Questions About Commonwealth Realms

[Iluvbertie]

Not all of these countries have to have a referendum to become a republic I would like to point out. It depends on the respective country's constitutions and some have it that all it will take is a vote in parliament.

Costs can be spread out over time and changing from a GG to a President needed be all that expensive as the President can simply take over the house etc that was allocated to the GG.

[Dalriada]

The Republic of Ireland is famous for having a referendum for almost every plebiscite going but when the Free State ceded from the British Commonwealth and was abolished in 1948, it was quite literally a walk in the Park (the Phoenix Park, Dublin) when the final GG vacated the vice-regal lodge to be replaced by The president of Ireland "uachtarán na hÉireann" but not president of the republic as The New constitution incompassed the north which had been annexed by The UK in 1922.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G

Do you know what William went through as a child? Have you thought about how it affected him? He had his mother and father separated, his mother is killed in public and his father was always working hard so hardly got to see him. Therefore William doesn't want that experience for his children, he wants to bring them up in a VERY close family environment where he is always there for his children, a lot of people respect that. His Grandmother and Father also had very little private lives as their roles started so early, so they want William as he isn't next in line yet, to have some time to relax and be a family man. Before he becomes Prince of Wales and King, when the rest of his life until death will be devoted to his realms. After the visit to Australia by the Cambridges, the monarchy's popularity skyrocketed there.

William and Harry had parents who divorced after years of acrimony. So did hundreds of thousands of other kids. William and Harry's mother was killed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver and exacerbated by a not using seat belts. So to have thousands of parents died so needlessly. William and Harry's father worked hard and they didn't see that much of him. So to do millions of children see little of their father's and mother's working to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

The Wales boys spent their time fairly well insulated at boarding school, Eton, etc. so seeing either parent was always going to be a weekend or holiday occasion so I imagine both parents arranged their schedules around the kids as best they could. Hundreds of thousand's of other kids are latchkey kids because their parents don't have such accommodating jobs.

While the tragedy of their childhood is common, it had the extra pain of being public however, the BTF are a close-knit family and they had the wherewithal to ensure the boys got the best protection from the media as children and support and counselling if they needed it. They were never abandoned, lost in the shuffle, neglected, abused, more importantly, they grew into pretty well-adjusted adults.

The monarchy's popularity seems to rise whenever they visit Commonwealth countries, and while William attended the first memorial after the Christchurch Quake and then on to the worst flood affected areas in Australia. It was the nature of the engagement that drew our approval just as we, in Christchurch loved the visit of Charles and Camilla to see us picking ourselves up and dusting ourselves off. The clips of them dancing on the Dance-O-Mat and really getting into the swing of things were wonderful.

While William is away from the public eye "raising his children with Catherine", we see little and hear little of them and know little about the man himself. That will come with time as will appreciation of his BRF work ethic.

That time is not now!

[GeorgiePorgy]

It's funny i stumbled across this is was watching a Royal family dvd last night and it was talking about this and why England went through the changes it did, really informative, impressing movie. Just search Royal Family DVD for sale online if you are interested in a watch.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by MARG

The monarchy's popularity seems to rise whenever they visit Commonwealth countries, and while William attended the first memorial after the Christchurch Quake and then on to the worst flood affected areas in Australia. It was the nature of the engagement that drew our approval just as we, in Christchurch loved the visit of Charles and Camilla to see us picking ourselves up and dusting ourselves off. The clips of them dancing on the Dance-O-Mat and really getting into the swing of things were wonderful.

While William is away from the public eye "raising his children with Catherine", we see little and hear little of them and know little about the man himself. That will come with time as will appreciation of his BRF work ethic.

That time is not now!

Every now and then I come across a post that for some reason or the other, escaped my notice and I found this post to be hitting the nail on the head.

I remember well when William made that visit to Christchurch and Australia and if memory serves me correctly, it was William himself that requested the permission of both governments to go. It was right before his wedding and he was, at the time, still serving in the RAF in Anglesey in Wales. What touched me most following this trip was the fact that William stressed the point that it wasn't all about him but about the people that were affected by the devastation to their lives. "Just call me William" rings most in my memory.

You're absolutely correct about William the man and his work ethics and how it is perceived by many. We tend to forget that in his life, things are backwards to what the rest of the world's life plans are. We work hard towards retirement and pensions whereas with William, its quiet family time away from prying eyes now and gradually his public life will get more and more intense and remain that way until his death as a monarch of the UK.

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Actually, South Africa is in the Commonwealth. We in that organisation don't have Embassies in each other's countries.

Out of the 53 Countries of the Commonwealth, the only countries that do not have Embassies in each other's countries are the 16 countries also known as Commonwealth Realms where HM The Queen is the Head of State. The other 37 Members of the Commonwealth Countries are republics, and have their own Heads of States, and have Embassies in each other countries. UK has a British Embassy in South Africa with a High Commission in Pretoria and a British Consulate in Cape Town.

And of course all 53 Commonwealth Countries have HM the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth.

[victor1319]

Thanks, @Fijiro! So, it is complicated!

But it was a humble welcome, or not? I am not so familiar with second row British royals visits abroad.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Actually, South Africa is in the Commonwealth. We in that organisation don't have Embassies in each other's countries.

Curryong-I had not realized this was the case. Since there are no embassies, then what would the diplomatic missions in fellow Commonwealth nations be called?

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by TLLK

Curryong-I had not realized this was the case. Since there are no embassies, then what would the diplomatic missions in fellow Commonwealth nations be called?

High Commission, the person acting as Ambassador is called a High Commissioner, it is that way among Commonwealth nations, UK included

In the Commonwealth of Nations, a high commissioner is the senior diplomat (generally ranking as an ambassador) in charge of the diplomatic mission of one Commonwealth government to another. Instead of an embassy, the diplomatic mission is generally called a high commission.

[Curryong]

This explains High Commissions in Commonwealth countries.

http://www.commonwealthofnations.org...ent/embassies/


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ngdom_to_India

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by TLLK

Curryong-I had not realized this was the case. Since there are no embassies, then what would the diplomatic missions in fellow Commonwealth nations be called?

They are called High Commissions.

If you have ever been to London, you may have noticed the buildings where the Australian, the Canadian and the South African High Commissions are located. They are quite easy to identify/spot from the outside.

[Somebody]

So, basically, it's the same as an embassy but with a different name

The Commonwealth likes to be special

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Somebody

So, basically, it's the same as an embassy but with a different name

The Commonwealth likes to be special

It is a vestige of the imperial era when the status of the Dominions in international law was somewhat confusing.


In the specific case of the Commonnwealth realms, since they share the same person as Head of State (The Queen), high commissioners from one country to another carry only a letter of introduction from one head of government (prime minister) to another, as opposed to a letter of credence from one Head of State to another as in the case of ambassadors.



In the case of Commonwealth republics, the practice varies: some governments choose to issue full diplomatic credentials for their high commissioners addressed to the Queen as Head of State while others use the more informal method of a simple letter of introduction addressed to the prime minister. I don't know what the current practice is in South Africa.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It is a vestige of the imperial era when the status of the Dominions in international law was somewhat confusing.

Nonetheless, it seems that other countries that had colonies are perfectly able to have embassies in their former colonies (although currently, this former colony refuses to send or accept an ambassador from the former colonizing nation - nonetheless, I was still able to visit the embassy only a few weeks ago); and the commonwealth nowadays also includes countries that were never under British dominion (for example Mozambique, a former colony of Portugal).

In the specific case of the Commonnwealth realms, since they share the same person as Head of State (The Queen), high commissioners from one country to another carry only a letter of introduction from one head of government (prime minister) to another, as opposed to a letter of credence from one Head of State to another as in the case of ambassadors.

For countries that share the same head of state, it makes sense that things work differently. For those that do not, I don't really understand the point. But well, not everything in this world makes sense Many people think that royals don't make sense - and that's a tradition I'd like to keep

In the case of Commonwealth republics, the practice varies: some governments choose to issue full diplomatic credentials for their high commissioners addressed to the Queen as Head of State while others use the more informal method of a simple letter of introduction addressed to the prime minister. I don't know what the current practice is in South Africa.

However, let's get back to Harry & Meghan's visit to South Africa. I am sure they have already met the high commissioner

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Somebody

For countries that share the same head of state, it makes sense that things work differently. For those that do not, I don't really understand the point. But well, not everything in this world makes sense

That is why I am curious to learn about the current practice used by the Republic of South Africa with respect to the credentials of its High Commissioners to the UK and other Commonwealth countries.


Keep in mind that South Africa was a Commonwealth realm until it became a republic in 1961. Moreover, before the pro-Apartheid National Party came to power in 1948, South Africa had a status within the Commonwealth and the Empire that was actually comparable to that of Australia and Canada, as highlighted by its seat in the British War Councils during World War I and World War II. That was also a time when South Africa, although already poorer in terms of GDP per capita compared to Australia and Canada , was nonetheless much richer in relative terms (ie. compared to the rest of the world) than it is today. Much like Argentina, South Africa is a prime example of a country that experienced a steep relative decline from circa the 1950s.

[TLLK]

Thank you to all who took the time and effort to answer my question regarding Commonwealth nations and their diplomatic missions in other Commonwealth countries. This site is so informative!