The Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms post Elizabeth

[Madame Royale]

but that does not explain why someone does not travel on her behalf.

But as with the Queen, Charles would either need to be invited personally, or accept the invitation on behalf of his mother. So unless the invite is forthcoming, he doesn't undertake the tour.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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?

Charles last came to Australia in 2005 and although well received was overshadowed by Mary who was here about the same time.

As for why Charles isn't seen as the natural successor it is to do with the fact that the majority of the countries in the Commonwealth don't have the British monarch as their Head of State anymore. When the Empire moved to the Commonwealth most countries kept the Queen as Head of State but now most don't have her and others are talking about moving to republics as well. As a result the other nations, who see themselves as all being equal, question whether or not the Head of State of any specific nation should head the Commonwealth rather than give that position to the Head of State of other countries e.g. India is the most populous - why shouldn't their Head of State have the opportunity to head the organisation?

 

[muriel]

It is true that there are a number of commonwealth countries that are republics, and have been for some time. Most of them are quite comfortable with the British monarch as being the head of the commonwealth and there does not appear to be much press commentary on this in countries like India.

That said, I think Charles will appear a lot more credible as a potential successor to HM as the head of the commonwealth if he took a little more interest in commonwealth affairs, and attended all the CHOGM meetings. C&C attended the meetings in Uganda, but did not attend the sessions in T&T last year.

 

[jemagre]

Thank you Iluvbertie and Muriel for your thoughts. I had heard that C&C were not well received in Uganda. Am I wrong?

(I am not trying to make this an anti C&C discussion thread just trying to understand the topic from people who know more than me.)

 

[Lumutqueen]

When did they go to Uganda?

 

[Iluvbertie]

When did they go to Uganda?

CHOGM was in Uganda in 2007 and Charles and Camilla went with the Queen and DoE.

 

[muriel]

Thank you Iluvbertie and Muriel for your thoughts. I had heard that C&C were not well received in Uganda. Am I wrong?

(I am not trying to make this an anti C&C discussion thread just trying to understand the topic from people who know more than me.)

I do not remember reading anythiung at the time suggesting that they had not been received anything other than positively. It will be a slow process for Charles to build networks within the commonwealth and its leaders, and one I hope he actively takes up.

 

[scooter]

Thank you Iluvbertie and Muriel for your thoughts. I had heard that C&C were not well received in Uganda. Am I wrong?

(I am not trying to make this an anti C&C discussion thread just trying to understand the topic from people who know more than me.)

It was the recent trip to Canada that was not well recieved...poor turnout and coverage.

 

[Polly]

I didn't realise that HM's trip to Canada wasn't well received. I always believed that the monarchy was most welcome in Canada, if only because it prevents Canada's being subsumed into the US. This last, of course, is not meant as any aspersion against America.

About Charles' standing in Australia. Well, he was rather popular, I believe, until the breakdown of his marriage with Diana. Without going into the wrongs and rights of all that past history, it's my opinion that his marriage to Camilla has made him even more unacceptable. Whether that's fair or not is another issue.

And then there's the issue of Lady Tryon, an Australian, and another alleged long-term mistress of Charles'. The animosity between her and Camilla over many years, when the prince, reportedly, divided his favours between the two of them, rankles with those who knew her, many of whom were/are influential, particularly as her death was such an appalling one.

In all honesty, republicanism has been gaining strength in Australia for decades. Prince Charles himself sounded most aggrieved when he offered himself as Governor General and was told 'no thanks'.

HM was born to Empire and embraced the notion of the Commonwealth with gusto. She is deeply admired in Australia, good woman that she is, and it's felt that her like will not be seen again. However, given the popularity of William when he visited, all is not yet lost. Interestingly, it seems to me that he's admired as his mother's son, but not his father's!

In diplomatic circles, I've read in the past, Camilla did not show to advantage while in Uganda. First, she was 'over-loaded' with millions of pounds of jewels (even I thought that she wore too many and too much) with a heavy tiara which doesn't flatter her, in my opinion, and that huge diamond necklace. Observers complained that she was insensitive to the economic stresses and abject poverty around her, and those countries which many CHOGM leaders represented, pointing out that HM was much more appropriately and modestly adorned.

There was also another, significant, motive to the Duchess's new majestic style, it was suggested. The Royal couple's four-day trip to Uganda was officially classed as an independent visit but it was seen by many as effectively a "job application" by Charles to succeed the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. It coincided with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and is the first time the Prince has visited the same country as his mother at the same time for more than three decades.

Australians are often a puzzle to me. Whereas we readily embrace Mary as Crown Princess of Denmark, commoner that she once was, we object to Camilla and apparently resent her. Very odd.


​

 

[AnnEliza]

I didn't realise that HM's trip to Canada wasn't well received. I always believed that the monarchy was most welcome in Canada, if only because it prevents Canada's being subsumed into the US. This last, of course, is not meant as any aspersion against America.

As an American, I think I know what you mean. It's one of the things that makes Canada special and distinct from the U.S., at least in my opinion.

 

[wbenson]

I didn't realise that HM's trip to Canada wasn't well received. I always believed that the monarchy was most welcome in Canada, if only because it prevents Canada's being subsumed into the US. This last, of course, is not meant as any aspersion against America.

I believe scooter was bringing up, once again, Charles and Camilla's trip to Canada in November 2009.

 

[Kasumi]

Charles needs to foster Canadian popularity - Toronto Sun

 

[scooter]

Is Canada no longer one of the largest countries in the Commonwealth? If the topic is the Commonwealth post Elizabeth, how the Heir is received and the esteem he is held in is certainly relevent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That would be really modern and such a beautiful reflection of their future as the King and Queen of not only GB but the the commonwealth.

They won't be 'King and Queen of the Commonwealth'. The Commonwealth doesn't have a monarch. 16 nations within the Commonwealth had the present Queen as their monarch but the vast majority of the countries of the Commonwealth are republics although a couple have their own monarch e.g. Malaysia.

Currently the monarch is Head of the Commonwealth but that is not a given to continue after the death of the Queen and there have been many reports over the years that they won't choose Charles in that position when the time comes.

australia: eucalyptus
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8fdAjWGnO...wACGPI/s1600/Eucalyptus+ficifolia+flowers.jpg

Australia's national flower is the Golden Wattle not the eucaplytus tree - Golden Wattle - Australia's Golden Wattle - National Flower


1st September is officially 'wattle day' here in recognition of this flower and its national significance.

 

[melissaadrian]

They won't be 'King and Queen of the Commonwealth'. The Commonwealth doesn't have a monarch. 16 nations within the Commonwealth had the present Queen as their monarch but the vast majority of the countries of the Commonwealth are republics although a couple have their own monarch e.g. Malaysia.

Currently the monarch is Head of the Commonwealth but that is not a given to continue after the death of the Queen and there have been many reports over the years that they won't choose Charles in that position when the time comes.




Australia's national flower is the Golden Wattle not the eucaplytus tree - Golden Wattle - Australia's Golden Wattle - National Flower


1st September is officially 'wattle day' here in recognition of this flower and its national significance.

I meant the commonwealth realms, reflected by naming the sixteen countries that make up the commonwealth realms, which the queen does serve as monarch of.

A few countries have more than one national symbol. I put the eucalyptus as it was the one people would recognize for Australia. But you're right the wattle is the national flower.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I meant the commonwealth realms, reflected by naming the sixteen countries that make up the commonwealth realms, which the queen does serve as monarch of.

There are over 50 'commonwealth realms' though and the Queen is only the monarch of 16 of them.

The term Commonwealth simply doesn't apply when discussing the concept of King or Queen of the Commonwealth - especially now that nations that were never connected to Britain can join the Commonwealth - e.g. Mozambique, Cameroon and Rwanda.

Although the 16 nations of which the Queen is the monarch are all members of the Commonwealth there are 39 nations in the Commonwealth of which she isn't the monarch and 3 of them have no connection to Britain having been Portuguese, French and Belgian colonies.

There is no requirement that the British monarch will continue to be the Head of the Commonwealth after the death of the present monarch. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Charles doesn't become Head of the Commonwealth at all - as the respective nations don't all agree with the idea of one person, by right of birth, being the Head of the Commonwealth anymore - reflecting Britain's reducing role on the world stage.

A few countries have more than one national symbol. I put the eucalyptus as it was the one people would recognize for Australia. But you're right the wattle is the national flower.

Certainly many countries have more than one national symbol but most only have one national flower and ours it the wattle - a flower - not a tree which has small flowers that most people don't even see due to the leaves being what we associate with the eucalyptus tree.

 

[melissaadrian]

There are over 50 'commonwealth realms' though and the Queen is only the monarch of 16 of them.

The term Commonwealth simply doesn't apply when discussing the concept of King or Queen of the Commonwealth - especially now that nations that were never connected to Britain can join the Commonwealth - e.g. Mozambique, Cameroon and Rwanda.

Although the 16 nations of which the Queen is the monarch are all members of the Commonwealth there are 39 nations in the Commonwealth of which she isn't the monarch and 3 of them have no connection to Britain having been Portuguese, French and Belgian colonies.

There is no requirement that the British monarch will continue to be the Head of the Commonwealth after the death of the present monarch. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Charles doesn't become Head of the Commonwealth at all - as the respective nations don't all agree with the idea of one person, by right of birth, being the Head of the Commonwealth anymore - reflecting Britain's reducing role on the world stage.



Certainly many countries have more than one national symbol but most only have one national flower and ours it the wattle - a flower - not a tree which has small flowers that most people don't even see due to the leaves being what we associate with the eucalyptus tree.

Sorry to correct you but commonwealth realms, refers to the 15 (16th being the UK) countries which Queen Elizabeth II reigns as monarch of. Commonwealth countries is the term given to the general group of over 50 countries which are part of the commonwealth.

I never said a single time at all Charles or William would be head of the 50 countries of the commonwealth. I said as the heir to the heir, William will be king of the realms (again the term given to the 16 including GB, countries who recognize Elizabeth II as their queen). Unless those countries choose to have a referendum and remove her as head of state, as Australia is threatening to do, this is a tile William and Katherine will have one day, bar Will dying before his father and grandmother.

And while I am well aware, having lived in Australia, the eucalyptus flowers are not well seen, they are still the more well known symbol to most people of Australia. Perhaps even eucalyptus leaves, used among the greenery. But since you took such great offence to eucalyptus, I edited my original post and put the wattle instead.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sorry to correct you but commonwealth realms, refers to the 15 (16th being the UK) countries which Queen Elizabeth II reigns as monarch of. Commonwealth countries is the term given to the general group of over 50 countries which are part of the commonwealth.

I never said a single time at all Charles or William would be head of the 50 countries of the commonwealth. I said as the heir to the heir, William will be king of the realms (again the term given to the 16 including GB, countries who recognize Elizabeth II as their queen). Unless those countries choose to have a referendum and remove her as head of state, as Australia is threatening to do, this is a tile William and Katherine will have one day, bar Will dying before his father and grandmother.

And while I am well aware, having lived in Australia, the eucalyptus flowers are not well seen, they are still the more well known symbol to most people of Australia. Perhaps even eucalyptus leaves, used among the greenery. But since you took such great offence to eucalyptus, I edited my original post and put the wattle instead.

When you edit a post after someone else has quoted that post this original post is still available - just so you know.

What you said - before you edited your original post. Thus your original post can be seen in both # 4019 and # 4020. In those quotes you can clearly see that you did say 'King and Queen - not only GB 'but the commonwealth.'

Had you said some commonwealth realms to begin with I would never have commented.

The following was quoted in #4019 as a direct quote of your original post and includes the reference you made to them being King and Queen of the commonwealth - the point with which I took issue. In # 4020 I had edited out the second sentence to pick up on your original point.

Originally Posted by melissaadrian
That would be really modern and such a beautiful reflection of their future as the King and Queen of not only GB but the the commonwealth. I have a feeling we will see roses, lillies and such like all other British royal brides, but one can hope. Here are the national floral emblems of the commonwealth realms



My post was made at 7.50 a.m my time while your edit took place at 8.15 a.m. my time - some 20 minutes after I had commented on your post without the word 'realms' in it. It was at 8.15 a.m. that you added the word 'realms' and thus changed the meaning of your original post.

Next time you edit a post you might like to remember that if the original post has already been quoted then the original post will show up.

In addition I am an Australian born and bred and most certainly we do not recognise the eucalyptus flowers over the wattle. We have wattle day every year, many Australians get hay fever and heightened incidence of asthma attacks when the wattle blooms in early spring and we teach kids that our national flower is the wattle.

The UK, by the way is just one of over 50 Commonwealth countries and is most certainly one of the 16 Commonwealth countries that share a Head of State (at the moment). The UK is no more important than any other of these countries within the Commonwealth (and in fact it could be argued that the 'white' nations are becoming less important as the power within the commonwealth moves to the sub-continental and African nations).

 

[jemagre]

Charles needs to foster Canadian popularity - Toronto Sun

Thanks for the article. I wonder though how the author expects Charles to change people's minds about the monarchy? After all I think Charles is already a known public figure. At this point what you see is what you get. I feel like he is not going to drastically change how he operates now until the day he becomes King and there after. As for William and Kate I believe that is going to be too much pressure on two people. After all if you are a monarchist it is about the idea of it, not just two people.

I am very curious to see what will happen to the commonwealth once the Queen passes away. I feel like the commonwealth is a great legacy of the family because it gives "little" countries a voice on the world stage but I feel like with the question over who will inherit the "royal leadership" of it to be confusing. Should it be Charles, William, or even Harry? After all I believe it does not have to be the heir so anyone in the family could take it up...right? It could be a great role for Harry in the future if that is the case. Just an idea to float around.

 

[Le Prince Royale]

Personally, I don't think it'll change for Tonga and no, it won't happen. Not in a million years. Tonga will always be loyal to Britain till the end (except maybe if Britain goes evil or something).

May the Queen's reign be long and peaceful.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Canadians became more enamoured with the monarchy in 2012 | Canada Politics - Yahoo! News Canada

According to a new Forum Research poll conducted on behalf of the National Post, only 36 per cent of Canadians are in favour of cutting ties with Buckingham Palace upon the death of Queen Elizabeth. That number is down 7 points from January
What's also interesting in the Forum poll is what's happening in traditionally anti-Royal Quebec — in January, 67 per cent of Quebecers were in favour of cutting ties; today that number sits at just 58 per cent.

Queen Elizabeth is extremely popular in Canada, the latest poll has her popularity around 90 percent. Diana was also very popular in Canada and Charles' marriage to Camilla was seen as a blow to monarchists but the latest numbers show there isn't any real danger to the monarchy and even in Quebec, support for Charles and Camilla is on the way up.
All in all, very positive numbers for the future of the Maple Throne in Canada.

I should add in English Canada, support for retaining the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth is around 77 percent.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Thanks for this Duke of Earl. In addition to the info in the article - I learned a new word. I had always used Québécois - and now find there is the English speaking Quebecer. It's my word for the day.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

No disrespect to the United States, but Canadians look south of the border and it makes us appreciate having a non-political head of state.
Parliaments and Prime Minsters come and go but our Royal Family remains constant.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Thanks for this Duke of Earl. In addition to the info in the article - I learned a new word. I had always used Québécois - and now find there is the English speaking Quebecer. It's my word for the day.

