Despite being a german married to a greek

The Duke of Edinburgh became a naturalised Briton citizen in 1947. As for the rest of the Royal Family, being of German background centuries ago does not stop one being British today.

Regarding the Queen herself, upon accession to the Throne, usual concepts of citizenship no longer apply to her. Hence, as monarch of Canada, she is by definition of that, a Canadian. As Queen of the United Kingdom, she is British. As Queen of Australia, Australian.

You must acknowledge, though, that the situation of Commonwealth nations that retain the Queen as head of state is unusual. Regardless of your semantic argument that the "usual concepts of citizenshipno longer apply", it is an inescapable fact that she is not in any normal sense of the term a resident of Canada. How many sovereign nations outside this small group of Commonwealth countries have a head of state who does not live in that country?

Does the Queen pay tax in Canada?

I doubt any of her income is earned or received from Canada

On Canadian sourced income, probably yes, although it's meaningless for a monarch to pay tax ... as all tax is collected in the name of the monarch, it's like paying tax to oneself.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is how much does the office of Queen of Canada cost Canadian taxpayers? Not a cent.

The Governor-General is Canadian resident/citizen, pays Canadian tax, and has an official office supported by the Canadian taxpayer.

Unusual, yes. But it's based in history and hasn't been changed because in most cases, has worked well.

As the Crowns have already been separated legally, the options for Commonwealth Realms in the future, other than becoming republics, are:

- retain the status quo of the local monarch being the same person as that occupying the British monarchy;

- legislate to place a different person in the local monarchy; with or without keeping the office of Governor-General

- legislate to allow the local monarchy to become vacant while retaining the office of Governor-General to act as a Regent.

He's a good guy (known him for years), and is coping well with some very personal stick.......... the Sunday Times piece on him even went as far as asking him "which one" he had had removed when he was diagnosed with testicular cancer..........

And his destruction of Gordon Brown is even more impressive:

You're too kind. If you strongly believe in one of the parties then exercise your right. But looking at the line up you'll need more luck than ethics

:bump:

First Election Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk5HvJmy_yg

After being played the Prime Minister's comments, Mrs Duffy said she was "very disappointed", adding it was "very upsetting". She went on: "He's an educated person, why has he come out with words like that? "He's supposed to lead this country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's just come up and asked questions what most people would ask him... he's calling me a bigot." She said she would not now be voting in the General Election.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100428...k-6323e80.html

To make it worse his radio 'apology' was filmed with him with his head in his hands. Oops!

Watching the live coverage on bbc news website with blog and twitter updates simulcasted was entertaining. Brown visited Mrs Duffy to apologise in person and spent 40 mins inside her house whilst the assembled media broadcast live coverage of her front door. It seems that policy is taking a definate back seat to personality. Thats Gordo screwed on both fronts then.

Certain residents of Connaught Square will be enjoying this!