Questions About Commonwealth Realms


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
OK. This may sound silly to some of you but your talking about Commonwealths and Relms and Republics. What is the differences or should I say what do they mean? Relm is everything she rules, right? But Commonwealth, isn't that the same? Can someone explain please?
 
Queen Shirley said:
OK. This may sound silly to some of you but your talking about Commonwealths and Relms and Republics. What is the differences or should I say what do they mean? Relm is everything she rules, right? But Commonwealth, isn't that the same? Can someone explain please?
Click to expand...
Not a silly question at all; I've encountered a lot of people who confuse the two terms. :)
Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realms are two distinctly different things.

Commonwealth of Nations is a non-political, intergovernmental organisation of fifty-four member states - all intendant and sovereign countries.
The Queen is currently Head of the Commonwealth; , it's a non-hereditary position and there is no guarantee Prince Charles will be one as well.
Queen Elizabeth is not the Head of State of those Commonwealth countries with the exception of the Commonwealth Realms. For instance, Brunei and Lesotho are also monarchies with their own sovereign monarchs.

The Commonwealth countries are:
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Australia
- Bahamas
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belize
- Botswana
- Brunei
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Cyprus
- Dominica
- Gambia
- Ghana
- Grenada
- Guyana
- India
- Jamaica
- Kenya
- Kiribati
- Lesotho
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Malta
- Mauritius
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Nauru
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Pakistan
- Papua New Guinea
- Rwanda
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Samoa
- Seychelles
- Sierra Leone
- Singapore
- Solomon Islands
- South Africa
- Sri Lanka
- Swaziland
- Tanzania
- Tonga
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tuvalu
- Uganda
- United Kingdom
- Vanuatu
- Zambia
- Fiji (suspended)


Commonwealth Realms are those sixteen Commonwealth countries that recognise the Queen as their Head of State. Queen Elizabeth is the Monarch (Head of State) of each of those Realms separately and independently; that is to say, those sixteen countries enjoy Personal Union of Crowns (they are reigned over by the same Monarch, while remaining independent, sovereign countries).

The Commonwealth Realms are:
- The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Canada
- Australia
- New Zealand
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Bahamas
- Barbados
- Belize
- Grenada
- Jamaica
- Papua New Guinea
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Solomon Islands
- Tuvalu


Most of those Commonwealth countries that are not part of Commonwealth Realms are republics, typically with presidential form of government.
 
Last edited:
Originally there was the British Empire. Then in 1947 India was granted independence, along with Pakistan. Both countries decided that they wanted to be republics and not have George VI, the former Emperor of India, as the Head of State. That lead to the Empire becoming the Empire and Commonwealth. As more and more former colonies became independent and told the Queen that she wasn't wanted their Head of State the use of the word Empire was dropped as offensive to these nations in many ways.

Most of the countries of the British empire moved into the Commonwealth of Nations although not all former British colonies are now members and some countries that were never British colonies are now members of the Commonwealth.

It is not a foregone conclusion that each new republic will be granted membership of The Commonwealth although it is expected that should say Australia become a republic that country's application to remain a member as a republic would be granted.
 
Oh I see. I was just wondering about that because I thought it was a nice thing to have a member of the royal family or The Queen to Open Pariliament in her realms.

Here's a picture of Princess Margaret Opening Parliament in Jamaica:
Princess Margaret Opens First Jamaican Parliament - BE025284 - Rights Managed - Stock Photo - Corbis

The Queen Opening Parliament in Canada:
Queen Elizabeth II at Canadian Parliament Session - BE085585 - Rights Managed - Stock Photo - Corbis

Shame that has died out.
 
wedmonds said:
With that being said some of these countries have republican movements that are very much on the rise. Especially in the Caribbean nations. My question to you all is when do you think the Commonwealth Realms will come to a end? When do you think the United Kingdom will be left standing alone? Do you ever think that countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will ditch the House of Windsor? What is your opinion on any of this?
Click to expand...

Since the 1999 referendum, support for an Australian republic has actually fallen considerably with some polls putting it as low as 35 %, while support for the continuation of the monarchy has risen well above 50 %. Figures are similar in recent New Zealand polls. The current Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, is a former CEO of "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy" and is a committed monarchist who has even recently advised the Queen to reintroduce the awarding of knighthoods to Australian citizens.

I would say on the other hand that, in my personal impression, Canadians in general are actually far less monarchist (or royalist) than many Australians I know. In most cases, the Crown is not really visible in daily Canadian life and most Canadians have an attitude of indifference at best with respect to it. Paradoxically, however, the probability of a republican referendum being held in Canada or a republican constitutional amendment being introduced in the Canadian parliament anytime in the near future is practically zero as, unlike in Australia, no major political party in Canada, with the possible exception of hardcore Quebec separatists, advocates the end of the monarchy. On the contrary, the current prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has actually taken steps to reinforce Canada's link to the Crown, for example restoring the prefix "Royal" to the Canadian Nay and Air Force and holding public ceremonies to celebrate the Queen's diamond jubilee and the bicentenary of the War of 1812 against the republican United States.

Overall, my opinion is that, barring any major unforeseen change, the monarchy is likely to outlive Queen Elizabeth II both in Canada and in Australia/New Zealand. In fact, I I see not only Charles, but also William succeeding as kings of those realms.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
Originally there was the British Empire. Then in 1947 India was granted independence, along with Pakistan. Both countries decided that they wanted to be republics and not have George VI, the former Emperor of India, as the Head of State. That lead to the Empire becoming the Empire and Commonwealth. As more and more former colonies became independent and told the Queen that she wasn't wanted their Head of State the use of the word Empire was dropped as offensive to these nations in many ways.
Click to expand...

I believe the first statutory reference to the "British Commonwealth" appeared in the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. The term rose to prominence , however, only after the Imperial Conference of 1926 and was subsequently incorporated into the preamble of the Statute of Westminster of 1931. At that the time, the "Commonwealth" referred only to those former "Dominions" that became sovereign (or quasi-sovereign) under the terms of the Statute of Westminster, i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland, which later joined the Canadian federation.

With the independence of the former British dependent territories starting with India in 1947, the Commonwealth grew to include most of the former colonies, independently of their constitutional status of monarchies or republics. Several current Commonwealth countries were actually realms in personal union with the British monarch before becoming republics, e.g.


 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
Since the 1999 referendum, support for an Australian republic has actually fallen considerably with some polls putting it as low as 35 %, while support for the continuation of the monarchy has risen well above 50 %. Figures are similar in recent New Zealand polls. The current Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, is a former CEO of "Australians for Constitutional Monarchy" and is a committed monarchist who has even recently advised the Queen to reintroduce the awarding of knighthoods to Australian citizens.

I would say on the other hand that, in my personal impression Canadians in general are actually far less monarchist (or royalist) than many Australians I know. In most cases, the Crown is not really visible in daily Canadian life and most Canadians have an attitude of indifference at best with respect to it. Paradoxically, however, the probability of a republican referendum being held in Canada or a republican constitutional amendment being introduced in the Canadian parliament anytime in the near future is practically zero as, unlike in Australia, no major political party in Canada, with the possible exception of hardcore Quebec separatists, advocates the end of the monarchy. On the contrary, the current prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, has actually taken steps to reinforce Canada's link to the Crown, for example restoring the prefix "Royal" to the Canadian Nay and Air Force and holding public ceremonies to celebrate the Queen's diamond jubilee and the bicentenary of the War of 1812 against the republican Unites States.

Overall, my opinion is that, barring any major unforeseen change, the monarchy is likely to outlive Queen Elizabeth II both in Canada and in Australia/New Zealand. In fact, I I see not only Charles, but also William succeeding as kings of those realms.
Click to expand...

A minority of Quebecers are hardcore separatists. At the last provincial election, "Parti québécois", "Québec solidaire" and "Option nationale", the separatists parties, got only 33% of votes.
 
A better understanding of the CommonWealth?

If anyone is willing to please explain to me the reasons for the commonwealth and its purpose? I tried the wiki but it doesn't really help

Is the COmmonwealth basically places the English makes there money? Like say, if the Commonwealth of Australia. Does half of there wealth goes to England? as well as there military? or am I getting it wrong?
 
You are completely wrong. No offense intended.

The Commonwealth is the remnants of the British Empire, although for the most part it is composed of completely independent nations.

There are two forms of nations within the Commonwealth Nations - the Realms and the other nations. The Realms are those nations, like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, that continue to recognize HM as the head of state. At this time there are 16 Realms, although this number can change as realms become republics or if they split up - so, if Scotland gains its independence and retains the monarchy, it will become the 17th Realm.

The other nations are primarily republics with colonial ties to the British Empire, although there are some states that have no colonial ties at all and five who have a different monarch.

The nations, at present 53 in total, are joined together in association because of a common language, history, and culture. They theoretically are all democratic countries with a certain understanding of human rights, and members have been suspended in the part for not living up to an accepted standard. Currently, Fiji is suspended because it's not been democratic in recent years.

The purpose of the Commonwealth is to promote an international cooperation of sorts. According to their website, they work in democracy, economics, education, gender, governance, human rights, law, small states, sport, and youth.
 
It is an organisation where once the members were part of the British empire and it has evolved into a friendly organisation.

There are no trade or other connections really (used to be but Britain turned its back on that aspect of the Commonwealth when it joined the EU so the rest of us have made our own way in the world).

No money goes from Commonwealth countries to any other Commonwealth country other than in the normal commerce between nations.

100 years ago, when Britain declared war, the rest of the Empire was at war. By 1939 South Africa, for instance, had to decide for themselves while the rest of us blindly followed the UK although that doesn't happen at all anymore e.g. when Britain went to war in the Falklands against Argentina they had the sympathy of some Commonwealth countries but no one had to supply assistance - we had grown up.

What is the purpose of the Commonwealth - mainly a friendly arrangement between former colonies of the UK although that is no longer necessary either as there are countries that weren't part of the British empire that have joined the Commonwealth.

It is more a 'family' where the children have grown up and remained connected.

The High Commissions (we have High Commissions not Embassies in each others' countries) sometimes help other Commonwealth Citizens e.g. if Australia doesn't have a High Commission in a foreign country - due to whatever reason - it is possible that they will be directed to the Canadian or some other Commonwealth High Commission if assistance is needed.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The High Commissions (we have High Commissions not Embassies in each others' countries) sometimes help other Commonwealth Citizens e.g. if Australia doesn't have a High Commission in a foreign country - due to whatever reason - it is possible that they will be directed to the Canadian or some other Commonwealth High Commission if assistance is needed.
Click to expand...


I didn't know this...

To clarify, if Canada doesn't have a High Commission in, say, Jamaica, but Australia does, a Canadian would be sent to the Australian High Commission for help?

Or do you mean if a Canadian was in Cuba and there was no Canadian embassy they would be directed to the Australian one?

Either way, does it work for all the Nations or just the Realms?
 
Ish said:
I didn't know this...

To clarify, if Canada doesn't have a High Commission in, say, Jamaica, but Australia does, a Canadian would be sent to the Australian High Commission for help?

Or do you mean if a Canadian was in Cuba and there was no Canadian embassy they would be directed to the Australian one?

Either way, does it work for all the Nations or just the Realms?
Click to expand...

In the context of your proposition, yes there may be an arrangement between nations should there not be a resident head of mission (High Commissioner within Commonwealth countries, Ambassadors between others) present in a particular country.
This arrangement is not restricted to Commonwealth nations though. For instance, if I travel to Iran as a UK national next week and get into a bit of bother in Tehran, the Foreign Office instructs me to seek assistance at the Swedish Embassy, as the UK Embassy in Iran is only able to provide 'limited consular assistance'.

In answer to your final questions, it works for all the Nations, not just the Realms. The Realms are only distinguished because we share a Crown in personal union with the other fifteen.
 
I think that most if not all Commonwealth countries will stay and those which are Constitutional Monarchies will stay that way. Charles won't reign for long. The popularity of the Cambridges may have secured the monarchy in other realms for many more generations! If Charles passes before HM, and William becomes King next, then without a doubt, republicanism would be quashed thankfully!
 
As an Australian (and a monarchist) I wouldn't be too sure of that, HRHPrince! And I don't write that with any joy.
 
Curryong said:
As an Australian (and a monarchist) I wouldn't be too sure of that, HRHPrince! And I don't write that with any joy.
Click to expand...
If William and Catherine are King and Queen of Australia, I think all should be fine there hopefully, do you? It's just whether Australians will be patient and sit through the reign of Charles. Or they might even like him once they realise that he will be a good King! I truely hope Australia remains a monarchy. Many will regret having a boring politician as Head of State especially when the much loved William is on the throne!
 
Glad to hear someone be as enthoisiastic about P.William as you are...if you read the comments sections of the Daily Mail (or some other royal forums on internet) you get a very different view of him... ;)
 
This is really a question for another thread, HRH. However, suffice to say that I don't think it's a question of popularity of William over Charles or vice-versa. (By the way Charles attracted huge crowds in Sydney the last time he visited.)

It's more that Australians may want their own Head of State in future years. We've moved away from Britain so much in the decades I've been here. I'd say it's OK in the short term. There's no great wave of feeling against the monarchy at the moment. Too many other things on our plate. In another ten, twenty years, I'm not so sure.
 
HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G said:
If William and Catherine are King and Queen of Australia, I think all should be fine there hopefully, do you? It's just whether Australians will be patient and sit through the reign of Charles. Or they might even like him once they realise that he will be a good King! I truely hope Australia remains a monarchy. Many will regret having a boring politician as Head of State especially when the much loved William is on the throne!
Click to expand...

Just a quick question here. It is my understanding that in Australia, it will be only Charles and then William that will be The King of Australia. Their spouses and their children or relatives have no Australian titles but are addressed as their position in the UK. With this in mind, Kate would never be addressed as the Queen of Austrailia. Correct?
 
HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G said:
I think that most if not all Commonwealth countries will stay and those which are Constitutional Monarchies will stay that way. Charles won't reign for long. The popularity of the Cambridges may have secured the monarchy in other realms for many more generations! If Charles passes before HM, and William becomes King next, then without a doubt, republicanism would be quashed thankfully!
HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G said:
If William and Catherine are King and Queen of Australia, I think all should be fine there hopefully, do you? It's just whether Australians will be patient and sit through the reign of Charles. Or they might even like him once they realise that he will be a good King! I truely hope Australia remains a monarchy. Many will regret having a boring politician as Head of State especially when the much loved William is on the throne!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
To imagine that Charles coming to the throne would make us more likely to become republicans is more than a little insulting if not downright offensive. Neither country would make such far-reaching and expensive changes in the way we are governed for such a shallow and petty reason.

Both New Zealand and Australia are Constitutional Parliamentary Democracies and it suits us to remain so at present. Given time the Republican movement may gain strength in both Australia and New Zealand, but I guarantee the reasons will be of far more importance and depth than an imagined dislike for Prince Charles. Charles has been heir to the throne as long as HM has been Queen. We have seen the good and the bad. We at least have an idea of the mettle of the man.

On the other hand, William has done precisely nothing to endear himself especially to those of Australasia. At present, there is still a heavy scent of 'Willnot' and 'Cannot' in the air. He and his family still come across as too fond of expensive holidays, too isolated from reality and too fond of being petulant and surly any time they see a reporter.

We know nothing of William's depth of character, whether he is diplomatically adept or ignorant. Is he an asset to HM's Government or not, that we don't know yet because he is not yet a full-time working member of the BRF and has therefore not shown us what kind of man he is. Only time and experience can change that.

The only swooning over the Cambridge's I have seen is on the covers of The Women's Weekly, New Idea, Women's Day, et al.
 
Osipi said:
Just a quick question here. It is my understanding that in Australia, it will be only Charles and then William that will be The King of Australia. Their spouses and their children or relatives have no Australian titles but are addressed as their position in the UK. With this in mind, Kate would never be addressed as the Queen of Austrailia. Correct?
Click to expand...

Each realm is different here but you are right as far as Australia is concerned.

William may become King of Australia in time but Kate won't be Queen of Australia. She will be referred to as Queen Catherine because that is would be her British title but she won't have an Australian one. I think that in Canada she would be Queen of Canada but that is because Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc are all different realms.

I suspect though that by the time Charles becomes King the number of realms may very well be closer to 10 than the current 16 and during his reign I do expect both Australia and New Zealand to revisit/visit that question.
 
Lee-Z said:
Glad to hear someone be as enthoisiastic about P.William as you are...if you read the comments sections of the Daily Mail (or some other royal forums on internet) you get a very different view of him... ;)
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing!
 
Iluvbertie said:
Each realm is different here but you are right as far as Australia is concerned.

William may become King of Australia in time but Kate won't be Queen of Australia. She will be referred to as Queen Catherine because that is would be her British title but she won't have an Australian one. I think that in Canada she would be Queen of Canada but that is because Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc are all different realms.

I suspect though that by the time Charles becomes King the number of realms may very well be closer to 10 than the current 16 and during his reign I do expect both Australia and New Zealand to revisit/visit that question.
Click to expand...

I think we may be ahead of NZ and consider a republic when the Queen dies.
 
MARG said:
To imagine that Charles coming to the throne would make us more likely to become republicans is more than a little insulting if not downright offensive. Neither country would make such far-reaching and expensive changes in the way we are governed for such a shallow and petty reason.

Both New Zealand and Australia are Constitutional Parliamentary Democracies and it suits us to remain so at present. Given time the Republican movement may gain strength in both Australia and New Zealand, but I guarantee the reasons will be of far more importance and depth than an imagined dislike for Prince Charles. Charles has been heir to the throne as long as HM has been Queen. We have seen the good and the bad. We at least have an idea of the mettle of the man.

On the other hand, William has done precisely nothing to endear himself especially to those of Australasia. At present, there is still a heavy scent of 'Willnot' and 'Cannot' in the air. He and his family still come across as too fond of expensive holidays, too isolated from reality and too fond of being petulant and surly any time they see a reporter.

We know nothing of William's depth of character, whether he is diplomatically adept or ignorant. Is he an asset to HM's Government or not, that we don't know yet because he is not yet a full-time working member of the BRF and has therefore not shown us what kind of man he is. Only time and experience can change that.

The only swooning over the Cambridge's I have seen is on the covers of The Women's Weekly, New Idea, Women's Day, et al.
Click to expand...

Do you know what William went through as a child? Have you thought about how it affected him? He had his mother and father separate, his mother is killed in public and his father was always working hard so hardly got to see him. Therefore William doesn't want that experience for his children, he wants to bring them up in a VERY close family environment where he is always there for his children, a lot of people respect that. His Grandmother and Father also had very little private lives as their roles started so early, so they want William as he isn't next in line yet, to have some time to relax and be a family man. Before he becomes Prince of Wales and King, when the rest of his life until death will be devoted to his realms. After the visit to Australia by the Cambridges, the monarchy's popularity skyrocketed there.
 
William's correct title will be "King by right in Australia/New Zealand" not King of Australia.
 
Curryong is also onto something - the republican cause is somewhat in the dole drums at the moment as neither giving more power to politicians is popular at the moment; nor is the desire for a potentially divisive and probably inconclusive debate there as well. I don't think it's just down to the popularity of W&K (although in all fairness it's a BIG part of it), I think it's also a certain disolutionment with those who are often republican in AUs/NZ - eg those of the metropolitan centre left who already have a bad habit of being able to dominate political discourse. I remember the sheer contempt that many of them had for those who wanted to keep the monarchy in Australia and in that context it was a lot like the recent EU vote in the UK, in that it was as much a rejection of that particular political classes values as it was about the fact that there wasn't enough faith in the replacement. I really don't think it's that surprising that those who wanted the republic the most like Paul Keating also wanted to not give the people the chance to vote for a president - he knew he'd probably loose if he has to run on his own without the ALP backing him up (let's be honest he really wanted to be president and open the Sydney olympics - I actually think some people voted no just to deny him that opportunity), and that there was an unwillingness to actually give said hypothetical president sone real power to knock heads together - again that would have undermined the power of the state premiers and of cabinet - they wanted a cosmetic change to stop people asking for real change. I'm not surprised that monarchism is on the rise again - republicanism is looking worse and worse every day and you could do much worse than to have Prince Charles or Prince William as your future head of state - just look at those once great republics of the US of A, France, Germany, and much of the rest of Europe and Latin Amreica and you will see that as the old song goes "we don't know how lucky we are"

NOTE: I myself am I guess you could call the metropolitan centre-left - I just make an effort to exercise a little more self awareness than some of my hipster bretherin - feel free to mock me if you wish

NOTE: I'm sorry , the idea of president trump makes me shiver and I'm not enthuastic about Hillz either!
 
Last edited:
MARG said:
To imagine that Charles coming to the throne would make us more likely to become republicans is more than a little insulting if not downright offensive. Neither country would make such far-reaching and expensive changes in the way we are governed for such a shallow and petty reason.

Both New Zealand and Australia are Constitutional Parliamentary Democracies and it suits us to remain so at present. Given time the Republican movement may gain strength in both Australia and New Zealand, but I guarantee the reasons will be of far more importance and depth than an imagined dislike for Prince Charles.
Click to expand...

The two main reasons I've ever heard anyone I know mention for New Zealand becoming a republic are 1) they don't PC to be King - C'mon people, the bad stuff happens nearly two decades ago - you really need to move on! And 2) that NZ should be a republic so we can beat the ozzies to the punch. Both are horrible reasons and if that is all the great New Zealand public can come up with than I'd rather stick with the monarchy thank you! We don't have any federal/exec issues to fix nor do we have great power aspirations/pretentions like a certain west island I could name. NZ has other issues to fix like child poverty, tying up the loose ends of the Waitangi claims tribunal, the housing problem in Auckland, the pollution in the waterways, rebuilding Christchurch etc...the flag referendum was a waste of time, energy, and money - a similar one on the monarchy would be like that but times at least ten - what a waste!
 
Last edited:
:previous:A quick note about the non-white Commonwealth realms and their realtionship to the BRF/crown.

Although the subject of the crown's realtionship to Australia, New Zealand and Canada has been very well covered on this thread, there are 13 other realms to consider as well mostly in the Carribean and the Pacific. Without getting too political at 10:30 in the evening, as a general rule a lot of these Carribean realms would like to become republics but often can't do so due to the cost involved. Replacing the signs and names on things, setting up the office of the president and paying for the referendum is expensive and despite a clear desire (the fact that the nominal head of state is a white person living some distance from majority black countries does not sit well with many who live there) to do so. This I know has been the case with Jamacia as the desire is there but not the funds and I recall hearing that Barbados had taken the plunge so to speak.

I just wanted to point that out. Thank you for listening :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Kia ora
Replies
4
Views
686
GondorHasNoPants
G
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -
2 3
Replies
87
Views
12K
Mbruno
M
doro
State Visits paid by King Carl XVI Gustaf since 1974
Replies
0
Views
942
doro
doro
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023
23 24 25
Replies
736
Views
12K
Marengo
Marengo
L
Queens, living title holders
Replies
26
Views
18K
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom