The Queen, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Curryong said:
They are countries that have their own Head of State, but joined the Commonwealth family/organisation, sometimes decades ago. India for example, which has a President. They acknowledge that the Queen is the ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth but not their particular HOS. There are 54 states in the Commonwealth but the Queen heads only 16 of them at the moment, including Australia.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that information. As an American I never realized the difference.
 
Then you have places like the Maldives. "The Commonwealth has welcomed its 54th family member after Maldives' application for re-admission was approved. The small island nation officially re-joined the Commonwealth at 00:01 today (Saturday, February 1 2020)."

I think the Queen is very happy with the Commonwealth of Nations whether or not she is their head of state. A really good book that looks into her involvement with the Commonwealth through the years is "Queen of the World" by Robert Hardman.
 
Last edited:
The speech specifically indicated that 'they wanted to leave their colonial history behind'. That sentiment certainly resonates with other countries in the region, so, a rather logical move. We'll have to see if it indeed materializes within the next year. Why keep a head of state that is primarily focused on a different country, hasn't been to your country for a long time, and with your country just being a minor one among more than a dozen other 'other realms'? Especially since they can still be part of the Commonwealth and I see no reason why they wouldn't.
 
As someone who lives in a country that once was a colony of Britain and who celebrates Independence Day every year when it comes around, I honestly can't say I blame them. There is a lot of support in Canada, Australia, and Jamaica as well for those countries to become a Republic. They likely will during Prince Charles's reign.

The Queen (Monarch) is a ceremonial role in The U.K now, even more in countries with the Queen as head of state. She is purely a figurehead in those countries, and the Governor-General is the one who mostly run the show. The Queen has not visited some of these countries in at least 20 years or more.

A country deserves the right to decide their own future. If they wish to cut all ties with a foreign Monarch of another sovereign state and become a fully independent nation and insert a Republic, so be it. That is their right to do so. You really can't blame them for wanting a head of state who was born in their own country. I don't understand how anyone could be against that?

Good luck to them.
 
I hope Barbados will remain part of the Commonwealth: I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. There's not going to be any ill-feeling over this: I'm sure that the Queen will be sad, but will also completely understand why they want their own head of state.
 
Curryong said:
As far as Australia is concerned no Federal government majority, however large, has the power to remove the Head of State. Such a move requires changing our (written) Constitution. A referendum will have to be held, and IMO it will take place sooner than in a few decades. It's more probable within King Charles's reign, perhaps ten years or a bit less.

Why would Jamaica and Barbados decide to leave the Commonwealth if they become republics? The vast majority of countries in the Commonwealth are republics.
Click to expand...

I should have make myself more clear earlier. I do think leaving the Commonwealth after becoming a Republic would be an extreme circumstance, given that most countries in the commonwealth do not have the Queen as the head of state.

I personally do think a referendum for a Republic (or remain constitutional monarchy) would be the most "democratic" way, as it reflects the general public views (assuming with high turnout percentage or compulsory voting), not from government officials (Governor general, prime ministers or other senior minister).

Thank you Curryong for clarifying that if a political party (in a governing majority if not the largest) promised to remove the British Monarch as the head of state, it would require a change in the Australian Constitution. I assume this would be the case in New Zealand and Canada as well.

Although there are republicans in left-leaning parties of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but I don't think the debate for their heads of states is their top priority right now, certainly in Queen Elizabeth II reign. It all would depends on the public mood on Prince Charles as both as Prince of Wales and future King.
 
Last edited:
BritishRoyalist said:
A country deserves the right to decide their own future. If they wish to cut all ties with a foreign Monarch of another sovereign state and become a fully independent nation and insert a Republic, so be it. That is their right to do so. You really can't blame them for wanting a head of state who was born in their own country. I don't understand how anyone could be against that?

Good luck to them.
Click to expand...


The boldfaced sentence is a common misconception. The Commonwealth realms are fully independent countries in all matters, foreign or domestic.



Constitutionally, the Queen of Barbados and the Queen of the United Kingdom are two distinct legal persons even though they may be the same physical person. The fact that they are physically the same person does not imply any colonial status on the part of the realms vis a vis the UK.
 
Mbruno said:
The boldfaced sentence is a common misconception. The Commonwealth realms are fully independent countries in all matters, foreign or domestic.



Constitutionally, the Queen of Barbados and the Queen of the United Kingdom are two distinct legal persons even though they may be the same physical person. The fact that they are physically the same person does not imply any colonial status on the part of the realms vis a vis the UK.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of that.
 
BritishRoyalist said:
As someone who lives in a country that once was a colony of Britain and who celebrates Independence Day every year when it comes around, I honestly can't say I blame them. There is a lot of support in Canada, Australia, and Jamaica as well for those countries to become a Republic. They likely will during Prince Charles's reign.

The Queen (Monarch) is a ceremonial role in The U.K now, even more in countries with the Queen as head of state. She is purely a figurehead in those countries, and the Governor-General is the one who mostly run the show. The Queen has not visited some of these countries in at least 20 years or more.

