The Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms post Elizabeth

[Keystone]

The Commonwealth realms will undergo many changes once Charles becomes King George VII (the regnal name I expect him to take once he becomes king). Many may become republican. But might monarchists and royalists there be interested in electing their own monarch and elevating his family as the royal family of the Commonwealth realm?

I was speaking with a friend of mine once, and I had posited that had I been QEII I would perhaps have associated my children with various commonwealth countries, and eventually appointed them as Governor-Generals of several of the Commonwealth realms. Perhaps made the Princess Royal as Governor-General of Canada, and the Duke of York as Governor-General of Australia, with the Count of Essex as the Governor-General of New Zealand. After Queen Elizabeth II's passing (may it be far in the future) then her children would be in a position to become queens and kings of these various countries.

This has been done in times past with great success, with various children establishing lines which ruled those countries for centuries to come. The empire of Charlemagne comes to mind. But so does Alfonso VII of León and Castile, Emperor of Spain, who divided his crowns amongst his sons establishing various branches of the Burgandy-Spain family.

Good Queen Elizabeth II could still do this, prehaps. It is doubtful the current arrangement of shared monarchy can last more then a generation or so, it didn't last long for Austria-Hungary after all.

What would you recommend for monarchists in those countries?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Won't happen.

The time to do it wasn't in Elizabeth's reing but in either Victoria's or possibly George V's when we were accepting foreigners as GGs but, certainly in Australia, we haven't accepted that idea since the 1960s - Charles was even suggested in the 1970s but was rejected at that time. It wasn't a formal rejection but BP was let known that no offer would be made for Charles, who was educated here for some of his HS time, to be GG as only a true-blue Aussie, who could put this country first, would be acceptable.

If these countries aren't republics by the time the Queen dies they will shortly after Charles becomes Charles III. It might even be that the mechanism is in place so that the Queen dies but we automatically become a republic with an Aussie and not a foreigner, as Head of State.

 

[Madame Royale]

I agree.

Furthermore, I also think Charles taking the regnal name of George to be entirely rediculous. He has been known as Charles his entire life, and to change it would be, for better use of a word, nonsensical.

 

[Lumutqueen]

1, Like IluvBertie said, the time for placing sons and daughters on the throne of other countries was a long time ago.
2, Commonwealth Realms and Nations, IMO will not leave HM until after she passes away, they are loyal to her but I doubt they will apply the same loyalty to Charles or William. Certainly not the bigger countries like Australia, NZ and Canada.
3, Why do you think he his going to take his grandfathers name? Charles was young when Bertie passed away, why should he not be known at King Charles III?

 

[Keystone]

*nod* I respect what you said about the time has passed for Australia, but it is a shame because of a missed opportunity as Australia will now certainly become a republic. I don't think the time has absolutely passed though, prehaps Canada might be open to another member of the royal family, maybe Harry? *Shrug*


As far as Charles regnal name... its simple really. His name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

Charles needs to recast his image once he becomes king, and there will be no better opportunity then when he does ascend the throne.


Despite being known as Charles... in truth it is an inauspicious name for English royalty. See Charles I and Charles II, not good precedents at all. Charles I was the strong proponant for absolute right, struggled with parliament to the point he brought down the monarchy and was executed. Charles II was known as the "Merrie Monarch, in reference to both the liveliness and hedonism." Our Prince Charles has probably had enough associations hedonistic pleasures for seemingly selfishly (seemingly because I do not think he is selfish, Camilla was the love of his life) abandoning Diana in favor of an affair with Camilla. The press can too easily draw paralles between the two no matter had hard Charles and Camilla work for the public good, Charles' beliefs will be seen as outside of the mainstream.


The last King Phillip of England was the consort of Queen Mary I. An unlikely choice.


Arthur is too mistical... and clearly ment to associate the king of England with Arthur of legand. Every English monarch has born that name since the Tudors, IIRC. No English king can live up to the legands of Arthur.



George has far better associations. By choosing the regnal name George, he somewhat links his reign with that of his grandfather George VI. Charles as "George VII" can assert a new image for himself, divorced from the playboy image he had as Prince Charles.

 

[Madame Royale]

A missed opportunity? Well, we Australian's don't see it like that. It was the natural progretion that an Australian resident should be Governor General.

Charles needs to recast his image once he becomes king, and there will be no better opportunity then when he does ascend the throne.

Changing a name does not change someones image. The name doesn't change their beliefs, their past, nor the person themselves.

It makes absolutely no sense to be known by the name George.

not good precedents at all!

There is no place for superstition for a person of faith. And Charles being, or so we assume, a practicing Anglican should be aware of that fact.

That two previous, and shall we say less that ideal monarchs, were named Charles should count for nothing.

I'm inclined to think that when his mother and father named him, it wasn't so that he should one day be known by any other name than his own.

A perfect of example of two persons (Elizabeth R and Philip) not being peoples of superstitious inclincations. And he, Charles, would be best served if he followed that example.

 

[Lumutqueen]

You posted this same post in the thread about The Monarchy After Charles, with the added bit about Australia.
I think Canada would see it as "an invasion" if Harry was to become single King of Canada, and tbh I doubt he would want to.

As I have pointed out in the other thread, why does he have to "recast" his image, and what is a name change going to do?
Each monarch is different, are you suggesting he should morph into his grandfather?

As IluvBertie posted in the other thread, only one monarch, and a future one at that, has had the name Arthur, and that is only as a middle name.

 

[Keystone]

A missed opportunity? Well, we Australian's don't see it like that. It was the natural progretion that an Australian resident should be Governor General.



Changing a name does not change someones image. The name doesn't change their beliefs, their past, nor the person themselves.

It makes absolutely no sense to be known by the name George.



There is no place for superstition for a person of faith. And Charles being, or so we assume, a practicing Anglican should be aware of that fact.

That two previous, and shall we say less that ideal monarchs, were named Charles should count for nothing.

I'm inclined to think that when his mother and father named him, it wasn't so that he should one day be known by any other name than his own.

A perfect of example of two persons (Elizabeth R and Philip) not being peoples of superstitious inclincations. And he, Charles, would be best served if he followed that example.

Changing his name makes perfect sense, see the other thread for a recounting. In short, its not a matter of "superstition" but of word association. Charles, as a name, has baggage that I am sure Charles would want to distance himself from, both for his personal life, and for the English monarchy historically.

You posted this same post in the thread about The Monarchy After Charles, with the added bit about Australia.
I think Canada would see it as "an invasion" if Harry was to become single King of Canada, and tbh I doubt he would want to.

As I have pointed out in the other thread, why does he have to "recast" his image, and what is a name change going to do?
Each monarch is different, are you suggesting he should morph into his grandfather?

As IluvBertie posted in the other thread, only one monarch, and a future one at that, has had the name Arthur, and that is only as a middle name.

As I stated to Iluvbertie I misstated the number of Arthur's, yet the thurst of the position remains that Charles would unlikely chose Arthur as a regnal name.

Gods I don't mean that Charles would "morph" into his grandfather, but changing the image would do the man some good in my opinion as I've pointed out.

 

[Keystone]

Another on-topic question then, do you think it would have been better had the queen sent her children to be educated (at least at the University level) in those Commonwealth realms in an effort for the monarchy to have a higher profile within the realms?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Gods I don't mean that Charles would "morph" into his grandfather, but changing the image would do the man some good in my opinion as I've pointed out.

A change of name does nothing to change the person.

Another on-topic question then, do you think it would have been better had the queen sent her children to be educated (at least at the University level) in those Commonwealth realms in an effort for the monarchy to have a higher profile within the realms?

Charles spent two terms in a grammer school in Australia, both William and Harry have done gap years to places in the Commonwealth. But no, IMO it would not have made any difference if they were educated abroad. It was too late.

 

[Madame Royale]

Changing his name makes perfect sense, see the other thread for a recounting. In short, its not a matter of "superstition" but of word association. Charles, as a name, has baggage that I am sure Charles would want to distance himself from, both for his personal life, and for the English monarchy historically.

You don't seem to get the point that's being made, it would seem.

A change of name will serve no purpose. It won't change a thing. Not the man, not his beliefs, not his eccentricities, not his image and not the past. People aren't so daft I'm affraid.

Acceptance and moving forward however, is the only option. To renounce the use of his actual name could well be considered a clear admission that he still has unresolved issues with his past. The man could quite possibly be over 70 years of age when he succeeds, and has lived his entire life being known as Charles. We know him as Charles. It's that simple.

As with his mother, who when asked what she would like her regnal name to be, replied "My own, of course!" Heres hoping 'sense' prevails in the end.

 

[Polly]

Plan to dump Royals

From: The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, 12th December, 2010

OFFICIALS have held secret talks about dumping the Royal Family as the head of the Commonwealth.

Secret US cables uncovered by website WikiLeaks reveal Prince Charles will not automatically assume the title when the Queen dies.

The top bureaucrat who runs the Commonwealth has told US officials in London that Prince Charles is no certainty because he does not "command the same respect as the Queen".

Commonwealth secretariat director of political affairs Amitav Banerji secretly told the US that "succession" would have to be addressed by leaders of the Commonwealth nations, including Australia.

"Banerji acknowledged that succession of the Head of the Commonwealth would have to be dealt with when Queen Elizabeth passes, as there is no rule stipulating that the British monarch is the head and no procedure for selecting a new head," the cable says.


Commonwealth officials believed Prince Charles was not particularly interested and said the Commonwealth was trying quietly to get him to become more involved in Commonwealth affairs.

Mr Banerji said that complicating any move against the Royals was their ownership of the headquarters in London.

"Banerji noted Marlborough House, the Commonwealth Secretariat's current location, was a royal property, owned and funded by the British Royal Family, and mused that may be a factor in the discussions," the cable says.

Removing the head of the Royal Family as leader of the "Commonwealth of Nations" would be a major blow to the British monarchy with several nations - including Australia - likely to revisit the republican debate when the Queen dies.

Already 16 of the 54 Commonwealth nations have dumped the monarch as the head of state and removed "British" from its official title.

 

[scooter]

I got slapped for bringing this subject up in the other thread, but I tend to think this forecast may prove true.

 

[QEII]

It will only get worse before it gets better. I think when william become king this feeling will go away

 

[jemagre]

I don't understand why people think William will be so much better. After all he lacks the experience that Charles has and has shown little to no interest in commonwealth affairs. To say nothing of the fact William has a long way to go if he becomes King. The thing about monarchies you are stuck with whoever is next. You don't get to kick them out unless you end the job.

 

[QEII]

I don't understand why people think William will be so much better. After all he lacks the experience that Charles has and has shown little to no interest in commonwealth affairs. To say nothing of the fact William has a long way to go if he becomes King. The thing about monarchies you are stuck with whoever is next. You don't get to kick them out unless you end the job.

I know that Charles has much more experience and will be a good king but I think that the countries of the commonwealth would rather have some one of a newer generation.
But they have a long time to wait until that happens

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Commonwealth does dump the monarch as the Head of the Commonwealth when Charles becomes King there is no way they would return to that idea when William succeeds his father. By the time William becomes King he will be King of a lot fewer countries than his grandmother is and the other countries in the Commonwealth won't want to automatically give the headship of that organisation to the Head of State on just one nation.

Remember that when the Queen became Queen she was Queen of almost all 50+ nations of the Commonwealth but not it is down to 16 and will probably drop further in the next 20 years, particularly when she dies.

It made sense for the Head of State of Britain to be Head of the Commonwealth when that Head of State was also the Head of State of the majority of the nations of the Commonwealth but now it makes no sense at all.

 

[QEII]

Agreed.

Sadly we can't have Elizabeth here forever.
Long live the queen.

 

[Penny Lane]

I have wondered if the monarch will survive long enough for William to become King.I'm not saying he won't but I don't think it's a given.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have wondered if the monarch will survive long enough for William to become King.I'm not saying he won't but I don't think it's a given.

I think the monarchy will survive in Britain but elsewhere - not so sure.

In Australia I really don't think it will last long into Charles' reign, if it even lasts that long. I know that there are suggestions now that nothing will be done in the present reign but it is also Labor Party policy to have a republic and was on their agenda to hold a plebiscite on the issue in their second term (which began last August, although a minority government which may give them an out). I do think, when they win a convincing majority at the next election it will be on the agenda. I do think that a simple plebiscite 'do you want Australia to be a republic' needs to be asked first and if a Yes response then we can move forward or if a No then we can continue with a foreigner as our Head of State.

 

[christina-marie]

I think Australia will dump the royals so to speak also. They are far less interesting now unfortunately.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Sorry, but it's hardly a secret that Charles doesn't become head of the commonwealth automatically.
All this wikileaks information is ridiculous.

 

[jemagre]

Does anyone know if another member of the family can become head of the commonwealth? For example: a lower member of the family so the commonwealth can keep their royal links but not the future monarch. After all the Queen is so busy in England she doesn't have time to devote a great deal of time to the Commonwealth and I think that will be the case no matter who is in charge.

 

[Madame Royale]

I don't believe they would be in consideration, no. There's no reason for them to be really. Having any one other Windsor other than Charles succeed the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth would make little sense, imo.

After all the Queen is so busy in England she doesn't have time to devote a great deal of time to the Commonwealth

I'm affraid that's far from the truth. The Queen is engaged every day with Commonwealth matters and as Queen of 16 of those Commonwealth states, undertakes her soverign duties (be it not always to the same extent as her physical priorities in Britain) as respectable monarch. Throughout her day, every day, Elizabeth isn't just Queen of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but also of Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. Whether she be attending a function, unveiling a plark, or signing a document, if that undertaking does not involve the UK, then she in that moment is not acting as Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but as of Head of State to another country. The same is said for her duties as Head of the Commonwealth.

If she didn't have the time, she wouldn't be it's head and the Commonwealth is one of her foremost priorities as has been stated time and time again.

 

[jemagre]

I should have clarified that I was referring to her lack of tours in the commonwealth due to her age or other jobs. It is one thing to attend a meeting and sign a document it is another thing to tour these countries on a constant basis.

I just thought about another family member doing it because I thought that Prince Edward was the representative to the Commonwealth Games. I could be wrong though.

 

[Penny Lane]

I think the monarchy will survive in Britain but elsewhere - not so sure.

In Australia I really don't think it will last long into Charles' reign, if it even lasts that long. I know that there are suggestions now that nothing will be done in the present reign but it is also Labor Party policy to have a republic and was on their agenda to hold a plebiscite on the issue in their second term (which began last August, although a minority government which may give them an out). I do think, when they win a convincing majority at the next election it will be on the agenda. I do think that a simple plebiscite 'do you want Australia to be a republic' needs to be asked first and if a Yes response then we can move forward or if a No then we can continue with a foreigner as our Head of State.

Good point it will be much smaller by the time William takes over yet continue. I know he is popular it's the one thing that makes me think it could last but would it last beyond him?

 

[Madame Royale]

It is one thing to attend a meeting and sign a document it is another thing to tour these countries on a constant basis

Any tour is determined by the government of each country. It's only upon invitation, that the Queen should agree to visit. She doesn't just decide to undertake a tour without having been invited to do so. So her lack of presence throughout the Commonwealth on a more regular basis has nothing to do with her, but her various governments.

 

[Polly]

Mostly, I agree with IluvBertie and Madame Royale. However, it's not just the Labor Party which promotes a Republic but many Liberal (Conservative) politicians as well.

Personally, I'm saddened by the trend, but it's inevitable, I think, once HM is no longer with us.

The Queen does visit upon invitation but she's ageing and, I believe, has said that she doesn't feel up to strenuous travel. Perfectly understandable, of course, as she works tremendously hard when she's here. She will make exceptions for what she deems very important, like Canada's centenary naval celebrations.

The Queen is Head of the Commonwealth which comprises 54 nations (currently, Fiji is suspended). She is Head of State of 16 of these. Should Australia become a republic it could remain in the Commonwealth, should we wish.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Polly the reason why I mentioned the Labor Party is that the republic is official Labor Party policy. Of course many members of the Liberal Party are also republicans.

Should we become a republic it won't be up to us to remain in the Commonwealth but up to them as to whether or not they would like us to stay. We would have to apply to stay. So far no country that has applied has been denied although some have been suspended for a time, such as Fiji at the moment.

 

[jemagre]

I agree that the Queen probably does not feel up to travel but that does not explain why someone does not travel on her behalf. I suppose though that Prince Charles is the likely choice and he is not popular? Is Prince Charles not popular because of his remarriage? I admit I am not as familiar with how people view him throughout the commonwealth. Any opinions on why he is not seen as the natural successor?