Questions About Commonwealth Realms

[wedmonds]

Since Queen Elizabeth II became Queen in 1952 most of the British Empire has ended. With the handover of Hong King back to the Chinese in 1997 marking the end of the British Empire (according to Historians).

Even after the British Empire some nations in the world still have the Queen as "Head of State" with a Governor-General to represent the Queen since the Queen lives in The United Kingdom.

Amongst those countries that still have the Queen as their head of state are:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
The Solomon Islands
Tuvalu

and of course, The United Kingdom...

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?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well instead of getting rid of everything entirely, they could all become Commonwealth Nations.
Commonwealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMO the UK will not be left standing alone for some years.

I think that when Australia goes, other countries may follow.

 

[Jacknch]

I think that it is likely Australia will be the first one to become a republic and if others do follow, it will be a very gradual transition rather them all doing it at the same time. Each nation has its own parliament and individual issues at home to deal with aside from constitutional changes and so in a practical sense I just cannot see them all deciding at the same time.

 

[wedmonds]

Republicanism grows in the old empire | World news | The Guardian
BBC NEWS | UK | How Commonwealth sees the Queen

After reading these two articles, it seems as though some of the Caribbean nations will be the first to go on that list. At the moment they have huge republicanism movements that are happening. And some of the Caribbean nations have no monarchist leagues.

Australia will not go until after the Queen dies, I think...

 

[RJ TAYLER]

I think things 'might' just shift the other way this century and many Commonwealth Republics become realms anyway!

 

[Smart]

Since Queen Elizabeth II became Queen in 1952 most of the British Empire has ended. With the handover of Hong King back to the Chinese in 1997 marking the end of the British Empire (according to Historians).

Even after the British Empire some nations in the world still have the Queen as "Head of State" with a Governor-General to represent the Queen since the Queen lives in The United Kingdom.

Amongst those countries that still have the Queen as their head of state are:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and The Grenadines
The Solomon Islands
Tuvalu

and of course, The United Kingdom...

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?

I think it is probable that several of these countries will become Republics following Eliz' death. The others will likely follow suit after 5-10 years. (mostly due to the unpopularity of Charles, and the likelihood that Australia will launch a Domino effect)

 

[Lumutqueen]

How unpopular is Charles everywhere else?
Being in the Commonwealth benefits the countries more than hinders them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

How unpopular is Charles everywhere else?
Being in the Commonwealth benefits the countries more than hinders them.

Being a republic has nothing to do with being in the Commonwealth. The majority of countries in the Commonwealth are republics.

As for how unpopular Charles is? Not very where it matters but he isn't hugely popular either - more neutral rather than anything else these days.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I never said it did have anything to do with being in the commonwealth, but I am correct in saying that being in the commonwealth of realms or nations benefits the countries?

And being neutral is better than being hated.

 

[Simeon]

Regardless of popularity they are pretty well entrenched in places like Canada. Ratification of law with regards to the Queen requires unanimous consent by all provinces. Could be easier to draft a new constitution or become the 51st state. j/k, point is the monarchy will be around Canada for quite a while.

 

[Smart]

I never said it did have anything to do with being in the commonwealth, but I am correct in saying that being in the commonwealth of realms or nations benefits the countries?

And being neutral is better than being hated.

Being in the Commonwealth of Realms has no inherent benefit, especially since the R. Family is likely to visit your country more if it is a realm, than if it is merely an ex-colony (Commonwealth of Nations). This is especially noticeable in the number of royal visits to Canada, in comparison to India. These visits cost enormous amounts of money. As for being within the Commonwealth of Nations - the largest benefit is that most of its members are developing countries - and as such, such a close affiliation with a former superpower and developed country is excellent. This is especially profound when comparing Britain's old African colonies (and their stability as nations) and France's old African colonies. (cf. South Africa vs Ivory Coast).

The main negative in there being realms is it belittles the given country's home-rule and independence, by placing a foreigner as its Head of State. This is mostly the fault of colonialism and imperialism, not Constitutional Monarchy or Constituent Countries (that for example, The Netherlands have).

Note - I'm by no means attacking the RF/Monarchy, just attacking the "Realms" concept.

Regardless of popularity they are pretty well entrenched in places like Canada. Ratification of law with regards to the Queen requires unanimous consent by all provinces. Could be easier to draft a new constitution or become the 51st state. j/k, point is the monarchy will be around Canada for quite a while.

Canada is the only realm that has an active presence of Monarchists. This is beginning to wane, according to recent Gallup polls.

As for becoming a 51st state - there is a Canadian org trying to make that happen - United North America

 

[Le Prince Royale]

I think the Commonwealth of nations will continue till the end of the world (whenever that is) and that countries like Australia and New Zealand will not become a republic. The Commonwealth is fundamental for the development of smaller nations especially those in the Pacific. With the Commonwealth gone, no more Commonwealth games and such.