A country deserves the right to decide their own future. If they wish to cut all ties with a foreign Monarch of another sovereign state and become a fully independent nation and insert a Republic, so be it. That is their right to do so. You really can't blame them for wanting a head of state who was born in their own country. I don't understand how anyone could be against that?

Good luck to them.
Click to expand...

Cant speak for the other countries, but Canada no.

There is a republican movement but pretty minimal one. There is no big push for Canada to become a republic. Most Canadians are quite content as it is. And unless Charles does something horrible, I don't see Canada having a sudden surge of republican demand.

The only separatist movement we worry about is Quebec but they want to ditch us all. Not just the queen on the money.

Canada has enough political worry internally then they need to be concerned about who is on our money. For most Canadians that is what the queen is and only time anyone complains is when they come on tour and we have to pick up the bill for it. Canada day is very much a celebration of independence in Canadian minds. It was the day we became a country.


If the commonwealth realms fall to only one left, I'd be shocked if it wasn't Canada as the loan hold out. We certainly wont be among the first to run.


We do decide our own future. The queen doesn't step in. We elect our politicians just like you do. The queen is simply a head on the money whose representative opens and closes parliament.
 
Maggie Muggins said:
This is not entirely true as there is also separatist fomentation forming in Alberta.
Click to expand...

I live in Alberta. There is a disgruntled group of people who think that we should become our own country yes. But there is no political movement. There isn't a political party, and separatist activity. Quebec on the other hand has actual referendums about trying to separate. Big difference.

And again that has nothing to do with ditching the queen. It has to do with ditching Ontario.


Its our version of when Americans get pissed off and say 'that's it I am moving to Canada'. I always laugh when I hear that. Especially when you legalized gay marriage and a whole bunch of homophobes threatened to move North considering we legalized it nationally a decade before.
 
Last edited:
Countessmeout said:
I live in Alberta. There is a disgruntled group of people who think that we should become our own country yes. But there is no political movement. There isn't a political party, and separatist activity. Quebec on the other hand has actual referendums about trying to separate. Big difference.

And again that has nothing to do with ditching the queen. It has to do with ditching Ontario.
Click to expand...

Quebec has HAD separation referendums. The last one was 25 years ago. The laws have been changed so that they are no longer allowed to simply vote themselves out. There also hasn't been much interest in doing so since the last time.

And Albertan disgruntled ditching has plenty to do with Quebec as well as Ontario.
 
Prinsara said:
Quebec has HAD separation referendums. The last one was 25 years ago. The laws have been changed so that they are no longer allowed to simply vote themselves out. There also hasn't been much interest in doing so since the last one.

And Albertan disgruntled ditching has plenty to do with Quebec as well as Ontario.
Click to expand...

The point being is Alberta is just disgruntled discussion. And I said Ontario as our disgruntlement is aimed at the capital and PM. Who is located in Ontario.

Compared to Quebec who actually had a political movement to separate from Canada. And voted on it.

I was pointing out the vast difference between angry people making facebook memes and an actual political movement.


Again neither of which has nothing to do with this thread. As neither had to do with the queen. But getting rid of the rest of Canada.
 
Alison H said:
I hope Barbados will remain part of the Commonwealth: I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. There's not going to be any ill-feeling over this: I'm sure that the Queen will be sad, but will also completely understand why they want their own head of state.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's happened before. I'm sure she's quite relaxed about it.
 
AC21091968 said:
Thank you Curryong for clarifying that if a political party (in a governing majority if not the largest) promised to remove the British Monarch as the head of state, it would require a change in the Australian Constitution. I assume this would be the case in New Zealand and Canada as well.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Is that how the debate is framed in Australia? As a discussion over the "British" monarch having a role in Australian affairs?
 
The Queen is formally the Queen of Australia, so no. However it is self-evident that she is British and not Australian-born and republicans here want an Australian as Head of State. The main argument that caused quite a few Ausralians to vote to keep the current model of HOS in the last referendum over twenty years ago was the form any presidency would take. Many wished for an elected American-style presidency which of course does not sit well with the Westminster form of government we have here.

The debate about republicanism is on the back burner in Australia and has been for years, really. It is sort of recognised that while the Queen lives, that will remain. However, after her death I expect the debate to begin again in earnest, and perhaps followed by a constitutional convention like last time to choose the model. After that a referendum, which of course may or may not get through.
 
Last edited:
A letter written by the Duke of Edinburgh to Australian politician Sir Harold Hartley on March 8, 1954 became public when it was put up for auction on November 11. In the letter, the Duke set out his thoughts on his tour of New Zealand.

https://www.dominicwinter.co.uk/Auc...ilip--8-march-1954/?lot=363984#lotdescription

The Daily Mail report on the letter highlights the Duke's criticism of the treatment of Maoris in New Zealand.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ting-Maoris-like-museum-pieces-unearthed.html


The excerpt from the letter:

Philip (Prince, 1921-), Duke of Edinburgh. A lengthy Autograph Letter Signed, ‘Philip’, Victoria, 8 March [1954], to Sir Harold [Hartley], the Duke writing during the Australian Royal Tour, which he made with Queen Elizabeth II, to inform his correspondent of some of ‘the more interesting things we have seen’ and states, in part, ‘New Zealand arranged their tour extremely well and we ended up having seen at least something of almost everything…. I had a look round the museum, which is very well arranged. I was particularly fascinated by the Maori bit having read Peter Buck’s “Coming of the Maori”. There do not appear to be any Maori’s (sic) of his calibre at the moment and the result is that the growing Maori population is growing up without proper leadership. The New Zealanders appear to regard them somewhere between museum pieces and domestic pets. There seems to be no official policy for them which is at all enlightened. For instance they quite rightly insist on all N. Zealanders & Maoris doing their military service together but they have disbanded the Maori Battalion which with it’s (sic) magnificent record might have been a tremendous influence for the good and a means of keeping Maori pride alive… I saw something of the Cawthorn Institute at Nelson… they were getting a bit scared of wholesale parasitic control of pests… Their favourite nightmare is that the gorse weevil, which lays it’s (sic) eggs in the seed pods, has taken a liking to laying it’s (sic) eggs in pea-pods!!… New Zealand on the whole struck me as over-governed with not much room for initiative – the perfect welfare state in fact! The people were universally charming and on the whole most considerate. Their press is serious-minded and appears to have a sense of responsibility. We are still in the heat and battle of Australia so that my opinions are rather fluctuating. Industry and agriculture are impressive but it won’t be for lack of trying if they become an entirely industrial country in the next 50 years… Their press and politics are quite unbelievable and the inter-state jealousy and state v. federal animosity has to be seen to be believed. Of course the Federal constitution is quite crazy and should never have been accepted in the present form… They also seem to have a genius for getting worked up about trifles while really important issues are fairly stinking under their very noses… Their hospitals and repatriation hospitals are remarkable… their scientific research is also in a very good state. I was shown various aspects of virus research which were most interesting…’, 11 pages on separate sheets, 8vo
Click to expand...
 
A special programme to be broadcast on BBC One will replace this year's Commonwealth Day service.

"The annual service had been due to take place on Monday 8th March, attended by Her Majesty The Queen and members of the Royal Family, but will not go ahead due to the pandemic.
Instead, HM The Queen will share her annual message in 'A Celebration for Commonwealth Day', which will be broadcast on Sunday 7th March on BBC One.

TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and HRH The Countess of Wessex will also take part in the programme, sharing their perspectives on the importance of our Commonwealth links."

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-news/a-celebration-for-commonwealth-day
 
eya said:
A special programme to be broadcast on BBC One will replace this year's Commonwealth Day service.

"The annual service had been due to take place on Monday 8th March, attended by Her Majesty The Queen and members of the Royal Family, but will not go ahead due to the pandemic.
Instead, HM The Queen will share her annual message in 'A Celebration for Commonwealth Day', which will be broadcast on Sunday 7th March on BBC One.

TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and HRH The Countess of Wessex will also take part in the programme, sharing their perspectives on the importance of our Commonwealth links."

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-news/a-celebration-for-commonwealth-day
Click to expand...


Couldn't a service be held virtually too? Several churches have been doing it during lockdowns throughout the pandemic.
 
Pandemic or no pandemic, the Queen and her monarchy always finds a way to ensure that what needs to be done *will* be done even though it's different and not the traditional way things have been done in the past. The monarchy and the "Firm" adapts and adjusts and goes on with what they do somehow. I have to admire that immensely. ?
 
Mbruno said:
Couldn't a service be held virtually too? Several churches have been doing it during lockdowns throughout the pandemic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a Service will be included in the broadcast .
 
An Ard Ri said:
Perhaps a Service will be included in the broadcast .
Click to expand...


The link mentioned that the broadcast would include prayers and blessings. I don't know if that qualifies as a full service in the Anglican liturgy, but, you are right, there will definitely be some religious component to it.
 
I watched the whole service and it was good.

I liked what the Dean said about the importance of the Commonwealth at the beginning and that High Commissioners visit the Abbey on National Days.

I really liked the Lord's Prayer from around the commonwealth and blessings from many different faith communities around the commonwealth as well. And the many lovely musical performances.

In terms of the royals Good speeches from HM and Prince Charles.

I'm really glad Camilla got to talk about her reading room.

It was also nice to see the video of the calls William, Kate and Sophie were making that we'd already seen the pictures of and the people involved, there's so much incredibly worthwhile work that needs to be recognised.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
God Save the Queen anthem
Replies
0
Views
54
jf161
J
Marengo
The King, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
11K
Anthony Claydon
A
Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
330
Somebody
Somebody
P
CP Mary visits Vanuatu, Fiji and Australia. April 23-28, 2023
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Muhler
Muhler
JessRulz
  • Locked
Death of Queen Elizabeth II - Pre-Funeral Discussion and Reception
14 15 16
Replies
462
Views
51K
muriel
muriel

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom