The Queen, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth

[saxon]

does anyone think that the Commonwealth will cease to exsist upon the Death of the Queen, since she is the reason why it is still together?....

 

[grecka]

It probably won't last very long afterward; probably not due to the death of the Queen, but probably just because the world will have moved on. It's been 50 years since the end of the British Empire and Britain isn't a great world superpower anymore. In that respect, countries like India, Pakistan, and other former British possessions which are changing into world powers will have no more need of the Commonwealth, and it will fade away. The Commonwealth, afterall, is a bit abstract.

 

[Australian]

well it is a possibility but i dont think so. It will definately become more weaker and would probably be deemed unnecessary anymore. But i dont think that the Commonwealth has long to go before it ceases- probably during Charles reign it might cease to exist.

 

[Alexandria]

I am part of the Commonwealth, coming from Canada, and I am one of the rarities of my generation who still sees the Queen as our actual head of state. Most people (of my generation at least) will tell you that our Prime Minister is the head of our state.

At present I think only the majority of Canadians who grew up during war times regard the Queen as the head of Canada.

But with fewer visits and less relations and ties with the royal family the role of the Queen, Prince Charles, his sons and other members of the British royal family are becoming rapidly less signicant for Canadians. My goddaughter, who is almost 9, sees the Queen as no one more than the face on our money.

I think the Queen will always have a symbolic presence in Canada but I can see that once Charles takes over there will be requests or demands that our money not be changed to have Charles' profile on the money but to have prominent Canadians on our money instead.

Once the changing of the guard takes place so to speak, that guard will have a much lesser role in Canada.

 

[Claire]

In South Africa, we see ourselves as loosely in the Commonwealth. The Queen is not our head of State, she is not on our coins and the majority of people appear not to notice that we are in the commonwealth. In short I think that Canada, New Zealand and Australia will join us in this loose economic and social bond - if only for the Commonwealth Games, Cricket and rugby get togethers.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

I don't think so. We saw with Prince Charles wedding that people are interested in royalty and royal traditions. I think her funeral will revive peoples facination with royalty. And with the crowning of Prince Charles as King more people will be facinated.

 

[branchg]

I'm not sure it's time to sound the death knell for the Commonwealth. Although the Queen's role as Head of State has greatly diminished in many of the former Crown countries, she is still revered by many and has been a strong advocate of building bridges.

There are still strategic and diplomatic rewards from the Commonwealth for the UK (and by proxy, the USA as well) and I don't think it will go away anytime soon.

 

[tiaraprin]

Her Majesty will fight to the death for the Commonwealth. It is an idea she firmly believes in and has fought Prime Ministers, such as Margaret Thatcher, to keep the flame alive. Many of the African nations look to the Queen as someone to mediate and listen to their troubles. Her Majesty is more than happy to oblige. Several chapters in books have been devoted to Her Majesty's involvement with the Commonwealth.

When and IF Charles becomes King, God only knows what will happen to the Commonwealth. Hopefully, William is being educated about it.

 

[timtonruben359]

The Commonwealth will still exist after the death of the Queen, however, the bigger question who will be head of the Commonwealth. That position was given to the Queen upon her accession to the throne, however, it is not an inherited position. Therefore, Prince Charles has not actual claims to the title. It is believed that the position as Head of the Commonwealth may become an elected position. It is possible though that the leaders of the Commonwealth will choose to stick with tradition and keep Prince Charles as head of the commonwealth.

Here in Canada the Queen's role is no longer seen as very important. However, the greatest asset of the Queen's role here in Canada is that fact that her role is one of the few traditions that keeps up unique from the United States. However, I am one of the few Canadians under 30 who still feels that the Queen is our Queen, not the British Queen who stops by every couple years.

The Canadian Government, and even the Governor General in recent years, has tired to distance itself from the Queen. Infact, the Monarchy is all but ignored in this country.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

The Commonwealth will still exist after the death of the Queen, however, the bigger question who will be head of the Commonwealth.

I believe that the Commonwealth will still exist after the death of the Queen because it is a remarkable network of countries and with the world-globalization, more and more countries try to build special relations. The Commonwealth is a great place to do it and sometimes to change things for the better. For example, the added pressure of the Commonwealth leaders apparently played a role in the abolition of apartheid in South Africa. The French-speaking countries are reunited under an organization called the «francophonie» to just do the same: unite to be stronger and change things for the better.

Charles, once king, will probably head it. His role is symbolic after all and so is the Commonwealth.

 

[Roshanah]

It probably won't last very long afterward; probably not due to the death of the Queen, but probably just because the world will have moved on. It's been 50 years since the end of the British Empire and Britain isn't a great world superpower anymore. In that respect, countries like India, Pakistan, and other former British possessions which are changing into world powers will have no more need of the Commonwealth, and it will fade away. The Commonwealth, afterall, is a bit abstract.

I agree with you. Also the Comonwealth in many ways was an excuse to say, although we no longer have an Empire, we get on fabulously with the countries we colonised and then gained Independance. That in certain cases is Far from the truth. Certian countries especially West-Africa haven't that much respect nor liking for the Queen and the establishment including Myself. the statements exclude members of the British Royal family whom were and are lovely individuals and decent.Ie Princess Diana, the Duchess of York, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew etc

No offence meant by my comments.

 

[Aussie Princess]

It would be really sad to loose the Commonwealth I think

 

[GrandDuchess]

It probably won't last very long afterward; probably not due to the death of the Queen, but probably just because the world will have moved on. It's been 50 years since the end of the British Empire and Britain isn't a great world superpower anymore. In that respect, countries like India, Pakistan, and other former British possessions which are changing into world powers will have no more need of the Commonwealth, and it will fade away. The Commonwealth, afterall, is a bit abstract.

I agree with this, I think that the commonwealth is sort of "a poor man's version of the empire", when they can't have the empire, they have this instead. The whole idea of an empire, which still lives among the older generations, is really out of date, and now when the world is changing so fast and is developing rapidly - so should the countries form of government.

So sometimes after the passing of Her Majesty (long may she live!), I believe we will see some of the countries beginning to really seriously question what they're in.

This is just my opinion and view, no offence meant by any of it.

 

[Warren]

Commonwealth and Africa

I think that the Commonwealth is sort of "a poor man's version of the empire"... is really out of date.
I believe we will see some of the countries beginning to really seriously question what they're in.

There is no compulsion to be a member or remain a member of the Commonwealth. The fact that the Commonwealth still survives today appears to surprise many people; if it didn't serve a purpose it wouldn't continue to exist.

More surprisingly perhaps is that the most recent nation to join the Commonwealth is Mozambique, a country which has no connection with British colonialism or Empire. Obviously the Mozambique government sees some benefit in belonging to this loose association of states; and surely any grouping of diverse nations whose leaders get together to talk and get to know each other can't be a bad thing.

I don't think Nelson Mandela, a strong supporter of the Commonwealth and of The Queen's role within it, would view it as "a poor man's version of the Empire".
.

 

[GrandDuchess]

There is no compulsion to be a member or remain a member of the Commonwealth. The fact that the Commonwealth still survives today appears to surprise many people; if it didn't serve a purpose it wouldn't continue to exist.

More surprisingly perhaps is that the most recent nation to join the Commonwealth is Mozambique, a country which has no connection with British colonialism or Empire. Obviously the Mozambique government sees some benefit in belonging to this loose association of states; and surely any grouping of diverse nations whose leaders get together to talk and get to know each other can't be a bad thing.

I don't think Nelson Mandela, a strong supporter of the Commonwealth and of The Queen's role within it, would view it as "a poor man's version of the Empire".

Yes, I know all this, of course there are supporters of the commonwealth, and it still exists by some reasons. To me it just seems very old fashioned, like a "mini Empire" or something. And the idea to have a Head of State who doesn't live in the country is very strange to me.

I've never lived in the commonwealth, and I come from a country with a very different history in comparison to the UK and the old empire. So maybe that's why I can't see it in the way others who live or have lived in the commonwealth can, and that could also be why the idea is so abstract to me.

I believe in cooperation between sovereign countries, the the European Union and the African Union. To me - that kind of connections is the future.

These are just my personal opinions, no offence meant by anything.

 

[Dennism]

More surprisingly perhaps is that the most recent nation to join the Commonwealth is Mozambique, a country which has no connection with British colonialism or Empire. Obviously the Mozambique government sees some benefit in belonging to this loose association of states; and surely any grouping of diverse nations whose leaders get together to talk and get to know each other can't be a bad thing.
.

Or Cameroon which was not an Anglophone nation either.

 

[ElisaR]

The Commonwealth evolved from the Empire, but it's a completely different thing and is, above all, a totally free association. A country can part at any time.
As we live in an era of countries associating toghether (see European Union), I don't see any harm and anything wrong in the British Commonwealth.

 

[tiaraprin]

I see no harm in the Commonwealth. From books I have read that discuss Her Majesty's strong ties to the Commonwealth, The Commonwealth has had a good influence in making its nations stronger. It has survived the 11 years of Margaret Thatcher's disdain. Her Majesty should be commended for her unwavering support. God Save the Queen!! God Save the Commonwealth!!

