PRINCE Harry and Meghan Markle could be banned from making their home in Canada unless they give up their royal titles, a constitutional expert claims.
Prof Michael Behiels said the row could end up in Canada's supreme court with judges asked to rule if it's unlawful for the royal couple to live there.
Harry and Meghan have said they intend to split their time between Britain and Canada as they step back from royal duties – while keeping their titles and bodyguards.
Meghan fled back to their lakeside mansion in Vancouver, leaving Harry to thrash out a deal with the Queen.
But PM Justin Trudeau is under pressure to tell them they cannot set up residence.
Prof Behiels, emeritus professor of political and constitutional history at Ottawa University, said it be even be against the law.
He told The Times: “There is no constitutional role of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
“They can visit Canada on behalf of the Queen but they can’t take on any other royal family responsibilities or live in Canada permanently or part-time.
“I hope that prime minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet fully respect the nature and scope of Canada’s Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982.
“If they fail to do so this matter will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada for adjudication.”
It comes after Canada's biggest newspaper declared the couple are not welcome in a scathing editorial last night.
The Globe and Mail – which supports the monarchy – said Canadians love it when royals visit but none can ever make the country their home.
It said: “If they were ordinary private citizens, plain old Harry and Meghan from Sussex, they would be welcome.
“But this country’s unique monarchy, and its delicate yet essential place in our constitutional system, means that a royal resident is not something that Canada can allow. It breaks an unspoken constitutional taboo.”
The paper said any move by the couple to live there, even for part of the year, would violate laws that keep the former colony at arm’s length from the UK.
It said: “This isn’t about breaking up with the Crown. On the contrary, it’s about maintaining Canada’s unique and highly successful monarchy.
“The Canadian monarchy is virtual; it neither rules nor resides.
“Our royals don’t live here. They reign from a distance. Close to our hearts, far from our hearths.”
It added: “The Trudeau government’s response should be simple and succinct: No.
“You are welcome to visit, but so long as you are senior royals, Canada cannot allow you to come to stay.”
The planned move has already sparked a row over who will pay for their £1million-a-year security.
UK ministers are adamant they should pay towards their own costs – currently met by Scotland Yard.
Mr Trudeau is said to have privately assured the Queen he would fund their security while in Canada.
But the government appeared to backtrack as finance minister Bill Morneau said officials have yet to make a decision.
A poll showed 73 per cent of Canadians are against funding their security, and last night ex-minister James Moore said they should "pick up the tab" themselves.
He said it was their choice to quit as royals, “but you can’t then expect taxpayers to fill the gap that you get all the benefits of public life and none of the financial obligations of it.”
The security bill could leave a huge hole in their plans as they aim to become "financially independent".
Yesterday they removed a claim on their website that they're "internationally protected people" and entitled to bodyguards around the globe.
Source: Read Full Article