William and the Commonwealth Realms

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.


Oct 2, 2005
New York
United States
I wonder how William feels about the fact that he may well one day be king of nations other than the UK? And, I wonder how he feels about the movements in some of those other nations to abolish the monarchy and establish republics? I doubt he'd say anything about his feelings, though.
I think it would be good if he spend some time living in each country. He could stay in Canada and Australia for about a year for example. As long as the Queen is still alive he's not really needed as support in the UK so he could use the chance and get to know the other countries better. I always wondered why not some of the Queen's children moved abroad to represent her there. :neutral:
Last edited:
GG of Canada just like Queen Victorias son
I think the Commonwealth Realms insist that Governors-General be citizens of the Realm concerned. It's a great way to reward people, after all. However, having William live in each country for some period of time sounds like a great idea. If he did so and behaved himself he might counter any republican tendencies. I'm sure he would enjoy it, too.
I doubt the Commonwealth nations that share a monarchy with the UK will keep it up for very long after the Queen dies.
I doubt the Commonwealth nations that share a monarchy with the UK will keep it up for very long after the Queen dies.

I think you're likely to be right, Sam.

The Former federal minister for Environment and Water resources, and former leader of the Australian Republican movement, Malcolm Turnball, has himself conceded that Australian's have no desire to oust the monarchy given their (our) effection for the Queen. He however thinks that after Her Majesty pasess away things will change, and I'm inclined to agree.
I'd be very happy to see a member of the Royal Family as Governor General. For one thing, it would draw more attention to the importance of the job as non-political. Too many former politicians get this job, although the last couple of GGs here are/were journalists.
GG of Canada just like Queen Victorias son

HRH The Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was Governer General of Australia from 1945 to 1947. This appointment cannot be considered a resounding success.

The days of royals becoming GG are, I think, long gone.
I doubt the Commonwealth nations that share a monarchy with the UK will keep it up for very long after the Queen dies.

I agree, except for Canada, simply because it's next to impossible to do. It requires getting the federal Parliament and all 10 provincial legislatures to agree. At least one, probably Newfoundland, would disagree simply to piss the rest off.
Here in Papua New Guinea, I doubt we would become a republic (for a long time at least) after the Queen's reign ends, the main appeal being the independence of the Queen from domestic politics. Although this is so, we sure would be happy with more royal visits since they hardly ever come here anymore.
GG of Canada just like Queen Victorias son

Won't happen. Two reasons:

1) Must be a Canadian citizen. Wills is not, and while I'm guessing that he sort of automatically assumes citizenship when he ascends the throne, at this time he would have to go through all the normal immigration BS.

2) The post is generally used as a reward or official notice for being a truly outstanding Canadian.. thus Adrienne Clarkson, Michaelle Jean (who is, quite frankly, spectacular. I hope they extend her term indefinitely, because she really is just lovely, and so very emblematic of the Canadian identity.)
It's been discussed before on this forum that HRH Prince Charles put himself forward as a suitable Governor General for Australia and was rebuffed. It's been common knowledge in Australia for decades, and although most were unhappy at the personal hurt that it may have caused him, most were accepting that this was the right decision. Personally, I have my doubts, despite my belief that our Governor General should be an Australian, because there's been only one, in the last few decades, whom I, as an Australian, have been proud of, viz., Sir William Deane.

Prince William, through no fault of his own, wouldn't be acceptable. If his father were thought unsuitable, there's no way that young William would ever be.

And from my limited observation of Canadian politics, I agree that their current Governor General is an inspiration and a wonderful representative of Her Majesty and the Canadian population, both.
I wish Prince Charles and his sons the very best in their associations with Australia. As an Australian by birth I hope Prince William will visit Brisbane soon in such a capacity to visit the Governor General of Queensland, Quentin Bryce, and also meet our Premier Anna Bligh.

