The Monarchy under Charles

[tommy100]

Maybe Charles won't invite any of the family for christmas, that's what I'd be tempted to do if I'd read this thread lol.

Looking at the new King and Queen of the Netherlands and how they are touring all of their country and making "introductory"vists. I wonder if Charles would tour the UK, would it be before or after the coronation do you think? Could Charles make a state visit before his coronation or does he have to wait until after?
Given that Charles will be of an older generation when he comes to the throne I wonder how he and Camilla will cope with having to visit so many countries just as the Queen did.
I wonder where they would visit first? America? Commonwealth Countries or maybe Ireland?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The first visits should be to the countries of which he is King - the Commonwealth realms such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia - and the others as well. To visit any other country before he visits all his realms would simply be insulting to those realms. He won't just be King of the UK but of 15 other nations and they have to come first.

 

[Skippyboo]

I would think that you would have a tour of the UK and then Canada at least. As for Australia , you would have to see if they stay a realm after Elizabeth's death.

I would think the majority of the long haul flights would be done by William and Kate. While Charles stays in the UK similar to what the queen did last year for the jubilee.

By sending Charles and Camilla to the bigger realms last year, it was kind of a introduction to the future King & Queen.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think an awful lot will depend on who is in power in the different Commonwealth capitals. A Republican PM in Canberra may not be so quick to extend an invitation to the new king to tour his Australian realm.

 

[royal-blue]

It seems odd that foreign countries still want to be ruled by the British monarch. Personally I think they should establish their own monarchies/heads of state and our queen should focus solely on our country. Can you imagine if the king of Spain still ruled all the Hispanophone nations!

 

[Ish]

It seems odd that foreign countries still want to be ruled by the British monarch. Personally I think they should establish their own monarchies/heads of state and our queen should focus solely on our country. Can you imagine if the king of Spain still ruled all the Hispanophone nations!

It seems odd to me that the British fail to realize that the British Queen is not simply the British Queen; she is also the Canadian Queen, the Jamaican Queen, the Australian Queen, and so on. Each one of these realms has its own relationship with HM and a history with the monarchy. As such, their are individuals in each of the realms (if not necessarily always a majority) that wish to continue to maintain a relationship with their monarch, even if that individual is also the monarch of 15 other realms.

 

[tommy100]

I wonder whether the monarchy will become "grander" when Charles becomes King. I wonder whether we'll see more grand dinners and the like.

 

[Roslyn]

I think an awful lot will depend on whio is in power in the different Commonwealth capitals. A Republican PM in Canberra may not be so quick to extend an invitation to the new king to tour his Australian realm.

Regardless of how staunch a republican our PM might be, I hope that he or she would put aside those personal sentiments and do the right thing and extend the appropriate courtesies to our new Head of State and King of Australia and invite him to tour his Australian realm. I doubt we will be a republic during the reign of his mother, and unless that happens Charles will become King of Australia the moment Elizabeth dies.

 

[NGalitzine]

It seems odd that foreign countries still want to be ruled by the British monarch. Personally I think they should establish their own monarchies/heads of state and our queen should focus solely on our country. Can you imagine if the king of Spain still ruled all the Hispanophone nations!

The British monarch does not rule anywhere, she reigns by the grace of Parliament and the people. Also in Canada it is not the British monarch but the Canadian monarch who reigns as Queen of Canada. Likewise in Australia, NZ, Jamaica, Barbados etc.

 

[COUNTESS]

I, believe, and could be wrong, that on the death of the present queen, many will opt out of their arrangement. But that should be their choice.

 

[CanRoyal]

The first visits should be to the countries of which he is King - the Commonwealth realms such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia - and the others as well. To visit any other country before he visits all his realms would simply be insulting to those realms. He won't just be King of the UK but of 15 other nations and they have to come first.

It definitely would be considered an insult.

As a matter of fact, there was some grumbling when William and Kate included a short stay in LA before heading home at the conclusion of their Canadian tour. However some Canadian journalists speculated that by including a couple of days in LA at the time, it freed the Cambridges from returning to the States for several years to come.

 

[AdmirerUS]

It definitely would be considered an insult.

As a matter of fact, there was some grumbling when William and Kate included a short stay in LA before heading home at the conclusion of their Canadian tour. However some Canadian journalists speculated that by including a couple of days in LA at the time, it freed the Cambridges from returning to the States for several years to come.

LOL, most of us in the US realize that when people stop over in LA, they are just picking up the bags of charity cash that flows out of the city's powerful, great and good citizens. That wasn't a visit to the US - it was a visit to la la land.

 

[ShannyD]

I, believe, and could be wrong, that on the death of the present queen, many will opt out of their arrangement. But that should be their choice.

When Queen Elizabeth is no longer with us, countries that have the British monarch as their head of state will have Charles as their monarch. Most countries will probably have to change their constitution to "opt out of their arrangement". In a country like Canada it would cause more political problems to change the constitution, and therefore they will probably keep the status quo.

Now the commonwealth as a group have to "select" Charles to be its leader when the time comes.

 

[CanRoyal]

LOL, most of us in the US realize that when people stop over in LA, they are just picking up the bags of charity cash that flows out of the city's powerful, great and good citizens. That wasn't a visit to the US - it was a visit to la la land.

If you say so. Nevertheless, many believe that it will be some years before William and Kate visit the US again.

 

[Meadow]

I expect the Republicans here in Oz to do a big push when the Queen passes away. Of course no one seems to have any real idea what system to adopt. Charles may not get a chance to visit here as King depends on how fast things move.

 

[Ish]

I expect the Republicans here in Oz to do a big push when the Queen passes away. Of course no one seems to have any real idea what system to adopt. Charles may not get a chance to visit here as King depends on how fast things move.

It's likely that Charles won't have the chance to visit as king, regardless of how quickly the republicans move to do away with the monarchy (and they can only move so fast, doing away with it will require a constitutional reform, referendum, and/or military coup). If HM is as long lives as her mother, Charles could be 80 when he becomes king, and how many overseas visits do we really expect him to make at that point?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles has always had a love affair with Australia since he came here to go to school as a teenager and would want to visit us, at least once as King.

The republicans have already indicated that they won't probably make another push for a republic in the present reign meaning Charles will become King of Australia.

How quickly could the government act to introduce the legislation to set up the referendum and then hold the referendum would depend on a number of things including.

First off there would need to be some form of agreement on the type of republic and that won't be easy to get agreement on - the republicans have always been split on the model.

Add to that the emotions that will follow the death and funeral and then the excitement of the build up to the Coronation - not good times. Personally unless something is already in place for the instant The Queen dies for the GG of the day to become President I think Charles will be King of Australia for a number of years and it may very well be William who is the one in whose reign the republicans win.

 

[royal-blue]

The British monarch does not rule anywhere, she reigns by the grace of Parliament and the people. Also in Canada it is not the British monarch but the Canadian monarch who reigns as Queen of Canada. Likewise in Australia, NZ, Jamaica, Barbados etc.

I realise that, but I don't see why other countries would rather have their own head of state from their own country rather than someone who lives primarily abroad.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I realise that, but I don't see why other countries would rather have their own head of state from their own country rather than someone who lives primarily abroad.

Our History, our culture, our links to the past, having someone who is well known on the world stage, having someone who can't be part of our political process (even though her representative is in the same way that she is in the UK) - there are other reasons of course.

 

[MARG]

Not least of which would be which tired political hack would get the Party nod to stand for El Presidente!

 

[SLV]

First off there would need to be some form of agreement on the type of republic and that won't be easy to get agreement on - the republicans have always been split on the model.

Silly question.
There are different types of republics possible?

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Silly question.
There are different types of republics possible?

Yes, The U.S, India and France all have different forms of a Republic type of Government.

 

[royal-blue]

Our History, our culture, our links to the past, having someone who is well known on the world stage, having someone who can't be part of our political process (even though her representative is in the same way that she is in the UK) - there are other reasons of course.

But the main reason these realms have the same monarchy as the UK is because they were invaded by the British, and the people in many cases were either subjugated or otherwise sidelined by the British. I personally would just have thought that in this day and age countries would want to run themselves instead of being reigned over (I realise HMQ is largely just a figurehead) by a monarch who lives primarily on the other side of the world, particularly so for countries as powerful as Canada and Australia.

 

[NGalitzine]

But the main reason these realms have the same monarchy as the UK is because they were invaded by the British, and the people in many cases were either subjugated or otherwise sidelined by the British. I personally would just have thought that in this day and age countries would want to run themselves instead of being reigned over (I realise HMQ is largely just a figurehead) by a monarch who lives primarily on the other side of the world, particularly so for countries as powerful as Canada and Australia.

So far we do not seem to be having a major problem with it but I am sure if we ever do we will let you know. As a former Canadian PM said on the subject "If it ain't broken, why try and fix it".

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Can you imagine if the king of Spain still ruled all the Hispanophone nations!

As someone from South America, who have friends in Argentina and Uruguay, and who travelled around the continent, I know some people from Hispanophone countries who would prefer King Juan Carlos over the awful lot of caudilhos like Chávez, Kirchner and Morales.

 

[Ish]

But the main reason these realms have the same monarchy as the UK is because they were invaded by the British, and the people in many cases were either subjugated or otherwise sidelined by the British. I personally would just have thought that in this day and age countries would want to run themselves instead of being reigned over (I realise HMQ is largely just a figurehead) by a monarch who lives primarily on the other side of the world, particularly so for countries as powerful as Canada and Australia.

I can understand what you're saying for the vast majority of the Realms, although I think as the realms essentially do run themselves, with a Governor-General being appointed to fill HM's symbolic role.

For those (formerly) subjugated peoples, I would think that remaining as a realm gives them the advantage of having a very well known head of state when they would otherwise be looked over. One of the advantages of being in the Commonwealth (which does not require being a Realm) is that it gives smaller and even medium sized states a voice on a global scale, where they would otherwise be drowned out by large powers.

For states like Canada and Australia, while ours is a history of subjugation - and I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of Aboriginals support republican movements based on that history alone - the majority of the people living in Canada are not descendants of the subjugated but rather the oppressors. As of 2001, the majority of people in Canada described themselves as either being ethnically North American (non-aboriginal) or from the British Isles. It makes sense then that we would want to continue a relationship with our historic monarch.

 

[cdm]

I'm curious to see if Charles will use his (probably not that long) reign to reform the monarchy.
Only have close family members working for the Royal House, only having a London base and one country house, making abdications possible, reducing costs, the monarch not as the head of the church of England anymore, more countries of the Commonwealth becoming indepent states,...

That could be his legacy, being the monarchyreforming king.

 

[NGalitzine]

I'm curious to see if Charles will use his (probably not that long) reign to reform the monarchy.
Only have close family members working for the Royal House, only having a London base and one country house, making abdications possible, reducing costs, the monarch not as the head of the church of England anymore, more countries of the Commonwealth becoming indepent states,...

That could be his legacy, being the monarchyreforming king.[/QUOTE
Well the monarch only has one London home (BP) already.
Windsor and Holyrood, like BP, belong to the state so it makes sense for the monarch to continue to live in them. I doubt Charles would sell Sandringham or Balmoral which would be his private properties unless there was some financial need to do so.
As far as costs go the monarchy seems to be about the most cost conscious and cost effective part of the entire government.
Abdications are already possible in the UK. No one can stop a monarch from abdicating if that is their wish, it just is not part of our tradition.
Only Parliament can remove the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and so far no government has been tempted to disestablish the CofE, remove the monarchs titular role or remove the CofE Bishops from the House of Lords.
Any of the realms that eventually become republics will do so because they want to and not because Charles wanted them to, he will have no say in the matter at all. Also the Commonwealth nations, both the republics and the realms, are already independent states and function as such on the international stage.

 

[cdm]

Well then I'm curious if the Church or some nations of the Commonwealth will take some intiative to change things when Charles is king.

Abdications are already possible in the UK. No one can stop a monarch from abdicating if that is their wish, it just is not part of our tradition.
.

Are your sure? Around the time that Beatrix announced her abdication, I read in a newspaper that a British monarch cannot abdicate onces (s)he is coronated. Don't know which newspaper it was.

 

[NGalitzine]

Yes, a British monarch could abdicate at any time, even after they have been crowned, if they chose to. Parliaments would then just have to pass the relevent legislation as was done for Edward VIII. We do not force our monarchs to stay on the throne if they do not want to, it just is not part of our tradition for them to abdicate. Our tradition is "The king is dead, long live the King."