I think Commonwealth countries will remain loyal to it's mother country.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think the Commonwealth of nations will continue till the end of the world (whenever that is) and that countries like Australia and New Zealand will not become a republic. The Commonwealth is fundamental for the development of smaller nations especially those in the Pacific. With the Commonwealth gone, no more Commonwealth games and such.

I think Commonwealth countries will remain loyal to it's mother country.

Being a republic has no bearing on the Commonwealth. The vast majority of countries in the Commonwealth now are republics. There are also a number of countries with no inherent ties to Britain.

 

[thomaspaine]

If the queen dies then Australia will be in a constitutional crises

This is what will happen if the queen dies
God save Australia's King? - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Some excerpts
As things stand, when Queen Elizabeth II dies there may be nobody to succeed her on her Australian throne. Australia may suddenly be in a constitutional limbo, with no monarch, no Governor-General, and no parliament to pass laws


The Statute of Westminster of 1931 requires that the "Dominions" be consulted in matters concerning the succession to the British Crown, and that is why Australia was consulted about the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936. But are we a British Dominion still? The Australia Act of 1986 declares specifically that "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory".

This is the nearest thing we have to a "Declaration of Independence". It seems that the British may again have been consulting us about effecting change in the succession to the British throne. That is a delightful courtesy, but like so much of the constitutional structures that we inherited as a British Dominion, it is of another age.

What would happen if, after the Queen's death, the widely-expected succession of Prince Charles to the throne of Australia were to be challenged in our courts? What legal right would he have to claim to be our monarch? Perhaps ways might be found to argue a case in his favour, but it might bring about a nasty and perhaps lengthy constitutional crisis. If Charles's right to be King of Australia were under challenge, what would be the position of the Governor-General in the interregnum? Could she or he be the King's representative if there were no "lawful and undoubted King" of Australia? Without a Governor-General, there would have to be doubt whether the Parliament could make laws, or whether it could even sit.

Can we afford to wait until the Queen dies before we take action to cope with this foreseeable constitutional problem? Would it not be sensible to avoid the possibility of such a constitutional crisis by deciding right now who will succeed the Queen of Australia under Australian law?


I hope that the govt of Australia creates contingency plans when the queen dies.

Assuming if it is true then will the parliament act of 1982 of canada have the same problem?

 

[lucien]

Apparently the symphaty for a republic in Australia at present is at a all-time low according to the latest polls.

And your line has to be adjusted Pain,

In a Monarchy the People make the Law,through Parliament and the Monarch gives the Law,any Law,his/her signature regardless if he/she agrees on it.This just to emphasize the inpartiality of the Sovereign on matters politic.
In a republic Law is bought by the Trumps of this world.....

 

[thomaspaine]

O for gods sake lets debate on the topic and not my sign and by the way you are wrong,the monarch has refused to sign laws but now they do it less subtle.You cannot argue thomas paine and his surname is PAINE and not pain and this line is more than 200 years old;Read "common sense" by thomas paine.If you want to debate then please visit my thread on "case against monarchy".

 

[lucien]

O for gods sake lets debate on the topic and not my sign and by the way you are wrong,the monarch has refused to sign laws but now they do it less subtle.You cannot argue thomas paine and his surname is PAINE and not pain and this line is more than 200 years old;Read "common sense" by thomas paine.If you want to debate then please visit my thread on "case against monarchy".

Sorry,I won't as I oppose your ideas Pain.They're rambling.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The fact that you started this thread with "if the Queen dies" shows what it actually means. She isn't going to live forever.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Clause 2 of the Australian Constitution gives Charles the right to be King of Australia assuming that the population of the nation hasn't previously voted to become a republic.

This Clause states:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.


This document predates the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act and thus isn't covered by the extract quoted above - "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory".

The Constitution was passed in 1900 and thus predates any legislation dated 1986 and thus isn't affected by the Australia Act.

Thus Charles' accession won't cause a constitutional crisis because the Australian Constitution clearly says that the Head of State of Australia is the Head of State of Britain.

However, if Britain wishes to change the succession laws then Australia will have to independently pass the same law to have it take effect. So if Britain decides to go for gender blind succession they will only do so after being assured that the other nations affected will also pass the same legislation - otherwise there could be constitutional crises in a number of countries.

 

[Smart]

The fact that you started this thread with "if the Queen dies" shows what it actually means. She isn't going to live forever.

I just heard a lover of the British branch of Saxe, Coburg and Gotha, say that 'Eliz will live til 110. If she doesn't abdicate, that means another 25 years!

I'm starting to think 'Eliz will outlive Charles.

 

[yvr girl]

Canada spent 20 years wrangling over the constitution

I don't think there is an appetite to open up the debate again, especially since there is no big win in dumping the monarchy.

I really don't see unifying with the USA happening. I think it is getting less likely all the time. We are close enough to see all their warts up close. We like our health care system, we like our economy, we have less appetite for military spending.

 

[CSENYC]

Why doesn't the UK Royal Family try to shore up support for the monarchy in Australia by, for example, visiting more often? With the recent royal wedding, William and Kate are doing a tour of Canada. I'd think that sending them to Australia for a long period would significantly benefit the monarchy, and others could spend more time there.

 

[osmond75]

There is a strong need to shore up the Monarchy in Australia. even the current Prime Minister of Australia said that the Monarchy may only last till the current Queen is alive, which is such a shame!. Being in Canada, I can say that the Monarchy is one of the most distinctive attributes of being Canadian and with the exception of the secessionist Quebecious, love for the royal family is genuine and heartwarming. Cheers to that!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why doesn't the UK Royal Family try to shore up support for the monarchy in Australia by, for example, visiting more often? With the recent royal wedding, William and Kate are doing a tour of Canada. I'd think that sending them to Australia for a long period would significantly benefit the monarchy, and others could spend more time there.

They can't just turn up.

The government has to invite them to visit and with a Labor government, led by an avowed republican they don't get invited all that often.

Although they say they enjoy it when they are here it is also a long way from their family and friends in Britain.

The royal family also visit Canada about three or four times as often as they come down under - because the Canadian government invite them more often.

William and Kate were supposed to be coming here later this year but as New Zealand is about to have an election for their new government and the royals won't want to be seen as favouring one side or other of politics - and visiting Australia without going to New Zealand, except in the very rarest of occasions, isn't normally done, they have had to postpone the tour down under.

Depending on when Kate gets pregnant I would expect them to get an invite down here next year - after New Zealand has had their elections, and assuming that we don't go to the polls early.

The Queen is coming later this year for CHOGM and is also reportedly coming to the east coast (I have heard a rumour that she would like to go to Melbourne for the Melbourne Cup - our biggest horse race and one she hasn't attended).

Would having them visit more often change the views of Australians about a republic - I doubt it. They are good entertainers, as celebrities need to be, but they don't have anything to do with Australia - and William actively campaigned against Australia's bid for the World Cup - a very good reason for us to become a republic - to have one of our own as our Head of State instead of a foreigner who can only come here when invited.

The heir to the throne hasn't been here since early 2005 - probably because the powers that be know that his wife would be snubbed. He rarely visits Commonwealth countries these days - probably to avoid outright negativity of low crowds etc. With the huge crowds turning out to see William and Kate Charles will probably have to visit even less - to avoid the obvious negative press and the calls for him to be passed over.

 

[osmond75]

Remember the crown jewel of the Commonwealth- Yes INDIA - which had literally thousands of royal states or princely states ruled by Maharajahs, which became a part of India. After the privy purse was abolished in 1971, the Indian royals have adapted and have converted their palaces into museums and hotels. When India was part of the British Raj(Empire) - these Maharajah`s were the most flamboyant and grandest in the world. Most of them spent fortune in jewels, palaces and costly cars.The early part of the 20th century can best be described as an Indian Royal Renaissance! Long Live the Indian Royal Houses!!

 

[AnthonyB]

I think that Australia will be a monarch longer than many people think. Changing to a republic requires a referendum, with a majority national vote and a majority in a majority of states (ie 4 out of 6). Australians have only passed 8 out of 44 referenda and have not passed one since 1977. Fairly much anything with the slightest controvesy really struggles to get up. The republicans cause is split between direct and appointed President and certain number of people on both sides won't support the other.

Looking at the popularity of the former Tasmanian Mary Donaldson it is not hard to see one avenue for the Windsor to boost their popularity in the Commonwealth Realms. A royal wedding to someone from one of the realms would clearly improve the Windsor's support (Weren't royal marriages once always a means of attempting to improve ties).

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Looking at the popularity of the former Tasmanian Mary Donaldson it is not hard to see one avenue for the Windsor to boost their popularity in the Commonwealth Realms. A royal wedding to someone from one of the realms would clearly improve the Windsor's support (Weren't royal marriages once always a means of attempting to improve ties).

I think the days of strategic/arranged royal weddings are long behind us.

But I agree with your sentiments about Australia remaining a monarchy partly due to the process involved - unless there is a huge groundswell of popular support for such a move (not likely in the forseeable future) or it becomes a hot button political issue (possible with the hyper-partisan political situation and hung parliament, but not likely).

In my opinion, Australia will see King Charles and then King William; that much is certain.

 

[Dman]

Just a question I have on my mind.

Why doesn't The Queen send senior members of her family to Open Parliament around her realms on her behalf anymore?

 

[Mermaid1962]

She can't send them on her own say-so. They have to be invited by the host country for any official visit. The Governor General always opens Parliament unless The Queen is in the country at the time. It's been quite awhile since members of the Royal Family have been Governors General in Commonwealth Countries.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just a question I have on my mind.

Why doesn't The Queen send senior members of her family to Open Parliament around her realms on her behalf anymore?

Each realm is totally independent and having anyone other than one of our own open Parliament, with the possible occasional exception of The Queen herself, would be unpalatable to the citizens of the other realms.

We like having our own person do these things and really to all intents and purposes the Queen is just a nice old lady whose image appears on our coins but in our day to day lives has no meaning at all.