William and the Commonwealth Realms


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The issue of Australia's head of state is naturally a matter that the Australians themselves should decide upon. However, I do wonder how it may feel to have an absent head of state living 12,000 miles away, who, along with her family, rarely visits the country she reigns over and by all accounts needs an invitation to do so!
 
The issue of Australia's head of state is naturally a matter that the Australians themselves should decide upon. However, I do wonder how it may feel to have an absent head of state living 12,000 miles away, who, along with her family, rarely visits the country she reigns over and by all accounts needs an invitation to do so!

If you had asked me a year ago I would have said 'It's fine. It suits us (really meaning me) fine and I see no reason to change.' but over the last year I have come around to the belief that as long as we share a Head of State with other countries we can never be truly independent (but nor can they - and that includes the UK who has to share their Head of State as well).

The fact that our Head of State can't just turn up is annoying - besides the countries of which she is HoS which other countries would tolerate a situation where the Head of State actually needed an official invitation to visit the country of which they are Head of State? That is an anomoly and can only be fixed by having our own homegrown Head of State, in my opinion.
 
Why may I ask have you changed your mind of the last year?
And I agree with you that it is proposterus that the HoS has to be invited to a country she rules over, or any country for that matter. :flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why may I ask have you changed your mind of the last year?
And I agree with you that it is proposterus that the HoS has to be invited to a country she rules over, or any country for that matter. :flowers:


I have changed my mind because I truly have come to believe that the Australian Head of State in all ways should be an Australian and live in this country.

I do believe that the Head of State of any country can't be a representative of more than one country and thus we have to separate ourselves from a foreign monarch who has a loyalty to another country as well as to us.

In other words I have come to see the wisdom of the Republican side of the debate rather than the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' view of the Monarchists.
 
Maybe it is not the Head of State that needs changing but perhaps the way in which they perform their duties. Needing an invitation to visit your own realms is what happens when you put politics into it. Imagine what would happen if a politician was the Head of State? They would get free rein to traverse the country spruiking their party and receive lots of publicity, but when the HoS is the Queen, she has to be polite and wait to be asked to come and tour.
 
Maybe it is not the Head of State that needs changing but perhaps the way in which they perform their duties. Needing an invitation to visit your own realms is what happens when you put politics into it. Imagine what would happen if a politician was the Head of State? They would get free rein to traverse the country spruiking their party and receive lots of publicity, but when the HoS is the Queen, she has to be polite and wait to be asked to come and tour.

I think your on the right lines Royalist Riley, (love the name by the way).
I honeslty don't understand why Her Majesty has to be invited to her own countrys, stuff protocol they should always be prepared for a royal visit. :flowers:
 
I have changed my mind because I truly have come to believe that the Australian Head of State in all ways should be an Australian and live in this country.

I do believe that the Head of State of any country can't be a representative of more than one country and thus we have to separate ourselves from a foreign monarch who has a loyalty to another country as well as to us.

In other words I have come to see the wisdom of the Republican side of the debate rather than the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' view of the Monarchists.

Exactly the same thing has happened to me. I was in the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mould but in the last year I have experienced a real change of heart on the subject and have come to think it is important for us to have our own Head of State who will put us first.
 
Exactly the same thing has happened to me. I was in the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' mould but in the last year I have experienced a real change of heart on the subject and have come to think it is important for us to have our own Head of State who will put us first.

Too right! Alot of people I know have changed their mind and want a republic now. I just think it's time. It is just a bit ridiculous for the British monarch to be Australia's head of state. Makes no sense at all.
 
I am inclined to think my change of opinion has had something to do with the change of government and the personality of our new PM. I was afraid as soon as we got a Labor federal government again we would be put under pressure to have a republic. It didn't happen. We have been allowed to make up our own minds at our own pace and have been allowed to realise that it is indeed time.
 
I am inclined to think my change of opinion has had something to do with the change of government and the personality of our new PM. I was afraid as soon as we got a Labor federal government again we would be put under pressure to have a republic. It didn't happen. We have been allowed to make up our own minds at our own pace and have been allowed to realise that it is indeed time.


I couldn't have put it better.

If Mr Rudd had come to office and immediately started pushing for a republic I would have probably stayed in the No camp but he is taking it easy.

I do think that we may get a plebiscite on the issue next year - attached to the next Federal Election. That would save money as we have to vote anyway and they will get an indication as to whether or not it needs to work towards a republic or wait for a later time in our history. If the plebiscite says No then the issue would be put to bed for a generation or more but if, as I suspect, it is a Yes vote, then they can start working on the details with a follow up plebisicte on the type of republic before a referendum on the actually wording to change the constitution.
 
Do commonwealth countries pay taxes to support the BRF?
 
The only time they incur public expense in a commonwealth realm is, as far as I know, when they make official trips to the country. Otherwise, the money that in the UK would go to support the office of the monarch goes to fund the local Governor-General.
 
That's true. We only pay expenses when they're in the country.

The only time they incur public expense in a commonwealth realm is, as far as I know, when they make official trips to the country. Otherwise, the money that in the UK would go to support the office of the monarch goes to fund the local Governor-General.
 
That's true. We only pay expenses when they're in the country

I was suprised when Canada had an election awhile back, and the news kept saying that the Q of E might step in and somehow put the election on hold - I guess I didn't know the BRF had any real power in England, much less in other countries.
 
It's actually the Governor General who exercises those powers here. The Governor General doesn't act against the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. But if a new election were to be called, the GG would have to sign off on it. Ultimately, it's a democratic system.

I was suprised when Canada had an election awhile back, and the news kept saying that the Q of E might step in and somehow put the election on hold - I guess I didn't know the BRF had any real power in England, much less in other countries.
 
Last edited:


As next year is an election year in Australia any timing would have to be very carefully thought out so that it can't be seen as the British royals trying to influence the vote e.g. by showing support for the incumbent government for instance.

As there is also the possibility (at the moment it isn't on the agenda for that time but that doesn't mean that it won't be) that there could be a plebiscite attached to the election about Australia becoming a republic it would be very difficult to have a royal visit in the lead up to such an event.

I am not saying the visit won't happen just that there are considerations that may mean it won't.

Note that the article says that the PM's of both countries haven't been informed of this decision yet and it is possible that the PM won't extend an invitation.
 
I am not saying the visit won't happen just that there are considerations that may mean it won't.

Note that the article says that the PM's of both countries haven't been informed of this decision yet and it is possible that the PM won't extend an invitation.
:flowers: It is understood he plans to go next spring and would visit as an official representative of the Queen at the request of the Foreign office.The move will also help ease the burden of foreign travel on his 83-year-old grandmother

Prince William tells tourists of Australia trip plans - Telegraph
 
Prince William

My question is simple....Is it true or faulse that prince William will visit Australia...
 
True.

At some stage in the future William will visit Australia.
However - whether that is next year officially or at some later date is unclear.

There are reports in various papers that he has indicated that he is to visit next year however the reports also indicate that there have been no official invitation extended by Mr Rudd and the government for him to do so.

At this stage - as far as next year is concerned the simple answer is - we don't know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:flowers: It is understood he plans to go next spring and would visit as an official representative of the Queen at the request of the Foreign office.The move will also help ease the burden of foreign travel on his 83-year-old grandmother

Prince William tells tourists of Australia trip plans - Telegraph


But if the Australian government don't wont a representative of the Queen at the request of a foreign countries' Foreign Office he won't come.

It has to be by mutual agreement.

The British government can NOT just tell the Australian government "We are sending you an official representative of the Queen" anymore. We are an independent country and control who enters this country.

If the Australian government issues an invitation then he may come as an official representative of the Queen but until the Australian government agrees he can't. He has no more right to come here than any other British citizen - he needs the permission of the Australian government, just as I need the permission of the British government to enter Britain.

I am not saying it won't happen just that it isn't only up to the British government/Foreign Office to decide but that the Australian government also has to agree.
 
As next year is an election year in Australia any timing would have to be very carefully thought out so that it can't be seen as the British royals trying to influence the vote e.g. by showing support for the incumbent government for instance.

As there is also the possibility (at the moment it isn't on the agenda for that time but that doesn't mean that it won't be) that there could be a plebiscite attached to the election about Australia becoming a republic it would be very difficult to have a royal visit in the lead up to such an event.

I am not saying the visit won't happen just that there are considerations that may mean it won't.

Note that the article says that the PM's of both countries haven't been informed of this decision yet and it is possible that the PM won't extend an invitation.

If the republic is not on the immediate agenda, then it shouldn't matter whether a royal visit is made and if one is, it shouldn't be seen as an attempt to influence voters to swing to the monarchist side as the republicans will be parading all of their high-profile supporters, no doubt.
 
Can someone please tell me what all the countries of the Commonwealth are? I know Australia and Canada are part of it, but I don't know what the other countries are.
 
:previous:

The list of 53 independent sovereign states - members of the Commonwealth of Nations can be found in this Wikipedia article.
The Commonwealth realms (16 Sovereign States within the Commonwealth of Nations that share the same Head of the State - currently Queen Elizabeth II) are the following:

In North America

* Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas
* Barbados
* Belize
* Canada
* Grenada
* Jamaica
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

In Oceania

* Australia
* New Zealand
* Papua New Guinea
* Solomon Islands
* Tuvalu

In Europe

* United Kingdom
 
Last edited:
Thank you Marsel. I wasn't expecting a response so quickly.
Wow! I didn't realize there were 53 in the commonwealth and in such diverse areas. Some of the countries? I never even heard of.
 
:previous:
It's wonderful being apart of this Commonwealth of Nations. :)
And one day I hope William will be the head of state of all of the realms and 53 nations. :flowers:
 
:previous:
It's wonderful being apart of this Commonwealth of Nations. :)
And one day I hope William will be the head of state of all of the realms and 53 nations. :flowers:

As a citizen of one of the countries other than Great Britain, I hope that he is never King of Australia.

By the time he becomes King of Britain I hope that we have an Australian as our Head of State.

Of course when that happens the rest of the Commonwealth will have to decide whether or not we stay in the Commonwealth and I really can't see a point in that any more.

The only time we hear of the Commonwealth in Australia is the Commonwealth Games and CHOGM. So whether he ever becomes Head of the Commonwealth is rather meaningless to many citizens within that organisation as there is no benefit to belonging that I am aware of - it made sense before Britain sold out its Commonwealth and joined the European Union but now it is just a pointless talkfest for the leaders and a chance for our athletes to attend a sporting festival every four years.
 
:previous:

There is a hope that when England gets a new Government after next elections (and for the sake of the country, I hope they it does), it will re-define the Governments priorities and the Commonwealth will be meaningful once again.
I agree though that it is increasingly unlikely William will be King of all 16 current Commonwealth Realms.
 
Last edited:
I rather enjoy being in the Commonwealth. I see it as belonging to a voluntary club of nations. There must be some sort of advantage to being in the Commonwealth because republics such as India are still within the Commonwealth without having the Queen as the head of state. The Commonwealth can exercise influence by suspending countries--such as happened with South Africa at one time--because of human rights abuses.

Here's the home page. The Republic of Fiji has been suspended: http://www.thecommonwealth.org



The only time we hear of the Commonwealth in Australia is the Commonwealth Games and CHOGM. So whether he ever becomes Head of the Commonwealth is rather meaningless to many citizens within that organisation as there is no benefit to belonging that I am aware of - it made sense before Britain sold out its Commonwealth and joined the European Union but now it is just a pointless talkfest for the leaders and a chance for our athletes to attend a sporting festival every four years.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

I agree, membership in the Commonwealth of Nations must be beneficial for member - states, otherwise they would have left the organization years ago.
It's rather like Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which unites 10 of the 15 former Soviet Republics: everyone loves to say it's useless but the CIS does actually solve questions and unites people from different countries.
 
:previous:

The list of 53 independent sovereign states - members of the Commonwealth of Nations can be found in this Wikipedia article.
The Commonwealth realms (16 Sovereign States within the Commonwealth of Nations that share the same Head of the State - currently Queen Elizabeth II) are the following:

In North America

* Antigua and Barbuda
* Bahamas
* Barbados
* Belize
* Canada
* Grenada
* Jamaica
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

In Oceania

* Australia
* New Zealand
* Papua New Guinea
* Solomon Islands
* Tuvalu

In Europe

* United Kingdom

Looking at this extensive list (including what's on Wikipedia) I'm just wondering, has the Queen actually visited all of these places in the Commonwealth?
And would William be expected to visit all of the countries/regions that are still a part of the Commonwealth when he reigns?
 
Back
Top Bottom