Questions About Commonwealth Realms

[yvr girl]

I don't think there is an appetite to open up the debate again, especially since there is no big win in dumping the monarchy.

I really don't see unifying with the USA happening. I think it is getting less likely all the time. We are close enough to see all their warts up close. We like our health care system, we like our economy, we have less appetite for military spending.

[CSENYC]

Why doesn't the UK Royal Family try to shore up support for the monarchy in Australia by, for example, visiting more often? With the recent royal wedding, William and Kate are doing a tour of Canada. I'd think that sending them to Australia for a long period would significantly benefit the monarchy, and others could spend more time there.

[osmond75]

There is a strong need to shore up the Monarchy in Australia. even the current Prime Minister of Australia said that the Monarchy may only last till the current Queen is alive, which is such a shame!. Being in Canada, I can say that the Monarchy is one of the most distinctive attributes of being Canadian and with the exception of the secessionist Quebecious, love for the royal family is genuine and heartwarming. Cheers to that!

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

Why doesn't the UK Royal Family try to shore up support for the monarchy in Australia by, for example, visiting more often? With the recent royal wedding, William and Kate are doing a tour of Canada. I'd think that sending them to Australia for a long period would significantly benefit the monarchy, and others could spend more time there.

They can't just turn up.

The government has to invite them to visit and with a Labor government, led by an avowed republican they don't get invited all that often.

Although they say they enjoy it when they are here it is also a long way from their family and friends in Britain.

The royal family also visit Canada about three or four times as often as they come down under - because the Canadian government invite them more often.

William and Kate were supposed to be coming here later this year but as New Zealand is about to have an election for their new government and the royals won't want to be seen as favouring one side or other of politics - and visiting Australia without going to New Zealand, except in the very rarest of occasions, isn't normally done, they have had to postpone the tour down under.

Depending on when Kate gets pregnant I would expect them to get an invite down here next year - after New Zealand has had their elections, and assuming that we don't go to the polls early.

The Queen is coming later this year for CHOGM and is also reportedly coming to the east coast (I have heard a rumour that she would like to go to Melbourne for the Melbourne Cup - our biggest horse race and one she hasn't attended).

Would having them visit more often change the views of Australians about a republic - I doubt it. They are good entertainers, as celebrities need to be, but they don't have anything to do with Australia - and William actively campaigned against Australia's bid for the World Cup - a very good reason for us to become a republic - to have one of our own as our Head of State instead of a foreigner who can only come here when invited.

The heir to the throne hasn't been here since early 2005 - probably because the powers that be know that his wife would be snubbed. He rarely visits Commonwealth countries these days - probably to avoid outright negativity of low crowds etc. With the huge crowds turning out to see William and Kate Charles will probably have to visit even less - to avoid the obvious negative press and the calls for him to be passed over.

[osmond75]

Remember the crown jewel of the Commonwealth- Yes INDIA - which had literally thousands of royal states or princely states ruled by Maharajahs, which became a part of India. After the privy purse was abolished in 1971, the Indian royals have adapted and have converted their palaces into museums and hotels. When India was part of the British Raj(Empire) - these Maharajah`s were the most flamboyant and grandest in the world. Most of them spent fortune in jewels, palaces and costly cars.The early part of the 20th century can best be described as an Indian Royal Renaissance! Long Live the Indian Royal Houses!!

[AnthonyB]

I think that Australia will be a monarch longer than many people think. Changing to a republic requires a referendum, with a majority national vote and a majority in a majority of states (ie 4 out of 6). Australians have only passed 8 out of 44 referenda and have not passed one since 1977. Fairly much anything with the slightest controvesy really struggles to get up. The republicans cause is split between direct and appointed President and certain number of people on both sides won't support the other.

Looking at the popularity of the former Tasmanian Mary Donaldson it is not hard to see one avenue for the Windsor to boost their popularity in the Commonwealth Realms. A royal wedding to someone from one of the realms would clearly improve the Windsor's support (Weren't royal marriages once always a means of attempting to improve ties).

[RoyalistRiley]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Looking at the popularity of the former Tasmanian Mary Donaldson it is not hard to see one avenue for the Windsor to boost their popularity in the Commonwealth Realms. A royal wedding to someone from one of the realms would clearly improve the Windsor's support (Weren't royal marriages once always a means of attempting to improve ties).

I think the days of strategic/arranged royal weddings are long behind us.

But I agree with your sentiments about Australia remaining a monarchy partly due to the process involved - unless there is a huge groundswell of popular support for such a move (not likely in the forseeable future) or it becomes a hot button political issue (possible with the hyper-partisan political situation and hung parliament, but not likely).

In my opinion, Australia will see King Charles and then King William; that much is certain.

[Dman]

Just a question I have on my mind.

Why doesn't The Queen send senior members of her family to Open Parliament around her realms on her behalf anymore?

[Mermaid1962]

She can't send them on her own say-so. They have to be invited by the host country for any official visit. The Governor General always opens Parliament unless The Queen is in the country at the time. It's been quite awhile since members of the Royal Family have been Governors General in Commonwealth Countries.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Dman

Just a question I have on my mind.

Why doesn't The Queen send senior members of her family to Open Parliament around her realms on her behalf anymore?

Each realm is totally independent and having anyone other than one of our own open Parliament, with the possible occasional exception of The Queen herself, would be unpalatable to the citizens of the other realms.

We like having our own person do these things and really to all intents and purposes the Queen is just a nice old lady whose image appears on our coins but in our day to day lives has no meaning at all.

[Queen Shirley]

OK. This may sound silly to some of you but your talking about Commonwealths and Relms and Republics. What is the differences or should I say what do they mean? Relm is everything she rules, right? But Commonwealth, isn't that the same? Can someone explain please?

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley

OK. This may sound silly to some of you but your talking about Commonwealths and Relms and Republics. What is the differences or should I say what do they mean? Relm is everything she rules, right? But Commonwealth, isn't that the same? Can someone explain please?

Not a silly question at all; I've encountered a lot of people who confuse the two terms.
Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realms are two distinctly different things.

Commonwealth of Nations is a non-political, intergovernmental organisation of fifty-four member states - all intendant and sovereign countries.
The Queen is currently Head of the Commonwealth; , it's a non-hereditary position and there is no guarantee Prince Charles will be one as well.
Queen Elizabeth is not the Head of State of those Commonwealth countries with the exception of the Commonwealth Realms. For instance, Brunei and Lesotho are also monarchies with their own sovereign monarchs.

The Commonwealth countries are:
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Australia
- Bahamas
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belize
- Botswana
- Brunei
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Cyprus
- Dominica
- Gambia
- Ghana
- Grenada
- Guyana
- India
- Jamaica
- Kenya
- Kiribati
- Lesotho
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Malta
- Mauritius
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Nauru
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Pakistan
- Papua New Guinea
- Rwanda
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Samoa
- Seychelles
- Sierra Leone
- Singapore
- Solomon Islands
- South Africa
- Sri Lanka
- Swaziland
- Tanzania
- Tonga
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tuvalu
- Uganda
- United Kingdom
- Vanuatu
- Zambia
- Fiji (suspended)


Commonwealth Realms are those sixteen Commonwealth countries that recognise the Queen as their Head of State. Queen Elizabeth is the Monarch (Head of State) of each of those Realms separately and independently; that is to say, those sixteen countries enjoy Personal Union of Crowns (they are reigned over by the same Monarch, while remaining independent, sovereign countries).

The Commonwealth Realms are:
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Canada
- Australia
- New Zealand
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Bahamas
- Barbados
- Belize
- Grenada
- Jamaica
- Papua New Guinea
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Solomon Islands
- Tuvalu


Most of those Commonwealth countries that are not part of Commonwealth Realms are republics, typically with presidential form of government.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally there was the British Empire. Then in 1947 India was granted independence, along with Pakistan. Both countries decided that they wanted to be republics and not have George VI, the former Emperor of India, as the Head of State. That lead to the Empire becoming the Empire and Commonwealth. As more and more former colonies became independent and told the Queen that she wasn't wanted their Head of State the use of the word Empire was dropped as offensive to these nations in many ways.

Most of the countries of the British empire moved into the Commonwealth of Nations although not all former British colonies are now members and some countries that were never British colonies are now members of the Commonwealth.

It is not a foregone conclusion that each new republic will be granted membership of The Commonwealth although it is expected that should say Australia become a republic that country's application to remain a member as a republic would be granted.

[Dman]

Oh I see. I was just wondering about that because I thought it was a nice thing to have a member of the royal family or The Queen to Open Pariliament in her realms.

Here's a picture of Princess Margaret Opening Parliament in Jamaica:
Princess Margaret Opens First Jamaican Parliament - BE025284 - Rights Managed - Stock Photo - Corbis

The Queen Opening Parliament in Canada:
Queen Elizabeth II at Canadian Parliament Session - BE085585 - Rights Managed - Stock Photo - Corbis

Shame that has died out.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by wedmonds

With that being said some of these countries have republican movements that are very much on the rise. Especially in the Caribbean nations. My question to you all is when do you think the Commonwealth Realms will come to a end? When do you think the United Kingdom will be left standing alone? Do you ever think that countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will ditch the House of Windsor? What is your opinion on any of this?

Since the 1999 referendum, support for an Australian republic has actually fallen considerably with some polls putting it as low as 35 %, while support for the continuation of the monarchy has risen well above 50 %. Figures are similar in recent New Zealand polls. The current Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, is a former CEO of "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy" and is a committed monarchist who has even recently advised the Queen to reintroduce the awarding of knighthoods to Australian citizens.

I would say on the other hand that, in my personal impression, Canadians in general are actually far less monarchist (or royalist) than many Australians I know. In most cases, the Crown is not really visible in daily Canadian life and most Canadians have an attitude of indifference at best with respect to it. Paradoxically, however, the probability of a republican referendum being held in Canada or a republican constitutional amendment being introduced in the Canadian parliament anytime in the near future is practically zero as, unlike in Australia, no major political party in Canada, with the possible exception of hardcore Quebec separatists, advocates the end of the monarchy. On the contrary, the current prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has actually taken steps to reinforce Canada's link to the Crown, for example restoring the prefix "Royal" to the Canadian Nay and Air Force and holding public ceremonies to celebrate the Queen's diamond jubilee and the bicentenary of the War of 1812 against the republican United States.

Overall, my opinion is that, barring any major unforeseen change, the monarchy is likely to outlive Queen Elizabeth II both in Canada and in Australia/New Zealand. In fact, I I see not only Charles, but also William succeeding as kings of those realms.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Originally there was the British Empire. Then in 1947 India was granted independence, along with Pakistan. Both countries decided that they wanted to be republics and not have George VI, the former Emperor of India, as the Head of State. That lead to the Empire becoming the Empire and Commonwealth. As more and more former colonies became independent and told the Queen that she wasn't wanted their Head of State the use of the word Empire was dropped as offensive to these nations in many ways.

I believe the first statutory reference to the "British Commonwealth" appeared in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. The term rose to prominence , however, only after the Imperial Conference of 1926 and was subsequently incorporated into the preamble of the Statute of Westminster of 1931. At that the time, the "Commonwealth" referred only to those former "Dominions" that became sovereign (or quasi-sovereign) under the terms of the Statute of Westminster, i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland, which later joined the Canadian federation.

With the independence of the former British dependent territories starting with India in 1947, the Commonwealth grew to include most of the former colonies, independently of their constitutional status of monarchies or republics. Several current Commonwealth countries were actually realms in personal union with the British monarch before becoming republics, e.g.

• South Africa from 1931 to 1961.
• India from 1947 to 1950.
• Pakistan from 1947 to 1956.
• Nigeria from 1960 to 1963.
• And many others (see a complete list under "Former Commonwealth Realms" at Commonwealth realm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

[JulieS]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Since the 1999 referendum, support for an Australian republic has actually fallen considerably with some polls putting it as low as 35 %, while support for the continuation of the monarchy has risen well above 50 %. Figures are similar in recent New Zealand polls. The current Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, is a former CEO of "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy" and is a committed monarchist who has even recently advised the Queen to reintroduce the awarding of knighthoods to Australian citizens.

I would say on the other hand that, in my personal impression Canadians in general are actually far less monarchist (or royalist) than many Australians I know. In most cases, the Crown is not really visible in daily Canadian life and most Canadians have an attitude of indifference at best with respect to it. Paradoxically, however, the probability of a republican referendum being held in Canada or a republican constitutional amendment being introduced in the Canadian parliament anytime in the near future is practically zero as, unlike in Australia, no major political party in Canada, with the possible exception of hardcore Quebec separatists, advocates the end of the monarchy. On the contrary, the current prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has actually taken steps to reinforce Canada's link to the Crown, for example restoring the prefix "Royal" to the Canadian Nay and Air Force and holding public ceremonies to celebrate the Queen's diamond jubilee and the bicentenary of the War of 1812 against the republican Unites States.

Overall, my opinion is that, barring any major unforeseen change, the monarchy is likely to outlive Queen Elizabeth II both in Canada and in Australia/New Zealand. In fact, I I see not only Charles, but also William succeeding as kings of those realms.

A minority of Quebecers are hardcore separatists. At the last provincial election, "Parti québécois", "Québec solidaire" and "Option nationale", the separatists parties, got only 33% of votes.

[ImKevin]

If anyone is willing to please explain to me the reasons for the commonwealth and its purpose? I tried the wiki but it doesn't really help

Is the COmmonwealth basically places the English makes there money? Like say, if the Commonwealth of Australia. Does half of there wealth goes to England? as well as there military? or am I getting it wrong?

[Ish]

You are completely wrong. No offense intended.

The Commonwealth is the remnants of the British Empire, although for the most part it is composed of completely independent nations.

There are two forms of nations within the Commonwealth Nations - the Realms and the other nations. The Realms are those nations, like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, that continue to recognize HM as the head of state. At this time there are 16 Realms, although this number can change as realms become republics or if they split up - so, if Scotland gains its independence and retains the monarchy, it will become the 17th Realm.

The other nations are primarily republics with colonial ties to the British Empire, although there are some states that have no colonial ties at all and five who have a different monarch.

The nations, at present 53 in total, are joined together in association because of a common language, history, and culture. They theoretically are all democratic countries with a certain understanding of human rights, and members have been suspended in the part for not living up to an accepted standard. Currently, Fiji is suspended because it's not been democratic in recent years.

The purpose of the Commonwealth is to promote an international cooperation of sorts. According to their website, they work in democracy, economics, education, gender, governance, human rights, law, small states, sport, and youth.

[Iluvbertie]

It is an organisation where once the members were part of the British empire and it has evolved into a friendly organisation.

There are no trade or other connections really (used to be but Britain turned its back on that aspect of the Commonwealth when it joined the EU so the rest of us have made our own way in the world).

No money goes from Commonwealth countries to any other Commonwealth country other than in the normal commerce between nations.

100 years ago, when Britain declared war, the rest of the Empire was at war. By 1939 South Africa, for instance, had to decide for themselves while the rest of us blindly followed the UK although that doesn't happen at all anymore e.g. when Britain went to war in the Falklands against Argentina they had the sympathy of some Commonwealth countries but no one had to supply assistance - we had grown up.

What is the purpose of the Commonwealth - mainly a friendly arrangement between former colonies of the UK although that is no longer necessary either as there are countries that weren't part of the British empire that have joined the Commonwealth.

It is more a 'family' where the children have grown up and remained connected.

The High Commissions (we have High Commissions not Embassies in each others' countries) sometimes help other Commonwealth Citizens e.g. if Australia doesn't have a High Commission in a foreign country - due to whatever reason - it is possible that they will be directed to the Canadian or some other Commonwealth High Commission if assistance is needed.