My friend, Brigadier General (retired) Jim Cox, has written a provocative piece in the Vimy Report in which he proposes that we abolish the monarchy. He gives three reason for abolishing the monarchy, and I take no issue with any of them, but he doesn’t propose a replacement.
I think we should be a little less daring … we should, in my opinion, remain a constitutional monarchy (even though General Cox says it is, really, just a myth) but without a monarch, per se. We ought not to abolish the monarch … but after the very sad day when we will all sincerely mourn the much to be regretted passing of our gracious sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth, we should just misplace her heir.
We should, in short, become a regency.
We would then have to set about deciding how best, periodically, to (s)elect our regent.
We should do it politely by, first passing a resolution in parliament, using the reasons that BGen Cox gave, perhaps, which would affirm that we do not accept the “lawful heirs and successors” as laid down in e.g the Act of Succession of 1707.
We should use as our model the Nickle Resolution of 1919 (which some may recall gained a bit of attention when Conrad Black renounced his Canadian citizenship (in 2001) so that he could take a British title). The Nickle Resolution proposed that an address be made to the King asking him to cease granting titles to Canadians. The Resolution was adopted by the House of Commons but it was not forwarded to the Senate (where it would, most likely, have been defeated) and thus the formal address was never made to the King, but it was sufficient to make it Canadian policy and the King was wise enough to accept the advice of his Canadian government.
If the House of Commons adopted a similar resolution today, saying that we did not accept the established succession to the throne then we can be very certain that Her Majesty and her British (and Australian and so on) heirs would recognize that as constitutional advice which must be followed and when the sad time comes a Canadian senior official (the Registrar general, I think) would proclaim that “the Queen is dead,” but he would not add “God save the King,” and we would, de facto, become a regency. There would still be a “Throne of Canada” but it would be occupied by a Canadian and we would never, ever need to get around to sorting out our own views on the succession.
We would still retain the traditional trappings of our historic monarchial traditions but without the bother of explaining (to ourselves) why a foreign person, who resides in London, is also our current sovereign.
Problem solved … you’re welcome.