Originally Posted by chephy
" Well, since they are always by default happen to be held by the same individual, that makes them basically the same, no? This King/Queen of [long list of states, territories, colonies etc.] seems to be a fairly standard thing not just for the British monarchs but for the royals of every country big enough to have had various territories and colonies.
Legaly a very different concept, even if it is the same person by tradition. In theory we could refuse to recognise Chuck as the next regent, if we wanted to.
Anyway, back to the point, a great many Canadian laws give specific rights to the Queen or Crown, in addition to the "Queen in right of Ontario" or "the Queen in right of Canada." I doubt very much these laws would become void if we had a king tomorrow, "King" would be read into the laws the way much else is read into our "living tree" concept of law.
This is probably boring all the Americans reading, and maybe surprising a few. We have some vastly different legal concepts.