The Queen, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth

[Denville]

British Commonwealth, now known as the Commonwealth of Nations, is just a gathering of former British Empire Colonies massaging British’s ego. British is not a superpower in the world or even in Europe, and at the Commonwealth is where they can pretend to shine.

So QEII invites the Heads of States of the 53 countries for a photo-op at Buckingham Palace, they are all so mesmerized to be “close” to their former colonizers; and they all agreed to have Prince Charles as the next Head of the Commonwealth. They should not have consented, this position is not hereditary.

.

It was tehir choice to keep him as next Head of the Commonweatlh. AND it was supposed to be Meg and Harry's special area, as royals.

 

[Alison H]

British Commonwealth, now known as the Commonwealth of Nations, is just a gathering of former British Empire Colonies massaging British’s ego. British is not a superpower in the world or even in Europe, and at the Commonwealth is where they can pretend to shine.

So QEII invites the Heads of States of the 53 countries for a photo-op at Buckingham Palace, they are all so mesmerized to be “close” to their former colonizers; and they all agreed to have Prince Charles as the next Head of the Commonwealth. They should not have consented, this position is not hereditary.

.

You've just insulted 54 countries and their leaders, all in one post. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone do that before. Is there really any need to be quite so offensive?

 

[Durham]

British Commonwealth, now known as the Commonwealth of Nations, is just a gathering of former British Empire Colonies massaging British’s ego. British is not a superpower in the world or even in Europe, and at the Commonwealth is where they can pretend to shine.

So QEII invites the Head of States of the 53 countries for a photo-op at Buckingham Palace, they are all so mesmerized to be “close” to their former colonizers; and they all agreed to have Prince Charles as the next Head of the Commonwealth. They should not have consented, this position is not hereditary.

.

There are some countries in the Commonwealth that were not formerly in the British Empire. I'm not sure what that tells us about the appeal of the organisation.

Britain hasn't been a superpower since 1945, arguably since the fall of Singapore in 1942. There were vague hopes by some deluded types in the 50's that the Commonwealth would be a third force between the two superpowers but the realities of global hard power showed the fallacy of that. The debacle at Suez in 1956 exposed British power as a delusion, followed by the humiliation of devaluation in 1968 & the withdrawal of British military forces from east of Suez. That's why the focus then began on joining the then EEC.

There are no superpowers in Europe unless the EU becomes one. There are regional powers of which the UK is one along with Germany & France. The UK is also one of the few countries to have a blue water navy with an expeditionary capability. It is also a nuclear power & a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

But if you think that people in the UK see themselves as a superpower then you're mistaken. Very mistaken indeed. The very idea is risible.

Lots of people in Britain would not disagree with your sentiments about the Commonwealth & don't see the point of its existence to be blunt. Most are indifferent. Successive British governments have also been less than enthusiastic. A number of prime ministers (Heath & Thatcher for example) have been decidedly contemptuous of it. When Britain joined the EEC in 1973 the Commonwealth was effectively abandoned. Ask New Zealanders about the devastating impact on their economy.

HM likes being Head of the Commonwealth because it has nothing whatsoever to do with her position as the British HofS. She has complete autonomy in that regard.

 

[Denville]

There are some countries that were not formerly in the British Empire. I'm not sure what that tells us about appeal of the organisation.


Lots of people in Britain would not disagree with your sentiments about the Commonwealth & don't see the point of its existence to be frank. Most are indifferent. Successive British governments have also been less than enthusiastic. A number of prime ministers (Heath & Thatcher for example) have been decidedly contemptuous of it.

HM likes being Head of the Commonwealth because it has nothing whatsoever to do with her position as the British HofS. She has complete autonomy in that regard.

Possibly the queen likes being Head of it because she believes in it and wants it to be a force for good. If Meghan and Harry took on a commonwealth role when they started their royal career, presumably they agreed that it was a force for good. So as they left their royal role, Im not sure why they didn't drop teh Commonweatlh trust as well....

 

[Fijiro]

I agree. I think sadly the thought may have been to train Harry up to be the head of the Commonwealth after his father, as he played a larger royal in it than William. Which actually I think would have been fantastic but I think now is the time they moved on from that.

The Head of the Commonwealth of Nations is not a hereditary position.
.

 

[Durham]

The Head of the Commonwealth of Nations is not a hereditary position.
.

Yes, that's well known. I was surprised that Charles was chosen to be honest. It's a shame Mandela is not still alive as he would have been a great choice. Although we are going off topic again.......

 

[Alison H]

The advantage of having a royal as Head of the Commonwealth is that - and this again begs questions about Harry - royals are supposed to be apolitical. I'm not sure who else there is who has sufficient stature but isn't associated with a particular political party or faction. I was going to say Kofi Annan, but then I remembered that he'd passed away a couple of years ago!

 

[Durham]

The advantage of having a royal as Head of the Commonwealth is that - and this again begs questions about Harry - royals are supposed to be apolitical. I'm not sure who else there is who has sufficient stature but isn't associated with a particular political party or faction. I was going to say Kofi Annan, but then I remembered that he'd passed away a couple of years ago!

Yes, you make a good point here. The realms employ exactly these sort of people for GG. There are probably lots of appropriate people. There is a third of humanity to choose from after all.

 

[Fijiro]

The advantage of having a royal as Head of the Commonwealth is that - and this again begs questions about Harry - royals are supposed to be apolitical. I'm not sure who else there is who has sufficient stature but isn't associated with a particular political party or faction. I was going to say Kofi Annan, but then I remembered that he'd passed away a couple of years ago!

A person with sufficient stature?! All that is needed is a competent person. There are such major nations/unions and we cannot name their heads without googling. Such as the European Union (27 countries), African Union (55 countries), Arab Union (22 countries). Member Nations do have equal rights, and the leadership is elected from member countries.

Not so with the Commonwealth of Nations (53 countries), for the over 70+ years of its existence, they’ve been led by the British Royal Family, where does the British Empire end and the Commonwealth of Nations begin. According to Commonwealth declaration, members are “free and equal”, but are they equal?

 

[Claire]

We can pretty much have the same argument about the UN. But unlike the UK with it 5 permanent seat members - the Commonwealth does give everyone a say and equal footing. Countries like Jamaica have the same rights, veto and voting power as Australia and Canada. Size and dominion status doesn't make a difference. Countries that joined yesterday have the same rights as countries that have been there since day one.
As an aid and education unit - it does better then the UN too. And I have seen that first hand. More people in Africa receive water, sanitation, health care and education through Commonwealth developed initiatives then UN funded - I think it will be the same in India and Pakistan. Perhaps even in the Pacific Ocean islands.
It will survive long after the monarchy of England. England and Great Britain can even leave the commonwealth if they choose to and it will continue happily. It was envisioned as so much more then the remnants of the former Empire.

 

[Durham]

A person with sufficient stature?! All that is needed is a competent person. There are such major nations/unions and we cannot name their heads without googling. Such as the European Union (27 countries), African Union (55 countries), Arab Union (22 countries). Member Nations do have equal rights, and the leadership is elected from member countries.

Not so with the Commonwealth of Nations (53 countries), for the over 70+ years of its existence, they’ve been led by the British Royal Family, where does the British Empire end and the Commonwealth of Nations begin. According to Commonwealth declaration, members are “free and equal”, but are they equal?

Well there's quite a lot to unpack here but I'll give it a go.....

The headship of the Commonwealth is a purely symbolic position which is distinct from those other organisations you mention. In the Commonwealth the comparable position would be the Secretary General.

Members of the Commonwealth have an equal say in choosing the head. So in that sense the Commonwealth gives a disproportionate vote to developing smaller countries like the Caribbean & Pacific island nations.

How are they not equal? Do you mean economically? They all have an equal voice in the governance of the Commonwealth. I can't think of any way that they do not. You are I presume referring to the London Declaration of 1949? There have been a number of Commonwealth declarations over the decades.

The background to the London Declaration was the decision by India to become a republic but to continue to recognise the king as HofC. It was if anything a good example that former colonies like India were now sovereign states as fully equal in international affairs as the UK.

 

[Osipi]

Just throwing this into the mix in case anyone is interested. There is a really good book that goes into depth about the Queen and the Commonwealth of Nations. Its called "Queen of the World" by Robert Hardman and was released in 2018. ?

 

[Durham]

Just throwing this into the mix in case anyone is interested. There is a really good book that goes into depth about the Queen and the Commonwealth of Nations. Its called "Queen of the World" by Robert Hardman and was released in 2018. ?

Thank you for reminding me. There's an accompanying documentary as well:

 

[Mbruno]

Well there's quite a lot to unpack here but I'll give it a go.....

The headship of the Commonwealth is a purely symbolic position which is distinct from those other organisations you mention. In the Commonwealth the comparable position would be the Secretary General.

Members of the Commonwealth have an equal say in choosing the head. So in that sense the Commonwealth gives a disproportionate vote to developing smaller countries like the Caribbean & Pacific island nations.

How are they not equal? Do you mean economically? They all have an equal voice in the governance of the Commonwealth. I can't think of any way that they do not. You are I presume referring to the London Declaration of 1949? There have been a number of Commonwealth declarations over the decades.

The background to the London Declaration was the decision by India to become a republic but to continue to recognise the king as HofC. It was if anything a good example that former colonies like India were now sovereign states as fully equal in international affairs as the UK.

Fijiro has a point though. The next reign would have been a good opportunity to pick a Head of the Commonwealth other than Prince Charles, possibly on a rotating basis with a new Head being chosen from a different country every 5 years or so.



I guess the CHoGM settled on Charles, who was not the automatic choice, partly in deference to the current Queen, but also because they still see the British RF as more impartial and more broadly representative of the Commonwealth as a whole than any nominee from the individual Commonwealth governments would be.

 

[Durham]

Fijiro has a point though. The next reign would have been a good opportunity to pick a Head of the Commonwealth other than Prince Charles, possibly on a rotating basis with a new Head being chosen from a different country every 5 years or so.



I guess the CHoGM settled on Charles, who was not the automatic choice, partly in deference to the current Queen, but also because they still see the British RF as more impartial and more broadly representative of the Commonwealth as a whole than any nominee from the individual Commonwealth governments would be.

I thought the point being made was that member nations were unequal in the Commonwealth decision making process? Which is untrue.

I agree that the Commonwealth missed an opportunity to do something different & choose someone other than the next British monarch. A rotating head is certainly an idea as would be a fixed term headship.

It sounds plausible that members wanted to please The Queen, although if they did they made a mistake in my opinion. One solution to the representative question might be to invite nominations from only one (geographic?) bloc every time there is a vacancy. This to be taken by in turn by blocs. This to be then followed by a secret ballot of members at CHOGM. The impartiality issue might be somewhat addressed by encouraging nominations from eminent Commonwealth citizens rather than politicians current or former. This is after all how realm GG's are chosen.

The only new issue to consider would be whether this position would come with a residence (in what location?) & salary/expenses. And what exactly would a head do for most their time?

 

[Eskimo]

I thought the point being made was that member nations were unequal in the Commonwealth decision making process? Which is untrue.

I agree that the Commonwealth missed an opportunity to do something different & choose someone other than the next British monarch. A rotating head is certainly an idea as would be a fixed term headship.

It sounds plausible that members wanted to please The Queen, although if they did they made a mistake in my opinion. One solution to the representative question might be to invite nominations from only one (geographic?) bloc every time there is a vacancy. This to be taken by in turn by blocs. This to be then followed by a secret ballot of members at CHOGM. The impartiality issue might be somewhat addressed by encouraging nominations from eminent Commonwealth citizens rather than politicians current or former. This is after all how realm GG's are chosen.

The only new issue to consider would be whether this position would come with a residence (in what location?) & salary/expenses. And what exactly would a head do for most their time?

That’s what they don’t want have to worry about now. It’s not really even a part time job and does not justify any costs associated with it (residence, salary and expenses, security)

 

[Durham]

That’s what they don’t want have to worry about now. It’s not really even a part time job and does not justify any costs associated with it (residence, salary and expenses, security)

Yes indeed. I suppose we could describe it as seasonal work.

 

[tommy100]

Well the Queen's role is as a figure head, there is a Secretary-General who is head of the secretariat and a Chair-in-Office who is the Head of the government which last hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, currently Boris Johnson but open to any of the Commonwealth nations at some point.
The role of the Queen and in time Charles is to be a figure head, a point person, in reality yes they could just get rid of that role all together and leave it to the Secretary General and Chair in Office. But would it have the draw and appeal without the Queen or her successor in place, probably not. Would it get out of hand and become far to political, almost certainly. I don't mind saying I'm quite happy if at least once every two years these rather big headed government leaders have to go and place second fiddle to a sovereign who cares about people and the impact decisions have on people rather than polls and reelection.

I hope there isn't going to be any negative outcomes of recent comments.

 

[HrH christopher c]

It is to the interes of england and the Uk to make active the common wealth and turn all common wealth members to states of the common wealth main reason the pulled out of the Eu,this will Give her Majesty control of 30%percent of the world under one state and economic value where she will regulate 60 percent of work commodities and cash crops the Future of england and the new beginnning to a royal allianze which will create more regents in her various collonies now states,she will posses the waters as our future is submarine.and thecommon wealth will intergrate creating free movement and of goods and immigration,but the lobying has to be Now and every common wealth member minister of state would have to move to London.

 

[eya]

Barbados has announced its intention to remove the Queen as its head of state and become a republic next year.


https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen...ort-to-leave-the-colonial-past-behind-149246/

 

[Blog Real]

It's a shame if that happens. Jamaica has also flagged such a transition, with prime minister Andrew Holness saying it is a priority of his government.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-queen-as-head-of-state-and-become-a-republic

 

[Minister of Court]

How ungrateful!

 

[Mbruno]

Barbados has announced its intention to remove the Queen as its head of state and become a republic next year.


https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen...ort-to-leave-the-colonial-past-behind-149246/

Both Barbados and Jamaica have been indicating a transition to a republic for quite some time. I am surprised , however, that Barbados chose to do it in the current Queen's reign. That was unexpected.

Eventually Australia and New Zealand will follow too, maybe even Canada, but it will take a few decades probably.

 

[Denville]

How ungrateful!

What is ungrateful about it? They have a right to choose wahtever form of government they want

 

[AC21091968]

Both Barbados and Jamaica have been indicating a transition to a republic for quite some time. I am surprised , however, that Barbados chose to do it in the current Queen's reign. That was unexpected.

Eventually Australia and New Zealand will follow too, maybe even Canada, but it will take a few decades probably.

I do think there will be a referendum for Australia (2nd one, after 1999), New Zealand and Canada for question on becoming a Republic. I doubt it would happen for now, but perhaps (as you mentioned) few decades later. If not a referendum, probably a general/federal election where a large political party would remove the British Monarch as the head of state, if they won a majority or able to form a coalition in Parliament.

For Barbados and Jamaica, according the Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-queen-as-head-of-state-and-become-a-republic) and Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen...ort-to-leave-the-colonial-past-behind-149246/), this decision came primarily from the governor general without a referendum or plebiscite (I might be wrong here). I think the question is now focus on whether or not Barbados and Jamaica will remain in the Commonwealth if they become Republic.

 

[Curryong]

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.

 

[wbenson]

This isn't a big surprise. The previous government announced the same thing in 2015, and it's been floating around as a serious proposal since at least the 1990s. I can't find anything saying why it failed to materialize last time, though, so I don't know how likely it actually is this time. It requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Barbadian parliament, but the proposal in 2015 was from a prime minister of the other party, so there doesn't seem to be any partisan disagreement about whether Barbados should become a republic. (Perhaps there's disagreement about the form of the republic, I don't know.)

 

[Roderick]

What is ungrateful about it? They have a right to choose wahtever form of government they want

Ungracious at least. What's the great hurry? They couldn't hold off until the end of the Queen's reign? Sadly, that time is not going to be all that far off.

 

[Roderick]

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.

How are they considered republics if they're Commonwealth countries?

 

[Curryong]

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.