The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 08-17-2020, 09:46 AM
Kervjacque's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: New York City, United States
Posts: 9
Installing a Monarch in AUS/NZ/CA

Good morning everyone. I was just curious as to the thoughts or opinions regarding the possibility of The British Royals simply installing a member of the family in Australia / Canada or New Zland?

Similarly to what the Habsburg did/attempted to do. I understand that the British Royal family are loved and respected and there is a shared history of those 3 countries to Great Britain and was wondering what is stopping the possibility of extending the family into being what QEII is?

I figured that such actions would be welcomed, I'm sure. Any thoughts or opinions towards to this suggestion?.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-17-2020, 09:49 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kervjacque View Post
Good morning everyone. I was just curious as to the thoughts or opinions regarding the possibility of The British Royals simply installing a member of the family in Australia / Canada or New Zland?

Similarly to what the Habsburg did/attempted to do. I understand that the British Royal family are loved and respected and there is a shared history of those 3 countries to Great Britain and was wondering what is stopping the possibility of extending the family into being what QEII is?

I figured that such actions would be welcomed, I'm sure. Any thoughts or opinions towards to this suggestion?.
What do you mean by installing a monarch
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2020, 09:56 AM
Kervjacque's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: New York City, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
What do you mean by installing a monarch
Thank's for your response, I believe I worded my question wrong. Not "install" in what is implied considering QEII is already Queen of those mentioned nations. What I am asking is, why hasn't the Queen or better yet, why hasn't the suggestion of having Elizabeths Children become what Her Majaesty is to Great Britain?. William and Kate allowed to co-rule in Australia specifically. New Zealand to another member of the windsor family and Canada, highly trustable members of the Windsor family granted Co-rulership. Of course with QEII remaining the head of the family or whoever holds the Crown in Great Britain.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2020, 10:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kervjacque View Post
Thank's for your response, I believe I worded my question wrong. Not "install" in what is implied considering QEII is already Queen of those mentioned nations. What I am asking is, why hasn't the Queen or better yet, why hasn't the suggestion of having Elizabeths Children become what Her Majaesty is to Great Britain?. William and Kate allowed to co-rule in Australia specifically. New Zealand to another member of the windsor family and Canada.
these are independent countries with thier own governments, There is no way tht they would accept member of the Windsor family, as "co rulers."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2020, 10:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: The 6ix, Canada
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kervjacque View Post
Thank's for your response, I believe I worded my question wrong. Not "install" in what is implied considering QEII is already Queen of those mentioned nations. What I am asking is, why hasn't the Queen or better yet, why hasn't the suggestion of having QEII children become what QEII is to GB?
Who gets stuck with Andrew?

Speaking as a Canadian, while we love HM as an institution, I'm not sure we want a non-Canadian with the suggestion of non-titular power on our soil, and doubly not for the fact they're someone's kid. It makes a lot less sense than you think it does and would have met massive opposition (don't forget Quebec is still part of Canada!) any time in the last century or so, that's why it hasn't happened.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-17-2020, 10:18 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kervjacque View Post
Good morning everyone. I was just curious as to the thoughts or opinions regarding the possibility of The British Royals simply installing a member of the family in Australia / Canada or New Zland?

Similarly to what the Habsburg did/attempted to do. I understand that the British Royal family are loved and respected and there is a shared history of those 3 countries to Great Britain and was wondering what is stopping the possibility of extending the family into being what QEII is?

I figured that such actions would be welcomed, I'm sure. Any thoughts or opinions towards to this suggestion?.



Some British princes served in the past as Governors General of Australia, Canada or South Africa for example. Nowadays, the convention is that the Governor General is normally a citizen of the country where he/she serves as Viceroy/Vicereine (not necessarily born there, e.g. Adrienne Clarkson, Michaëlle Jean). Having a foreign prince as Governor General and Commander in Chief ( de facto, acting Head of State for all practical intents and purposes) would be remniscent of colonial times and probably wouldn't sit well politically in those countries.


But I guess your question was why a junior prince (not in line to the UK throne) could not be made King of Australia or Canada, thus breaking the personal union between the crowns of those countries and the crown of the UK. If that was the question, it is a decision that the Australians or Canadians would have to make. Their constitutions either say or imply that the person who occupies the throne of the United Kingdom (and her heirs and successors in the UK throne after that) is also the King/Queen of Australia or Canada. If they wanted to remain a monarchy, but have a different king, or become a republic and have a president instead as Head of State, they would have to change their constitutions, which requires a special process.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2020, 11:40 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,238
Hello, this is an interesting question. If I might add some historical context.

I do know for certain that there was debate about establishing the British dominions as independent kingdoms with younger sons as their first monarchs. Certainly in the C19th & possibly in the early C20th. I don’t have sources to hand to refer to but I have definitely read about this idea before somewhere.

I think with the growth of rival great powers like Germany & their new empires this idea was not taken seriously because it made sense to have one monarch that everyone could be loyal to. This would ensure imperial unity.

Joseph Chamberlain who was colonial secretary suggested that Edward VII be titled “King of Great Britain & Ireland & of Greater Britain beyond the seas”. Chamberlain was also an advocate of federating the dominions & self-governing colonies & creating a United Kingdom of Greater Britain. Lord Roseberry suggested “King of the Britons beyond the seas”.

In the end the decision was made to call Edward king of the Uk & “the British Dominions beyond the seas”. Dominions here confusingly meaning all British possessions as well as the then two dominions of Canada & Australia. George VI was the last monarch to have that title. Elizabeth’s title reflected the political realities of a different age.

As I’ve mentioned the context in the late C19th & early C20th is one of great power rivalry & an arms race in Europe. Imperial Germany was constructing a vast navy & building a colonial empire. This concerned the British so much that alliances were formed with traditional rivals France & Russia. The stage was set for the carnage of WW1. So the last thing the British wanted was a weakening of their own empire. One king served as a symbol of unity throughout the empire. When you look at the sacrifices made by dominion troops in WW1 you can see how vital they were to British victory.

Into more modern times it was these same sacrifices that accelerated the development of the dominions as nations independent of Britain (they signed the Treaty of Versailles for instance) as well as their own national identities distinct from just being “overseas Britons”. This was formally recognised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. By this time it was just simply too late for any idea of British princes to be made kings of the dominions. It was an idea that belonged to a different age. The reality was a choice between a shared crown or a republic. That remains the choice now of course.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2020, 11:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Hello, this is an interesting question. If I might add some historical context.

I do know for certain that there was debate about establishing the British dominions as independent kingdoms with younger sons as their first monarchs. Certainly in the C19th & possibly in the early C20th. I don’t have sources to hand to refer to but I have definitely read about this idea before somewhere.

I think with the growth of rival great powers like Germany & their new empires this idea was not taken seriously because it made sense to have one monarch that everyone could be loyal to. This would ensure imperial unity.

Joseph Chamberlain who was colonial secretary suggested that Edward VII be titled “King of Great Britain & Ireland & of Greater Britain beyond the seas”. Chamberlain was also an advocate of federating the dominions & self-governing colonies & creating a United Kingdom of Greater Britain. Lord Roseberry suggested “King of the Britons beyond the seas”.

In the end the decision was made to call Edward king of the Uk & “the British Dominions beyond the seas”. Dominions here confusingly meaning all British possessions as well as the then two dominions of Canada & Australia. George VI was the last monarch to have that title. Elizabeth’s title reflected the political realities of a different age.

As I’ve mentioned the context in the late C19th & early C20th is one of great power rivalry & an arms race in Europe. Imperial Germany was constructing a vast navy & building a colonial empire. This concerned the British so much that alliances were formed with traditional rivals France & Russia. The stage was set for the carnage of WW1. So the last thing the British wanted was a weakening of their own empire. One king served as a symbol of unity throughout the empire. When you look at the sacrifices made by dominion troops in WW1 you can see how vital they were to British victory.

Into more modern times it was these same sacrifices that accelerated the development of the dominions as nations independent of Britain (they signed the Treaty of Versailles for instance) as well as their own national identities distinct from just being “overseas Britons”. This was formally recognised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. By this time it was just simply too late for any idea of British princes to be made kings of the dominions. It was an idea that belonged to a different age. The reality was a choice between a shared crown or a republic. That remains the choice now of course.



Yes, I agree. If any of them were to go through the trouble of the constitutional amendment process to end the shared Crown, it would not be to replace it with a local king, but rather to have a republic, which will probably still happen in many realms in the next 50 years or so, maybe even earlier.


It is also interesting how the "dominions" as they were still called in the Statute of Westminster became the "realms" under Elizabeth II and how that was reflected in the royal titles and styles. It may look like an inconsequential change, but is meaningful in itself.


As for the history of how the Dominions came to be, you are probably more knowledgeable than I am, but my impression is that it was mostly a pragmatic decision. Maintaining a large, multinational empire was costly and complicated. So why not have the most "civilized" parts of the Empire mantain and pay for their own armies, courts, civil service, parliaments, and governments? It would appease the local demands for autonomy, thus preventing the repetition of movements like the American Revolution and, at the same time, keep them tied to the Empire, which could always use the Dominions' assets when needed (as in World War I for example). A win-win situation.


Of course, "civilized" meant not only capable of self-sustainability (i.e. viable as semiautonomous or autonomous unit), but also, for the Victorians and Edwardians, it meant having a transplanted white European settler society deemed capable of self-government under the British parliamentary institutions and Crown like free Englishmen.



Thus India, for example, despite also having its own army and civil service, was ruled by a Viceroy with instructions directly from London and no responsible government and, in the "white Dominions", natives were excluded from participation in state institutions. South Africa normally stands out along those latter lines because whites never rose above 20 % of the population there and inequality was publicly evident, but people forget that, in context, it also happened in Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2020, 12:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Yes, I agree. If any of them were to go through the trouble of the constitutional amendment process to end the shared Crown, it would not be to replace with a local king, but rather to have a republic, which will probably still happen in many realms in the next 50 years or so, maybe even earlier.


It is also interesting how the "dominions" as they were still called in the Statute of Westminster became the "realms" under Elizabeth II and how that was reflected in the royal titles and styles. It may look like an inconsequential change, but is meaningful in itself.
The word dominion was not the first choice in 1867. It was felt that the Americans would be uncomfortable with a "Kingdom of Canada". I don't know whether the word realm was considered at that time as an alternative.

Yes the word dominion can be seen to have a very different meaning to realm.

Australia is a commonwealth of course even though confusingly it was one of the dominions. Only Canada & NZ (+South Africa & Newfoundland) were officially dominions.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-17-2020, 12:29 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
It is actually up to the people of these counties to decide not EIIR. Also, if it was up to her why would she want to give up her “power” in these realms to other members of her family.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-17-2020, 12:29 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
The word dominion was not the first choice in 1867. It was felt that the Americans would be uncomfortable with a "Kingdom of Canada". I don't know whether the word realm was considered at that time as an alternative.

Yes the word dominion can be seen to have a very different meaning to realm.

Australia is a commonwealth of course even though confusingly it was one of the dominions. Only Canada & NZ (+South Africa & Newfoundland) were officially dominions.



Realm actually is just a Romance word for kingdom (from French "royaume", or actually Old French "reaume/realme").


It is one of those cases of English having both a Germanic word and an alternative Romance (usually French) or learned Latin word to mean the same thing.



I suppose they chose "her other realms" instead of "her other kingdoms" because it sounds more erudite or, maybe also because some of the dominions were still not comfortable with the designation of kingdom although, to me, that is what they technically are, i.e., monarchies where the Head of State is a King (or Queen).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-17-2020, 12:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

As for the history of how the Dominions came to be, you are probably more knowledgeable than I am, but my impression is that it was mostly a pragmatic decision. Maintaining a large, multinational empire was costly and complicated. So why not have the most "civilized" parts of the Empire mantain and pay for their own armies, courts, civil service, parliaments, and governments? It would appease the local demands for autonomy, thus preventing the repetition of movements like the American Revolution and, at the same time, keep them tied to the Empire, which could always use the Dominions' assets when needed (as in World War I for example). A win-win situation.


Thus India, for example, despite also having its own army and civil service, was ruled by a Viceroy with instructions directly from London and no responsible government and, in the "white Dominions", natives were excluded from participation in state institutions. South Africa normally stands out along those latter lines because whites never rose above 20 % of the population there and inequality was publicly evident, but people forget that, in context, it also happened in Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
It was partly about local defence. The British had huge worldwide commitments & it made sense for the self governing colonies to form their own local forces. Thus the RCN, RAN & RNZN for instance. One of the tensions after the Seven Years War of course had been the cost of defence of the Thirteen Colonies so as you suggest the British had learnt from their mistakes.

It was the Durham Report in Canada that showed how the British had learnt the lessons of the 1775-1783. Ironically the Albany Plan might have avoided that debacle but that wasn't to be.

The brutal truth of course was that the British didn't have the resources to govern settler societies if they didn't want imperial authority from London. It was as you imply realpolitik for the British authorities to leave them to it.

A good comparison is how the ancient Greek states found colonies all round the Mediterranean world from Sicily to Marseilles.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-17-2020, 12:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

I suppose they chose "her other realms" instead of "her other kingdoms" because it sounds more erudite or, maybe also because some of the dominions were still not comfortable with the designation of kingdom although, to me, that is what they technically are, i.e., monarchies where the Head of State is a King (or Queen).
I think they'd be uncomfortable with being described as kingdoms. As monarchies yes but not kingdoms. A bit too Ruritanian for modern new world societies I would imagine.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Audiences with Margrethe, and the Political Role of the Danish Monarch Australian Queen Margrethe II 194 11-19-2020 01:55 PM
Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of the Monarch BeatrixFan Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 422 12-17-2019 04:12 PM
Best future European monarch The Watcher Royal Chit Chat 83 08-27-2013 07:30 PM
Hello aus Germany !!! Silvia70 Member Introductions 4 07-15-2008 11:08 AM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry armstrong-jones baby names baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen carolin cht cpr duchess of sussex duke of sussex earl of snowdon family tree games general news thread george vi gradenigo haakon vii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs imperial household interesting jacobite japan jewellery jewelry jumma kids movie list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima monarchy mountbatten nepal nepalese royal family pless princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha queen elizabeth ii queen maud resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress spain sussex swedish queen thai royal family unsubscribe videos wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:19 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×