 

[Dane]

Elizabeth R, Paramount Chief

Can someone please explain to how fiji is a republic but reconises Her Majesty The Queen as a paramount ruler? how is it different from Queen? xx

 

[Saragli]

Fiji has a bunch of traditional cheifs and Queen Elizabeth is still considered a chief and they have honored her with the position of Paramount Chief. It has nothing to do with being head of state.

 

[Emeralds and Opals]

New Zealand will soon abandon the Queen, says former PM - Telegraph

 

[tete]

I'm pretty sure that here in Papua New Guinea (Commonwealth Realm) we will continue our link with the British monarchy even after her death. The only time I can see that we'd ever become a Republic is if the United Kingdom were to become one. Most people here don't really minds her being our head of state in fact there is a fond sense of respect for her. There is always a frenzy in the streets when there is a royal visit as thousands of people flock in trying to catch a glimpse.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He just released a video backing the World Cup bid for England
BBC SPORT | Football | 2018 bid chief calls for humility

As an Australian I have a problem with the 2nd in line to the Australian throne (remember that the Queen is also Queen of Australia) supporting the bid of one country of which he is 2nd in line over another country also bidding of which he is 2nd in line to the throne.

This is a major reason why many Australians want our own Head of State - so that in situtations like this our Head of State can support us without being torn by loyalties to another country.

 

[Lady Ann]

This is a good point I did not even think of that. How do you choose between two countries.

 

[Nitefeatherz]

Well in William's case I guess he picked the country he was born in.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well in William's case I guess he picked the country he was born in.

One of the very reasons why most Australians (according to most polls asking the simple question "Do you think Australia should be a republic?") answer 'Yes'.

The royals aren't born here, don't live here, don't support us in international competitions etc so why have one of them as our Head of State.

All of them, for instance, will support England in the upcoming Ashes series against Australia, just as they do in everything else.

 

[Roslyn]

It's only natural that William supports England's bid, and the situation really highlights the problem in a language everyone can understand.
We need our own Head of State who will always put us and our interests first. Someone who owes their first loyalty to another country can't do that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I couldn't agree more.
I am a great supporter of the Queen but am increasinly moving to become a republican and things like this public support of one of his grandmother's realms over another (despite being understandable) is a major reason.

 

[Charlotte1]

As an Australian I have a problem with the 2nd in line to the Australian throne (remember that the Queen is also Queen of Australia) supporting the bid of one country of which he is 2nd in line over another country also bidding of which he is 2nd in line to the throne.

This is a major reason why many Australians want our own Head of State - so that in situtations like this our Head of State can support us without being torn by loyalties to another country.

William is not the 2nd in line to the Australian throne, there is no such thing! For that matter we have no royal family, that's a popular misconception. The Australian constitution states that the British monarch is also the Australian Head of State. Other members of the royal family have no role, when Anne came to the bushfire memorial she came as a representative of the Head of State ( the Queen) not as Anne, Princess Royal of Australia ( which she is not!) Currently William has no role in regards to Australia, neither does Harry ( and barring a major accident never will) he can freely support whatever sports team, sporting bid he wants to. If he does become the Australian Head of State then there would be a conflict, note that the Queen does not declare allegiances for sporting competitions!

It's tradition that Australians have the British royals gracing our shores ( and many have Australian patronages) but they come to Australian as representatives of the Head of State, not as members of the Australian royal family. To harp on this point, when King George VI was Australian HoS as King, his wife Queen Elizabeth was not Queen of Australia, merely his wife who had no role in Australia. ( Similar to the spouse of a President or Governor-General) Children, grand-children, inlaws etc of the monarch have no role in Australian life, they never have!

 

[Iluvbertie]

William is 2nd in line in the sense that his grandmother is the current Queen of Australia and as such he is not the heir to that title but 2nd in line to that title.

The Queen has, through Harry in particular, and other royals as well made it known that she supports England over Australia in both Rugby (2003 World Cup) and the 2005 Ashes series.

With William's current position he is not free to support one of his future realms over another. Hopefully he will never be King of Australia so that we do have a real Head of State and not a pretend one - one who favours one realm over another, even if not officially.

Even in the UK William and Harry get into trouble for supporting one country over another at sporting events.

The sooner Australia gets rid of any connection to the British Royal Family the better in my opinion (an opinion that has changed over the last 10 years from definitely against to definitely in favour partly through this board where I lurked for many years).

Just imagine that Australia gets the World Cup in 2022 over England and by then William is King of Australia. How could he possibly support anything to do with Australia's hosting of that event when he actively campaigned against Australia getting it?

It is further evidence that the royals know their days as Head of State here are numbered.