Relations between Australia (as a Republic) and England will not really change for the worse.
As an Australian by birth I hope Prince William will visit Brisbane soon in such a capacity to visit the Governor General of Queensland, Quentin Bryce, and also meet our Premier Anna Bligh.quote]

I was hoping for a royal visit for the Q150 celebrations, but it was not to be.

Back to other matters and I, too, would support William as a GG. It would also help in restating the role of the position as the Queen's represenative rather than a political patronage appointment.
The majority of Australians, myself included, believe that the GG should be an Australian and William doesn't qualify.

We won't have a non-Australian as GG again and at some stage in the not too distant future we will sever the final official links with Britain vis a vis the sharing of The Queen.

10 years ago I voted No to the republic but I would now most definitely vote Yes. The reason for my change in attitude is that I believe that Australia is an independent nation and to really be taken as independent on the world stage with have to have get rid of having a foreigner as Head of State.
Last edited by a moderator:
If I was heir to the throne or monarch of several other nations, I would spend all my time visiting each one regularly and getting to know the people well, rather than only visit every few years (if at all) for just a few days at a time. Indeed, I would be constantly asking the people if they were happy to have me as their head of state - then again, I probably wouldn't last very long in the job! Also, if I was the monarch of places like Australia or New Zealand, I'd be over there visiting all the time!
Theres alot to visit in the commonwealth. And he wouldn't want to follow in his uncles footsteps and be Air Miles William now. To be honest he barely does any engagements in the UK, let alone spending his time flyng around the commonwealth. I cannot remember the last time William or Harry visited the commonwealth, I think it was when he was a baby with his mother and father and pictures we taken of him playing on a blanket outside Government House.

I wish Harry and William would visit the commonwealth sometime soon. But they seem intent on doing very little.
Last edited by a moderator:
As William gradually increases the number of royal engagements he carries out, he will no doubt gradually start to undertake overseas royal engagements as well. At that stage, I am sure a trip down under will definately follow. I am sure that will be one of the first foreign trips William and his wife will undertake after they are married.
Last edited by a moderator:
As an Australian by birth I hope Prince William will visit Brisbane soon in such a capacity to visit the Governor General of Queensland, Quentin Bryce, and also meet our Premier Anna Bligh.

Governor General of Australia, not Queensland. How very zealous of you.

Quentin was Governor of Queensland, but that post is now held by another.
William made a tour of New Zealand in 2005 to coincide with the Lions Rugby Union tour of that country. He was there when the 60th anniversary celebrations were on in London for the end of WWII. He did lay a wreath in NZ to commemorate that event.

Harry spent part of his gap year working in Australia.

Let's not forget that they can't just decide to tour. The government of the relevant country has to invite them and these days I think we, in Australia, get more information about Australia's true princess - Mary of Denmark. She is one of us and a Crown Princess to boot.

I am sure that they will get an invitation one day - whether before or after we become a republic won't matter, but one day.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wish Harry and William would visit the commonwealth sometime soon. But they seem intent on doing very little.
There's an idea. Perhaps William, Harry or another member of the Royal Family, say the Duke of Kent of Gloucester, spend a part of each year in a certain group of Commonwealth countires such as Australia/NZ/Pacific or Canada/Carribean or Africa in the same way that the Queen spends part of year in Scotland and Sandringham and Windsor
Last edited by a moderator:
Well thats sounds like a bold idea. Seeing as William won't be king for a while it maybe a good idea that he spends half the year in the commonwealth. :)
Last edited by a moderator:
You are assuming that the Commonwealth want him.

I have read a number of suggestions that when the Queen dies Charles won't automatically become the Head of the Commonwealth as many of the countries feel that the Head should be a rotating headship. In other words there may be less of a role for the royals in the Commonwealth in the future.

In addition what would they do?

The Queen spends her holidays at Balmoral and Sandringham. Imagine if they were holidaying for months at a time in foreign countries.

It isn't as if any of the countries of the Commonwealth want them to do any official stuff so they would be doing not much at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, assuming the commonwealth do want him then that would be okay. There is alot of ground to cover in Australia and New Zealand. It would easily take up half the years travelling the country.

How do you know that the commonwealth countries do not want William, and that they do not want them to do official engagements. I would be extremly happy if William spent half the year getting to know what he might one day rule over. :flowers:
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know if they want him but from the way I see things in my part of Australia he isn't wanted here.

Who would pay for him to spend half a year down here doing stuff that is already being done by Aussies?

What about his military training and his family?

Is he to raise his family in Australia or only see them for six months a year? For how many years - one, two, until he becomes heir apparent.

What real purpose would it serve?

What about when Australia becomes a republic - what is to happen then?

Some Aussies may be happy to have him come here. I don't see a reason for it now. The RF missed their opportunity 100 years ago when Queen Victoria, Edward VII and even George V could have established their younger sons as Kings here and we would now have our own homegrown royals but the British Queen is a foreigner to all intents and purposes and suits Britain but Australia has outgrown her now, in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't even know if this idea is true. He would have finished his military training and possible complete the military training down under aswell. If he has a family and this idea becomes true, then i'm sure he would take them with him.

If Australia becomes a republic and breaks with the commonwealth realms then William wouldn't visit.

If they established their younger sons as Kings of Australia in there own right, what would happen if the elder son died or abdicated? The title would most likely merge with the crown and be the same as it is now? And the monarch would still reside in the UK?
Last edited by a moderator:
Had they done this 100 years ago they would have had to make arrangements for succession separate from the British.
Afterall the Norwegian royal family are in line to the British throne through a daughter of Edward VII.

My idea would have seen, say Arthur Duke of Connaught become King of Australia and his descendents would now be the monarch here without necessarily losing their rights in Britian but the understanding would be that if they became the monarch of Britain they wouldn't remain as monarch here. By now they would have established themselves in Australian psyche and be seen as Australian rather than foreigners because they would have been living here, raising their kids here, representing us alone etc.

As they didn't do that we are growing away from Britain, in my opinion.

Had this scenario happened I expect the 3rd Duke of Connaught would have married or alternative arrangements made to pass the line to his aunts line, including the younger line of Sweden (assuming the same marriages had taken place).

Queen Victoria has a couple of thousand descendents so it would have been possible to set up lines of succession to cover the different realms but now it is too late, in my opinion, and eventually Australia will cease to be a monarchy at some time in the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
Establishing a seperate line of Kings of Australia would be incredibly controversial and difficult. Although it is important to note that since the 1970's, the Sovereign has been styled 'Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories'. The fact they are British no longer has anythin to do their position. There are other countries that have a Head of State from another country - Andorra in the Pyraneese Mountains in Europe is the best example, however small it may be.

And if William or the royals in general were not wanted, why has there not been mass rallies and marches against Government House and the Lodge for a change in system of governance?
Last edited by a moderator:
EAnd if William or the royals in general were not wanted, why has there not been mass rallies and marches against Government House and the Lodge for a change in system of governance?
Just because there are no protests against them doesn't mean they would be welcomed with open arms.

Generally, the idea I get is that most people want a republic but don't have anything against the royal family as such. It is the idea they are opposed to - they want an Australian as Head of State in every way rather than the way it is now. The GG is the effective Head of State so why, I am often asked, do we also have a Queen from 1000s of miles away as well.

Australians, will vote at some time in the future, possibly as early as next year's federal election on the simple question 'Do you want Australia to be a republic?' That doesn't mean that they are against the Queen and the RF just that they are for any Australian being able to be our Head of State.

I wonder how people would feel if the idea of William living here for six months of the year for say 5 years, at the expense of the Australian people, mightn't raise a few more hackles. At the moment the RF really costs us nothing - except for when they visit us but for one of them to be here semi-permanently the cost would rise and so would many Australians views on the issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom