Royal Insight Forum

A thread to discuss the 54 member states and their association with the British Monarchy.

Not sure where to put this item. The Maldives has been approved for Commonwealth membership. Our 54th member nation!

Twitter (https://mobile.twitter.com/commonwealthsec/status/1223509373475082240?s=21)

^ I think it sits nicely here  :) 

Maldives becomes 54th member of Commonwealth family | The Commonwealth (https://thecommonwealth.org/media/news/maldives-becomes-54th-member-commonwealth-family)

QuoteThe Commonwealth has welcomed its 54th family member after Maldives' application for re-admission was approved.

The small island nation officially re-joined the Commonwealth at 00:01 today (Saturday, February 1 2020).

This marks the end of a process that began 13 months ago, in December 2018, when President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih wrote to the Commonwealth Secretary-General expressing the country?s interest in re-joining.

After due diligence, which included country assessment and consultations in accordance with the rules and procedures agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Kampala in 2007, Maldives has been re-admitted.

Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland said: ?I warmly congratulate Maldives on its successful application. We are delighted to welcome the country and its people back to the Commonwealth.

?The reform process underway in Maldives aligns with the values and principles of the Commonwealth and we encourage the nation to continue on this path.

?Commonwealth members were pleased to note these developments and are happy once again to count Maldives as a member of the family.

?Together we will support Maldives to realise its ambitions.?

Maldives President, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, said: ?Today is a happy day for Maldivians as we return to the family of Commonwealth nations.

So from the article it states that it left the Commonwealth in 2016 but has now rejoined.  :thumbsup:

They want to be a republic by 2021, and will apparently join as a Commonwealth, i.e. Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago.

sign-in (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-54174794)

I don't know what 'join as a Commonwealth' means. They are already in the Commonwealth.

Barbados and Jamaica (which has been signalling this for a very long time) will remain in the Commonwealth as they are already,  but as republics, the same as the vast majority of countries in the Commonwealth.

The then Jamaican PM was urging a republic in 2012 just before Harry visited on his tour of the Caribbean and Brazil on behalf of Grannie. There were photos of the two of them hugging. It's inevitable that more Commonwealth countries will cease having the monarch as HOS but several are waiting for the next reign in order to do so.

Bad choice of words, but they will only be a CW.

There is a difference, political and economical.

Their plans to have their own head of government as a republic, they will alone be responsible of their politics and economics (the debt with the UK of USD 7.5 Billion, which is relaxed as of today, yet but soon will not, that's the moneys loaned by the UK), whilst being a member of commonwealth benefits the Barbadians in travel, education, trade and commerce with the UK. 

ETA: Of course they are free to do what they want and according to the BBC link, the discussions have been going on with both the BRF and Parliament.  I personally don't think its great idea, only if they have a plan A and B for their economy, partnering with USA or China or both?!  The top 10 richest Caribbean countries are tied somehow with firstly the UK, followed by USA, then France.  #1 Bermuda British Overseas Territory, #2 Cayman Islands British Overseas Territory #3 US Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands of The United States and the list are all tied, whilst the poorest...ummm.

What's a CW? Countries in the Commonwealth aren't usually referred to as 'the Commonwealth of --------. In fact as far as I know Australia is the only one that is. Do you mean a federation as several little countries in the West Indies are, like Trinidad and Tobago?

Well, we aren't a republic here, the Queen is still our HOS at the moment, but we are still responsible for all our own economic, social, and political policies, and have been since Federation, certainly since 1948 when Australians' citizenship status changed from 'British citizen' to Australian.

That includes the other realms and all the countries in the Commonwealth no longer classed as British colonies. We are all in charge of our own destiny and financial arrangements with other countries, within or outside the Commonwealth.

Of course there are various Commonwealth schemes and arrangements to help smaller, poorer countries within the organisation. The U.K., Australia and Canada are major financial contributors to those.

CW = Commonwealth

I didn't say anything about your other parts,  it sounds passive aggressive, but I will agree that the benefits of being a member of the CW, have a basic for all (Travel, Education in the UK, trading their exports to the UK, whilst receiving relaxed imports from the UK), but  there are many extended benefits that aren't for all members.

Reading between the lines from the BBC, Royal Reporter report it pretty much sounds like a relief to BRF/Parliament that Barbados wants to be a republic with no British HOS. 

With the effects of COVID19, all countries have been economically affected.  Each country will have to deal with their own debt, I feel the poor countries will be badly affected politically, socially because of this.

A natural progression. Im a Canadian and our constitution is so complicated that I cant see any federal politician putting forth a referendum.

The Conservative Party is monarchist to the core and when Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was elected he went out of his way to support the monarchy.

Pressure from China is driving the campaign for Barbados to become a republic, a Conservative MP has claimed.

Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said Beijing was playing a large role in the island nation's decision to remove the Queen as head of state.

Barbados signed on to Chinas Belt and Road initiative in 2019, opening up trade between the two countries.

Meanwhile CIA intelligence in the US about Chinese activities in Barbados has now reportedly been shared with Britain.

More: Barbados's moves to drop the Queen as Head of State 'are being driven by Chinese interference' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8762119/Barbadoss-moves-drop-Queen-Head-State-driven-Chinese-interference.html)

Barbados has been talking about replacing the Queen since 2015, long before Barbados signed up to this Chinese enterprise. However, China's interfering in the political processes of Barbados doesn't surprise me at all. Australia (and NZ and the US) is having the same sort of trouble here with Chinese influence in the Pacific with islands quite near to us. However, Australia has good relations with Pacific nations and so far has managed to fight them off to a large extent.

The large sums of money offered by these Chinese backed endeavours in the form of infrastructure is very tempting, but they should also be well aware that no nation like China offers something for nothing out of simple benevolence and sooner or later there is a price to pay.

Only a few Barbadians will profit with China (if signed sealed and delivered, the job openings will be a huge shocker with communist pay, minimum wage in each range mid management with zero benefits,  all senior management are Expats brought in, almost going back to surfdom).  The later is offering many countries in USA's backyard, Caribbean and Latin America.

Basically, the 2 superpowers are muscling geopolitics (Obama welcomed China to USA, causing many American Co's to shut down due to cheap made in China Co's in the USA versus American products, Trump threw them away with economic policies; pay high rise taxes, etc. which would make it practically impossible to have a China Co in the USA), UK is a NATO (and other treaties) with the USA, the UK is the head of the Commonwealth, simple math.

I know exactly the feeling, Oil industry is the only one that peace or war, we're there.  I've seen how China has ''purchased a country''. 

Yes, I agree. It was Obama's economic policies and trade agreements that caused this situation to develop. China's own factory workers are basically slave labour as well, and suicides from despair and stress are apparently frequent. Australia and China's relationship used to be a good one but has deteriorated due to flexing of muscles in our part of the world, notably in the South China seas and certain espionage activities within Aus becoming known.

Thank you @Curryong I truly wanted to use the word slave/slavery, but I was afraid it may bring a very heated discussion, but I see now that you with your Australian knowledge of the Geopolitics and China trying to intervene, you are in the Know.

Before moving to this new country where I'm at, I was at one of the worlds largest oil deposit countries. I work for a USA company, they decided due to the political situation to bring way down the number of employees, luckily I was transferred, but I was in a crossroads previous to transfer, the Chinese had called me to offer me the same position with a 90% reduction of salary, then I was contacted by a union of oil workers, they shared the same concern, some stories were harrowing and very sad, livelihoods messed to the point of mental health suicidal issues.  Of course, today these people who didn't or were not offered my fate are in a starving slavery situation.

The hardest hit Co's in the USA when China was in was California fishery and agriculture. They are back in, these Co's are a minority versus the artistic aka Hollywood.  Basically, China is the biggest movie/film buyers/viewers in the world, simple math again.

Indeed. I do not trust China at all. It's muscle flexing over the last few years has proved that it is a threat to democracy and true economic growth in this region. Our Premier of Victoria Daniel Andrews signed a supposedly advantageous agreement with the Chinese Govt about 18 months ago, the curiously named Belt and Road initiative.

Victoria?s controversial Belt and Road Initiative deal with China (https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/inside-victorias-controversial-belt-and-road-initiative-deal-with-china/news-story/ff1aa7591be1931eda4f5155991ebe66)

Our Federal Govt will likely tear that agreement up as not in the national interest, though they were careful to say that the overview was not anti-Chinese. Several Chinese-Australians here in Victoria including an MP have been proven by their actions  to be under the influence of a certain foreign power. It's perhaps just as well that certain methods of increasing influence here have all the subtlety of a sledge hammer.

Of course the Chinese have not reacted well to the countermeasures and out beef, wife and grain markets are under threat as we export a great deal to China, a major trading partner. However, if we have to seek other markets then that is what we have to do. IMO It is no good pretending that a totalitarian power has kindly intentions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/queen-victoria-statue-winnipeg-1.6087684

QuoteTwo statues of queens on the grounds of the Manitoba Legislature were pulled down Thursday during a rally aimed at replacing Canada Day celebrations with actions in memory of hundreds of Indigenous children buried in unmarked graves at residential schools across the country.

Dozens of people, many wearing orange shirts in memory of Indigenous children sent to residential schools, surrounded the Queen Victoria statue. Some of them wrapped it in ropes and pulled it off its base.

The grounds were the destination of an Every Child Matters walk in Winnipeg on Canada Day afternoon to protest the fallout of Canada's residential schools system.

The statue was covered in red paint handprints. A sign saying "We were children once. Bring them home" was left leaning on the statue's pedestal after it was toppled.

Queen Victoria reigned from June 1837 until her death in 1901. As such, she was the monarch as Canada entered Confederation, negotiated treaties with Indigenous Peoples and as the federal government enacted its residential schools policy.

Is the Manitoba legislature going to replace the two statues, not bother or what?

Who knows.  Manitoba and Winnipeg have a huge population of Cree and Ojibway.  Not to mention Metis. (This is the home of the Red River rebellion after all).  At this time, replacing the statues would be a slap in the face. 

I don?t see how tearing the statues down help the situation.  Having the Catholic Church come to the table in good faith would help. 

Yes agree. The Church must squarely face up to its past actions.
It?s true the situation IS fraught at the moment and it wouldn?t be a good idea for politicians to immediately replace the statues. And then there?s that folk myth that?s been floating around Canada for years about the Queen, Prince Philip, and missing children at a picnic that might have fed into it. Interesting about the Red River rebellion, I was only reading about General Wolseley the other day.

Pulling down and defacing of statues doesn?t appear to have happened in Australia. However, I go for a proposal that was suggested at the time for statues of explorers, Generals, settlers etc. That is that a plinth be erected next to the statue with a large plaque that discusses subsequent events and consequences of their actions. That wouldn?t be suitable for royalty though, as they weren?t directly involved, just that injustices were allowed under their name. 

"The actions by individuals to vandalize the Manitoba Legislative Building July 1 are unacceptable & acts of violence will be pursued actively in the courts. They are a major setback for those who are working toward real reconciliation."

- Manitoba Premier @BrianPallister

I think if the vandals were supported, they'd be much much more than a dozen yellow shirts/people.

Quote from: Curryong on July 03, 2021, 03:06:39 AM
Yes agree. The Church must squarely face up to its past actions.
It?s true the situation IS fraught at the moment and it wouldn?t be a good idea for politicians to immediately replace the statues. And then there?s that folk myth that?s been floating around Canada for years about the Queen, Prince Philip, and missing children at a picnic that might have fed into it. Interesting about the Red River rebellion, I was only reading about General Wolseley the other day.

Pulling down and defacing of statues doesn?t appear to have happened in Australia. However, I go for a proposal that was suggested at the time for statues of explorers, Generals, settlers etc. That is that a plinth be erected next to the statue with a large plaque that discusses subsequent events and consequences of their actions. That wouldn?t be suitable for royalty though, as they weren?t directly involved, just that injustices were allowed under their name. 

@Curryong that is an excellent suggestion to have information available that explains the context behind the decisions made by those in power at the time.


Interesting topic of discussion as I believe many of us involved in the discussion have ancestral connections to Great Britain and nations that it conquered/colonized over the centuries: Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia etc...

I did notice that for the first time there was no official Canada Day messages from the three royal social media accounts. Would this be due to PM Trudeau's remarks about July 1, 2021 being a day of reflection for the nation? 

^^^
Probably but most municipalities had something going on. My city celebrated . Very few officially cancelled anything.

A poll by the Globe and Mail found only 14% of Canadians favoured 'cancelling' Canada Day.

Justin Trudeau has a problem over residential schools. His father was all for them as Prime Minister. Pierre Trudeau oversaw the schools for 15 years.

Justin Trudeau is calling for 'reflection' but also ignoring his father's role with them.

Thanks for sharing @PrincessOfPeace.

Our events were cancelled here but it was because of covid.   There were PLENTY of private fireworks.  Last night, also.  It was quite noisy for a while

Terrible news in BC, with the awful fires. I?m glad that people were able to celebrate Canada Day in most places though. Here in Oz Australia Day has become increasingly contentious as it?s regarded by our indigenous population as ?Invasion Day?. In latest polling about 73% of Aussies do not want the date changed, however an increasing number wouldn?t mind another day on the calendar to be established for our aborigine population, which I think would be an excellent move.

Thank you TLLK, for support of the suggestion made here that alternative plaques should be erected at contentious sites, statues etc. I hope that in Canada beside ?reflection? there is going to be a full and comprehensive Inquiry into all residential schools and a sincere response from both the RC church and both sides of government about the shameful actions both overseen and permitted. Because if the past is not acknowledged nothing really can go forward.

How is the Roman Catholic Church involved in the situation?

@LouisFerdinand -The Roman Catholic  church often were the founders and administrators of the boarding schools for
the Canadian  First Nations' children.

The schools were ran by the RC Church.  There were some schools ran by the Anglican Church, but not as many. 

One community that I worked in up north had one of these schools.  The building was still there but now was used by the band as a community centre, band office and post office.  Many in the school refused to even go in the building.  Several years after I was there the building burnt down.  Not a loss.  And I hope that the erasure of the building helped healing.   The horrors of St. Anne's | CBC News (https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/st-anne-residential-school-opp-documents)

The was an old lady in the community who had worked at the school as a nun.  She hated the locals and they hated her.  I was told she participated in the abuse.  Some of those abused were now taking care of her.  She was a misery and finally she moved down south to a retirement home for the nuns. 

I heard some stories but for the most part community members were not open to talking to outsiders.  Only in two communities I was trusted enough to be told insider information.  I was honoured to be trusted and liked enough for the women to open up.  In the one community the ladies sang Happy Birthday to me in OjiCree while we were out in the middle of the blueberry patch  :blowkiss: 

Yes the Catholic Church ran the schools but from the authority of the Canadian government. Jean Chretien was Minister of 'Indian Affairs' in Pierre Trudeau's government and it was the government that gave the church the ability to run residential schools. 

The question being, did the government know what was happening.  Where they aware of the abuse.  Did they give tacit permission for it to happen.  Was it because of prevailing society views of Indians.

This wasn't the only place that RC church abused children.  The Magdalene homes, priests abusing alter boys etc.  The church isn't exactly innocent.   But neither is the Canadian government and society. 

I agree the church was there on a day to day basis. I'm not saying Jean Chretien as Minister of 'Indian Affairs' knew what was going on. 

But it can't be ignored the government set up the framework for residential schools. Indigenous families that didn't turn over their children were subject to arrest by the RCMP for example.

It is hard to fathom that the Roman Catholic Church had involvement with the abuse of children. However, even the Church may not always be trusted. To not trust a Church is an unfortunate.

The Roman Catholic church has a long history of covering up abuse of children..  Having said that they're not the only ones to do so....

No they're not the only ones. From Soviet summer camps to Scouts to sports programs and of course schools there's a long history of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. That being said, up until the mid 20th century corporal punishment was the norm in many schools throughout the Western world but today is not permitted.

Who is Mary Simon, Canada's first Indigenous Governor General? | CTV News (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/who-is-mary-simon-canada-s-first-indigenous-governor-general-1.5498435)

Interesting pick.  Timely with regards to the residential schools.   She is a fighter so I wonder how well she will be able to step into the apolitical role.  Smart and an interesting life story.  Well done Trudeau. 

Very interesting choice and she has had a very distinguished career as well representing Canada as the official ambassador to Denmark too.
She's currently bilingual but is going to be working to become proficient in French.

Canada held an installation ceremony for Mary Simon on Monday, who became the country's 30th governor general and the first Indigenous person to hold the position.

The ceremony, held in the Senate of Canada building in Ottawa, included a swearing-in, the presentation of Canadian honours and the Great Seal of Canada.  Simon also delivered her 1st speech after her oath.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was among the few people allowed to witness the ceremony in person as public health guidelines have set limits on attendance and mask requirements for anyone there in person.

Trudeau named Simon, an Inuk leader and former Canadian diplomat, as his choice to be the Queen's representative in Canada earlier this month, replacing Julie Payette who resigned in January.

Watch: Mary Simon becomes Canada's 30th governor general | FULL - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2619&v=pdMXxF8p4ag&feature=youtu.be)

What a great appointment! Hope Mary Simon is a huge success, and I?ll bet all Inuits are feeling proud today. We in Oz haven?t had any indigenous GGs yet, and in fact only one Governor of a State, Sir Doug Nicholls of South Australia in the 1970s.

 :happycanada: Congratulations to Canada on the appointment and the installation of your new Governor General.

Following her installation as The Queen's representative in Canada, Governor General Mary Simon visited the National War Memorial & laid flowers on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as the Canadian Armed Forces' new Commander-in-Chief.

Pic: https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/1421902307885735937?s=20

Barbados elects first-ever president to replace Queen Elizabeth as head of state.
Barbados elects first-ever president to replace Queen Elizabeth as head of state | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1943228.html)

This has been on the cards for years. Over the last year the process has speeded up. Barbados will almost certainly stay in the Commonwealth, but the Queen, although a pragmatist, will no doubt be a bit sad that one of the realms has gone of which she was HOS.

It?s my view that it?s the first of many of the 16 realms to go, most in the next reign.

Clarence House: The Prince of Wales will visit Barbados in late November at the invitation of prime minister Mia Amor Mottley as guest of honour at events to mark the island nation's transition to a republic within the Commonwealth.

Charles has a very busy travel schedule this month. 

Some background information on Barbados future Head of State and who is currently the Governor General.

Sandra Mason ? the woman replacing The Queen as Head of State in Barbados ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/sandra-mason-the-woman-replacing-the-queen-as-head-of-state-in-barbados-168787/)

QuoteBarbados is becoming a republic, and Dame Sandra Mason will become its first president. Currently serving as Governor-General, the parliament elected Mason to become president when Barbados removes Queen Elizabeth II as head of state later this month.

Born and raised in Barbados, Mason has worked as a teacher and for many years rose in the ranks of Barclays Bank. But it was the law that always had a calling for Mason. She earned a law degree and held a position for more than ten years as a Magistrate of the Juvenile and Family Court.

For a time, Mason took her skills outside of Barbados. She left the family court to become Ambassador to Venezuela. She went on to serve as the Ambassador to Chile, Brazil and Colombia. She also served on the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for nine years, including becoming the chair of the committee for two years.

Upon her return to Barbados in 1994, Mason accepted the appointment of Chief Magistrate for Barbados. She later became a Registrar of the Supreme Court and an Appeals Judge. In 2014, Mason began her work with other Commonwealth countries when she became the first Barbadian to be appointed as a member of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal. This tribunal resolved contract disputes between Commonwealth countries.

Sandra Mason has had a varied and very distinguished career, both in the Commonwealth and out of it. Work in the Commonwealth Secretariat is especially important as Barbados will continue as a member of the organisation.  I think Barbadians will be very happy that she is to be their President. And she?s home-grown!

Canadian MPs sing ?God Save The Queen? in a show of support for the monarchy after Barbados became a republic ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/interests/state/canadian-mps-sing-god-save-the-queen-in-a-show-of-support-for-the-monarchy-after-barbados-became-a-republic-169311/)-Video in the article. MPs were reminded that only the singing of the Canadian National Anthem at an appropriate time was considered acceptable in the Chambers.

QuoteA number of Canadian Members of Parliament broke into song in the House of Commons chamber this week as MPs congratulated Barbados on transferring from Realm to Republic.

Conservative MPs in Canada sang the British National Anthem, God Save The Queen, while legislators were voting on a motion to congratulate Barbados on the election of their new President who has replaced The Queen as head of state.

The motion was defeated.

Today in 1952, the Right Honorable Vincent Massey became the first Canadian-born Governor General of Canada. The photo depicts The Queen & Prince Philip at Rideau Hall accompanied by Massey & his dog, Duff - who kindly carries Her Majesty's purse.

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/1498344759089319939?s=20&t=JtG61cgACsTSWwwXBUShxQ

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda | Prince of Wales (https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/press-release/prince-wales-and-duchess-cornwall-will-attend-commonwealth-heads-government-meeting-0)

QuoteThe Royal Family at the Commonwealth Day Service

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which takes place in Kigali, Rwanda during the week of 20th June. 

The Queen's Commonwealth Day Message 2022 | The Royal Family (https://www.royal.uk/queens-commonwealth-day-message-2022)

Quote from: Blue Clover on April 30, 2022, 09:30:55 AM
The world is changing. Kate and William must educate themselves on global social progress.

They are educated on social progress....the Caribbean islands want ''money''.  IOW, any 'further' social progress is up to the islanders, not the monarchy. 

1) 99% of infrastructure was carried out by the British Empire, these have been handed over to the islanders and the BE was substituted by the Commonwealth.  The commonwealth has 100% to do with 'social' progress. 

2) The speech from the islanders = money (reparation, but this has already been paid). They want more money, it's the #1 focus to all islanders (every poor country around the world, because the pandemic stoppage affected them the most).

3) China is interested only if any of these islands have a natural resource they can invest and exploit. The commonwealth (British) aren't exploiting, they only invest in social partnership; military joint exercise, health, education and the like. i.e. historically has been this way, latest (recent years) William participating jointly Royal Navy Caribbean drug bust. i.e. Hurricane destruction, Charles fundraising to reconstruct a Hospital building, which in the first place was done by white people that handed it over to the local islanders, who weren't local but slaves (a bit out of topic, but to make my point in social progress) sold by mainly the Nigerian Monarchy (at that period of history, Britain was focused in India and Southern Africa, whilst the Portuguese were rulling the sea and purchasing slaves from the same Nigerian black royals selling their own people) to the Portuguese.

How has ?reparation (for the several centuries of slavery) already been paid? (by the British)? The islands for the most part were sugar plantations owned and operated by Britons during the days of Empire. There was precious little infrastructure going on by the colonial authorities nor by the early Commonwealth. Right up until the 1950s, long after slavery, the BE islands in the Caribbean were desperately poor.

Au contraire to the assertions above China has been paying for infrastructure and other projects (for their own benefit and that of the finances of many of the local politicians who have become wealthy men.

China Regional Snapshot: The Caribbean - Committee on Foreign Affairs (https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/china-snapshot-project-the-caribbean/)

As for the feelings of the local population of these islands towards the British royal family, that has been changing for a very long time. The height of West Indian immigration into the UK was during the 1950s and 1960s, where the immigrants (having been taught loyalty to the Crown and Empire) were shocked to find they suffered widespread discrimination in British society at the time. See Windrush scandal. Those emigres wrote home about their experiences.  Like other parts of the old Empire/Commonwealth including the realms, the popularity of the Royal Family has been receding for at least fifty years or more, slowly but surely.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3002807

An article below discusses the question of reparations and making it clear that Britain has never paid any such bounty to any of its native citizens of the former Empire, with the exception of a former disgraceful military led massacre of protestors which occurred in India in 1919 and caused a terrific scandal within Britain. A few thousand pounds was paid on that occasion.

https://qz.com/1911783/what-the-uk-owes-in-reparations/

Officially 2015 the UK finished paying the Slavery Compensation Act.

These poor (commonwealth) countries are doing right (it's their own country) making business with whoever offers them the most $ (China).  As I said in previous comments about reparations; they should eye not only the USA, but I'm following a reknown historian, Nigeria who sold their own people and Portugal.  The UK is the only ones who not only paid but handed over for free all the infrasctures they carried out. 

Quote from: wannable on May 02, 2022, 01:55:44 PM
Officially 2015 the UK finished paying the Slavery Compensation Act.

Er, the Slavery Compensation Act was a British Govt Act of the 1830s which was passed to pay slave owners compensation due to slavery being abolished in the British Empire. That was in the 1830s and due to World Wars and other international events, yes the Govt didn?t stop paying it off until 2015.

However, this money was not paid to former slaves or their descendants anywhere in the Empire. That money partly went to slave OWNERS who owned sugar plantations in the West Indies, to compensate them for loss of labour in the plantations, labour which of course had formerly been completely free, and partly to other slave owners elsewhere in the Empire, bar the East India Company possessions. .

These owners (who ran a campaign for compensation from the very early 19th century once they saw which way the British Govt was moving) were 99% British, some Irish. Many of them, including the later PM William Gladstone?s family, and the father of the poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, had become very wealthy due to the slave trade and moved into the gentry class back in Britain. They thus often became absentee landlords on their West Indies plantations and appointed agents and overseers (some of the latter very cruel) to administer these estates for them.

I don?t know where you got the idea from that Britain ever compensated any slave within the British Empire  but it is completely incorrect.

20 million pounds
The British government also paid 20 million pounds ? the equivalent of around 17 billion pounds today ? to compensate slave owners for the lost capital associated with freeing slaves. This payout was a massive 40% of the government's budget and required many bonds to slave owners to effectuate the law.30 June 2020
USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com (https://www.usatoday.com) ? factcheck
Fact check: United Kingdom finished paying off debts to slave-owning families in 2015 -

The Act itself

The History Press | The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 (https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/the-slavery-abolition-act-of-1833/)

Sir John Gladstone of Fasque, 1st Baronet, FRSE (11 December 1764 ? 7 December 1851) was a British merchant, slave owner, politician and the father of the British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone. Through his commercial activities he acquired several large plantations in Jamaica and Guyana that were worked initially by enslaved Africans. The Demerara Rebellion of 1823, a slave revolt centred on his estates was brutally crushed by the military. The extent of his ownership of slaves was such that after slavery was abolished in 1833, he received the largest of all compensation payments made by the Slave Compensation Commission.[1] After the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, Gladstone expelled most African workers from his estates and imported large numbers of Indian indentured-labourers through false promises of providing them schools and medical attention. However, upon arrival they were paid no wages, the repayment of their debts being deemed sufficient, and worked under conditions that continued to resemble slavery in everything except name.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861), poet and writer, was born on 6 March 1806 at Coxhoe Hall, County Durham, the first of twelve children to Edward Barrett Moulton Barrett (1785-1857), Jamaican plantation owner, and his wife Mary (1781-1828).  Her family origins are documented in Jeanette Marks? The Family of the Barrett, in R.A. Barrett?s The Barretts of Jamaica, and in The Brownings? Correspondence (hereafter BC).  Her mother?s parents were John and Arabella Graham (after 1786, Graham-Clarke) of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.  John Graham-Clarke owned Jamaican sugar plantations, ships trading between Newcastle and Jamaica, a brewery, flax spinning mills and glass works.  Her father?s parents were Charles and Elizabeth Moulton 1763-1830), who married in Jamaica 28 August 1781.  Edward Barrett Moulton Barrett?s fortune came not from his father, who soon separated from his wife, but from his maternal grandfather, Edward Barrett (1734-98), owner of Cinnamon Hill, Cornwall, Cambridge and Oxford Estates on Jamaica?s Northside: more than 10,000 acres in total (R.A. Barrett 128).  Edward Barrett?s income was ?fifty thousand a year?, his great-granddaughter told fellow poet Robert Browning (1812-1899) during the courtship recorded in their famous love letters.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning was descended from slave-owners on both sides of her family, her maternal grandfather John Graham-Clarke and her father's maternal grandfather Edward Barrett (1734-1798). Her awareness of her slave-owning ancestry deeply marked her.
The family of Robert Browning also had a history in the slave-economy. Browning's grandfather, also Robert (1749-1833), had married Margaret Tittle, whose father the Rev. John Tittle had been a slave-owner on St Kitts; Browning's father, again Robert (1782-1866) was sent to St Kitts to manage a plantation described as the Anderson estate, which the Rev. John Tittle had owned or co-owned with William Coleman (q.v., under William Coleman of Lee). In his will proved in 1834, Robert Browning's grandfather said that his son Robert [1782-1866] and daughter Margaret Morris Browning 'have had by their uncle Tittle and aunt Mill much greater portion than can be left to my other dear children' [the step-brothers and sisters of the named Robert and Margaret Morris Browning], and accordingly left them ?10 each. The inference to be drawn is that money from the slave-economy passed to the father of the poet from his mother's family.

That was the price Britain paid to free the slaves.

Quote from: wannable on May 03, 2022, 12:08:21 PM
That was the price Britain paid to free the slaves.

Yes, but the money did not go to the slaves or their descendants. It was a commercial decision for the loss of their property (ie slaves) and it benefited slave owning families..

Britain's colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition (https://reparationscomm.org/reparations-news/britains-colonial-shame-slave-owners-given-huge-payouts-after-abolition/)

They were the first slaves freed.

The infrastructures of the British Empire were handed over for free.  It is part and parcel of the 'reparation'.  The only ones who did it. No other slaving country did anything remotely near. i.e. WWII the USA was still treating black people 3rd hand citizens. The UK wrote diaries about it, they noted every single bit and piece of their allies in England territory (and what they've seen in Europe; from Italy to France, Morocco, the shared bases).

Black historians know this, recent upstarts know this too, but are creating a new woke political career, hence want the UK to pay more, because they already paid.  They don't use this rhetoric on the USA, Portugal, Nigeria because these countries (Spain too with Cuban slaves) never repaired anything.

One of the best jewels/infrastructures given for free is in India; previously known as Viceroy's House, later by India Rashtrapati Bhawan, the official residence of the Indian President. The humongous list of infrastructures built by Britain (worldwide) is so extensive, including the history behind it all, makes a facinating read.

Oh for goodness sake! Most of these ?infrastructures? as you call them, in the then British Empire, were built and used by the British long before independence of these colonies. Bridges, canals, roads, harbours etc were used to facilitate trade within the Empire for Britain?s benefit. Houses, including the one you mentioned in your post, were built to house British officials sent out from London to administer the local populations, and yes, they were efficient at it. So were the public buildings erected, and used to house the Colonial civil service.

Do you really expect that the British should have destroyed the infrastructure and properties on independence? That wouldn?t have done much for trade with Britain post independence, now would it, besides being terrible image wise, in the post Colonial period. Especially as pre- Britain joining the EU, many of the economic policies of Empire Free Trade, which operated between the wars, still stood, to Britain?s advantage.

As for people being treated as third class citizens, I don?t think the Windrush generation of West Indian migrants to Britain would have called their treatment first class. And that was in the 1960s.

I don?t know what you mean by the UK wrote diaries about slavery. Countries are countries, they are incapable of writing anything. Nor do I know what you mean by ?shared bases?. Shared with whom, and when?

Certainly Britain abolished slavery earlier than the US. However, countries like Nigeria, which was annexed by the British in the mid 19th century, was a region, part of Africa?s native kingdoms. And yes at its peak it was a major slave owning area. However, it did not resemble a modern State in any form.

Completely separate to the modern Nigeria. Good luck in trying to get compensation for centuries of  slave trading from a country that did not exist before the late 19th century (as a British colony.) As for Portugal, that country after the 16th century was a poor backwater. Britain was extremely wealthy and powerful and so paid reparations, to its slave owning families. That did not benefit the African slaves who had been imported (by British owners) to work the sugar plantations.

I think a starry eyed view of the British Empire is necessarily unbalanced. Yes, there were some good things about it but also some terrible injustices which resonate today. Countries don't become enormous powerful Empires by behaving in overwhelmingly kindly and beneficent ways to the native populations under their control. The Romans didn?t, the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch didn?t, and neither did the British.

And Britain wasn?t the first to abolish slavery. The timeline below shows the abolition of slavery and serfdom in several countries over the centuries, including European and Scandinavian ones.

Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom)

And France abolished slavery in its overseas possessionstwice, once in 1794 and again in 1848. Note, years before Britain and the US.

French Emancipation - Atlantic History - Oxford Bibliographies (https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199730414/obo-9780199730414-0253.xml)

Twice in the midst of revolution in France.

A valid point in reference to the white Christian slavery in Scandinavia countries (previously known as barbarians)

Also, I don't understand your point about the British Empires infrastructures. It is a fact it was built by them and handed over, wherever they colonised in favor to the locals and for free (it has a cost). They could have kept it all like an embassy, turn buildings into transnational, fully international organizations, and the like, but not. IOW, the Brits could have charged the costs of all the infrastructures, as I said, giving it for free equates to reparation. These people didn't have infrastructure, they have it since the BE left and was sub by the commonwealth.  The commonwealth is social progress.

The infrastructures had been used by the British in those colonies before independence. Used for Britain?s benefit in the form of international trade and to facilitate colonial officialdom.As the British Empire faded, along with British power and influence after WW2, the British Commonwealth as it then was (the British part was later quietly dropped) came to the forefront.

Without an Empire and after the EU was formed Britain was in real danger of being a third rate power, a little island off the coast of Europe, a backwater like Spain. So the Commonwealth became a prestige project, helped by Elizabeth II?s enthusiasm.

It would have been a very bad look for an old colonial power to have charged a newly independent colony money for buildings etc built by them. There would have been bad publicity all over the world including in the US, and at the UN.

Other ex colonial powers like the French and Germans also left bridges, buildings, harbour improvements in their colonial possessions for the ?new owners? after they left. It wasn?t just the British.

It was a matter of prestige, spheres of influence and trade as Empires faded into the history books, but it became especially a matter of importance to the British, as the Commonwealth and Commonwealth trade was considered extremely important before Britain joined the EU. British governments may have had some sentimental ties to countries in the old Empire, especially Tory administrations, but countries? rulers rarely do things out of the goodness of their hearts.

Charging for infrastructure in other countries is the sort of thing businesses do (and China nowadays, which never had a modern colonial empire) not ex colonial powers. As I?ve pointed out, a lot of other factors were considered more important.

Thank you but they've all been ''constructed'' then ''used'', hence my repeated comments about infrastructures (worldwide carried out by the British Empire and handed over for FREE to be owned and used by the ex slaves).

Just a recent example: Jamaica  (W&K tour) they went to ex British Empire infrastructures; King's House (also known as Government House) inhabited by the GG of Jamaica, who is Jamaican (and black). It was constructed by Sir Charles Archibald Nicholson, a white English architect and designer.  This person has a huge list of buildings under his CV.

1872 King's House was constructed by Englishman Sir Charles Archibald Nicholson
(https://kingshouse.gov.jm/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/DJI_0107.jpg)

^ The above is the second house the British Empire constructed, previously they constructed in the 1600 hundred's the 1st house at Royal Port (Jamaica) which was considered the first capital of Jamaica.  Other than these 2 emblematic buildings, the BE constructed the ''entire'' village (s) of these colonized countries. 

I think the commonwealth will endure many many years to come, but will it remain 54, not sure IF social partnerships are destroyed by them (colonized countries politicians, insisting in give us money rather than social progress) rather than the monarchy, i.e. William and Kate clearly stated in W speeches (he repeated it like several times) they are only interested in 'serving' (helping), that is what the Commonwealth is about.  There isn't interest in exploiting (China) only helping out in what the cw is all about (read cw official website).

I stated in my last two posts the reasons for these constructions in colonial times and why they were handed over on independence. Of course they were handed over ?free?! These colonial administrations weren?t run like a corporate business worried about its balance sheets! Plus, btw, these places were constructed to be used for as long as the Empire lasted, in the minds of many Britons that could be as long as the Roman Empire, 400 years or so. They weren?t thinking of the well-being of future black GGs and PMs in the 18th and 19th centuries!

So were buildings in the ex colonial possessions of France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, including various houses in the Caribbean, handed over at independence. None of those countries charged the new native governments for them. If the British had charged money for them few of these poorer West Indies and African countries, nor India which had a huge number of public buildings built by the British, would have joined the Commonwealth as a matter of principle, denying the British an extremely important large organisation as it continued the prestige of Britain and its monarchy into the modern era.

Yes the Commonwealth will continue, though maybe not in its present form with the realms gone in the next twenty or so years, I would say. It will become less and less Anglocentric. Moreover, I can practically guarantee that Charles will be its last ceremonial head. In another 20 years or so when he dies they won?t be choosing another royal, whatever William states about his aim of ? serving?helping?. I?d like to know in fact just who these royal tours are ?serving? and ?helping? as it sure isn?t the inhabitants of the countries visited!

I agree that China isn?t interested in helping any other country but itself in any way, shape or form. It wants to be a global super-power and that?s its main goal.

I don?t need to read Commonwealth PR on its website. I grew up knowing about the Commonwealth.

The politicians know what the commonwealth is about, yet they ask William for ''moneys''. Yesterday: a Kenyan politician.

*****

Does Kenya still have slavery?
The Global Modern Slavery Index estimates that 328,000 people are held in conditions of modern slavery in Kenya.

*****

Who first started slavery in Africa?
The Portuguese
The transatlantic slave trade began during the 15th century when Portugal, and subsequently other European kingdoms, were finally able to expand overseas and reach Africa. The Portuguese first began to kidnap people from the west coast of Africa and to take those they enslaved back to Europe.

*****

What countries still have slaves?
As of 2022, the countries with the most slaves were: India (8 million), China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000).

I have never said that slavery doesn?t exist in Commonwealth countries. It?s clear that it does. And it?s also clear that the Commonwealth Office based in London does very little about it. Nor does it ever come up in CHOGMs meetings. So one could ask what is the present Commonwealth doing about this great injustice. And how do senior royal tours help this running sore?

And the meaning of modern day slavery is often too broad and needs to be defined.

What is modern slavery? - Anti-Slavery International (https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIg4OzpLvJ9wIVZpNmAh2MEwNoEAAYASAAEgJiPPD_BwE)

Of course ancient and medieval empires took part in the slave trade. However, why would citizens of the Commonwealth worry about Portuguese activities in the 15th and 16th centuries or ask it for compensation? It was British slave traders and British ships that transported slaves to the West Indies. Hence the recent protests during royal tours.

And if we are talking about historical wrongs, the English monarchs were involved right up to ***?s bow in licensing Royal sponsored Companies to indulge in slave trading activities among other things from the time of Elizabeth I and going on through Charles II?s reign. So they were in it pretty early, got some financial rewards from it and approved it. That?s what recent conversations with William were about.

For instance

Royal African Company - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company)

And this

The royal family made its fortune from slave trade  - Readers' Letters | The Scotsman (https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/the-royal-family-made-its-fortune-from-slave-trade-readers-letters-3161300)

?The slave trade was pioneered under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. She allowed John Hawkins to kidnap slaves from Africa and sell them in the Caribbean. The profits were tremendous.?

?It was under Charles II that the Crown financed the African slave trade. The royal family were owners of The Royal Gambia Company, the Royal Adventurers Company and the Royal African Company.?

And
?The restored Stuart dynasty saw slavery as a way to overtake the Dutch as the undisputed masters of the Atlantic Triangle. The Company of Royal Adventures was given a monopoly over most of the West Coast of Africa. This was to last 1000 years. Charles allowed the loan of several ships for the venture. For this Charles was given two thirds of all gold mines expropriated. This gave the Crown financial independence from Parliament.

The Treaty of Utrecht (which ceded Gibraltar to the UK) also gave Britain the monopoly over the Atlantic slave trade. The fortunes made from this human misery directly benefits the Windsor family today.?

And

What are the British monarchy?s historical links to slavery? | Monarchy | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/23/british-royal-family-monarchy-historical-links-to-slavery)

?Between 1690 and 1807, an estimated 6 million enslaved Africans were transported from west Africa to the Americas on British or Anglo-American ships. The slave trade was protected by the royal family and parliament.

It is difficult to estimate just how much of the current royal family?s wealth is owed to slavery, but it is understood that the profits of the slave trade funded the Treasury, as well as Britain?s industries, buildings, railways, roads and parks.?

And actually the Portuguese weren?t the First Nation to ?start slavery in Africa, though they were among the first to bring slaves to Europe. It started long long before then with Moors, North African traders, taking back slaves to their home ports. There is some evidence that Romans were also trading in slaves in Africa.

Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa)

The article regarding the Cambridges is already shared in their forum. Please continue discussion on that topic in this thread.

The Cambridges Official Foreign Visits & Tours Part 2 Feb. 2022 to present (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95170.0)

The Government of Jamaica is to begin the process to become a republic by 2025 beginning with a comprehensive review of the nation's 1962 Constitution.
Constitutional Reform Committee To Facilitate Transition To Republic ? Jamaica Information Service (https://jis.gov.jm/constitutional-reform-committee-to-facilitate-transition-to-republic/)

QuoteA Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC), to include representatives from the Government, Parliamentary Opposition, relevant experts, and the wider society, is to be appointed to ensure Jamaica?s smooth transition to a Republic.

Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Marlene Malahoo Forte, made the announcement during her 2022/23 Sectoral Debate presentation in the House of Representatives on Tuesday (June 7).

Jamaican Government Gives 2025 Timeline to Become Republic - CNW Network (https://www.caribbeannationalweekly.com/caribbean-breaking-news-featured/jamaica-government-gives-2025-timeline-to-become-republic/)

QuoteMinister Malahoo Forte explained that Jamaica?s republic process, however, will include a two-thirds majority vote in parliament along with a referendum.

?The reform work to be done in order to achieve the goal of a new Constitution require cooperation between the government and the parliamentary opposition, as well as the seal of the people,? she explained.

The timeline for the republic status in 2025, when the next general election is due in Jamaica.

A new poll taken in Australia shows at this point in time,  that the majority of the nation wish to retain the monarchy.

New poll suggests majority of Australians want to retain the monarchy (https://www.9news.com.au/national/queen-elizabeth-ii-death-should-australia-leave-the-commonwealth-and-become-a-rebublic/86b18290-80da-4513-9c93-77048602e8a6)

QuoteA majority of Australians are in favour of the nation remaining a monarchy instead of transitioning to a republic, according to the first poll conducted since the death of the Queen.
The poll, conducted by Roy Morgan yesterday, found that 60 per cent of people want to remain in the monarchy ? an increase of five per cent since last November ? while 40 per cent would prefer to be a republic.
There were 1012 people surveyed by SMS for the poll.

They will see William and Kate next year

Quote from: TLLK on September 15, 2022, 12:43:42 AM
A new poll taken in Australia shows at this point in time,  that the majority of the nation wish to retain the monarchy.

New poll suggests majority of Australians want to retain the monarchy (https://www.9news.com.au/national/queen-elizabeth-ii-death-should-australia-leave-the-commonwealth-and-become-a-rebublic/86b18290-80da-4513-9c93-77048602e8a6)

Several factors involved in this result. Roy Morgan polls although quite well known aren?t regarded as being particularly accurate. It?s NewsPoll that?s the biggie here.

There?s been a huge sense of sympathy for the Queen since her frailty became more obvious since last autumn. She?s always been much admired here. That has also translated in recent days to sympathy for the RF as a whole.

Several prominent republicans who are regarded as being a bit flaky immediately jumped about saying that the Queen?s death meant there should be a republic at once. Tone deaf! Especially in regard to my point above.

The figures often jump up and down on a republic here as we get a lot of British and RF news. So the Queen ill and frail garnishes sympathy. Tours of Aus by the younger royals give the same result for a while.

The republic isn?t an issue at the moment. It?s on the back burner. The Govt is concerned with aboriginal issues such as forming a representative body in Federal Parliament at the moment. There?s also been disastrous floods and the aftermath of Covid to deal with. The PM made it clear that the republic issue (which will be an expensive matter) is going to be left to Labor?s second term. So the issue isn?t in the public forefront at the moment.

However, it is bound to come, and in Charles?s reign, if he lives for the next decade. There are too many younger Aussies who feel no affiliation with the Crown at all. And Charles, in spite of some sympathy for him at the moment, is none too popular here. Especially in comparison to his mother.

Quote from: wannable on September 15, 2022, 01:11:38 AM
They will see William and Kate next year

Yes, but these tours only give a very temporary result. Polls are usually taken straight after tours and show a slight rise. The effect only lasts for weeks, a couple of months at the most and then things subside back to normal.

The big effect this time here has been the passing of a much admired monarch, the only one one whom most people here as in Britain can remember being on the throne. And sympathy spilled over into the RF as a whole. That feeling certainly isn?t going to last until this Govts second term (and barring complete disaster there will be one) and certainly not with Charles?s popularity in comparison to his mother.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/zealand-republic-debate-complicated-mori-treaty-90001731

?WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- The death of Queen Elizabeth II last week has reignited debate in New Zealand about whether it should continue recognizing Britain's monarch as its symbolic head of state or take the final step toward independence by becoming a republic.

But there remains a significant complicating factor.

While Indigenous people in many of the 14 nations outside of Britain which recognize the monarchy want to ditch it because they see it as a symbol of colonial repression, views are more mixed among Indigenous New Zealanders. Some Māori leaders favor sticking with the monarchy, at least for now.

That's because New Zealand's founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, was signed between Māori chiefs and the British crown. The treaty guaranteed Māori sovereignty over their traditional lands and fisheries, and some Māori worry those pledges could be threatened by eliminating the monarchy from New Zealand.?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62874044

What the Queen?s death has meant here.

And the Queen's death has also pushed the republican debate back to the fore here.
"I said the next time we vote on this will not be before the end of the Queen's reign. Well, the Queen's reign has ended," former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull told the BBC.

Mr Turnbull is a staunch republican - but on Friday, he teared up on national broadcaster ABC while speaking about his memories of the Queen.
It was a poignant demonstration of the complicated relationship Australia has with the monarchy.

After the proclamation on Sunday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said this was a time to pay respect and tributes to the life of the Queen. The bigger constitutional questions are to be tackled later.

His government, however, has previously made it clear that a referendum will be on the cards at some stage.
A week before the Queen's Platinum Jubilee earlier this year, Matt Thistlethwaite was appointed assistant minister for the republic. For the first time, a government MP had been given the official task of making the case for Australia to become a republic with an Australian head of state.
Though much remains unclear, a referendum appears likely to happen if the Albanese government wins a second term in 2024 or 2025.

?Abolish the Monarchy? protest held by Aboriginal protesters on Day of Mourning public holiday for the Queen here in Australia.

iview (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-22/protests-abolish-monarchy-streets-day-mourning-queen-elizabeth/101464716)

And in Canberra  politicians (many of them republicans) gather to pay tribute to the Queen. The GG, now back with the PM in Canberra and paying tribute at the ceremony, acknowledged that recollections of the Queen?s reign may vary, especially among Indigenous peoples.

iview (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-22/queen-national-memorial-service-parliament-house/101464892)

?Queen Elizabeth leaves a complex legacy for Aboriginal Australians.?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62922864?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

When Queen Elizabeth II first visited Australia in 1954, First Nations people were not counted as part of the population, and children were still being forcibly removed from their families to be assimilated into white households. In some parts of her tour, Aboriginal Australians were actively hidden from view.

On Wednesday, Canada's Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour, 266 votes to 44, of maintaining the Canadian Crown & King Charles III as head of state, by rejecting a motion introduced by separatist Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet.

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/1586714246905217024?s=20&t=iwuYe7L_2vljNKsC55TDNQ

 :happycanada:  :windsor1: God Save the King. Vive  le Roi.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on October 30, 2022, 11:21:30 PM
On Wednesday, Canada's Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour, 266 votes to 44, of maintaining the Canadian Crown & King Charles III as head of state, by rejecting a motion introduced by separatist Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet.

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/1586714246905217024?s=20&t=iwuYe7L_2vljNKsC55TDNQ

That might be so, but many surveys of public enthusiasm for Charles paint a somewhat different picture, like this one taken in September.

Majority of Canadians want referendum on monarchy ties after queen?s death: poll - National | Globalnews.ca (https://globalnews.ca/news/9133546/queen-death-monarchy-canada-ipsos-poll/)

And many polls on the monarchy taken in Canada in the last couple of decades show a population that is divided between retaining it or removing it with the young increasingly indifferent and ambivalent to the Canadian monarchy.

Message from His Majesty King Charles III of Canada on the eve of a new year:

https://twitter.com/GGCanada/status/1608862726302085121?s=20&t=VUT4w3UFith2r-ea2QV9Ug

New Zealand's PM Jacinda Arden resigns.

Jacinda Ardern resigns as prime minister of New Zealand | Jacinda Ardern | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/19/jacinda-ardern-resigns-as-prime-minister-of-new-zealand)

Here's an opinion article from Royal Central on the likelihood of Jamaica moving towards a republic. IMHO it's likely to happen sooner rather than later and with the support of the British Royal Family.

Is King Charles really a step closer to losing the first Realm of his reign? ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/king/is-king-charles-really-a-step-closer-to-losing-the-first-realm-of-his-reign-185911/)

QuoteIn mid-January, Royal Central reported that King Charles III could soon be removed as monarch in one of the Realms in which he is head of state.

Andrew Holness, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, instructed his country?s ministers to ?move ahead with speed? on bringing about the processes that would see the country transform from constitutional monarchy to republic.

But is this likely to happen, and if so, how soon could the changes come into force?

The simple answer is ? yes ? all the signs show that Jamaica is keen to remove The King as their head of state.

This should come as no surprise. The proposals have long been at the centre of discussions, with the Prime Minister raising the issue to the then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, when they visited Jamaica in March 2022.

At the time, the Prime Minister was heard saying to Prince William: ?We intend to attain, in short order, our development goals and fulfil our true ambitions and destiny as an independent, developed, prosperous country?.

Calls for Jamaica to become a republic have gained momentum over the past couple of years, with many of the country?s citizens hoping to follow in the footsteps of Barbados.

The then Prince Charles visited the Caribbean island in November 2021 when the country formally cut ties with the monarchy, becoming a republic.
The Royal Family have long adopted a policy of support toward countries who express their desires to become a republic and detach themselves from British rule.

Supporters of a republic say the monarchy is a link to the colonial past, and they deserve a leader who does not live thousands of miles away.

During his visit to Jamaica in 2022, Prince William said that the monarchy ?supports with pride and respect your decisions about your future?, which, seems to fall in line with the official stance of the institution.

It has long been known that many countries had been waiting for a change in monarch before serious consultations began about the future of the constitutional monarchy.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession of King Charles III, more countries will now be considering their options.

I agree with the main text of that article. Jamaica has been restless about its HOS for the last five years that I?ve been reading articles about it. Jamaica will.probably move to becoming a republic in the next twelve to eighteen months. Then other Caribbean dependencies followed by Pacific ones.

After that the larger realms. Our First Nations Parliamentary  presence here in Australia is moving along well. After that thoughts will move to a republic. And where we go NZ won?t be far behind. At this rate William will probably be left with the UK and the Channel Islands as his realms by the time he?s King, and watch out for Scotland and NI.

So I presume if the scenario of a much smaller kingdom is in the future, perhaps their will be a significant name and flag change in the future for the country we know as the United Kingdom. Possibly it could be England and Wales as the remainder of the realm. Nations have shifted borders and expanded/shrunk throughout the history of humankind and will continue to do so.

Charles and William appear to me to be pragmatic about the future and realize that the current realms outside the UK are likely to become republics in their respective lifetimes and will prepare George to understand that as well. The BRF members who tour the current realms will support the decisions of the citizens of those nations when it comes to determining their futures.

"I am grateful that we have the endorsement and support of HRH Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex @royalfamily -  He has been a strong champion for young people and will support the newly formed #Commonwealth Alliance for Quality Youth Leadership."

https://twitter.com/PScotlandCSG/status/1620114211933421569?s=20&t=lyFm6eKi0pA1d2_LEHMZkg

Australia is removing the British monarch from its bank notes (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/australia-removing-british-monarch-bank-notes-rcna68750)

QuoteAustralia is removing the British monarchy from its bank notes.

The nation?s central bank said Thursday its new $5 bill would feature an Indigenous design rather than an image of King Charles III. But the king is still expected to appear on coins that currently bear the image of the late Queen Elizabeth II.

The $5 bill was Australia?s only remaining bank note to still feature an image of the monarch.

The bank said the decision followed consultation with the center-left Labor Party government, which supported the change. Opponents say the move is politically motivated.

The British monarch remains Australia?s head of state, although these days that role is largely symbolic. Like many former British colonies, Australia is debating to what extent it should retain its constitutional ties to Britain.

