn't proove that the Circular is reporting her activities in Canada as Queen of the UK. --gbambino 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The court is not some generic "commonwealth realms" court. It is the British court. The chief officials of the royal household are quite clearly British officials (the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse), and other lesser household positions are actually positions in the government (Treasurer, Comptroller, Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, Lords in Waiting, Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms, Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard). Whatever the Queen's constitutional position, "Buckingham Palace" is an entity which is clearly British. john k 23:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from those that are UK government positions (and thereby British), if the others attend to the Sovereign personally, they attend to her as Queen in all her capacities. She doesn't leave her Private Secretary at home when she's in Canada.

So, though some positions in the household are clearly British, what makes the others definitively so? Especially when HM always has diplomats or civil servants from Canada, New Zealand and Australia serving in her Office; some of which have gone on to permanent positions, like Canadian Vic Chapman, and Australians Sir William Heseltine and Geoffrey Crawford - the last two going on to become the Private Secretary to the Queen. Clearly that level of the Palace staff, which one would call "the Palace", is not distinctly British. --gbambino 00:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The current wording appears to be accurate. It should be beyond question that when the Queen or members of the Royal Family are in Commonwealth realms outside the United Kingdom, they are operating as or on behalf of the crown in right of those realms, not of the United Kingdom. Buckingham Palace is the chief residence of the sovereign of all the Commonwealth realms, and the sovereign of those realms regularly performs duties pertaining to her capacity in those realms while resident at Buckingham Palace. It's not the sovereign's fault that she can't be cloned and installed in all relevant jurisdictional locales. I agree with what has been implicit in gbambino's argument, namely, that we should be guided by the legal principles here regarding the independence and equality of the sixteen realms.

As to the question of the Royal Family, please see my remarks at Talk:British Royal Family. There is no legal or formal definition of membership in the family, hence discussions of citizenship or succession rights is purely speculative. It should be sufficient to note that members of the Royal Family regularly visit Commonwealth realms and perform public duties there, and do so as delegates of the sovereign of those realms. Their status as members of the Royal Family derives from their relationship to the sovereign, and nothing more. This was not only articulated by the Queen herself, as referenced above by gbambino, but is more tellingly demonstrated in these visits and public duties performed, and by the fact that members of the Royal Family serve as regimental commanders-in-chief and in other public capacities in those realms. Fishhead64 02:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)