The Queen, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder why the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex were not involved in the broadcast.
 
Last edited:
Big change from last year but likely got more viewers this year then ever before. One side of covid more people home and around to watch something. Not out on a Sunday with family doing activities and more.

The queen was wonderful as always to listen to.

I always enjoy Charles though. He is by far my favorite royal to listen to :flowers:

I am happy to have Camilla and her reading program involved. I like hearing her talk about reading with her dad when she was little. Both on line learning and just plain reading and having access through on line has become so much bigger during covid. In ways it has opened doors for kids in certain areas to books they may never have had.

I'd have liked to see Anne or Edward involved.

Honestly the zoom call parts of Kate/William/Sophie didn't really ad much for me.


The performances were wonderful. Lovely mix showing the diversity in the commonwealth. A wonderful celebration.
 
They had probably better things to do than take part in a programme about an organisation and a day that is meaningless for the vast majority of the people who live in Commonwealth countries.

The day isn't acknowledged, for instance, in Australia other than by the GG. For ordinary Australians it isn't a 'day' at all.

If it wasn't for having an interest in the BRF I would never have heard of Commonwealth Day and I am in my mid-60s but it isn't a thing here.

The only thing the Commonwealth means to most Aussies is the chance to dominate the Commonwealth Games every four years but otherwise it is a meaningless organisation.

It had some meaning before the UK abandoned it to join the EEC when there was a trade agreement called 'Empire Preference' but since the UK felt that the EEC offered them a better deal the rest of us have made out own trade arrangements and more than likely with non-Commonwealth countries as with them.
 
:previous:Well you are Australian, not a royal.

The British royals usually take their role in the commonwealth seriously. Not brushing it off as 'just another day'.

I don't see Anne, who takes duty as important as her mother does, looking down her nose and saying 'its not important enough for my time'.
 
Mbruno said:
I wonder why the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessec were not involved in the broadcast.
Click to expand...

It was probably due to lack of time because the program was not just a showcase for the royal family. Of course the queen and Charles would participate but the others were probably chosen based on the Commonwealth's priorities. It seems that the themes things year are unity, environment, education, women's issues, and health.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The only thing the Commonwealth means to most Aussies is the chance to dominate the Commonwealth Games every four years but otherwise it is a meaningless organisation.
Click to expand...


Well, England beat you in Glasgow 2014 . That must have hurt !


Countessmeout said:
:previous:Well you are Australian, not a royal.

The British royals usually take their role in the commonwealth seriously. Not brushing it off as 'just another day'.

I don't see Anne, who takes duty as important as her mother does, looking down her nose and saying 'its not important enough for my time'.
Click to expand...


And for many people, especially in the poorer countries, the Commonwealth and Commonwealth programs actually make a difference. I am glad that those more disadavantaged communities were the focus of today's broadcast.
 
Last edited:
That's definitely a positive of the Commonwealth. In a world dominated by organisations like the G20 the Commonwealth does give a platform for smaller countries to make their voices heard.

Australians should be made to compete with one hand tied behind their back. They win far too often & it goes to their heads.:lol:
 
It was a lovely service, if of course different to usual. It isn't really a day here either certainly other than pics of the RF turning up to the usual church service it isn't really known about but I think it is important to the Queen and a good way to focus minds on the Commonwealth - even if it is only those who already care about it.
 
Mbruno said:
Well, England beat you in Glasgow 2014 . That must have hurt !
Click to expand...

Not really as that was two years after the London Olympics and everyone knows that the home country from one Olympics will do well in international competitions for the next two Olympic cycles as they spend so much money developing medal prospects to do well at those home Olympics and there is a residual effect.
 
Not sure if anyone else saw it, but the 3.5 hour 1969 documentary was on YouTube. I watched about 1/2 of it before falling asleep and planned on watching the rest of it today. It has been removed. The parts I saw were very interesting, and it was great seeing the family young and spry. I thought she had decided to release it due to DoE’s passing. I hope she changes her mind.
 
Moved from the Sussex forum.


UglyAmerican said:
Yeah, I think it's the timing that matters here. I'd love for some Brits to chime in on this: could they reasonably have intended to remain as full-time royals while living in a Commonwealth country, perhaps with the intent of preserving the Commonwealth in the future? If they'd been so inclined, I think they could have done a lot to keep Australia and New Zealand "in the fold," so to speak, while being based there. Maybe if Australians and New Zealanders had their own royals who did things like hand out youth awards and open senior centers as a full-time job, instead of just popping in for a tour every few years, they'd attach more value to the monarchy and be more in favor of keeping it around. At least, I could understand the palace and Harry/Meghan thinking along those lines.
Click to expand...


Maybe it would better for some Australians, Canadians, or New Zealanders to chime in as their opinion in this case would matter more than that of the Brits. In any case, if I may give an outsider’s opinion, I am not sure if having royals living full-time in a Commonwealth realm would actually help or hurt the monarchy in those countries.

The Queen already has her constitutional representatives in the realms, namely the Governor General and, in the case of federal realms like Australia and Canada, also the state governors or provincial lieutenant governors. Those officers also perform the ceremonial duties of the Crown in their respective jusrisdictions, such as giving out awards for example.

Up to the mid-20th century (?), Governors General e.g. of Canada or Australia were often British peers and sometimes even royal princes (like the Duke of Connaught or the Duke of Gloucester). The nomination of native Australians or Canadians to the vice-regal office, especially when Australian or Canadian citizenship became legally separate from British subject status, was an important landmark in the affirmation of the realms as independent, sovereign nations and I think it is something that the realm governments value immensely.


Members of the Royal Family other than the Queen are not given any explicit role in the constitutions of Australia, Canada or New Zealand. They have patronages in the Commonwealth and perform ceremonial duties on behalf of the Queen during offiicial royal tours/visits, but that is not considered a full-time occupation. If a royal couple, be it the Sussexes or someone else, moved full-time to a realm and were given a permanent state role, that role could possibly clash with the duties already performed by the Queen's vice-regal representatives and, even worse, could be seen as a "neocolonial" setback. I certainly imagine some republican groups would try to paint it that way, whether it is actually fair or not.
 
Last edited:
While I very much favor a monarchy over a republic; I do understand countries whose monarch hardly ever visits them and whose family primarily identify themselves as a different nationality if they decide differently. And the fact that they choose their current governor-general as new president seems to also suggest a wish for continuity and not for an abrupt break from their previous system.
 
Somebody said:
While I very much favor a monarchy over a republic; I do understand countries whose monarch hardly ever visits them and whose family primarily identify themselves as a different nationality if they decide differently. And the fact that they choose their current governor-general as new president seems to also suggest a wish for continuity and not for an abrupt break from their previous system.
Click to expand...

It happened in South Africa too. The fist State President under the republic was also the last Governor-General of the previous Union of South Africa.

Barbados of course is not the first Commonwealth realm to become. a republic and will not be the last.
 
I've never understood why any countries of the new Commonwealth (post 1945) kept The Queen as their head of state after independence so this does not surprise me.
 
A number of countries leave dominions status to then join a the Commonwealth as a member - ie. South Africa most of Africa. Is Barbados staying in the Commonwealth?
Very few countries are still dominions - Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

There are sporting, cultural and economic benefits for the Commonwealth.
 
Mbruno said:
Moved from the Sussex forum.
Maybe it would better for some Australians, Canadians, or New Zealanders to chime in as their opinion in this case would matter more than that of the Brits. In any case, if I may give an outsider’s opinion, I am not sure if having royals living full-time in a Commonwealth realm would actually help or hurt the monarchy in those countries.
Click to expand...

My dad and I actually had this discussion when the Sussex made their leave to Canada. In the early 1980's there was a discussion with Canada, New Zealand and Australia about having a live-in royal. The outcome was never made public, but as the function never happened it couldn't have been favorable.
I have wondered if they were looking for a role for Princess Margaret or the Duke of York - or hoping to cement the royal family aboard who knows?
 
The Queen wanting to speak in Glasgow speaks volumes for this priority in Prince Charles’s life going forward. This is the Queen stating that this is important to the House of Windsor, and not a pet project from when the King was a prince. Kudos to her.
 
I believe the last royal who made noises about quite liking a position as a Governor General if it was offered was Prince Charles in the late 1970s, with regard to Australia. He was quickly shut down by the Australian authorities who were probably appalled.

The last royal GG here was of course the Duke of Gloucester (not a particular success) towards the end of WW2. Charles was apparently taken aback at the response by the Australian Govt as he stated that he ‘just wanted to help’. Who or what he wanted to help with wasn’t stated.
 
Blog Real said:
Barbados elects first-ever president to replace Queen Elizabeth as head of state.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...first-president-queen-elizabeth-b1943228.html
Click to expand...

The Queen, although a pragmatist, will probably be feeling quite sad at this development. It’s been in the works for several years but has speeded up over the past 12 months. I would be very surprised if Barbados left the Commonwealth, but in my view this is only the first of the realms to break away in the last years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. IMO there will almost certainly be more after Charles ascends the Throne.
 
Last edited:
padams2359 said:
The Queen wanting to speak in Glasgow speaks volumes for this priority in Prince Charles’s life going forward. This is the Queen stating that this is important to the House of Windsor, and not a pet project from when the King was a prince. Kudos to her.
Click to expand...

The Queen is due to attend because the government wants her too. And anything she says on record will be authorised by the government as well. That's how the system works. If it chimes in with how she or her heir think then that's great for them. But the reality is that their private opinions are neither solicited nor wanted.

The arbiter here is the PM not HM or HRH. And HM is wise enough & humble enough to understand that this is best for the monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
The Queen, although a pragmatist, will probably be feeling quite sad at this development. It’s been in the works for several years but has speeded up over the past 12 months. I would be very surprised if Barbados left the Commonwealth, but in my view this is only the first of the realms to break away in the last years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. IMO there will almost certainly be more after Charles ascends the Throne.
Click to expand...

I think that is probably a fair assessment. I do not think the BRF themselves expect some of the countries that have HM as their monarch will do so in the medium term.
 
Durham said:
Prince of Wales to be present as Barbados becomes a republic.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ttend-handover-ceremony-marking-end-monarchy/

The Prince, invited in his role as future head of the Commonwealth, will be "guest of honour" at the republic celebration events later this month - the first of their kind in a generation.
Click to expand...

I think it says a lot for a country to transform from a constitutional monarchy to a republic yet to wish to remain within the Commonwealth of Nations and to have the future head of the Commonwealth there to celebrate with them even though that future head of the Commonwealth would have eventually been their monarch if they had chosen to remain part of a constitutional monarchy.

It's kind of reminiscent of when at midnight on July 1, 1997, Hong Kong reverted back to Chinese rule in a ceremony attended by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Prince Charles of Wales.
 
Yes, but when Hong Kong reverted back to Chinese rule it was no longer a member of the Commonwealth. The Chinese Govt did not wish it to continue.

I can remember the occasion of the handover and Charles being present. It was rather a sad occasion IMO, as any relationship with other Commonwealth countries or with the Queen through a Governor was no more. Certainly different to Barbados’s attitude.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
Yes, but when Hong Kong reverted back to Chinese rule it was no longer a member of the Commonwealth. The Chinese Govt did not wish it to continue.

I can remember the occasion of the handover and Charles being present. It was rather a sad occasion IMO, as any relationship with other Commonwealth countries or with the Queen through a Governor was no more. Certainly different to Barbados’s attitude.
Click to expand...

Yes, the attitude and circumstances are completely different but in both cases, Charles attends as a guest of honor with grace and dignity in acceptance. That, to me, is taking the high road. ?
 
Let's hope the weather is better in Barbados. It rained & rained & rained at the Hong Kong hand over.
 
It is not unusual for a member of the BRF to be present when countries become republics. It would, in fact, be unusual for someone not to be present on such an occasion. Many countries also invite members of the BRF to the 'o' celebrations of becoming a republic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Misskitty
Question about Queen Camilla
Replies
6
Views
1K
Iluvbertie
Iluvbertie
Blog Real
King Magnus II (1130-1161) and Queen Birgitta Haraldsdotter
Replies
0
Views
280
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
King Inge II and Wifes (Ragnhild and Ulvhild Håkansdotter)
Replies
0
Views
208
Blog Real
Blog Real
J
God Save the Queen anthem
Replies
0
Views
184
jf161
J
Marengo
The King, the Royal Family and the Commonwealth
2 3 4
Replies
101
Views
13K
Curryong
C

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom