The Commonwealth and Commonwealth Realms post Elizabeth

[CanRoyal]

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.

I do agree with you that the numbers are positive either way.

However, I'm suggesting that since the 2012 poll was asked after the 2011 successful Canadian tour of William and Kate that it had a significant influence on the poll outcome. Let's not forget that the Cambridges endured a few mild demonstrations in Quebec, but overall handled the situation with much grace.

Since the question asked "after the reign of Queen Elizabeth..." which some could interpret now as including William, so people are not necessarily thinking more positively about Charles, but are thinking that it now includes William.

So I'm suggesting that some of the poll numbers could now indicate people have the knowledge that they will have to "have" Charles as King, before he can be followed by William. So in my opinion, the Cambridge's popularity in this country has influenced a number of Canadians to be willing to accept the more unpopular Charles as King in order to eventually gain the more popular William as King.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

^^^ I agree with your assessment, especially with younger people and soft monarchists.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No it doesn't as your post implies that there has been some sort of suggestion that Australia would leave The Commonwealth. There has never been that suggestion. Australia is as committed to The Commonwealth today as it was when The Commonwealth formed.

 

[MARG]

I am sure that some day Australia will become a Republic and New Zealand could very well be not too far behind. However, it is not something that is "of the immediate moment" and the decision does not turn on anything as insignificant as who is the the next King/Queen.

Our Australasian, and other Commonwealth countries are not like wayward children throwing their toys out of the cot when we don't get our own way. As a New Zealander I resent people pronouncing with great authority that my country will pull out of the Commonwealth if Charles and Camilla are crowned.

Who are you? You know nothing of our countries, our history, our politics, our aspirations, nothing. Just your opinions based, one can only assume, on what you, as an individual, would do.

Be my guest. Toss your toys but respect our countries as Sovereign states that determine their own destiny by the will of the people.

It is called democracy!​

 

[Roslyn]

No it doesn't as your post implies that there has been some sort of suggestion that Australia would leave The Commonwealth. There has never been that suggestion. Australia is as committed to The Commonwealth today as it was when The Commonwealth formed.

Even the Australian Republican Movement does not suggest that Australia should leave the Commonwealth. The republican movement is largely about Australia having an Australian head of state representing us on the world stage.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Roslyn,

Exactly - there has never been any suggestion by anyone that Australia would leave The Commonwealth. We are proud members of that body and will continue as long as The Commonwealth exists.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am sure that some day Australia will become a Republic and New Zealand could very well be not too far behind. However, it is not something that is "of the immediate moment" and the decision does not turn on anything as insignificant as who is the the next King/Queen.

Our Australasian, and other Commonwealth countries are not like wayward children throwing their toys out of the cot when we don't get our own way. As a New Zealander I resent people pronouncing with great authority that my country will pull out of the Commonwealth if Charles and Camilla are crowned.

Who are you? You know nothing of our countries, our history, our politics, our aspirations, nothing. Just your opinions based, one can only assume, on what you, as an individual, would do.

Be my guest. Toss your toys but respect our countries as Sovereign states that determine their own destiny by the will of the people.

It is called democracy!​

Marg

May I clarify to whom this post is directed?

I hope it isn't at me - but as my post is immediately above yours I am not sure.

I say I hope it isn't me as I am saying what you are saying - that we aren't about to even think about leaving The Commonwealth, even if we do become a republic some day - and that is on the back-burner for the rest of The Queen's reign basically now.

On re-reading the thread it is clear that some posts have been removed and so the gist of some of the discussion has been lost.

 

[MARG]

It is absolutely not about you. Your view of where Australia is is just a little more republican than my view of New Zealand. So too our place in the Commonwealth.

I was responding to those not from Australasia nor any Commonwealth Nation who believe they have the right to speak on our behalf. What deeply offends me is that not being part of it they have no understanding as to what the Commonwealth is and think we are still part of "The Empire", and that image is from a tacky Hollywood adaption of 'The Far Pavillions!!

 

[Trillian]

What Marg said.

 

[AnnEliza]

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.

Yes, that is perfectly understandable to me, as an American. I love my country, but the politics...

 

[AnnEliza]

It is absolutely not about you. Your view of where Australia is is just a little more republican than my view of New Zealand. So too our place in the Commonwealth.

I was responding to those not from Australasia nor any Commonwealth Nation who believe they have the right to speak on our behalf. What deeply offends me is that not being part of it they have no understanding as to what the Commonwealth is and think we are still part of "The Empire", and that image is from a tacky Hollywood adaption of 'The Far Pavillions!!

It's fascinating, I have learned so much from TRF. I was so ignorant about the Commonwealth, which nations belong and which are realms that still have the Queen as head of state.
So many possible changes coming up, but I wish many healthy years for Her Majesty.

 

[TomBert]

I think the issue of the future Head of the Commonwealth should be addressed at CHOGM sooner rather than later. I hope to see the Prince of Wales succeed the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth mainly for historical reasons, but also because I cannot see a viable alternative.

An option already mentioned is rotating the position amongst the Heads of State of member nations. Fine in theory, but would it work in practice? Would it be a set rotation or an election every five, seven or ten years? Would it be vested in the country or the individual? Would the King of Lesotho, serving as Head of the Commonwealth for seven years, be succeeded by his son if he were to die half way through his term? Would Governors-General be eligible? Another proposition was appointing a prominent person from the Commonwealth to the position, such as Nelson Mandela, or any number of previous Presidents, Prime Ministers, or Governors-General. It all seems a bit messy to me, and would perhaps add a layer of expensive bureaucracy that nobody particularly wants. Of course another option is to abolish the position all together. The Secretary-General could easily assume any symbolic functions currently performed by the Queen.

As to the future of the Commonwealth realms, I do not see any major changes occurring just because the Queen dies. 60 years ago there were seven realms, today there are 16. It is often stated that the 15 nations recognise the Queen as their Head of State, or acknowledge "the" monarchy. But that is not correct. Each nation has its own monarchy, and the Queen in each nation is a separate political body. Becoming a republic is not just a simple matter of ceasing to recognise the Queen. It requires the abolition of a constitutional monarchy, the abolition of a national Crown, and the abolition of the office of Governor-General. I'm not saying realms will not become republics over the following decades, that will most likely happen to some. All I am saying is that it is an entirely domestic decision and process, so the timing would most likely be based on local issues rather than a change in reign (though, of course, a change in reign might trigger local issues, who knows?)

 

[Iluvbertie]

7 realms in 1952 - true but another 40+ nations had the Queen as their monarch directly as they were colonies. Most of them decided to become republics rather then keep her as their Head of State because they had that opportunity from the get-go (something that was never offered to Australians in 1900 for instance - not that it would have gone through then but it was not even offered).

Of the vast majority of the colonies that have become independent most decided to be republics and others are talking along those lines.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Canadians have never been big on 'change for the sake of change'. Unless a republican can articulate to Canadians why we would be better off without the Queen or Prince Charles as head of state, I think Canada will keep our monarchy and Royal Family for the long term.

The only argument republicans put forward in Canada at least, is on ideology. They don't just like monarchy and think this is reason enough to get rid of it, but as the numbers show, Canadians like the idea of a non-political head of state.

 

[CanRoyal]

Canadians have never been big on 'change for the sake of change'. Unless a republican can articulate to Canadians why we would be better off without the Queen or Prince Charles as head of state, I think Canada will keep our monarchy and Royal Family for the long term.

The only argument republicans put forward in Canada at least, is on ideology. They don't just like monarchy and think this is reason enough to get rid of it, but as the numbers show, Canadians like the idea of a non-political head of state.

Agree with your assessment - going forward, the status quo will be maintained.

Also, Canadians largely operate under the adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

 

[royalistbert]

From my view from someone outside, is that Canada is the most royalist realm! They even have there own privy council. I like how they kept a lot of traditions and made them Canadian.

 

[NGalitzine]

I suppose if it was decided that Charles should not be Head of the Commonwealth when he becomes King then the Secretary General could take on that role which is more honorific than a real role anyway. It wouldn't be as glamorous but likely better than having a national political figure in the role. Not all the Commonwealth Presidents as exactly role models or even democrats. Can you imagine a Robert Mugabe in the role?

 

[cepe]

I think that countries involved either see the benefits of the Commonwealth or they don't. Those benefits do not alter with the change of Monarch. In many ways it's similar to people who want to pick and choose parts of having a monarchy, ie we want a monarch but let's by-pass Charles. Its not pick and mix.

Charles will become Head of the Commonwealth the same moment he becomes King. To alter that, some PM or Head of State of the Commonwealth is going to have to say that they don't want this and I just can't see that happening.

I also see that there is enormous benefit in having a non-political Head of the Commonwealth.

This is completely separate from deciding whether or not a country wishes to continue to have the Queen/King as their Head of State. That is entirely their business.

 

[NGalitzine]

There is nothing automatic about the British monarch becoming Head of the Commonwealth, although I do agree that it is quite likely Charles will take on that role with the agreement of the Heads of Government.

 

[cepe]

Are you saying that the Queen was selected/elected Head of the Comonwealth?

EDIT: Just check my notes and you are absolutely right! The post is for life, which is interesting because HMQ became Head of the Commonwealth when she ascended the throne.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Canada is a realm , a member of the Commonwealth and also belongs to the Francophonie.
There is no comparision. The Francophonie is a mess and more dysfunctional than the United Nations. The Commonwealth on the other hand has a true family feel and part of that has to do with it having a non-political head and also contrary to what the Guardian and BBC luvvies will have us think, Britain left its former colonies in much better shape than France did with their former colonies.
IMO, Charles will be head of Commonwealth as long as he is King.

 

[Iluvbertie]

BBC News - Julia Gillard backs Queen's successor as Commonwealth head

An interesting report that as far as I am aware didn't even get a mention in the local press (but I will stand corrected if it was in SMH or Daily Telegraph as they are the only ones available where I live besides the really local papers.)

 

[An Ard Ri]

Australia 'should be a republic once Queen's reign ends'


Australia 'should be a republic once Queen's reign ends' - Telegraph

 

[Warren]

Queen fights to let baby George rule the Commonwealth: Campaign launched to change the rules to allow Charles, William and new prince to take role when King | Mail Online

Queen fights to let baby George rule the Commonwealth by making the title hereditary:
Campaign launched to change the rules to allow Charles, William and new prince to take role when King

​

The Queen has launched a discreet campaign to ensure that Prince Charles, Prince William – and eventually baby George – inherit her role as Head of the Commonwealth.

Contrary to popular belief, the position does not extend to her successors. However, the Queen wants David Cameron to use a summit later this year to urge Commonwealth leaders to change its rules so that her son, grandson and great-grandson take on the role when they become King. The Palace believes Commonwealth joy over the birth of Prince George provides the ideal opportunity to guarantee the British Monarchy does not lose its most prominent international platform when the Queen dies.

Her position as Head of the Commonwealth was secured in the ‘London Declaration’ of 1949, three years before she acceded to the Throne. But, crucially, it did not state her heirs would take over. Technically, it is up to the leaders of the 54 countries that make up the Commonwealth to decide who will replace her as Head. But if the Buckingham Palace initiative succeeds, the job would be secured for future British Monarchs when the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) takes place in Sri Lanka in November.
.

 

[MARG]

Personally I hope she succeeds. The moment 'The Commonwealth' becomes overtly political marks the beginning of the end. At present each Commonwealth country has a voice and the last thing we need is yet another bureaucracy where the elite, the select, the richest, or worse, the biggest bullies get to veto everyone else!

The Commonwealth stands for a shared history and a shared commitment. It is not perfect and I doubt anyone is naïve enough to actually believe it is but it can and has made a difference. Just check out the countries HM sent her children and grandchildren to visit during her Diamond Jubilee. They really are the great and the small but every one is a part of something greater than itself.

Long may it last and good luck at CHOGM!

PS: I very much doubt that the birth of Prince George has or indeed had anything to do with it. This has been discussed on and off for years and HM has been "campaigning" for quite a little while now. I know we worship the cult of youth . . . but I think Prince George would have to be the most advanced and precocious child in the world to factor in. God bless the Mail Online . . . where would we be without it's unfailing humour!!

 

[Roslyn]

Personally I hope she succeeds. The moment 'The Commonwealth' becomes overtly political marks the beginning of the end. At present each Commonwealth country has a voice and the last thing we need is yet another bureaucracy where the elite, the select, the richest, or worse, the biggest bullies get to veto everyone else!

When I first read the article I was angry that HM was seeking to establish her family as permanent heads of The Commonwealth, but common sense finally bashed that mis-placed anger into submission. We only have a Commonwealth because all these diverse countries were once part of the British Empire; there's never been anything remotely democratic about it, but in the circumstances it works. Let the successor to the British Crown continue to chair the show. We don't need Commonwealth time wasted with political campaigning.

 

[Iluvbertie]

These days countries with no links to the British Empire are joining - I think there are three or four - so that link isn't relevant.

They could easily set it up to have a permanent rotating chair e.g. Australia GG chairs for one CHOGM and the next one is chaired by Kenya etc - no politicing needed just a set up where everyone has a chance.

 

[cepe]

Well, when I first read the article, I thought this is not like the Queen as it lacks political astuteness. I'm still surprised by this "leak"?? or whatever it is.

Then I thought - for her it is now or never; Charles has the opportunity this Autumn to show that it is a good idea.

And then I considered of the political diversity across the Commonwealth and then why not? The Head of BRF is as political neutral as you can get.

 

[Roslyn]

These days countries with no links to the British Empire are joining - I think there are three or four - so that link isn't relevant.

They could easily set it up to have a permanent rotating chair e.g. Australia GG chairs for one CHOGM and the next one is chaired by Kenya etc - no politicing needed just a set up where everyone has a chance.

Well, there goes my resolve! Without the Empire link, the argument doesn't work.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well some of the Commonwealth heads of state and heads of government are less that admirable, so from a PR point of view the British monarch is at least neutral and non-controversial and also generally raises the profile of the meetings. The only other alternative I would suggest would be the Commonwealth Secretary General to open/host the meetings.