Australia?s Reserve Bank said the new $5 bill would feature a design to replace the portrait of the queen, who died last year. The bank said the move would honor ?the culture and history of the First Australians.?

The official mail system in the UK, called Royal Mail/Royal Mail LTD.

HMKCIII official stamp will be on sale April 2023

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FoYLvpdXsA4lMQ8?format=jpg&name=small)

The Queen's Commonwealth Trust has unveiled a new website. While it's main focus is upon the young people from the Commonwealth, it does feature a focus upon the late Queen Elizabeth II's legacy.

https://twitter.com/queenscomtrust?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

QuoteOur newly re-designed website is now live. Thanks to the important work of young leaders across the #Commonwealth, we have amazing stories lined up for you. Please take a moment to check it out and let us know what you think

Home | Queens Commonwealth Trust (https://queenscommonwealthtrust.org/)

The King's Commonwealth Service theme has been announced.

https://twitter.com/Gertsroyals/status/1628932432522100743?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

QuoteThe theme for this year's Commonwealth Day has been announced:

"Forging a sustainable and peaceful common future"

King Charles is expected to give a Commonwealth Day address, following in Queen Elizabeth II's tradition. Elizabeth used to pre-record her Commonwealth Day address (Audio Only) and have it play during the annual service at @Wabbey
. In her final years, she stopped doing that, and her address was simply printed in the program.

Canadians uninterested in King Charles? coronation, British monarchy, survey suggests | Globalnews.ca (https://globalnews.ca/news/9549877/king-charles-coronation-canadians-polling/)

New polling results suggest Canadians are largely indifferent to King Charles, and more than half believe his May 6 coronation is the right time for the country to reconsider its ties with the monarchy.


The web survey of 1,544 adults released Tuesday by market research firm Leger indicates many Canadians are greeting the ascension of Charles to the throne with a shrug.

Only 12 per cent of respondents said it was good news that Charles is now King, compared to 14 per cent who said it was bad news and 67 per cent who were indifferent.

Only 13 per cent of those surveyed said they felt a personal attachment to the monarchy, compared with 81 per cent who didn?t.

As expected Jamaica is moving forward with its plans to become a republic by 2025. A move that will require the island nation to rewrite its constitution.

Jamaica moving ahead with plans to dump 'foreign monarch' Charles (https://news.yahoo.com/jamaica-plans-dump-king-charles-become-republic-111223507.html)

Quote1

Andy Wells
Andy Wells?Freelance Writer
Thu, March 23, 2023 at 4:12 AM PDT?4 min read
In this article:

Andrew Holness
9th Prime Minister of Jamaica

    Charles, Prince of Wales
    Charles, Prince of Wales
    King of the United Kingdom since 2022

Britain's King Charles III speaks at the annual Commonwealth Day Service at Westminster Abbey in London, Monday March 13, 2023. (Jordan Pettitt/Pool via AP)
Jamaica is ?moving ahead? with its plan to remove King Charles as head of state. (AP)

Jamaica is ?moving ahead? with its plans to get rid of ?foreign monarch? King Charles as its head of state, pushing the country closer to become a republic.

As the monarch looks ahead to his coronation in May, Jamaican prime minister Andrew Holness insists that ?ambitious timelines? are in place to move towards the ?road to republic?.

In a video shared by Holness, Marlene Malahoo Forte, Jamaica?s minister of legal and constitutional affairs, set out plans to ?constitutional reform work? that would ?craft a new modern constitution?.

She said: ?The goal is not simply to swap a foreign monarch ? the king of England ? for a local president. We hope to use the opportunity to facilitate a reset of the nation.?

Holness added on Twitter: ?The goal is to ultimately produce a new Constitution of Jamaica, establishing the Republic of Jamaica and affirming our self-determination and cultural heritage.?

In June last year ? three months before the Queen died ? the Jamaican government announced that they intended to pursue becoming a republic by 2025.

The plan was bolstered in January this year when Holness maintained that it was a clear priority for his leadership to move with ?speed? towards removing Charles as head of state.
King Charles III shakes hands with Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness, as he receives realm prime ministers in the 1844 Room at Buckingham Palace in London. Picture date: Saturday September 17, 2022. Stefan Rousseau/Pool via REUTERS
King Charles met Jamaican prime minister Andrew Holness following the Queen?s death last year. (Reuters)

Holness has revealed more about his plans, with a referendum believed to form the initial stages of the process.

He is quoted by the Jamaica Observer as saying: "There may be the view that it is a straightforward and simple task of just changing the name of the country from that of a constitutional monarchy to a republic ? that is not the case.

"There are many legal steps that we have to go through and there is the matter of a referendum, the outcome of which no one can predict.?

This promotional video explains the process that must occur.

https://twitter.com/AndrewHolnessJM/status/1638539946397949964?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1638539946397949964%7Ctwgr%5E0d559fa2d681832624ca5ae0b3b4e6ef0ba57858%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.news.yahoo.com%2Fjamaica-plans-dump-king-charles-become-republic-111223507.html

More of the Caribbean nations are likely to follow. The tiny specks left there will only receive royal visits every so often (perhaps fleeting visits every five years or so) from then on. The end of escaping the UK?s wintry blasts for a nice warm easy tour. The last tour by the Cambridges heralded what is to come.

By the way, the forthcoming Coronation was discussed elsewhere yesterday, and several Aussies agreed that the level of excitement at the prospect was at indifference level here. Several, including myself (sailing (weather permitting and a family birthday) had other things on.

There will be no bank holidays here in commemoration. Victoria?s spokesman said there were enough Bank Holidays as it is, and the other States aren?t doing anything for it either. There are quite a few ex Brits here in Aus but nobody I know is doing anything special for the event. It?s the middle of footy season in VIC, SA and WA.

Quote from: Curryong on March 23, 2023, 09:33:43 PM
More of the Caribbean nations are likely to follow. The tiny specks left there will only receive royal visits every so often (perhaps fleeting visits every five years or so) from then on. The end of escaping the UK?s wintry blasts for a nice warm easy tour. The last tour by the Cambridges heralded what is to come.

@Curryong-Do you have any thoughts on why these nations chose to remain as monarchies when they became independent in the 1960's? It seems to me that the natural and logical progression would have been to become a republic from the start and avoid having to now rewrite their various constitutions.

Quote from: TLLK on March 23, 2023, 11:35:26 PM
@Curryong-Do you have any thoughts on why these nations chose to remain as monarchies when they became independent in the 1960's? It seems to me that the natural and logical progression would have been to become a republic from the start and avoid having to now rewrite their various constitutions.

I think it was just the times, really. In spite of the Windrush generation?s treatment within Britain re migration, there was still a huge amount of loyalty around for the Queen and the RF in general all over the Commonwealth. The Queen and PP were still youngish, fairly glamorous figures in the 1960s with the fairy dust of royalty and the memory of WW2 and the Empire/Commonwealth standing together against Nazism. Plus members of the RF visited fairly often, a nice cruise on the Britannia, sunny weather, friendly crowds that felt almost a family connection to the Crown.

Also, I don?t know whether the Caribbean nations had the self confidence to stand alone and be independent at that time. Neither the money nor the expertise was there really, no constitutional lawyers, defence or economic experts resident in most of the smaller Commonwealth realms. Probably a few politicians thought ?We will be stronger, more capable in the next twenty years?? and so it drifted. Commonwealth politicians are much more radical and decisive now than they were then.

Quote from: Curryong on March 23, 2023, 11:54:54 PM
I think it was just the times, really. In spite of the Windrush generation?s treatment within Britain re migration, there was still a huge amount of loyalty around for the Queen and the RF in general all over the Commonwealth. The Queen and PP were still youngish, fairly glamorous figures in the 1960s with the fairy dust of royalty and the memory of WW2 and the Empire/Commonwealth standing together against Nazism. Plus members of the RF visited fairly often, a nice cruise on the Britannia, sunny weather, friendly crowds that felt almost a family connection to the Crown.

Also, I don?t know whether the Caribbean nations had the self confidence to stand alone and be independent at that time. Neither the money nor the expertise was there really, no constitutional lawyers, defence or economic experts resident in most of the smaller Commonwealth realms. Probably a few politicians thought ?We will be stronger, more capable in the next twenty years?? and so it drifted. Commonwealth politicians are much more radical and decisive now than they were then.

All good points @Curryong. I agree that with the insecurity and lack of experience the idea of being apart from the UK's influence would have been a daunting task. Also  there was the security threat between the U.S. and Soviet Union involving Cuba, so that hardly would have inspired confidence in a new republic.

Quote from: TLLK on March 24, 2023, 02:08:14 AM
All good points @Curryong. I agree that with the insecurity and lack of experience the idea of being apart from the UK's influence would have been a daunting task. Also  there was the security threat between the U.S. and Soviet Union involving Cuba, so that hardly would have inspired confidence in a new republic.

That?s right, though I?m sure that Britain joining the EEC in early 1973 opened a great many eyes around the Commonwealth. There was a feeling that the British Govt was quite prepared to forget about kith and kin in the Commonwealth if it suited them economically (and of course they were entitled to that POV.)

There was a great deal of shock and resentment around, actually. I was already in Aus then and the Tasmanian apple export trade was destroyed for instance. I?m sure that some poor countries in the Caribbean suffered tremendous hardship after Britain entered the EU.

Before that, many places in Africa and even the West Indies exported to Britain almost exclusively with some products. Now the British are very busy rebuilding old ties with the Commonwealth again. They?ll have to forgive the cynicism imo! Quite frankly I think many Commonwealth countries should have become republics and even perhaps exited the organisation in the mid 1970s when Europe First became clear.

I ate in 1962, Harold Macmillan reminded Charles de Gaulle, that ? New Zealand was 'an English farm in the Pacific'.? Several months earlier, at a Commonwealth conference called to discuss Britain's negoti- ations for membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Keith Holyoake, had warned Mac- millen that 'New Zealand would be ruined' if safeguards were not provided for the dominion's exports of temperate foodstuffs. Britain's prospective involvement in the process of European integration had wide- ranging implications for its relations with established trading partners in the Commonwealth. This article focuses on one important area of contro-
very, the future of the British butter market. During the early 1960s, Britain imported about 70 per cent of the world's exports of butter (see table 1), and New Zealand was its most important supplier. New Zealand had no other markets of significance for butter, and its dairy farmers faced ruin if Britain offered preferential terms of access to European countries. 'The threats to New Zealand were twofold. First, and most importantly, the EEC and its member states operated highly protectionist agricultural policies. Membership of the EEC could lead to the adoption of the same policies in Britain.

AND IT DID!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2599063

Canada has made changes to KCIII's title as the King.  :happycanada:

King Charles no longer Defender of the Faith in Canada ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/king/king-charles-no-longer-defender-of-the-faith-in-canada-188433/)

QuoteThe monarchs of England and Great Britain have been using the title of Defender of the Faith for over 500 years. However, King Charles III will not be using this title in all of his realms and territories as Canada makes a change.

In a bill that was included with the Canadian government?s new budget, one known as ?the Royal Styles and Titles, 2023? makes changes that mean The King will no longer use the title ?Defender of the Faith? in the country.

The King?s official style and titles in Canada will be: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

King Charles?s styles and titles in Great Britain and New Zealand both still include Defender of the Faith. His full style in the United Kingdom is: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Muticulture communities having their big lunch, follow #BigLunch and one will find a lot of pictures like this.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fvg5MCsXgAAJBQ9?format=jpg&name=small)

The Big Lunch
The network is a community of like-minded individuals across the UK

I just discovered their network.

Multiculturalism is fine & while imperfect, England does it better than any other European country. But there has to be more to British culture than being a recepticle for everyone else's. Yesterday a ceremony & institution that are over 1000yrs old showed us what that is.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvejnqhXsAEpEpK?format=png&name=small)

Ike is a UK citizen, his parents come from a Commonwealth realm

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-65425416?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

The Prime Minister of a Caribbean nation has told the BBC his country is "not totally free" as long as King Charles III remains head of state.
Dr Terrance Drew said that a public consultation on whether St Kitts and Nevis should become a republic would begin during his leadership.
He also said he would welcome an apology from the monarchy for its historic links to the slave trade.
Buckingham Palace told the BBC the King takes slavery "profoundly seriously".

Maybe the PM Drew should read how some tribes in Africa sold African men and women that they captured in fights among different tribes.....not all blacks were sold by white men, the blame goes to both the black community and the white community way back then.

And NO *apology* either from or to anyone for what happened hundreds of years ago.......we can't change the past as it is that that, THE PAST yet we can learn from it today!

Yes Arab slave traders from North Africa were certainly prominent in the trading of slaves to Europeans and others for many hundreds of years.

https://newafricanmagazine.com/16616/

?Thus, in terms of numbers, Arabia?s 9.85 million is not far behind the conservative estimate of nearly 12 million African victims of the Atlantic slave trade. Some African historians, though, reject these figures on the grounds that they are too low. They suggest over 50 million Africans were shipped out during the Atlantic trade alone.

According to Lovejoy, another 4.1 million Africans were shipped across the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and India. ?This trade also, with the notable exception of some Portuguese involvement in the area of Mozambique, and of 18th and 19th century French exports to islands under their control in the Indian Ocean, was largely conducted by Muslims,? adds Duncan Clarke.

Through out the 19th century, the Omani Arab rulers of Zanzibar shipped hundreds of thousands of African slaves to work on clove plantations on the island. It was this trade that gave Europe and America so much satisfaction, after abolishing their own trade in African slaves, to highlight the wickedness of the Arab slavers who continued to enslave Africans well into the first decades of the 20th century. Even to this day, Arab slavers are still at work in Sudan and Mauritania, buying and selling black Africans.?

That doesn?t negate of course, the repulsive part Britain played in transporting slaves to their Caribbean islands and the US, prior to Britain ending that trade in the 1830s.

NOTHING ever will get rid of the ugliness of the past slave trade, it is just what it is now ....THE PAST and that is what we learn from if people would just learn their darn history of their country. NO country is blameless in evil doings, yet we can be better today at treating each other with common decency and respect if warranted. I am not responsible for the ugliness of my family's history even though I was born in that family yet no way would I ever say I am sorry for that they did for that is on them, not me, so make sure I read and learn from my history of my family. Times changes all life's issues, what we as a people today have in medical and living conditions is far more then that the people of 100 years ago had, life just moves on!

Quote from: Curryong on May 08, 2023, 05:50:19 AM
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-65425416?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

The Prime Minister of a Caribbean nation has told the BBC his country is "not totally free" as long as King Charles III remains head of state.
Dr Terrance Drew said that a public consultation on whether St Kitts and Nevis should become a republic would begin during his leadership.
He also said he would welcome an apology from the monarchy for its historic links to the slave trade.
Buckingham Palace told the BBC the King takes slavery "profoundly seriously".

I know this isn?t funny, but that last line made me chuckle. Takes slavery profoundly seriously 😂
What a grand statement. I think the PM is right in that the country is not totally free until they have a vote on whether they want the King to be their head of state or not. However, I disagree that having a king as a head of state somehow implies that people aren?t free. The King is right, every nation can and should decide who they want representing them, but a constitutional monarchy has its merits the way that a republic does; and it has its lumps, the same way a republic does.

As far as the slavery component is concerned. He?s welcome to request an apology and Charles can give one if he wishes. I can understand wanting someone to admit that there has been wrongdoing, but it would symbolic more than anything. I don?t think I?m going on a limb by saying Charles likely does not agree with the concept of slavery. He can take the time to say that, but he can?t really apologize on behalf of Charles II or take back the horrendous things that were done in the hundreds of years since then.

What he can do is reiterate the right of the people to decide their own future and do everything he can to help the country prosper under the Commonwealth?whether he?s their head of state or no.

We forget a lot of countries became republics during the Queen's reign.

^And I can imagine more will follow in Charles? reign and beyond. And that?s the thing, they do have sovereignty. They can hold a vote if they want to. The King is not stopping them from doing so.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 09, 2023, 03:11:42 PM
^And I can imagine more will follow in Charles? reign and beyond. And that?s the thing, they do have sovereignty. They can hold a vote if they want to. The King is not stopping them from doing so.

It is exactly because St. Kitts and Nevis has been a sovereign and democratic nation since 1983, that I wonder why the Prime Minister made that statement in the first place. This is not a "colony" of the British Empire. It's an independent nation which is currently part of the Realm, but can certainly go forward with its plans to become a republic and elect its own Head of State.

There seems to be a need among some of the Caribbean political leaders to give the impression that their respective nations are somehow required to remain a constitutional monarchy fighting for independence. It's not the case at all and they're well aware of it.   :notamused:

^Hardly shocking these days to see a politician try and paint themselves as the hero that?ll ?liberate the people.? From what, I?m never entirely sure. And that?s the question that always stops me from fully believing in the republican cause. You want to elect the Head of State and get what in return? Power-hungry individuals who will say anything to get themselves elected?

There?s a certain comfort that comes from having one monarch and one symbol. I support the statement of wanting your constitution to be the focus of your government. And if you could dress a Constitution up and make it your Head of State, I?d be all for it, but unfortunately, you can?t.

As a resident of a realm I?ve always admired the way the Irish Presidency is constituted. The Irish President, as far as I understand it, undertakes most of the same duties as our Governor General, especially in a ceremonial role ?the meet and greet? that is needed when VIPs visit the country, etc. Mr Michael Higgins has been very successful in his role.

The President | Constitutional Role | President of Ireland (https://president.ie/en/the-president/constitutional-role)

I would not want a Presidency that resembles the US one. That would not fit into our Westminster system of government. A Presidency like the above would serve Australia very well I think, without being the substitute, as our GG is, for a Head of State that lives thousands of miles away on the other side of the world.

