The King, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth

[Duc_et_Pair]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...4-nations-vote-remove-Charles-head-state.html

Nearly half the King's realms now 'republican': Shock poll shows six out of 14 nations, including Canada and Australia, would vote to remove Charles as their head of state
Research conducted by former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft
It reveals the true scale of the challenges King Charles III faces abroad.

Reasons for ditching the monarchy are varied, with Caribbean countries citing colonialism while others see the monarchy as distant and no longer relevant;
Most of those who want a republic believe this would 'bring real, practical benefits' to them;
The Sussexes are believed over the rest of the Royal Family by ten out of the 14 countries, with most feeling that Meghan's treatment exposed 'racist views';
Canada is among four countries arguing the monarchy is a 'racist and colonialist institution and we should have nothing to do with it';
In nearly every country, the majority of people said 'in an ideal world we wouldn't have the monarchy, but there are more important things for us to deal with'.

To be fair, I have always wondered why such big, proud and important countries as Canada and Australia still have no own head of state. The surprise is not the republican trend. The surprise is that there still is a King "ruling" Canada and Australia in 2023.

But like in the European monarchies itself, support is slowly eroding and there are little arguments against a wish to close the "democratic deficit" regarding the top position of State.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the actual polling report:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-con...arted-Realms-Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-May-2023.pdf

 

[Mbruno]

To be fair, I have always wondered why such big, proud and important countries as Canada and Australia still have no own head of state. The surprise is not the republican trend. The surprise is that there still is a King "ruling" Canada and Australia in 2023.

But like in the European monarchies itself, support is slowly eroding and there are little arguments against a wish to close the "democratic deficit" regarding the top position of State.

The situation of the republican movement is very different in Canada and Australia.


In Australia, the ruling Labor Party (Australian spelling) is in favor of the republic and a significant part of the main opposition Liberal Party supports it too. So republicanism can be considered mainstream in Australia and at least a self-proclaimed long-term goal of the local political elite. It is safe to assume that an Australian republic may be a likely outcome in the future, although it is difficult to predict when exactly. The main stumbling block is to agree on a model of republic that would be both acceptable to the public and, at the same time, would not change the balance of power between the government, parliament, and the head of state, which can be actually quite tricky.


In Canada, on the other hand, neither the governing Liberal Party nor the main opposition Conservative Party support or are campaigning for a republic. The only federal party leader who ever expressed public support for a republic was, I think, the leader of the left-of-center New Democratic Party, which is a small third party in the Parliament of Canada.


As some Canadian members have explained before on this forum, each province in Canada has an individual veto power over the abolition of the monarchy under the patriated consitution of Canada. Federal politicians are worried that some provinces like Quebec could take advantage of a transition to a republic to push through other changes to the constitutional balance between the powers of the provinces and of the federal government, and they would rather not reopen those issues after the acrimonious constitutional debates of the 1980s and 1990s, including the two (failed) Quebec independence referenda.



As for the Canadian people, as the poll shows, a minority feels attached to the monarchy, a larger plurality would rather have an elected head of state, and the rest are basically indifferent. However, whether they favor the republic or are simply indifferent, the majority, as the poll also shows, feels that the republic is not a priority and, since mainstream politicians are not pushing it either, it won't happen in any foreseeable future.


Another important point, which explains why the republc is not really a priority to many people, is that the King, both in Australia and in Canada, delegates practically all his powers and prerogatives to the Governor General (in Australia, that delegation of powers is even, furthermore, directly incorporated into the federal constitution). So, almost everything that the King does in the UK such as giving assent to legislation; approving orders in council; appointing ministers, judges and ambassadors; commissioning officers into the armed forces; giving out honors and decorations; dissolving or proroguing Parliament; calling elections; even receiving and going on "state visits" is actually done by the Governor General. And, since the Governor General only stays in office for 5 years or so, he or she "feels" like a president for all practical intents and purposes, even though he or she is appointed by royal commission (on the advice of the PM) and exercises his or her powers in the King's name.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...4-nations-vote-remove-Charles-head-state.html

Nearly half the King's realms now 'republican': Shock poll shows six out of 14 nations, including Canada and Australia, would vote to remove Charles as their head of state
Research conducted by former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft
It reveals the true scale of the challenges King Charles III faces abroad.

Reasons for ditching the monarchy are varied, with Caribbean countries citing colonialism while others see the monarchy as distant and no longer relevant;
Most of those who want a republic believe this would 'bring real, practical benefits' to them;
The Sussexes are believed over the rest of the Royal Family by ten out of the 14 countries, with most feeling that Meghan's treatment exposed 'racist views';
Canada is among four countries arguing the monarchy is a 'racist and colonialist institution and we should have nothing to do with it';
In nearly every country, the majority of people said 'in an ideal world we wouldn't have the monarchy, but there are more important things for us to deal with'.

This is funny, I thought Daily Mail wasn’t a credible source and yet it seems credible enough on this topic but not on others.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is funny, I thought Daily Mail wasn’t a credible source and yet it seems credible enough on this topic but not on others.

The Daily Mail is not the source of the poll, which was conducted by a reputable pollster:

Here is the actual polling report:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-con...arted-Realms-Lord-Ashcroft-Polls-May-2023.pdf

 

[Denville]

if countries want to leave the commonwealth or get rid of the King as Head of state JUST DO IT. It may take time, but if it is something that they feel so strongly about, just get on with it and do it.

 

[Mbruno]

if countries want to leave the commonwealth or get rid of the King as Head of state JUST DO IT. It may take time, but if it is something that they feel so strongly about, just get on with it and do it.

It is not a big deal really. Lots of Commonwealth (or fomer Commonwealth) countries have become republics since Ireland and India started the trend.

I just don't see it happening in Canada anytime soon for the reasons I mentioned, and it seems unlikely in the near future in New Zealand too.

A necessary condition for a transition to a republic in a parliamentary democracy is also that the political elite must want it, as was the case in Barbados and is the case in Jamaica and, possibly, in Australia. When asked if they would rather have an elected head of state than a king, many people might say "yes" to a pollster, but practical actions to put such change in motion must now usually come from the politicians and not out of popular pressure.

 

[Denville]

If people really wanted it, they would work for it. Sick of all this complaining

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The Daily Mail is not the source of the poll, which was conducted by a reputable pollster:

No that’s not what I’m saying, Curryong posted the news about the poll from Daily Mail

 

[Durham]

Surprises:

Those who support a republic are not (yet) a majority in Australia, Canada or NZ.

Support for a republic is higher in Canada than Australia. It would be interesting to see polling in Quebec compared to Anglo Canada.

 

[Durham]

To be fair, I have always wondered why such big, proud and important countries as Canada and Australia still have no own head of state. The surprise is not the republican trend. The surprise is that there still is a King "ruling" Canada and Australia in 2023.

But like in the European monarchies itself, support is slowly eroding and there are little arguments against a wish to close the "democratic deficit" regarding the top position of State.

The GG is a citizen so they are one of their own. Countries in the EU share a common citizenship so why shouldn't other countries be in a personal union personified by a common loyalty to the crown?

It probably won't last that much longer anyway. And something unique will be lost.

 

[Durham]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...4-nations-vote-remove-Charles-head-state.html

Nearly half the King's realms now 'republican': Shock poll shows six out of 14 nations, including Canada and Australia, would vote to remove Charles as their head of state
Research conducted by former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft
It reveals the true scale of the challenges King Charles III faces abroad.

Reasons for ditching the monarchy are varied, with Caribbean countries citing colonialism while others see the monarchy as distant and no longer relevant;
Most of those who want a republic believe this would 'bring real, practical benefits' to them;
The Sussexes are believed over the rest of the Royal Family by ten out of the 14 countries, with most feeling that Meghan's treatment exposed 'racist views';
Canada is among four countries arguing the monarchy is a 'racist and colonialist institution and we should have nothing to do with it';
In nearly every country, the majority of people said 'in an ideal world we wouldn't have the monarchy, but there are more important things for us to deal with'.

What is meant by "Canada is among four countries arguing the monarchy is a 'racist and colonialist institution and we should have nothing to do with it'? Is this a statement from the PM or GG? Or just some random Canadian's comment?

When/if these countries become republics their citizens can complain about their presidents. Add it to the long list culture wars being fought over statues of Canadian PM's in Montreal or the appropriateness of Australia (aka invasion) day.

 

[Purrs]

This poster is correct about Canada. To change our system of government would require major amendments to our constitution. We have had 2 failed attempts to amend our constitution in the past that were very divisive (ie. Quebec, western separatism, role of indigenous people, role of provinces vs federal govt). No Canadian politician of any federal party wants to reopen that 'can of worms' and probably will not for at least a generation (not in my lifetime).

The majority of Canadians are lukewarm/indifferent to the monarchy. There is no strong republican movement here either. Although the NDP is a smaller party; they've sometimes held the balance of power here but never really pressed on this issue either. (I don't think they see it as a priority - they are much more concerned with 'bread and butter' issues like health care, cost of living etc. Making a Canadian a republic isn't really on their agenda.)

The King/Queen does not interfere with Canadian affairs; it has been this way since the Statue of Westminister was passed in 1931. Canada started asserting its independence in foreign policy after World War 1. We had a constitutional crisis in 1926 (The King-Byng Affair) where the then governor general Byng and Canadian prime minister MacKenzie King came into conflict - the Governor General refused to dissolve Parliament as the Prime Minister requested. Since then NO governor general representing the crown has ever overridden or failed to comply with the requests of the Canadian Prime Minister since. The Crown has been very "hands off" with Canadian governance since then.


I don't think Canada will cease to be a realm for a very long time (if ever) for these reasons.

The situation of the republican movement is very different in Canada and Australia.

...
In Canada, on the other hand, neither the governing Liberal Party nor the main opposition Conservative Party support or are campaigning for a republic. The only federal party leader who ever expressed public support for a republic was, I think, the leader of the left-of-center New Democratic Party, which is a small third party in the Parliament of Canada.

As some Canadian members have explained before on this forum, each province in Canada has an individual veto power over the abolition of the monarchy under the patriated constuition of Canada. Federal politicians are worried that some provinces like Quebec could take advantage of a transition to a republic to push through other changes to the constitutional balance between the powers of the provinces and of the federal government, and they would rather not reopen those issues after the acrimonious constitutional debates of the 1980s and 1990s, including the two (failed) Quebec independence referenda.


As for the Canadian people, as the poll shows, a minority feels attached to the monarchy, a larger plurality would rather have an elected head of state, and the rest are basically indifferent. However, whether they favor the republic or are simply indifferent, the majority, as the poll also shows, feels that the republic is not a priority and, since mainstream politicians are not pushing it either, it won't happen in any foreseeable future.


Another important point, which explains why the republc is not really a priority to many people, is that the King, both in Australia and in Canada, delegates practically all his powers and prerogatives to the Governor General (in Australia, that delegation of powers is even, furthermore, directly incorporated into the federal constitution). So, almost everything that the King does in the UK such as giving assent to legislation; approving orders in council; appointing ministers, judges and ambassadors; commissioning officers into the armed forces; giving out honors and decorations; dissolving or proroguing Parliament; calling elections; even receiving and going on "state visits" is actually done by the Governor General. And, since the Governor General only stays in office for 5 years or so, he or she "feels" like a president for all practical intents and purposes, even though he or she is appointed by royal commission (on the advice of the PM) and exercises his or her powers in the King's name.

 

[FigTree]

It is not a big deal really. Lots of Commonwealth (or fomer Commonwealth) countries have become republics since Ireland and India started the trend.

I just don't see it happening in Canada anytime soon for the reasons I mentioned, and it seems unlikely in the near future in New Zealand too.

A necessary condition for a transition to a republic in a parliamentary democracy is also that the political elite must want it, as was the case in Barbados and is the case in Jamaica and, possibly, in Australia. When asked if they would rather have an elected head of state than a king, many people might say "yes" to a pollster, but practical actions to put such change in motion must now usually come from the politicians and not out of popular pressure.

India never left the Commonwealth. One could argue Ireland was never part of it…not in its from since the 50’s. If people want to leave. Leave. In particular with realms where he is head of state. It may be time to move on from that at least. No need to tantrum about it.

Ireland and Zimbabwe are the only two countries to leave. Zimbabwe want back in.

 

[Purrs]

To clarify, I think some people use the term "Commonwealth" and mean 2 different things. There are Commonwealth realms & members of the Commonwealth of Nations. They are not the same thing.

India never left the Commonwealth.

Yes she's correct India is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and has never left, however it isn't a Commonwealth realm, it is a republic & has been since it's independence. The symbolic head of India is their President (not the Queen or King) whereas the actual ruler is the Prime Minister of India.


Many people confuse Commonwealth realms (or dominions) with countries that are members of the Commonwealth of the Nations. They are not the same thing. There are currently 15 countries in the world that have the Queen (now King) as the symbolic head. They are: As of 2023, there are 15 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm


There are many more countries (56) that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations (which is an association for mutual benefit ie trade etc.). Only 15 of these countries are realms (like Canada and Australia) however the majority are republics like India, Ireland, etc. A few have their own monarchs :Brunei, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malaysia and Tonga. Most are former British colonies but a few are not (ie. Rwanda, Mozambique etc.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

Hope this clears up any confusion.

 

[FigTree]

To clarify, I think some people use the term "Commonwealth" and mean 2 different things. There are Commonwealth realms & members of the Commonwealth of Nations. They are not the same thing.



Yes she's correct India is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and has never left, however it isn't a Commonwealth realm, it is a republic & has been since it's independence. The symbolic head of India is their President (not the Queen or King) whereas the actual ruler is the Prime Minister of India.


Many people confuse Commonwealth realms (or dominions) with countries that are members of the Commonwealth of the Nations. They are not the same thing. There are currently 15 countries in the world that have the Queen (now King) as the symbolic head. They are: As of 2023, there are 15 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm


There are many more countries (56) that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations (which is an association for mutual benefit ie trade etc.). Only 15 of these countries are realms (like Canada and Australia) however the majority are republics like India, Ireland, etc. A few have their own monarchs :Brunei, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malaysia and Tonga. Most are former British colonies but a few are not (ie. Rwanda, Mozambique etc.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

Hope this clears up any confusion.

Ireland is not a commonwealth nation. To think that is to grossly misunderstand the political relations in this part of the world.

 

[Curryong]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-65425416?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

The Prime Minister of a Caribbean nation has told the BBC his country is "not totally free" as long as King Charles III remains head of state.
Dr Terrance Drew said that a public consultation on whether St Kitts and Nevis should become a republic would begin during his leadership.
He also said he would welcome an apology from the monarchy for its historic links to the slave trade.
Buckingham Palace told the BBC the King takes slavery "profoundly seriously".

 

[FigTree]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-65425416?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA
Ct
The Prime Minister of a Caribbean nation has told the BBC his country is "not totally free" as long as King Charles III remains head of state.
Dr Terrance Drew said that a public consultation on whether St Kitts and Nevis should become a republic would begin during his leadership.
He also said he would welcome an apology from the monarchy for its historic links to the slave trade.
Buckingham Palace told the BBC the King takes slavery "profoundly seriously".

Then leave. I mean really it is your decision. Act.

As with the Irish situation…apologising isn’t really enough. And actually pretty empty. And that is the job for people who run the country.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-65425416?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

The Prime Minister of a Caribbean nation has told the BBC his country is "not totally free" as long as King Charles III remains head of state.
Dr Terrance Drew said that a public consultation on whether St Kitts and Nevis should become a republic would begin during his leadership.
He also said he would welcome an apology from the monarchy for its historic links to the slave trade.
Buckingham Palace told the BBC the King takes slavery "profoundly seriously".

They can leave if they want to, Charles isn’t stopping them and I doubt most people in the U.K will be bothered or cry over it. They can do a referendum if they like. Jamaica no longer has Charles as their Head of state so what’s stopping St. Kitts and Nevis?

 

[Somebody]

They can leave if they want to, Charles isn’t stopping them and I doubt most people in the U.K will be bothered or cry over it. They can do a referendum if they like. Jamaica no longer has Charles as their Head of state so what’s stopping St. Kitts and Nevis?

Charles is still Jamaica's head of state. A referendum has been announced for next year but for the moment Jamaice is one of his realma.

You were probably thinking of Barbados that recently became a republic (a ceremony attended by the then prince of Wales).

 

[Durham]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-65425416?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

The Prime Minister of a Caribbean nation has told the BBC his country is "not totally free" as long as King Charles III remains head of state.
Dr Terrance Drew said that a public consultation on whether St Kitts and Nevis should become a republic would begin during his leadership.
He also said he would welcome an apology from the monarchy for its historic links to the slave trade.
Buckingham Palace told the BBC the King takes slavery "profoundly seriously".

It is puzzling that a PM can be so ill informed about the constitution of his own country. In what way is St Kitts and Nevis not free? The British monarch is not their head of state & St Kitts & Nevis is a sovereign country, a member of the UN etc.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Charles is still Jamaica's head of state. A referendum has been announced for next year but for the moment Jamaice is one of his realma.

You were probably thinking of Barbados that recently became a republic (a ceremony attended by the then prince of Wales).

They’ve had a chance to leave ages ago especially during the time of the late QEII so why make noise now just after Charles had his coronation? No one is stopping them and they had a chance to leave before Charles became King

 

[Curryong]

It is puzzling that a PM can be so ill informed about the constitution of his own country. In what way is St Kitts and Nevis not free? The British monarch is not their head of state & St Kitts & Nevis is a sovereign country, a member of the UN etc.

St Kitts and Nevis is a realm. King Charles is Head of State of St Kitts and Nevis following his mother Queen Elizabeth. He is represented there by a Governor General.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wik...an independent,Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

 

[Mbruno]

They’ve had a chance to leave ages ago especially during the time of the late QEII so why make noise now just after Charles had his coronation? No one is stopping them and they had a chance to leave before Charles became King

The most ironic part is that the politicians of Barbados made a big fuss about ditiching the Queen as Head of State in 2021 (without even bothering to call a popular referendum BTW) and, then, less than 2 years later, servicemen from Barbados were parading in London in honor of King Charles III's coronation.



In fact, Barbados was not the only Commonwealth republic that took part in the coronation procession. There were representatives also from Cameroon, Gabon, Fiji, Kenya, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, even Rwanda, as well as representatives from Commonwealth monarchies with a different Head of State such as Brunei, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malaysia, and Tonga. Royal.gov.uk says that 35 Commonwealth countries were represented.


I get that there should be servicemen from Australia, Canada, or New Zealand in the procession as they are officially His Majesty's armed forces raised in those realms and they all pledge allegiance to the King, but seeing Commonwealth republics also represented honestly strengthens the claim (from the Sussex docuseries) that the Commonwealth is a veiled "Empire 2.0".

 

[Durham]

St Kitts and Nevis is a realm. King Charles is Head of State of St Kitts and Nevis following his mother Queen Elizabeth. He is represented there by a Governor General.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wik...an independent,Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

The British monarch is not the head of state of St Kitts & Nevis. Their own king is their head of state so they're already free of the British monarchy & their past colonial status. Their PM is just making things up.

 

[Durham]

The most ironic part is that the politicians of Barbados made a big fuss about ditiching the Queen as Head of State in 2021 (without even bothering to call a popular referendum BTW) and, then, less than 2 years later, servicemen from Barbados were parading in London in honor of King Charles III's coronation.



In fact, Barbados was not the only Commonwealth republic that took part in the coronation procession. There were representatives also from Cameroon, Gabon, Fiji, Kenya, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, even Rwanda, as well as representatives from Commonwealth monarchies with a different Head of State such as Brunei, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malaysia, and Tonga. Royal.gov.uk says that 35 Commonwealth countries were represented.


I get that there should be servicemen from Australia, Canada, or New Zealand in the procession as they are officially His Majesty's armed forces raised in those realms and they all pledge allegiance to the King, but seeing Commonwealth republics also represented honestly strengthens the claim (from the Sussex docuseries) that the Commonwealth is a veiled "Empire 2.0".

What was asserted in that docuseries was nonsense. The Commonwealth is no more British Empire 2 than La Francophonie is French Empire 2.

The presence of service personnel from some Commonwealth republics means nothing more other than a display of respect to the head of state of a friendly nation with which they have some shared history. Either that or a nod to The King's elected position as Head of the Commonwealth which is after all the exact opposite of being the king-emperor of some exploitative colonial empire.

 

[Curryong]

The British monarch is not the head of state of St Kitts & Nevis. Their own king is their head of state so they're already free of the British monarchy & their past colonial status. Their PM is just making things up.

Would you mind providing a link to who this King of St Kitts and Nevis is, as every source I’ve consulted has King Charles as HOS there, with a GG, and St Kitts being classified as a realm.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Saint-Kitts-and-Nevis

https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis.html

King/Queen¹
19 Sep 1983 - the King/Queen of the United Kingdom
Governors-general (representing the British monarch as head of state)
19 Sep 1983 - 31 Dec 1995 Sir Clement Athelston Arrindell (s.a.)
1 Jan 1996 - 2 Jan 2013 Sir Cuthbert Montraville Sebastian (b. 1921 - d. 2017)
2 Jan 2013 - 19 May 2015 Sir Edmund Wickham Lawrence (b. 1935)
19 May 2015 - 31 Jan 2023 Samuel Weymouth Tapley Seaton (b. 1950)
(from 24 Nov 2015, Sir Samuel Weymouth Tapley Seaton)
(acting to 1 Sep 2015)
1 Feb 2023 - Marcella Althea Liburd (f) (b. 1953)

 

[Somebody]

Would you mind providing a link to who this King of St Kitts and Nevis is, as every source I’ve consulted has King Charles as HOS there, with a GG, and St Kitts being classified as a realm.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Saint-Kitts-and-Nevis

https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis.html

King/Queen¹
19 Sep 1983 - the King/Queen of the United Kingdom
Governors-general (representing the British monarch as head of state)
19 Sep 1983 - 31 Dec 1995 Sir Clement Athelston Arrindell (s.a.)
1 Jan 1996 - 2 Jan 2013 Sir Cuthbert Montraville Sebastian (b. 1921 - d. 2017)
2 Jan 2013 - 19 May 2015 Sir Edmund Wickham Lawrence (b. 1935)
19 May 2015 - 31 Jan 2023 Samuel Weymouth Tapley Seaton (b. 1950)
(from 24 Nov 2015, Sir Samuel Weymouth Tapley Seaton)
(acting to 1 Sep 2015)
1 Feb 2023 - Marcella Althea Liburd (f) (b. 1953)

I am pretty sure that Durham means that it is the same person but not the same office. It is not the Sovereign of the UK that also reigns over the other realms but each of the realms has Charles III as their Sovereign. So, it's not one Kingdom with multiple countries (like the UK) but they are all separate kingdoms who happen to have the same person as their monarch.

 

[Curryong]

St Kitts and Nevis is a realm. King Charles is Head of State of St Kitts and Nevis following his mother Queen Elizabeth. He is represented there by a Governor General.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wik...an independent,Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Thanks Somebody. But that is what I already stated, see above, which Durham disputed. It’s the same with all the realms, including Australia where I live.

The monarch (HOS) lives thousands of miles away and the GG acts as his deputy. So every realm that has that arrangement and also possesses a Republican movement that wants a native born HOS should just give up, apparently!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks Somebody. But that is what I already stated, see above, which Durham disputed. It’s the same with all the realms, including Australia where I live.

I was under the impression that you were disputing at least one of Durham's statements. So, you would agree that what he wrote is correct?

The monarch (HOS) lives thousands of miles away and the GG acts as his deputy. So every realm that has that arrangement and also possesses a Republican movement that wants a native born HOS should just give up, apparently!

I'm not sure who has suggested this.