Everyone in English Canada says Quebecer. French speaking people in Quebec use 'Québécois' just to be difficult
The delusional sepratists think of themselves as a 'nation' and the inhabitants of this imaginary nation are the Québécois

 

[AdmirerUS]

Everyone in English Canada says Quebecer. French speacking people in Quebec use 'Québécois' just to be difficult
The delusional sepratists think of themselves as a 'nation' and the inhabitants of this imaginary nation are the Québécois

I think I got 'Québécois' from a number of histories and mysteries I have read and movies I have seen. I just got used to it and made the assumption that it was the used term. I do like the way the word sounds. Coming from the US Midwest where we articulate our vowels through our noses (my state often is pronounced something like eendeeeaynah - gak) - the French version of many words sound beautiful to me.
Yes, mods. I know, off topic. Pardon me.

 

[yvr girl]

Quebecer is correct as in people from Quebec - just like I am a British Columbian. I don't use the term much however. I must say that I hear Quebecois much more frequently. I usually use the term Francophone.

 

[CanRoyal]

Canadians became more enamoured with the monarchy in 2012 | Canada Politics - Yahoo! News Canada
Queen Elizabeth is extremely popular in Canada, the latest poll has her popularity around 90 percent. Diana was also very popular in Canada and Charles' marriage to Camilla was seen as a blow to monarchists but the latest numbers show there isn't any real danger to the monarchy and even in Quebec, support for Charles and Camilla is on the way up.
All in all, very positive numbers for the future of the Maple Throne in Canada.

I should add in English Canada, support for retaining the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth is around 77 percent.

If Canadian support for the monarchy increased in 2012, the increase, in my view, can be attributed to the very successful 10 day Canadian tour of William and Kate shortly after their wedding in June & July 2011.

In contrast, Charles and Camilla undertook a 4 day Jubilee tour of Canada in May 2012 and many on the west coast were unaware, or if aware, were uninterested. There was a bit more interest in Sophie and Edward's 7 day Canadian visit in September 2012. There would have been even more interest, but Sophie's and Edward's tour took place at the same time that William and Kate were on their 2nd foreign tour. Therefore national press coverage was focused on William and Kate's successful Jubilee tour and Sophie and Edward's tour received mostly regional coverage of the areas they toured in Canada.

There is no doubt in my mind that William and Kate have - and will continue to be popular in Commonwealth countries. Their tours and popularity will enable some Commonwealth countries they visit (and I believe Canada could very well be one of them) to look past Charles being King and stay with the him as monarch, when in reality all they will be waiting for is to see William accede to the throne.

I would surmise that William and Kate's first foreign visit after the baby arrives (and they resume foreign tours) will be to Australia. However, I think it might be too late to turn back the tide there and the future of Australia continuing on in the Commonwealth will remain very uncertain.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

William and Catherine are more popular in Canada than Charles and Camilla, I agree with you there but Charles is the next king and the poll asked after the reign of Queen Elizabeth so I take this to mean the public in Canada are warming more to Charles.

The numbers are positive either way in my opinion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would surmise that William and Kate's first foreign visit after the baby arrives (and they resume foreign tours) will be to Australia. However, I think it might be too late to turn back the tide there and the future of Australia continuing on in the Commonwealth will remain very uncertain.

Can you show me any source that suggests that the idea of Australia leaving the Commonwealth has even been discussed?

Australia will become a republic at some time in the future but it has never been suggested that it leave the Commonwealth. When Australia becomes a republic it will have to apply to remain a member of the Commonwealth but as every other country that has become a republic and applied to remain in the Commonwealth has remained in that body there is no reason to think that the other Commonwealth countries, 38 of which are also republics at the moment, would vote to exclude Australia.

 

[CanRoyal]

I said that "the future of Australia continuing on in the Commonwealth will remain very uncertain"

One dictionary definition is of the word uncertain is: "Not able to be relied on; not known or definite: "an uncertain future"."

Hope that clarifies my comment.