The Queen, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
William and Charles I can see going to CHOGM with the Queen but why would a 2 year George need to go. Is there a toddler version of the meeting he needs to chair? The meeting is in Malta so it's not like he would be separated for weeks from his parents.


Umm probably more to illustrate the symbolism and strength of the monarchy for the Commonwealth.

Also, William did promise a return for his family to Malta.
 
It would be nice to see The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh, Charles & Camilla and William Catherine go to Malta for the CHOGM. I think those six couples should do more things together.
 
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting -it's a biannual event. The next one is Fall 2015 in Malta


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Robert Jobson @theroyaleditor · 1h
Reports that #TheQueen is planning to make a foreign visit to #Malta next year & bring her 3 heirs inc. #PrinceGeorge #CHOGM is NOT correct.

It's a great thought though.

Rob Luke ‏@HCRobLuke 59m
Rumour control: no decisions will be taken about attendance, Royal or Ministerial, at #Malta 2015 #Commonwealth Summit until nearer the time
 
Last edited:
It would be nice to see The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh, Charles & Camilla and William Catherine go to Malta for the CHOGM. I think those six couples should do more things together.

I don't see any reason why William and Catherine should attend the CHOGM, much less young prince George. The Queen is the only person who is supposed to attend the meeting as the titular Head of the Commonwealth. If the Queen can't attend due to old age, then the PoW should represent her as her heir apparent, even though there is no automatic guarantee that "King Charles" will be retained as Head of the Commonwealth when he succeeds his mother.

Please note that being Head of the Commonwealth is not necessarily tied with being Head of State of the UK and the other 15 Commonwealth realms, which are themselves only a fraction of the total Commonwealth membership.
 
Last edited:
To answer the question at the start of this thread: The Queen is not the reason why there is still a Commonwealth. There is really no Commonwealth Act, a Commonwealth office (with around 600 staff) at Marlborough House just "because of the Queen".

It is a BIG organization with ministerial and departemental councils, expert groups, research, etc. on all possible areas concerning the Commonwealth nations. So to answer the questions: yes, the Commonwealth will remain after the passing away of Her Majesty.
 
In Royal Britain, it was written:
After 1949 it was no longer a requirement for Commonwealth countries to pledge an allegiance to the crown.

Why was this not a requirement?
 
India was planning to become a republic in the near future but wanted to remain in the Commonwealth.
 
@gordonrayner: Prime Minister of Barbados says he wants to replace the Queen as head of state. Expect a royal visit to Barbados imminently!
 
Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 1h 1 hour ago
Will the Queen soon reign over 15 not 16 countries? Barbados PM, Freundel Stuart, says the island will become a republic in the near future.
 
@gordonrayner: Prime Minister of Barbados says he wants to replace the Queen as head of state. Expect a royal visit to Barbados imminently!

Darn, what a shame Catherine is pregnant! (I jest...)

Jokes aside though, if the Cambridges went I am sure it would work in the House of Windsor's favour.

I see nothing wrong with Barbados wanting to be a Republic. I am sure in the future more and more countries will become republic's.
 
I see nothing wrong with Barbados wanting to be a Republic. I am sure in the future more and more countries will become republic's.

I agree. The head of state should be a representative of the country. I admire the Queen and the British Royal Family, but I want the head of the state in my country to be a U.S. citizen.
 
It's not the first time they have tried to become a Republic. And I don't think we will se a royal visit to Barbados now.

I am a strong constitutional monarchist and I think that it is the people of Barbados who should decide this through a referendum and not the government / parliament, but I find it odd that a country shall have a foreigner as head of state. In modern democracies such as Canada, Australia and New zealand it will likely be held referendums after the Queen death, but I doubt that those who support a republic in those countries will succeed.

Republicanism in Barbados - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barbados PM says island will replace the Queen and move towards republic - Telegraph
 
Last edited:
More fool them, if they go ahead with this..

Not a whiff of corruption around HMQ, which is not something that can be said of the Barbadian politicians [who are likely to form the pool from which any President is drawn].
 
Darn, what a shame Catherine is pregnant! (I jest...)

Jokes aside though, if the Cambridges went I am sure it would work in the House of Windsor's favour.

I see nothing wrong with Barbados wanting to be a Republic. I am sure in the future more and more countries will become republic's.


Jamaica's current PM has been saying that for years. Yet, Jamaica remains a monarchy.

Having a republican PM, or even a republican party in power (like Labor in Australia or New Zealand) doesn't necessarily mean the abolition of the monarchy is imminent.

Having said that, I expect republicanism to intensify in some Commonwealth realms if and when Charles becomes King.

It's not the first time they have tried to become a Republic. And I don't think we will se a royal visit to Barbados now.

I am a strong constitutional monarchist and I think that it is the people of Barbados who should decide this through a referendum and not the government / parliament, but I find it odd that a country shall have a foreigner as head of state. In modern democracies such as Canada, Australia and New zealand it will likely be held referendums after the Queen death, but I doubt that those who support a republic in those countries will succeed.

Republicanism in Barbados - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barbados PM says island will replace the Queen and move towards republic - Telegraph


Australia had a referendum not so long ago (1999 ?). I think the question there is settled at least for a generation.

I don't see a republican referendum in Canada either, with or without Queen Elizabeth II. The reason is not that Canadians are staunch monarchists, which they are not, but rather because:

1) None of the two major political parties in Canada advocates the end of the monarchy.

2) Abolishing the monarchy in Canada would require an agreement between the federal Parliament and all 10 provinces.

3) Most Canadians feel that republicanism is a minor/unimportant issue compared to the more relevant constitutional questions such as how to accomodate Quebec in the Union.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If countries want a referendum they should be allowed one. Why should they be forced into something the majority of the nation doesn't want?
 
If countries want a referendum they should be allowed one. Why should they be forced into something the majority of the nation doesn't want?

The Commonwealth realms are independent countries. Calling a referendum is entirely up to them, following of course the procedure laid out in their respective constitutions. Neither the Queen as HoS nor the UK parliament have a say on this matter, at least not in Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
 
The Commonwealth realms are independent countries. Calling a referendum is entirely up to them, following of course the procedure laid out in their respective constitutions. Neither the Queen as HoS nor the UK parliament have a say on this matter, at least not in Australia, Canada or New Zealand.


I don't understand your point?
 
In Australia, for instance, The Queen has NO say. She is totally irrelevant to our government and way of life and so when the question is put to the Australian people again, which it will be, she won't be able to interfere. The British government no longer makes laws that apply in Australia either.


In the Crown Dependencies that isn't the case but in the independent realms it is.
 
From the British Monarchist Foundation.

The Times reports both major parties in Bajan politics are in favour of the change. However, the change is not likely to pass without controversy, as her Majesty remains popular among many of the island’s quarter of a million people. The Queen’s recent Diamond jubilee was enthusiastically celebrated on the island.

Executive director of the London-based Commonwealth Exchange think-tank Tim Hewish commented: “The Queen’s wish is that such decisions are taken on the express will of the people, so it will be interesting to see whether this goes to referendum, as it did in Australia in 1999, rather than being pushed through by parliament."
 
Royal Central @RoyalCentral · 5h 5 hours ago
The Queen has made Prince Charles and Princess Anne 'Commodores-in-Chief' of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Government says.
 
In Australia, for instance, The Queen has NO say. She is totally irrelevant to our government and way of life and so when the question is put to the Australian people again, which it will be, she won't be able to interfere. The British government no longer makes laws that apply in Australia either.

I doubt the question will be put to the Australian people again while the present queen is still alive, but the issue may be raised again when Charles becomes king.

Of course, if the question is put again, the issue is not just to dump the king, but whom Australia would replace him with. As I understand it, one of the reasons why republicans lost the 1999 referendum was that many voters were not satisfied with an indirectly elected president as proposed in the republican constitutional amendment. On the other hand, Australian politicians disliked the idea of a president elected by popular vote, as they feared a French-like scenario where a partisan president with a popular mandate of his/her own could clash with a prime minister and cabinet of a different party that held a majority in the House of Representatives. That, of course, would radically change the way Australia has been governed since 1901, violating the "minimalist" approach to bring about a republic with minimal change to the Australian constitution.

As far as I can tell, Australian republicans haven't sorted out that fundamental contradiction yet.
 
Last edited:
I doubt the question will be put to the Australian people again while the present queen is still alive, but the issue may be raised again when Charles becomes king.

Of course, if the question is put again, the issue is not just to dump the king, but whom Australia would replace him with. As I understand it, one of the reasons why republicans lost the 1999 referendum was that many voters were not satisfied with an indirectly elected president as proposed in the republican constitutional amendment. On the other hand, Australian politicians disliked the idea of a president elected by popular vote, as they feared a French-like scenario where a partisan president with a popular mandate of his/her own could clash with a prime minister and cabinet of a different party that held a majority in the House of Representatives. That, of course, would radically change the way Australia has been governed since 1901, violating the "minmalist" approach to bring about a republic with minimal change to the Australian constitution.

As far as I can tell, Australian republicans haven't sorted out that fundamental contradiction yet.

I think most Australians still prefer the monarchy. It would be difficult for Australia to stop being a monarchy, at least while the Queen is alive should not come back to talk about it. After sure whether to speak again, but I hope that the monarchy continues in Australia.
 
I don't understand your point?

In your original message, you wrote that, if any of the Commonwealth realms wanted a referendum on the monarchy, they should "be allowed one". My point was that the Commonwealth realms are independent countries that can call a referendum whenever they wish, provided that they follow the proper procedure laid down in their respective constitutions. They don't need the permission of the Queen as HoS , or of the UK Parliament to do it.
 
Last edited:
British High Commissioner to Malta Rob Luke calls on Commonwealth countries to use CHOGM to tackle youth radicalisation, reach a common agreement on climate change

Queen Elizabeth II’s presence at the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will grant the summit “an extra impetus”, the British High Commissioner to Malta said.

“The Queen is a figure around whom all 53 Commonwealth countries can congregate, and her presence at the CHOGM will prove the Commonwealth’s relevance,” Rob Luke said on Monday’s edition of Reporter. “Her presence will hopefully increase the chances of the CHOGM resulting in outcomes that will improve people’s lives.”

Luke sounded an upbeat tone on the Commonwealth’s relevance, insisting that the organisation can have a “real impact” on global issues such as climate change.
Read more: Queen’s presence at CHOGM ‘proves Commonwealth’s relevance’ - MaltaToday.com.mt
 
Well, the meeting I've been waiting to happen is a few hrs away as HM meets her new Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. As I said in the Queen and Canada thread, this is such a Full Circle Moment, as the last time Justin met HM, he was just a lil guy (who more than likely was also threatened w/in an inch of his life to be on his best behaviour too :D ) and now he's her Canadian Prime Minister. :)

A Full Circle Moment indeed. :)


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom