1. Do courts examining constitutional cases refer back to "legislative intent" like we sometimes hear on the news in regard to statutes in the U.S.? If so, what would seem to have been the legislative intent of the clause about amendment regarding the Office of The Queen? Just abolishing it, or other things too?
2. Just a thought regarding succession as part of the Constitution: Without it, logically Canada doesn't have a Monarchy, but only (from 1867) President-of-Canada-for-Life Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ... and anarchy afterward. ISTM Succession "constitutes" a Monarchy (even elective Monarchies such as Malaysia, the UAE, the Holy See). At least, Succession constitutes a "Constitutional" Monarchy, such as most Canadian Monarchists seem to prefer, rather than a 'military dictatorship in purple' such as Imperial Rome and Byzantium basically were, when push came to shove....