▁request ▁and ▁consent ▁that ▁it ▁do ▁so . ▁In ▁line ▁with ▁that , ▁T of ol li ▁argued ▁the ▁term ▁" C rown ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁Kingdom ▁of ▁Great ▁Britain ▁and ▁Ireland " ▁contained ▁in ▁the ▁pre am ble ▁to ▁the ▁Constitution ▁Act , ▁ 1 8 6 7 , ▁should ▁be ▁interpreted ▁at ▁present ▁not ▁as ▁the ▁" C rown ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁Kingdom ▁of ▁Great ▁Britain ▁and ▁Northern ▁Ireland " ▁( the ▁successor ▁to ▁the ▁Crown ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁Kingdom ▁of ▁Great ▁Britain ▁and ▁Ireland ▁following ▁the ▁independence ▁of ▁the ▁Irish ▁Free ▁State ▁in ▁ 1 9 2 2 ), ▁as ▁the ▁government ▁has ▁claimed ▁it ▁should ▁be ▁read , ▁but ▁instead ▁as ▁the ▁" C rown ▁of ▁Canada ", ▁as ▁per ▁both ▁further , ▁post - 1 9 2 2 ▁constitution al ▁development ▁and ▁the ▁Inter pret ation ▁Act , ▁ 1 9 8 5 . ▁( He ▁later ▁wrote ▁" there ▁is ▁no ▁mer it ▁in ▁arg uing ▁that ▁there ▁was ▁evolution ▁but ▁that ▁it ▁stopped ▁before ▁the ▁Stat ute ▁of ▁West min ster ... ▁[ T ] he ▁Crown ▁of ▁Canada ▁must ▁be ▁read ▁as ▁coinc ident ▁with , ▁not ▁dependent ▁upon , ▁the ▁Crown ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁Kingdom ▁in ▁the ▁Constitution ▁Act , ▁ 1 8 6 7 .") ▁As ▁further ▁evidence ▁of ▁Canada ▁and ▁the ▁UK ▁having ▁separate ▁monarch ical ▁offices , ▁To ff oli ▁pointed ▁to ▁the ▁pro clam ation ▁of ▁Queen ▁Elizabeth ▁II ' s ▁acc ession ▁taking ▁place ▁in ▁Canada ▁before ▁she ▁was