Australia wasn?t built on the prosperity of slave owners and the horrors of slavery, unlike St Kitts and other Caribbean islands in the Commonwealth. That country also had several masters including the French in the very early 19th century. That is very different from Australia, which, after the convict era, experienced quite a benign rule (if you were white) via the British Foreign Office from the 1850s on, especially after the formation of Colonial Govts in each Colony/State. And of course after Federation, though we still danced to Britannia?s tune in the Empire Free Trade days.

That is very different to the often corrupt influence of plantation owners and business grifters in the Caribbean countries, and that history can?t be put aside. It is in fact ever-present in the fact that virtually every person of colour in the Caribbean countries that once belonged to Britain is there because of slavery. That should never be forgotten.

The colony had recovered by the turn of the 18th century, and St Kitts had become the richest British Crown Colony per capita in the Caribbean as result of its slave-based sugar industry by the close of the 1700s.[22] The 18th century also saw Nevis, formerly the richer of the two islands, being eclipsed by St Kitts in economic importance.[13]: 75 [21]: 126, 137  Alexander Hamilton, the future U.S. secretary of the Treasury, was born on Nevis in 1755 or 1757.[23]


The fortress on Brimstone Hill, focus of the successful French invasion of 1782
As Britain became embroiled in war with its American colonies, the French decided to use the opportunity to re-capture St Kitts in 1782; however St Kitts was given back and recognised as British territory in the Treaty of Paris (1783).[8][14]

The African slave trade was terminated within the British Empire in 1807, and slavery outlawed completely in 1834. A four-year "apprenticeship" period followed for each slave, in which they worked for their former owners for wages. On Nevis 8,815 slaves were freed, while St Kitts freed 19,780.[21]: 174 [13]: 110, 114?117 

From Wiki History of St Kitts and Nevis.

Quote from: Curryong on May 09, 2023, 09:45:22 PM
As a resident of a realm I?ve always admired the way the Irish Presidency is constituted. The Irish President, as far as I understand it, undertakes most of the same duties as our Governor General, especially in a ceremonial role ?the meet and greet? that is needed when VIPs visit the country, etc. Mr Michael Higgins has been very successful in his role.

The President | Constitutional Role | President of Ireland (https://president.ie/en/the-president/constitutional-role)

I would not want a Presidency that resembles the US one. That would not fit into our Westminster system of government. A Presidency like the above would serve Australia very well I think, without being the substitute, as our GG is, for a Head of State that lives thousands of miles away on the other side of the world.

Australia wasn?t built on the prosperity of slave owners and the horrors of slavery, unlike St Kitts and other Caribbean islands in the Commonwealth. That country also had several masters including the French in the very early 19th century. That is very different from Australia, which, after the convict era, experienced quite a benign rule (if you were white) via the British Foreign Office from the 1850s on, especially after the formation of Colonial Govts in each Colony/State. And of course after Federation, though we still danced to Britannia?s tune in the Empire Free Trade days.

That is very different to the often corrupt influence of plantation owners and business grifters in the Caribbean countries, and that history can?t be put aside. It is in fact ever-present in the fact that virtually every person of colour in the Caribbean countries that once belonged to Britain is there because of slavery. That should never be forgotten.

I?m not sure anyone said it should be forgotten. In fact, I think it would be impossible. However, I fail to see how Charles apologizing somehow makes what happened okay or helps in terms of the remnants of colonization. And again, no one is stopping them from choosing their own Head of State. Nothing is stopping them from leaving the Commonwealth. Charles doesn?t rule there.

Additionally, I?d say Australia?s entire existence is a remnant of British colonialism rooted in racism and though not directly linked with slavery, I?d say if Charles is handing out apologies, Aboriginal groups that survived the genocide might be in line to receive one; people whose land was used by Britain as a penal colony and then decided they liked it well enough for other purposes. Perhaps every person of British descent living in Australia should also apologize for they reside on stolen land.

Because that?s the thing: I think there?s less countries that Britain didn?t need to apologize to than countries they did need to apologize to. They were an empire and that wasn?t accomplished by being culturally aware and kind.

The question is a) what would help the country prosper in the present and future? and b) does Charles apologizing somehow help in that regard? I say this, admittedly, as someone that is tired of tokenism and fake gestures done by politicians so they can claim to be down with the culture. Because for all of their apologies and gestures, I notice that neither the land nor the riches robbed from those people are ever returned to their rightful owners.

Additionally, I?d say Australia?s entire existence is a remnant of British colonialism rooted in racism and though not directly linked with slavery, I?d say if Charles is handing out apologies, Aboriginal groups that survived the genocide might be in line to receive one; people whose land was used by Britain as a penal colony and then decided they liked it well enough for other purposes. Perhaps every person of British descent living in Australia should also apologize for they reside on stolen land.
Quote from History Girls post.

I have been in this forum since 2014. I have never hidden the plight of the aboriginal population when discussing the history of Australia nor have I ever asserted that there has never been racism in Australia. I have written reams about it in my posts since joining here. Never disguised it. So you?re not telling me anything new.

And there has already been a formal Apology to the indigenous peoples of Australia made by PM Philip Rudd,on behalf of the nation, many years ago. Plus there will be a step forward soon with the Voice of the indigenous people added to Parliament.

My original post was more about the replacement of GGs in realms all over the world by (native born) Presidents and what form it should take.

I do not agree however that the PMs of Commonwealth realms in the Caribbean don?t have anything to complain about to Britain or about Britain?s royal family that ruled the Empire, when almost all their ancestors were transported to those islands to work in brutal conditions in sugar and tobacco plantations in the 18th century and before.

With regard to Native Title and rights to land within Australia that has been on the Statute books since the Mabo decision of 1992.

Mabo v Queensland - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_)(No_2)

^And maybe one day, all non-natives will cede the land they stole instead of using land acknowledgments to somehow assuage their guilt.

I woudnt hold your breath

^Don?t worry, I won?t. I?m aware that these days, virtue signaling seems to be the go-to to prove that you?re holier than thou.

As someone whose parents came from a country that was colonized and whose indigenous population was sold into slavery by the Spanish, I was glad to see Felipe refuse to apologize to Mexico over the Conquest. What would that apology even mean? And while, like Charles, I don?t think Felipe is an enthusiast of genocide and theft, how sorry could he possibly be if a) he wasn?t the one who authorized it and b) it helped create an empire for the country whose throne he sits on?

I personally find it both condescending and absurd. People patting themselves on the back for stating basic facts.

Quote from: Curryong on May 10, 2023, 01:01:43 AM
Additionally, I?d say Australia?s entire existence is a remnant of British colonialism rooted in racism and though not directly linked with slavery, I?d say if Charles is handing out apologies, Aboriginal groups that survived the genocide might be in line to receive one; people whose land was used by Britain as a penal colony and then decided they liked it well enough for other purposes. Perhaps every person of British descent living in Australia should also apologize for they reside on stolen land.
Quote from History Girls post.

I have been in this forum since 2014. I have never hidden the plight of the aboriginal population when discussing the history of Australia nor have I ever asserted that there has never been racism in Australia. I have written reams about it in my posts since joining here. Never disguised it. So you?re not telling me anything new.

And there has already been a formal Apology to the indigenous peoples of Australia made by PM Philip Rudd,on behalf of the nation, many years ago. Plus there will be a step forward soon with the Voice of the indigenous people added to Parliament.

My original post was more about the replacement of GGs in realms all over the world by (native born) Presidents and what form it should take.

I do not agree however that the PMs of Commonwealth realms in the Caribbean don?t have anything to complain about to Britain or about Britain?s royal family that ruled the Empire, when almost all their ancestors were transported to those islands to work in brutal conditions in sugar and tobacco plantations in the 18th century and before.

It?s not about not having anything to complain about. I don?t believe I posted anything stating that the British didn?t enslave those people and many others besides. He could spend the entirety of his life citing the crimes of the British and he?d be 100 percent correct. It?s about what tangible gains be gotten from an apology given by a man that has zero control over your current sovereignty or to travel back in time to fix the crimes of his forefathers?

My opinion comes from a place that doesn?t pay much mind to lip service and thinks actions are worth more than words. If he was asking Charles for financial compensation in return for those wrongs, then that I would find constructive because that is something that would benefit people today. Maybe they could sell some of those beautiful jewels they won?t wear to a coronation to raise the funds. But Charles? apologies? ?Yeah?sorry about the whole slavery and genocide thing?? I don?t personally think any apology in the world could somehow make what happened okay.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 10, 2023, 11:48:19 AM
It?s not about not having anything to complain about. I don?t believe I posted anything stating that the British didn?t enslave those people and many others besides. He could spend the entirety of his life citing the crimes of the British and he?d be 100 percent correct. It?s about what tangible gains be gotten from an apology given by a man that has zero control over your current sovereignty or to travel back in time to fix the crimes of his forefathers?

My opinion comes from a place that doesn?t pay much mind to lip service and thinks actions are worth more than words. If he was asking Charles for financial compensation in return for those wrongs, then that I would find constructive because that is something that would benefit people today. Maybe they could sell some of those beautiful jewels they won?t wear to a coronation to raise the funds. But Charles? apologies? ?Yeah?sorry about the whole slavery and genocide thing?? I don?t personally think any apology in the world could somehow make what happened okay.

At some point I have to ask how far back should we go when it comes to apologies for past conquests and colonization? Civilizations have conquered, exploited and enslaved for most of human history. Should nations that are not currently economic powerhouses  but  were once the seat of power for mighty empires (Peru, Mexico, Italy, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, etc...) have to apologize and compensate for their ancestors' actions?

^That?s an excellent point. It?s something that I?ve obviously thought about for a long time?difficult to study history without having considered it. Should every meeting between countries begin with an apology to each other for the atrocities they?ve committed against the other? You?d have quite a long proceeding, if that were the case.

And it?s emotional for me because with some people, it gets to the point where it feels almost insulting. I?m a huge proponent of education and of making people aware of the history of each nation?good and bad. But the constant apologies and acknowledgments, usually by a politician wanting some clout? If anyone were to apologize to me, I wouldn?t accept to be completely honest. To reduce hundreds of years of murder, rape, theft, degradation, economic and social hardship down to an apology? It just feels insulting, even though that?s not how it?s meant, it feels that way because it?s so empty of any actual amends.

At some point, you either move on or you find a way to give monetary repayment for all that you stole. But constantly putting indigenous people and people of color in the position of having to accept your apologies is both demeaning and tiresome, in my opinion.

AUSTRALIANS DON'T WANT A KING, OR CHARLES ? Australian Republic Movement (https://republic.org.au/media/2023/4/26/australians-dont-want-a-king-or-charles)

Recent polling by Pure Profile reveals that support for the monarchy in Australia has plummeted under King Charles? reign, with only 40% of Australians now saying they would prefer to keep King Charles instead of choosing an Australian as our Head of State.

Conducted between 6-12 April 2023, the nationally representative poll asked respondents ?Do you support keeping King Charles III as King of Australia (our Head of State), or should Australia have an Australian chosen by Australians to represent us instead??

60% of respondents said they wanted an Australian chosen by Australians. That percentage rose to 69% among those aged 18-35, showing younger generations? strong opposition to the Monarchy. A majority of all age groups supported having an Australian instead.

Just how long has King Charles been King Charles for Australia? Long enough to cause trouble and drama, so if IMHO the people of Australia don't want King Charles, then just leave...go do your own way and be done with it. That way Australia will be gone out of the Commonwealth and there will be no more talk or complaints about King Charles..solves all problems for both parties.  I strongly believe in * never go where your not wanted or welcomed*

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 10, 2023, 12:29:05 PM
^That?s an excellent point. It?s something that I?ve obviously thought about for a long time?difficult to study history without having considered it. Should every meeting between countries begin with an apology to each other for the atrocities they?ve committed against the other? You?d have quite a long proceeding, if that were the case.

And it?s emotional for me because with some people, it gets to the point where it feels almost insulting. I?m a huge proponent of education and of making people aware of the history of each nation?good and bad. But the constant apologies and acknowledgments, usually by a politician wanting some clout? If anyone were to apologize to me, I wouldn?t accept to be completely honest. To reduce hundreds of years of murder, rape, theft, degradation, economic and social hardship down to an apology? It just feels insulting, even though that?s not how it?s meant, it feels that way because it?s so empty of any actual amends.

At some point, you either move on or you find a way to give monetary repayment for all that you stole. But constantly putting indigenous people and people of color in the position of having to accept your apologies is both demeaning and tiresome, in my opinion.

:goodpost:

How far back in time should we say sorry for what our ancestors did, back to *cavemen days* maybe? This is anyone wanting an apology is just a way to make MONEY so that the people getting the MONEY can run and say I told you so to the media .......this is rubbing it in your face by those wanting an apology and those that give that apology are weak and insecure and afraid ........

Quote from: Nightowl on May 13, 2023, 08:05:53 AM
Just how long has King Charles been King Charles for Australia? Long enough to cause trouble and drama, so if IMHO the people of Australia don't want King Charles, then just leave...go do your own way and be done with it. That way Australia will be gone out of the Commonwealth and there will be no more talk or complaints about King Charles..solves all problems for both parties.  I strongly believe in * never go where your not wanted or welcomed*

Why would Australia leave the Commonwealth after becoming a republic? There are 56 member States in the organisation. The vast majority of them are republics.

There are only 15 countries that acknowledge Charles as HOS. These are the realms, and include the UK. The ceremonial head of the Commonwealth is Charles III though it?s extremely unlikely that William will succeed him in that office. The 36 other members of the Commonwealth are republics, and five others have different monarchs.

Direct ancestors of King Charles owned slave plantations, documents reveal | Slavery | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/27/direct-ancestors-of-king-charles-owned-slave-plantations-documents-reveal)

New research shows that Bowes Lyon ancestors owned and traded slaves.

Quote from: Curryong on May 13, 2023, 09:02:03 AM
Why would Australia leave the Commonwealth after becoming a republic? There are 56 member States in the organisation. The vast majority of them are republics.

There are only 15 countries that acknowledge Charles as HOS. These are the realms, and include the UK. The ceremonial head of the Commonwealth is Charles III though it?s extremely unlikely that William will succeed him in that office. The 36 other members of the Commonwealth are republics, and five others have different monarchs.

Well, I keep reading that some so want a republic so that they can be free of the British, so why not just go all out and have the republic and leave the Commonwealth and be done completely with the British? Get it over with once and for all, done, gone and no hard feelings.........this way the gov and burn all the British memorabilia over the decades and move on to whatever they the Republic wants to do.

Quote from: Curryong on May 13, 2023, 09:09:52 AM
Direct ancestors of King Charles owned slave plantations, documents reveal | Slavery | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/27/direct-ancestors-of-king-charles-owned-slave-plantations-documents-reveal)

New research shows that Bowes Lyon ancestors owned and traded slaves.

Yes that was then, a very long time ago, decades and decades and yet today King Charles does NOT have slaves.....go to the middle east and find the countries with slaves today, not the British Royal Family today, we have no choice when we are born and we have no choice what our ancestors did hundreds of years ago .........why drag up what happened hundreds of years ago to make it seem like it is the same today when it isn't?   I love ancient history and yet I understand it for that is then when people did not know better and some lived in caves even..this is today......and we so called great human race still does not know better IMHO.

Quote from: Nightowl on May 13, 2023, 10:33:21 AM
Well, I keep reading that some so want a republic so that they can be free of the British, so why not just go all out and have the republic and leave the Commonwealth and be done completely with the British? Get it over with once and for all, done, gone and no hard feelings.........this way the gov and burn all the British memorabilia over the decades and move on to whatever they the Republic wants to do.

Australia has not said that ?it wants to be free of the British?. We have the Westminster system of Government and our legal system is based on Britain?s.

Australians want their own Aussie-born HOS. Nothing more, nothing less. It?s not a question of ridding ourselves of all traces of Britain. 99.9% of the countries in the Commonwealth aren?t British nor are their peoples. It hasn?t been called the British Commonwealth for many decades, and Britain and the British don?t rule the Commonwealth.

It?s a wide ranging, polyglot, multi-national and multi-cultural organisation, nothing to do with Britain, except that GB is one of the countries within it. Australia just doesn?t want King Charles as its Head of State.

so get rid of Charles and find your own HOS.  Just stop going on about it

^I agree. The polls say they want to choose their of Head of State, so politicians should listen. A vote should be held and that?ll be that.

Quote from: Curryong on May 13, 2023, 09:09:52 AM
Direct ancestors of King Charles owned slave plantations, documents reveal | Slavery | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/27/direct-ancestors-of-king-charles-owned-slave-plantations-documents-reveal)

New research shows that Bowes Lyon ancestors owned and traded slaves.

I would be more shocked if this weren?t the case.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 13, 2023, 01:30:54 PM
^I agree. The polls say they want to choose their if Head of State, so politicians should listen. A vote should be held and that?ll be that.

Im sure there will be complaining and groaning for years to come, and I have no sympathy

^Well, it?s what people love to do, so I believe you?re right. It?s not at all surprising to me. I figured if any realm was next to drop him, it would be Australia. But they are capable of doing it like any other realm. These aren?t the days of Edward I; you can choose to be a republic if you want to. No one is holding anyone hostage.

That poll is not reliable, because it's for subscribers to their ''Republican Movement Organization'' website. It is a republican propaganda for their cause website. Nothing wrong, I don't mind sharing fan, favorable of the sort views, for real, I love reading everything. (But the RIF rules don't allow it, I was persecuted by sharing a fan, favorable view, deleted and then a bit more warned, I blame it on the moon that week  :laugh: )

I'd take a Australian Survey company with the methodology, an excel sheet with age group, strata group, etc.

^I don?t know that any poll is fully trustworthy because it?s one thing to ask a person a question and quite another to vote a certain way. America has had its share of shocks after national polls?

That?s why a vote really should be held. That?s the only reliable way to see one way or another what the majority (or the voting public anyway) truly want.

I'm a bit tech savvy thanks to my middle brother works with AI.  .orgs are free, like a blogger but with a registered 'organization' that can post whatever theme they want.

Is .org free?
ORG domains are reserved for things like nonprofit organizations. And while they do tend to have more of a noncommercial 'slant' to them, anyone is free to register a . ORG, no matter what content you plan to host.

Anyway, I will restate what I said previously, I personally don't mind sharing biased views from small, mid or large bloggers, vloggers, etc. To me it DOES represent views of people that like and share these thoughts, however and wherever they come from.  Of course, a republican movement exists, but poll wise, it is not representative of an entire nation. IMO, I don't doubt that Australia wants to be a republic, but is the consensus in a majority or is it too too close, if the latter, I would understand a/the politicians to be queasy.  i.e. 49/50, 49/51 Too close numbers are points within a 1 to 5 difference, a divided country, like the USA. The thing is a change would be full and completely extraordinary ranging from not only voting for a President, but making their own constitution to their currency, etc. It's not only a new election to vote for a new president.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 13, 2023, 02:38:12 PM
^I don?t know that any poll is fully trustworthy because it?s one thing to ask a person a question and quite another to vote a certain way. America has had its share of shocks after national polls?

That?s why a vote really should be held. That?s the only reliable way to see one way or another what the majority (or the voting public anyway) truly want.

I wouldn't trust anything from the USA, sorry. But just recently a lot of secret documents, faked, forged and half truths from departments such as FBI and CIA have come to light, and the Departments that have to take actions are not taking actions, hence my comment the other day about the volatility in that country, it's a time bomb, waiting to implode any time. I hope the someones can contain it/save it.

It?s just the cycle of things. It might implode or explode and then it?ll build itself back up again. Just like any other civilization historically. That?s why I appreciate seeing the realms change. Nothing inherently bad about change.

Quote from: wannable on May 13, 2023, 02:18:27 PM
That poll is not reliable, because it's for subscribers to their ''Republican Movement Organization'' website. It is a republican propaganda for their cause website. Nothing wrong, I don't mind sharing fan, favorable of the sort views, for real, I love reading everything. (But the RIF rules don't allow it, I was persecuted by sharing a fan, favorable view, deleted and then a bit more warned, I blame it on the moon that week  :laugh: )

I'd take a Australian Survey company with the methodology, an excel sheet with age group, strata group, etc.

Excuse me! The poll was NOT for subscribers for the Republican Movement Website at all! I am not a subscriber to that website (or to any other as a matter of fact.) Pure Polling is an Australian polling company that (like every other company) undertakes polling for whatever company or organisation commissions it.

It was quite clear in the link that I put up with the poll on it that this poll was COMMISSIONED  by the Australian Republican Movement and undertaken a few days before the Coronation. The information was within the text of the polling company link, as was the question that was asked of the respondents.

Pureprofile Business | Data, Research & Media Solutions - Pureprofile (https://business.pureprofile.com/)

Who We Are - Pureprofile (https://business.pureprofile.com/who-we-are/)

Above is the website of pureprofile. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Aus Republican Movement website AT ALL. It is a completely independent company.

I am also getting very very sick of being challenged on the subject of how Australians feel about a republic by those who have never resided here. I have published polling here before from various polling companies in the past and it has been constantly questioned.

Well, what was posted by purepolling is in line with other polls around the question taken here.

And btw, HistoryGirl asked me the other day how Aussies felt about the Coronation and I posted back with what I found. I also went out for Mother?s Day lunch yesterday with my extended family. Ten adults were present. Of those ten adults beside myself how many do you think viewed the Coronation? Precisely one, and that was my elder daughter who saw a bit of it, got bored, doesn?t particularly like Camilla or Charles, thought they looked old and disinterested, and switched over to watch something else.

I hardly think my extended family, including several inlaws, are outliers. The restaurant was full. Of adults present I would be extremely surprised if even a half viewed the Coronation all through. Monarchists? Hardly!

Guardian Aus video. The newspaper went out on the streets a week ago to get opinions on whether people would be watching the Coronation. I don?t think the recipients were hand-picked!

What people in Australia really think about King Charles's coronation ? video | Australia news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2023/may/04/what-people-in-australia-really-think-about-king-charless-coronation-video)

The Sydney morning herald calls the movement propagandists run by clowns who are bonkers. Article is 6 days old. They have made members run away, and have not been capable of convincing gen z republicans to join them.

Quote from: wannable on May 13, 2023, 10:45:35 PM
The Sydney morning herald calls the movement propagandists run by clowns who are bonkers. Article is 6 days old. They have made members run away, and have not been capable of convincing gen z republicans to join them.

The Sydney Morning Herald is a right wing Murdoch newspaper. Nuff said on their view.

The Australian Republican Movement does not have many members. I have never joined, btw. I have a lot of acquaintances through my work. The majority are Republican. None are members of the ARM. They will all vote in the referendum.

Australians in general are not great joiners of political movements. Neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal/National coalition have huge numbers of members, though Labor has more than the Opposition Parties. The Greens have more considering they are a minor party. They attract the young lefties. They are not a monarchist party either. Labor certainly isn?t and an ex Liberal PM was a leader of the ARM at the time of the 199O?s referendum on the subject. 

Party hardly: why Australia's big political parties are struggling to compete with grassroots campaigns | Australian politics | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/13/party-hardly-why-australias-big-political-parties-are-struggling-to-compete-with-grassroots-campaigns)

And, Whatever the Sydney Morning Herald says about the ARM, that newspaper is not pro monarchist either.

Quote from: Amabel2 on May 13, 2023, 12:14:02 PM
so get rid of Charles and find your own HOS.  Just stop going on about it

Absolutely agree with you 100%, Australia seems to want to find it's own way in life so gooooo, do it and be done with it and King Charles. I am sure he has tons of issues to worry about and take on.

Quote from: wannable on May 13, 2023, 02:55:29 PM
I wouldn't trust anything from the USA, sorry. But just recently a lot of secret documents, faked, forged and half truths from departments such as FBI and CIA have come to light, and the Departments that have to take actions are not taking actions, hence my comment the other day about the volatility in that country, it's a time bomb, waiting to implode any time. I hope the someones can contain it/save it.

Well being an American I very much agree with you about my country being a ticking time bomb here, it is getting worse by the day and the sad thing is there is no one capable of saving it, and if the idiot T gets elected again.....forget there is an America for we will break apart into small whatevers.  My country disappeared decades ago, it is just now showing it's true self in the sense of those in Congress who are exploiting it. Biden is not the cause, it is all on the idiots in Congress who promote themselves and make the laws.  I envy Britain in  a way right now for they have something and someone to look up to and there is NOTHING here to do the same. 

Well, Ron DeSantis looks as if he?s going to throw his hat into the ring for the 2024 election. Seeing what he has done and is doing in Florida, if you think Trump is bad then watch what else is on the horizon.

I have voted all my life, even when I didn't like anyone, this today is horrific in all ways, so many people want T back and the same with the Idiot in FA......my tiny vote does nothing anymore, so maybe I will put it up for sale...   :unsure: 

Quote from: Nightowl on May 14, 2023, 04:53:23 AM
I have voted all my life, even when I didn't like anyone, this today is horrific in all ways, so many people want T back and the same with the Idiot in FA......my tiny vote does nothing anymore, so maybe I will put it up for sale...   :unsure:

Go and live in Canada for a while?

Quote from: Curryong on May 13, 2023, 10:04:52 PM
Excuse me! The poll was NOT for subscribers for the Republican Movement Website at all! I am not a subscriber to that website (or to any other as a matter of fact.) Pure Polling is an Australian polling company that (like every other company) undertakes polling for whatever company or organisation commissions it.

It was quite clear in the link that I put up with the poll on it that this poll was COMMISSIONED  by the Australian Republican Movement and undertaken a few days before the Coronation. The information was within the text of the polling company link, as was the question that was asked of the respondents.

Pureprofile Business | Data, Research & Media Solutions - Pureprofile (https://business.pureprofile.com/)

Who We Are - Pureprofile (https://business.pureprofile.com/who-we-are/)

Above is the website of pureprofile. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Aus Republican Movement website AT ALL. It is a completely independent company.

I am also getting very very sick of being challenged on the subject of how Australians feel about a republic by those who have never resided here. I have published polling here before from various polling companies in the past and it has been constantly questioned.

Well, what was posted by purepolling is in line with other polls around the question taken here.

And btw, HistoryGirl asked me the other day how Aussies felt about the Coronation and I posted back with what I found. I also went out for Mother?s Day lunch yesterday with my extended family. Ten adults were present. Of those ten adults beside myself how many do you think viewed the Coronation? Precisely one, and that was my elder daughter who saw a bit of it, got bored, doesn?t particularly like Camilla or Charles, thought they looked old and disinterested, and switched over to watch something else.

I hardly think my extended family, including several inlaws, are outliers. The restaurant was full. Of adults present I would be extremely surprised if even a half viewed the Coronation all through. Monarchists? Hardly!

And that is also something I wonder. This sounds like apathy and I don?t see this as any big shock. I think the ascension of a new monarch is as good a time as any to become a republic if that?s what the country wishes. But is apathy enough for that movement to be successful?

Quote from: Curryong on May 14, 2023, 03:19:36 AM
Well, Ron DeSantis looks as if he?s going to throw his hat into the ring for the 2024 election. Seeing what he has done and is doing in Florida, if you think Trump is bad then watch what else is on the horizon.

I just received some devastating personal news and I?m on here trying to regain some sense of normalcy (or to abate the shock?). And I?m trying to find a way to be positive. I always say I enjoy reading about the monarchy because I like seeing such an old institution change and it?s true. Our country isn?t nearly as old and we have had many crises that have threatened our future as a union. The country was basically held together by rope and even from the start, all the members distrusted each other and didn?t particularly care to have to compromise with each other. Throughout our history those fissures have gotten so deep that it?s looked so close to complete disbandment.

I say that all to also show why I am not fully in support of a republic emotionally. Mentally it?s the most logical. Monarchies exhibit unfairness and inequality. But as someone who is part of the aforementioned country that?s been falling apart for 250 years, there?s something so attractive about having one symbol for the nation that isn?t marred by the vitriol that our elections bring every 4 years. As I?ve grown older, I see that not even our Constitution is safe from this.

I?m sure other countries do and would do a better job at not allowing that hatred to seep into a choice for HoS. I wish Australia well, regardless of their choice. And I also hope that whatever change comes in the future for the US, it?s one that?ll eventually lead to a reminder of how devastating civil wars or wars of any kind can be.

They (USA politicians) seem to ALL have some kind of 'trouble' criticized by whichever side the citizens are. The social media war is truly ON since about a month ago, but it IS tied to what random US citizens film and post.  Most of the 'situations' are really crazy, Edit To Add: with NO law and order of any kind.

HistoryGirl2, wishing you well with whatever you are going through.

@HistoryGirl2 - I am so sorry to read that have been affected by some devastating news.

History Girl: Whatever your going through just remember that it will pass in time and take time to heal your soul and heart, grief knows no time limit!

I am fully agreeing with you when you mentioned above that our Constitution is not SAFE anymore, and I don't think neither is any of the docs that our forefathers put together safe as there are to many egos out of control in our gov, our congress and people that have tons of money to even buy a congressman or congresswoman, even our Supreme Court has been bought with tons of money.

I see America falling apart and being more violent each day.......when a man can walk into a school and kill dozens of people even tiny children and our gov does NOTHING to stop it show me just how damn dangerous my country has become. 

I'm a realist and do my best to adapt to  all circumstances of life. Easy to say, hard to follow, but the best thing to do is follow. 

I've got an easier job since I left the oil and gas industry, which took me to different countries with political and social situations. What I did note is their citizens (mostly) don't stay put and let things go on as if normal.

What I've noticed since a year ago via citizens news rather than mainstream media (since the coverup's have been spilled) is that there is a lot of bad and ugly things going on in the States, which didn't happen before, people are resisting to do something because they are laser focused on I rather this, ^ the corruption going on as stated by Nightowl, than ''look who it might/may be''. Tremendous situation (s). I can only pray for our American friends.

In reference to Canada, their government mentality since end of pandemic is akin to Jacinda, ufff. It can be a silent pressure cooker.

Big  :hug?: and  :flower: to everyone today, mothers worldwide to people, mascots and plants.

This thread has started to veer off-topic, let's get it back to the main discussion of The Commonwealth Nations and the British Monarchy. Further discussion of non-Commonwealth nations and their elections will be removed.

Here's a  thread suggestion for the upcoming American elections and the current state of the nation.

Global Political News and Elections Thread (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=91452.0)

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on May 14, 2023, 12:51:23 PM
And that is also something I wonder. This sounds like apathy and I don?t see this as any big shock. I think the ascension of a new monarch is as good a time as any to become a republic if that?s what the country wishes. But is apathy enough for that movement to be successful?

Apathy reigns on the subject at the moment because it is not at the forefront of people?s minds. That?s always been so. Aussies have never been a hugely politically minded people arguing about legislation over the dinner table unless it directly involves their lives. Some Covid laws did it, and that was the last time I?ve seen people become riled up about certain legislation.

The govt is focused at getting the Voice (of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) through Parliament at this session. They want a consultative committee made up of people from this sector of the population to become an advisory body to the Govt on legislation that involves them.)

It will be after the next election that the matter will be more focused on people?s minds and they will start to really examine the issues. The role that the new President will take will be the big one. Imo the last referendum (and the only one) in the 1990s) failed (though the figures weren?t bad at all) was due to the fact that people did not want a US style Presidency. There was enormous respect for the late Queen as well. And so a ?if it ain?t broke don?t fix it? mood was present, especially among older people.

It also failed because the PM at the time was a monarchist and so there wasn?t a huge heartfelt push from the Govt to get behind it. That won?t be so next time as Labor will be determined to examine all the issues.

Gert's Royals
@Gertsroyals

At least 463 killed, 700+ injured in the first cyclone of the 2023 North Indian Ocean season.

Myanmar & Bangladesh were both formerly a part of the British Empire. Bangladesh is still part of the Commonwealth.

^Such awful news.

The 2026 Commonwealth Games have been cancelled due to cost overruns  and there's growing concern about the event's future.

Commonwealth Games 2026 host Victoria, Australia pulls out over cost | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/17/sport/australia-victoria-2026-commonwealth-games-canceled-spt-intl-hnk/index.html)

Quote
Brisbane, Australia CNN  ?

Plans for one of the world?s biggest sporting events have been thrown into disarray after the Australian state of Victoria pulled out of hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games due to cost overruns.

Premier Daniel Andrews told reporters in Melbourne Tuesday that initial estimates had put the cost of the Games at 2.6 billion Australian dollars ($1.7 billion), but new estimates suggested it would be closer to 7 billion Australian dollars ($4.77 billion).

?I?ve made a lot of difficult calls, a lot of very difficult decisions, in this job. This is not one of them,? he added. ?Frankly, 6 to $7 billion for a 12-day sporting event. We are not doing that. That does not represent value for money. That is all cost and no benefit.?

The Commonwealth Games is a multi-sport event involving thousands of athletes representing 72 Commonwealth countries and territories, held every four years. The last edition of the event, held in Birmingham, England in 2022, was the largest Games on record.

Victoria was announced as 2026 host last March after organizers had struggled to find an appropriate location due to lack of interest and Covid-19 disruptions.

The decision to pull out appears to have surprised the event?s organizing committees, who say they had no warning about cost overruns, nor any opportunity to work on alternative proposals.

The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) said in a statement Tuesday the decision was ?hugely disappointing for the Commonwealth Sport Movement,? and suggested that Victorian authorities hadn?t previously raised cost concerns.

?We are disappointed that we were only given eight hours? notice and that no consideration was given to discussing the situation to jointly find solutions prior to this decision being reached by the Government,? the statement said.

The statement said the estimated cost of 6 billion Australian dollars quoted by Victorian authorities on Tuesday was 50% higher than the figure advised to the Organizing Committee board in June.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66229577

Sad for all the athletes as the results are oficially taken by the IOC. 

There are not many results taken officially by the IOC, so I hope a new city can be resolved.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/08/02/17/73890171-12365901-image-a-11_1690993975188.jpg)

I'm sorry that the Trudeaus have come to this decision, but I hope that all will be well for them and their family in the future.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66389069

QuoteCanada's PM Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie are separating after 18 years, following "meaningful and difficult conversations".

The couple said they would remain "a close family with deep love and respect" in an Instagram post.

They were married in Montreal in 2005 and have three children together.

In a statement, Mr Trudeau's office said that while the couple had signed separation agreement they will still make public appearances.

"They have worked to ensure that all legal and ethical steps with regards to their decision to separate have been taken, and will continue to do so moving forward," the statement said, adding they would be on holiday as a family next week.

The couple have asked for privacy for the "well-being" of their children, Xavier, 15, Ella-Grace 14, and Hadrien, nine.

"We remain a close family with deep love and respect for each other and for everything we have built and will continue to build," Mr Trudeau, 51, and Ms Gregoire Trudeau, 48, said.

They have been seen together publicly less frequently in recent years, though they attended the coronation of King Charles III together in May and hosted US President Joe Biden in Canada in March.

This is sad news. The Trudeau children are still quite young, especially the youngest son. Sounds like a growing apart process over a number of years rather than anything dramatic.

I've read an update that the three children will reside with their father. Sophie has moved into a different residence in Ottawa.

There's a lot of trending trolling from 1 to 10, from mild to very hot about Justin's extra curricular activities. I don't know which of all the multiple gossip is true.

Don't follow it, but I did read a gossip about 3 years ago, she was/is living at Harrington Lade with the children?!. Then the 'latest' before this official separation news was she had opened her own company at Toronto - I only knew/read the news because she had used her maiden name.

Just a few comments here about William and the FIFA World Cup (female) and what was said in the other thread.

I?ll just explain here that decisions to hold the Commonwealth Games in a certain location is NOT, as far as Australia is concerned anyway, a matter for the Federal Govt. It is in the hands of the State Govt concerned, who generally nominate their capital cities, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney etc as the location, because naturally those cities have the pools, stadia, arenas etc. I?m not a great fan of our State Premier here in Victoria, Daniel Andrews, as anyone who reads my epistles on the other Aus thread knows.

Basically however, he announced in his usual grandiose way that Melbourne (and some Provincial locations) would hold the next Commonwealth Games. Details, like costs, would be worked out later. I doubt that our Federal Govt had any input into it other than Andrews informing them that he was going to throw Victoria?s hat in the ring. Later, much more recently he realised that the infrastructure in some of Victoria?s minor cities wasn?t there and would have to be built, requiring gigantic expense that Victoria, post Covid, hasn?t got. Should he have thought of that before his big announcement? Absolutely!

Other States and their cities have hosted the Commonwealth Games before and naturally in a post Covid world that drained much of the resources of every State and Territory, don?t want to do it again. However, Gina Rinehart, billionaire and mining giant, has stated that she would be prepared to help out the Gold Coast authorities in Queensland if they feel they could host a CG. So it may happen, it may not.

Now, about William. Some of the arguments do hold water, basically I think if the World Cup was in Europe he would be there in a heartbeat. However, as it is, he thought, I believe, that his environmental credentials would receive a boost from his refusing to go to this World Cup. I think that was a miscalculation as we are seeing now.

His other reason, imo, is that he did n9t want to travel for 24 hrs to Aus and 24 back for the women?s final because it would chew a chunk off the family holidays at this time of year. And as he didn?t want to he used the carbon footprint excuse not to. As I said, I think he and his advisers miscalculated. However it?s done now. If he changed his mind it would be seen as bowing to media and public pressure.

Just want to add, on Wannabie?s ?other political questions? remark on the other thread. I do not believe that the coming referenda on a First Nations consultative body in our Federal Parliament had anything whatsoever to do with William?s decision not to attend. People ARE discussing it, and as a newly retired social worker I do mix with those who consider this issue vital. However, even there discussions haven?t reached any sort of fever pitch. The referendum will probably happen in late October. In other words there is no Civil War brewing here about the referendum. So (imo) that wouldn?t enter the calculations of those advising William.

It's complicated, whilst the King is doing let's call it behind the scenes work and talk with ALL the members of the commonwealth to fix the ''immediate'' issue of the commonwealth games - it would be irresponsible to just meh leave it like that - there needs to be a consensus between the 56 countries will have to fix it/a 'positive' solution whilst there may be a some penalization too. Meanwhile the heir apparent has to give priority firstly to the King and ''his/His Majesty's government'' with what he does, it's just like that, secondly the heir apparent has the travel to Australia tied to his philosophy, mission and vision with the Earthshot prize. 

The other issues, political is related to the commonwealth games, being a realm for now, commitments 'either way'. I don't want to get to deep into it.

For W to fly in, operational expenses, the security, etc. for a 2 hour game....he has, as I heard today a solid rumour of good tidings that may equal or be better for the Lionesses win or lose the final.

Quote from: wannable on August 19, 2023, 12:05:51 AM
It's complicated, whilst the King is doing let's call it behind the scenes work and talk with ALL the members of the commonwealth to fix the ''immediate'' issue of the commonwealth games - it would be irresponsible to just meh leave it like that - there needs to be a consensus between the 56 countries will have to fix it/a 'positive' solution whilst there may be a some penalization too. Meanwhile the heir apparent has to give priority firstly to the King and ''his/His Majesty's government'' with what he does, it's just like that, secondly the heir apparent has the travel to Australia tied to his philosophy, mission and vision with the Earthshot prize. 

The other issues, political is related to the commonwealth games, being a realm for now, commitments 'either way'. I don't want to get to deep into it.

For W to fly in, operational expenses, the security, etc. for a 2 hour game....he has, as I heard today a solid rumour of good tidings that may equal or be better for the Lionesses win or lose the final.

Why would Charles be deep in discussions about the Commonwealth Games? There?s been no talk of that in Australia. A separate Committee (Federation) looks after the Commonwealth Games. Charles isn?t involved in its operations and the late Queen certainly wasn?t. In fact the only statements from the British side of Andrews? actions have been fury from the head of this organising committee that Andrews has pulled out so late leaving little time for any other city, State, Province elsewhere in the Commonwealth to bid for it. And yes there will be penalties for that. A billion dollars in compensation has been mentioned, which is ?being negotiated?. Either way it won?t be Andrews paying it, but Victorian taxpayers.

Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) | Commonwealth (https://thecommonwealth.org/organisations/commonwealth-games-federation-cgf#:~:text=The%20CGF%20is%20the%20organisation),held%20once%20every%20four%20years.

As for the issue of Aus republicanism possibly keeping William away that?s not been mentioned. Itsnot a burning issue at all in Aus at the moment. The next term of the Labor Federal Govt, it may well be, but not now. (The next Federal election is a couple of years away.)

90% of the criticism directed towards William has come from the British public and media, not from Aussies. The vast majority of Australians couldn?t care less if Will turns up to support his nation?s team. With the Matildas? loss a lot of local interest will be gone And most of the criticism about William?s non attendance at this Cup may well die down somewhat in Britain with a Grand reception/dinner as a soothing gesture. However, it won?t be forgotten. And his future actions as President of English soccer will be looked at with a very careful eye in future.

Recent Commonwealth Games Statement about the cancellation of the Games which were to be held in Melbourne in 2026.

2026 Commonwealth Games Statement (https://www.commonwealthsport.com/news/3639464/2026-commonwealth-games-statement)

?in July 2023 the Victorian Government announced its decision to withdraw from hosting the 2026 Games.

Following that decision, the affected parties have been involved in confidential good faith negotiations.

The parties subsequently agreed to refer the dispute to Mediation and appointed former New Zealand Judge, the Honourable Kit Toogood KC and the former Chief Justice of the WA Supreme Court, the Honourable Wayne Martin AC KC as joint mediators.

All parties engaged respectfully and made appropriate concessions in order to reach an agreement.

The State of Victoria has agreed to pay the Commonwealth Games parties (CGF CGFP and CGA) AUD $380 million.

The parties also agreed that the multi-hub regional model was more expensive to host than the traditional models.

The settlement was supported by the mediators.

The terms of the settlement will otherwise remain confidential.? End Quote.

(1) Charles had NOTHING to do with this. Nor did William or any other royal. It was solely between the above and the Andrews Govt.

(2) Victorian taxpayers are now liable for nearly 400 million Aus dollars to be paid in compensation for the cancellation of ?the multi-hub? model he himself proposed. Thankyou Daniel, thanks very much!

King Charles to invite Kate and William to historic royal summit to carve out future of the monarchy - with hopes couple's 'star quality' will help (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12422435/King-Charles-Kate-William-royal-summit-future-monarchy-star-quality-Commonwealth.html)

Quote from: sara8150 on August 19, 2023, 02:46:35 AM
King Charles to invite Kate and William to historic royal summit to carve out future of the monarchy - with hopes couple's 'star quality' will help (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12422435/King-Charles-Kate-William-royal-summit-future-monarchy-star-quality-Commonwealth.html)

I don?t believe this article about some sort of summit at Balmoral. At all. However, if we take this doubtful premise as being true and Charles hopes that William and Kate are going to be the glue preventing other realms, especially in the Caribbean, from drifting away in future years, then he is seriously deluded. And I don?t believe he is.

The tide of history is against the Crown holding on to most of the realms.
Look at Barbados. Over 70 years of duty to the Crown and Commonwealth from Queen Elizabeth and visits and messages for decades from the BRF didn?t prevent that country from cutting ties with the Crown.

As for the Commonwealth as a whole it has many things going for it (and some against.) With the late Queen now gone as Ceremonial Head much sentimental attachment has dissipated and some nations in it will be naturally questioning its value in the future.

However, as long as advantageous trade links remain as well as funding from the  nations of the Commonwealth to the poorer ones in the form of schemes and grants for projects, infrastructure etc then most of the Commonwealth will hold on for as long as it suits them.

However China also offers ?seeming benefits? in the form of trade deals and loans  and the Commonwealth Secretariat in London will ignore that at its peril. Whatever, I believe the Commonwealth in another fifty years is very likely to be a very different beast to what it is now. And no ?star quality? from any royal is going to change that!

I totally forgot that the commonwealth is headless, like a headless chicken, every boss running around with no reporting to do to a head.  :sarcastic:

Their organizational chart has no head.

Come on know. With 21st century technology, anyone can recheck any dis or mis information.

Quote from: wannable on August 19, 2023, 01:28:27 PM
I totally forgot that the commonwealth is headless, like a headless chicken, every boss running around with no reporting to do to a head.  :sarcastic:

Their organizational chart has no head.

Come on know. With 21st century technology, anyone can recheck any dis or mis information.

Well, King Charles is not the ?Head? of the Commonwealth. His role within it is a purely Ceremonial one as his mother?s was. The Commonwealth is a completely voluntary organisation of 56 States/countries. There are no colonies as such and nobody has to report to any head honcho, because all the countries are independent, independent of each other and of Britain. Most of them are republics and have their own Presidents.

It hasn?t been the ?British? Commonwealth for a very long time. So I don?t know why you apparently believe I am spreading ?misinformation? as you put it. Who do you suggest should be ?Head of the Commonwealth?? A British royal? 

WHO is the Head of the Commonwealth?

King Charles is the ceremonial Head of the commonwealth. That role gives him no powers. He was appointed by Commonwealth leaders, because his mother, a very old lady, asked them to. They respected her wishes. That won?t happen with Charles and William in his turn.

His Majesty King Charles III is Head of the Commonwealth.

The role:

is an important symbolic one (Symbolic, meaning no administrative or other powers.)
It has no maximum fixed term
It is not hereditary, and future Heads will be chosen by Commonwealth leaders.

Roles and duties
The head of the Commonwealth serves as a leader, alongside the Commonwealth secretary-general and Commonwealth chair-in-office. Although Charles III is king of 15 member-states of the Commonwealth, he does not have any constitutional role in any Commonwealth state by virtue of his position as head of the Commonwealth. He keeps in touch with Commonwealth developments through regular contact with the Commonwealth secretary general and the Secretariat, the Commonwealth's central organisation.

The head of the Commonwealth or a representative attends the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), held at locations throughout the Commonwealth. This is a tradition begun by Queen Elizabeth II at the suggestion of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1973,[when the CHOGM was first held in Canada. During the summit, the head of the Commonwealth has a series of private meetings with Commonwealth countries' heads of government, attends a CHOGM reception and dinner, and makes a general speech.

The head of the Commonwealth or a representative has also been present at the quadrennial Commonwealth Games. The Queen's Baton Relay, held prior to the opening of each Commonwealth Games, carries a message from the head of the Commonwealth to all Commonwealth Nations and territories.

Every year on Commonwealth Day, the second Monday in March, the head of the Commonwealth broadcasts a special message to the population of the Commonwealth; approximately 2.5 billion people. On the same day, the head attends an inter-denominational Commonwealth Day service, held at Westminster Abbey.

It behooves me to state the above, because IF a head of any organization has whatsoever little to no interest in the job, as I said in an earlier post ''the behind the scene'' and a meh attitude, which Charles is the opposite being a workaholic...he has proved and shown in the past 50 years of his great interest in every job he does.

Yes, all the above is purely symbolic. It?s not an Empire we are are talking about here. Charles can?t give orders to Presidents or Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth. He can?t give orders for the realms to go to war on Britain?s behalf. He has no rights to interfere in the internal affairs of any independent Commonwealth Country.They are all independent of Britain. He has no power to order any country/State in the Commonwealth to hold a Commonwealth Games anywhere.

Charles occupies a ceremonial role. CEREMONIAL. Nobody reports to him asking him to organise the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Games (which is run by a Federation, or anything else. He turns up at CHOGM and at certain Commonwealth Games and appears in church in London on Commonwealth Day. Big Deal!

You are the one saying it's an empire, it is not, it's an organization with a structure.  He is the head, he has his role and duties as I posted.

Quote
He keeps in touch with Commonwealth developments through regular contact with the Commonwealth secretary general and the Secretariat, the Commonwealth's central organisation.

This is not my fault that has caused ''contention'' - source: Wikipedia, the original source: original and official Commonwealth website.

Quote from: wannable on August 19, 2023, 02:45:33 PM
You are the one saying it's an empire, it is not, it's an organization with a structure.  He is the head, he has his role and duties as I posted.

I?m not saying it?s an empire at all. I said the exact opposite in the first line I wrote of my post. Charles?s role is a symbolic one (symbolic of the past Empire the Commonwealth morphed into (in my lifetime.) And it is a purely ceremonial role with a few duties and no powers.

He keeps in touch with Commonwealth developments through regular contact with the Commonwealth secretary general and the Secretariat, the Commonwealth's central organisation.

As I said, my initial post about behind the scenes has to do with the above official quote, that triggered resentment. When it is said officially but is not included in any court circular, which since decades ago, royal watchers, royal historians and royal reporters call behind the scene work. I am certain all members of the RIF know this by now.

 Before Charles got the role thanks to Mummy, there was a lot of unrest among Commonwealth leaders about this morphing into a hereditary role in the future. And it was emphasised at the time Charles was appointed that this role was and is not hereditary.

. Who told Prince Charles he could be Head of the Commonwealth? (https://theconversation.com/who-told-prince-charles-he-could-be-head-of-the-commonwealth-51271)


?But the position of Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary. There is no constitutional or statutory reason why Charles would take this role upon the Queen?s death. In fact, Charles has no more right to the leadership than any other head of state of the 53 Commonwealth nations.?

Quote from: wannable on August 19, 2023, 03:00:36 PM
He keeps in touch with Commonwealth developments through regular contact with the Commonwealth secretary general and the Secretariat, the Commonwealth's central organisation.

As I said, my initial post about behind the scenes has to do with the above official quote, that triggered resentment. When it is said officially but is not included in any court circular, which since decades ago, royal watchers, royal historians and royal reporters call behind the scene work. I am certain all members of the RIF know this by now.

Regular contact can mean anything. It could be a few documents sent out on matters of interest from the Commonwealth Office every two or three months. It could be once a month. I doubt it?s weekly and it certainly wouldn?t be daily. And receiving any document doesn?t mean that Charles has the power to interfere in any Commonwealth business. He doesn?t even have the power (by convention) to discuss, question and warn that the monarch has with a British Prime Minister. These are independent countries. Any seeming interference from Charles (however well meaning) on any dispute  between Commonwealth countries for example might well be taken amiss and complained about in those countries? Parliaments and Press.

I know the position is not hereditary.  I never said anything about that.  My initial post had to do with ''behind the scenes work''.

It doesn't matter what the regular contact ''form'' is, work is work.

Quote from: wannable on August 19, 2023, 03:16:20 PM
I know the position is not hereditary.  I never said anything about that.  My initial post had to do with ''behind the scenes work''.

It doesn't matter what the regular contact ''form'' is, work is work.

I think Charles has enough to do as a HOS in the UK without worrying about ?working? on any Commonwealth issues. This is an organisation which runs very efficiently and well without his assistance and has done so for many decades.

I disagree, but time will tell. The latest I've read is HMKCIII with his government are planning realm visits, trickle down to the other senior working royals too in order of importance.

Charles summons William and Kate for extraordinary Balmoral summit | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1803837/King-Charles-William-Kate-Balmoral)

King Charles to hold royal summit with Kate and William to decide future of monarchy - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-hold-royal-summit-30737621)

King Charles 'will hold urgent meeting with Princess Kate and Prince William to decide future of monarchy' | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/23553178/king-charles-kate-prince-william/)

Quote from: wannable on August 19, 2023, 03:27:28 PM
I disagree, but time will tell. The latest I've read is HMKCIII with his government are planning realm visits, trickle down to the other senior working royals too in order of importance.

Charles has made a lot of visits to realms of the Commonwealth as Prince of Wales, with and without Camilla. So have other senior royals. So did the late Queen. Making these sorts of visits, being shown the sights of interest to any tourists who would like to visit, being photographed with local politicians and sometimes making a couple of innocuous speeches, is normal for British royals. They are arranged by the Foreign Office/ Commonwealth office every two or three years or so.

These visits have nothing whatsoever to do with Charles being the Ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth. That role is in fact similar to being a Patron (figurehead) of one of his charities.

I?ve lived in a Commonwealth country (Australia) for 53 years, since 1970. I do know how things work in Australia in regard to the Ceremonial role of Head of Commonwealth here, and in NZ too, with regard to British royalty. Before 1970 I lived in England where I was born at the end of 1946, nearly 24 years, with long visits back to the UK with my husband in the 1980s and 1990s. So I know how royalty operates there as well.

Quote from: sara8150 on August 19, 2023, 04:54:12 PM
Charles summons William and Kate for extraordinary Balmoral summit | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1803837/King-Charles-William-Kate-Balmoral)

King Charles to hold royal summit with Kate and William to decide future of monarchy - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-hold-royal-summit-30737621)

King Charles 'will hold urgent meeting with Princess Kate and Prince William to decide future of monarchy' | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/23553178/king-charles-kate-prince-william/)

Tabloids repeating what has been said in other tabloids doesn?t make it true. I do not believe in so called summits at Balmoral. I?ve got no doubt that Charles wants to remain head of whatever Commonwealth realms remain and so shore them up with lots of feel good (for royalty) visits in the next few years. It won?t change anything.

Fact. The overseas realms are independent.  If a Commonwealth country wishes to stop being a Realm what is Charles going to do? Send the British army in to take over, lol? Of course not. All he can do is accept it as the will of the people and Parliament of that realm. And that realm will then cease to have him as Head of State, and will instead be a republic, like the vast majority of other Commonwealth countries. And that will be so even if he and Camilla and William and Kate make 100 visits to each of the realms every year. (They won?t!)

We will get to know by Monday BST evening. Some RR's do believe there will be a 'briefing' rather than a summit.

Quote from: wannable on September 29, 2023, 12:54:50 PM
Majesty Magazine & Joe Little
@MajestyMagazine
To mark the start of #blackhistorymonth2023, the Prince and Princess of Wales will visit Cardiff on Tuesday to meet members of the Windrush generation and celebrate the work of diverse community groups in the area. Details of their engagements to follow.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7MPEkGWYAAqNQX?format=jpg&name=small)

Interesting that this should be happening considering how the last royal tour to the West Indies went down, with memories of the Windrush generation in mind. And the Jamaican govt intend to hold a referendum as early as next year as the first stage towards a republic.

Jamaica: King's coronation accelerates plans for Jamaican republic ? with referendum 'as early as 2024' | World News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/jamaica-kings-coronation-accelerates-plans-for-jamaican-republic-with-referendum-as-early-as-2024-12872453)

The road has been paved by King Charles III who a few months ago hosted and was hosted by UK Windrush people then, including their children. Like three generations. I recall he attended at least two events related. Also posted in the RIF at King Charles Board.

The original Windrush generation who sailed from Jamaica to Britain and faced horrendous prejudice and discrimination is dying out now. Of course their families having settled in Britain are forgiving and conciliatory for the most part. That however does not mean that what they faced should be forgotten, and it has been acknowledged now by the British Govt authorities.

However, it is not forgotten in those Caribbean countries that have Charles III as their HOS at the moment. And political leaders there who are not only talking republics in the near future but the BRF role in the slave trade that brought their ancestors there in the first place. And they are not only talking apologies (not that they?re worth much) but reparations.

Good luck to Charles (let alone William)  in trying to hold realms there for very much longer.

Just how is Charles suppose to be held responsible for what happen by his ancestors decades/hundreds of years ago?  This is all about those that want one thing only....MONEY for they have found a way to try and get it by what someone else did way back when long before Charles was even born, let alone William.  I am NOT responsible for what any of my ancestors did a year ago or even a hundred years ago, I am only responsible for what I do with my life, not someone else's life.

Greed knows NO bounds anymore when it comes to some who want nothing but MONEY, I have a strong dislike for money, yet I understand it is what is needed to get things to make life a bit easier, remember I was married to a man how loved money more than any human being alive even his mother or wife and who made money his God, just like Trump......as he wants to be No. 1 again so he can rob the country like he did before.

And for those countries that have Charles as their head with his picture on money or anywhere else, I say..let them go because if the only reason they are part of the Commonwealth is  to keep their name alive and money in their bank accounts, who needs that in their life.....after all countries come and go all the time, life moves on and time changes everyday.

Quote from: Nightowl on October 03, 2023, 02:33:40 AM
And for those countries that have Charles as their head with his picture on money or anywhere else, I say..let them go because if the only reason they are part of the Commonwealth is  to keep their name alive and money in their bank accounts, who needs that in their life.....after all countries come and go all the time, life moves on and time changes everyday.

I do not know any leaders of any of the remaining Commonwealth realms who have Charles as their HOS at the moment who are doing it ?to keep their names alive and and money in their bank accounts?. Australia, Canada, NZ, ??? Money (presumably in their PMs bank accounts) from where? And they are well known enough in their own countries, thanks, without Charles?s help!

And it has been explained on this forum many many times that the realms are part of a Commonwealth in which the vast majority of Commonwealth countries are republics. Now. At this point in time, 2023.

Only 14 of the 56 member States have Charles as their HOS. The rest, all 42 of them, have their own Presidents or other leaders. So jettisoning Charles as a country?s HOS does NOT mean leaving the Commonwealth. The 14 will sooner or later join the others until there are 56 members of the Commonwealth that are republics.

Quote from: Nightowl on October 03, 2023, 02:33:40 AM
And for those countries that have Charles as their head with his picture on money or anywhere else, I say..let them go because if the only reason they are part of the Commonwealth is  to keep their name alive and money in their bank accounts, who needs that in their life.....after all countries come and go all the time, life moves on and time changes everyday.

Jamaica has made it clear that they plan to become a republic in the coming years but that the process is taking time. The Prime Minister shared his thoughts on the BRF's and KCIII's reactions. He stated that they've been "very graceful."

Jamaica 'on the journey' to become a republic despite delay | The National (https://www.thenational.scot/news/23673285.jamaica-on-journey-become-republic-despite-delay/)

QuoteJAMAICA?s Prime Minister has said his country is ?on the journey? with plans to become a republic as King Charles made clear that "these matters are for the determination of sovereign nations".

The country's leader Andrew Holness citied ?bureaucratic political processes? as the reason for delaying plans to cut colonial ties with the UK and remove King Charles as head of state.

The PM said he hopes to soon follow Barbados who became a republic on November 30, 2021, exactly 55 years after it was declared independent from the UK.

In an interview during an unofficial visit to the UK this week, Holmess said he would have preferred to have cut ties with the UK as soon as the Queen passed, however a ?long period of public education and public consultation" had ?elongated? the process.

Holness said: ?We have set indicative timelines. We would have wanted to be able to do this within a year, but the process is not a linear one.?



Asked if the royal family have been stalling the process, the Jamaican PM said: ?In fact they have been very graceful. The royal family and King Charles was very clear at the Commonwealth that these matters are for the determination of sovereign nations.?

The British Government ?has expressed no view? on the matter, he revealed.

Both Charles and William have said in their own words if a realm wants to become a Republic - go ahead, congratulations.  They are not losing sleep over this. (chorus song is loud and clear)

The monarchy is focusing on commonwealth ''association''. 

Of course it is up to the realms to do their thing, some are just taking too long to become a republic.

Quote from: wannable on October 03, 2023, 03:45:26 PM
Both Charles and William have said in their own words if a realm wants to become a Republic - go ahead, congratulations.  They are not losing sleep over this. (chorus song is loud and clear)

The monarchy is focusing on commonwealth ''association''. 

Of course it is up to the realms to do their thing, some are just taking too long to become a republic.

Absolutely true @wannable and the BRF know that the Commonwealth is far more important than the monarch remaining as Head of State.
Jamaica seems to be having issues regarding the wording of the Constitution which is contributing to the delay. The public posturing seen by the PM regarding the nation's intended plan to become a republic took place during the then Cambridges' last visit. However IMO it seemed to be directed at his opposition parties and the press rather than Buckingham Palace and London.

Quote from: Curryong on October 03, 2023, 02:52:17 AM
I do not know any leaders of any of the remaining Commonwealth realms who have Charles as their HOS at the moment who are doing it ?to keep their names alive and and money in their bank accounts?. Australia, Canada, NZ, ??? Money (presumably in their PMs bank accounts) from where? And they are well known enough in their own countries, thanks, without Charles?s help!

And it has been explained on this forum many many times that the realms are part of a Commonwealth in which the vast majority of Commonwealth countries are republics. Now. At this point in time, 2023.

Only 14 of the 56 member States have Charles as their HOS. The rest, all 42 of them, have their own Presidents or other leaders. So jettisoning Charles as a country?s HOS does NOT mean leaving the Commonwealth. The 14 will sooner or later join the others until there are 56 members of the Commonwealth that are republics.

Good points @Curryong. Also it should be pointed out that the new nations that are choosing to join the Commonwealth, don't always have historic ties to the UK, but believe that association in the organization will be beneficial for their own country. Gabon and Togo recently joined in 2022 and these are former French, not British, colonies.
Gabon and Togo join the Commonwealth | Commonwealth (https://thecommonwealth.org/news/gabon-and-togo-join-commonwealth)

Quote from: wannable on October 03, 2023, 03:45:26 PM
Both Charles and William have said in their own words if a realm wants to become a Republic - go ahead, congratulations.  They are not losing sleep over this. (chorus song is loud and clear)

The monarchy is focusing on commonwealth ''association''. 

Of course it is up to the realms to do their thing, some are just taking too long to become a republic.

What do you expect Charles and William to say, that all their mother?s and grandmother?s work was in vain? The Commonwealth AND the realms were a source of immense pride to her and she never begrudged the visits to different countries, the networking with and between Commonwealth leaders that took a great deal of work sometimes.

Charles is a different kettle of fish, people in the Commonwealth in general don?t feel the same way as they did about his mother, and he knows it. As for William it is most unlikely that he will have any official role in Commonwealth affairs when he becomes King.

Both father and son can smell the prevailing winds and they aren?t in favour of monarchy, especially after that pretty disastrous visit to the Caribbean where Kate and William seemed to be imitating the late Queen and Prince Philip with white uniform and standing up in a land rover to meet and greet the massed proletariat. That went down like a lead balloon. 

As for some realms taking too long to become republics, for some of us it?s not a question of a one person one vote referendum and it?s done. The Aus constitution took many years to formulate, in the latter years of Queen Victoria?s reign. Our constitution was about the last piece of Imperial legislation she signed before she died.

And it is incredibly difficult to change. Not only do all States and Territories populations have to have an over 51% Yes vote but there has to be a majority of States saying Yes, and then a totality of everyone, States, Territories, citizens. So one State saying a definite No can cause an imbalance. Our constitution has had only eight changes to it since Federation in 1901. So that alone presents difficulties.

If we didn?t have a written Constitution Aus would probably have been a republic since the 1970s when an elected PM was sacked by the Governor General of the time. That caused enormous resentment.

As for Canada, where opinion polls since the Queen?s death have shown a distinct upswing in republic sentiment, more hoops to have to jump.

Here's how to abolish the monarchy in Canada (and say goodbye to King Charles) (https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2023/abolish-monarchy-goodbye-charles/)

Both have upheld every single time any of the 15 realms they have visited in person or via communication a go ahead, congratulations. Objective fact.  I disagree with the Caribbean visit - I think it went very well, a handful of loudmouths was more exiting and clickbating news for a frontpage.

The latest yougov Australia poll seems to be very much a delay - same same for the past 30 years, bits and pieces not swinging mid or high.

One year into King Charles? reign, where do Australian attitudes to the monarchy stand? | YouGov (https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/46044-one-year-king-charles-reign-where-do-australian-at)

^ With a sentiment described here - it's difficult to govern a country like the example I gave with the USA divided up and down from government to civilians.

King Charles III is more popular than any Australian politician. 1 in 3 want a republic. The other 2 monarchists still beat 1 republican.

Well all the realms have the ability to stay or leave. It's very difficult for some countries but it can be done. What gets me riled up is a country like Jamaica that's been independent for 60 years and yet goes on as if it's a province or state of the UK.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on October 03, 2023, 09:42:17 PM
Well all the realms have the ability to stay or leave. It's very difficult for some countries but it can be done. What gets me riled up is a country like Jamaica that's been independent for 60 years and yet goes on as if it's a province or state of the UK.

Yes!!! This is something that really annoys me about  the politicians, journalists and even some royal fans especially in reference to  the Caribbean nations.  Those nations who became independent countries in the 1960's could have chosen to become republics but decided to remain constitutional monarchies.

Quote from: wannable on October 03, 2023, 09:21:09 PM
Both have upheld every single time any of the 15 realms they have visited in person or via communication a go ahead, congratulations. Objective fact.  I disagree with the Caribbean visit - I think it went very well, a handful of loudmouths was more exiting and clickbating news for a frontpage.

The latest yougov Australia poll seems to be very much a delay - same same for the past 30 years, bits and pieces not swinging mid or high.

One year into King Charles? reign, where do Australian attitudes to the monarchy stand? | YouGov (https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/46044-one-year-king-charles-reign-where-do-australian-at)

^ With a sentiment described here - it's difficult to govern a country like the example I gave with the USA divided up and down from government to civilians.

King Charles III is more popular than any Australian politician. 1 in 3 want a republic. The other 2 monarchists still beat 1 republican.

Wow! I have to admit that I was surprised that KCIII is more popular than the politicians and his heir has even higher approval ratings.

QuoteAnd while Australia?s constitutional status may be in question, on a personal level, King Charles is more popular than any Australian politician. Half (50%) have a positive opinion of the King, compared to 40% with a negative view, giving a net score of +10.

The next in line to the throne ? Prince William ? is substantially more popular still: fully 69% of Australians have a favourable view of the Prince of Wales, with only 20% having a negative view.

Even those who want Australia to become a republic as soon as possible have a positive opinion of Prince William, by 52% to 38%. (By contrast, King Charles is unpopular among this group, with 60% having a negative view and only 31% a positive one).

The politician that the largest number of Australians have a positive opinion of is prime minister Anthony Albanese, with 47% having a favourable view and 44% an unfavourable one (giving a net score of +3).

Foreign minister and senate leader Penny Wong and senator Jacqui Lambi have slightly higher net scores than Albanese (both are on +8), but this is somewhat a factor of them being slightly less well known (22-24% are unfamiliar with them, compared to Albanese?s 10%).

Catherine, Princess of Wales, Princess Anne, and Prince Edward also prove to be more popular than Australian politicians. Unsurprisingly Prince Andrew does not, and Camilla, Queen Consort, and Prince Harry and wife Meghan also prove to be unpopular overall.

As I have said before in posts the subject of a republic is on the back burner at the moment with The Voice referendum to the fore in this first term of Labor Govt. Labor is likely to be returned next time as the Liberals are in disarray at the moment. So the issue is not at the fore of people?s minds at this time. In the run up to such a burning question as this one people (especially the under 45s will be making their minds up very much more definitely than they express now when it?s not at the forefront.

Point 2. Practically no referenda has ever been passed without the bipartisan support of the two main political parties and just as a point of interest there are many more Republican-minded politicians on both sides in our Federal Parliament than there are monarchists. That has been so for twenty years or more.

As for Charles being more ?popular? than our PM, so what. The late Queen had glowing figure of respect and esteem. It hasn?t stopped republicanism here. Political leaders make hard decisions that change Australians?
lives. People who live halfway across the world do not. And as a matter of fact, until the last few months when cost of living issues bit, PM Albanese had terrific poll results for a mid term PM.

And I do question whether YouGov has been able to contact younger Australians who have cell phones as distinct from older Aussies who don?t.

You may believe as a result of this one poll that two out of three Aussies still love the monarchy and only one out of three want a republic. Well, go on believing that if you wish. I actually live here and I know that is not the case. When the referendum for a republic actually comes up and is widely discussed, a very different picture may well emerge that will surprise you.

Labor and Albanese recover in Newspoll as Dutton falls, but the Voice's slump continues (https://theconversation.com/labor-and-albanese-recover-in-newspoll-as-dutton-falls-but-the-voices-slump-continues-213867#:~:text=Prime%20Minister%20Anthony%20Albanese's%20ratings),term%20in%20the%20previous%20Newspoll.

As for Jamaica, some interesting reading for those here who believe the push for a republic in the past couple of years is only the view of some loudmouths politicians..

11 Point Decline In Support For Jamaica Becoming A Republic - RJRGLEANER Don Anderson Poll | RJR News - Jamaican News Online (https://radiojamaicanewsonline.com/local/11-point-decline-in-support-for-jamaica-becoming-a-republic-rjrgleaner-don-anderson-poll)

Despite that headline


The latest RJRGLEANER Don Anderson shows the 45 per cent of respondents wanting the country to adopt a republic type government, similar to Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana or Barbados, with some even favouring the American style of government.

Another 26 per cent of citizens who believe Jamaica should retain the British Monarch as Head of State.

That figure represents only a 19 per cent difference between those who support the move towards becoming a republic and those against it.

Twenty-nine per cent of respondents said they were unsure about which option the country should adopt.

Still, he said the 19 per cent gap between those who want to sever ties with the monarchy and those who believe Jamaica should remain under British rule, shows that support for Jamaica's shift to a republic continues to remain "pretty strong".

The poll canvassed a representative sample of 1,010 people over the age of 18 who are eligible to vote.

Field work was done between August 30 and September 14 2023 with a margin of error of plus or minus three per cent.

I?d say a 19% difference in support is indeed pretty strong and it looks as if Jamaican politicians have read the room, unlike those who organised the disastrous Caribbean royal tour last year. If it was such an overwhelming success why did the British media report that William was incandescent when they arrived home and tore strips off his inexperienced staff for putting he and his wife in such a position?

'Incompetent' Foreign Office is blamed for William and Kate's 'embarrassing' Caribbean tour | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10651817/Incompetent-Foreign-Office-blamed-William-Kates-embarrassing-Caribbean-tour.html)

?Perfect storm?: royals misjudged Caribbean tour, say critics | Monarchy | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/25/william-and-kate-caribbean-tour-slavery-reparations-royals)

And by the way that YouGov poll does NOT say that one in three Aussies want a republic and two out of three therefore are monarchists at all.

What is actually says, and I?m quoting from the YouGov data here, ?A similar number?. If two out of three wanted the monarchy to stay then their figures would be far in excess of 35%, more like 65%.

?Should Australia remain a constitutional monarchy or become a republic?

One in three Australians want the country to become a republic as soon as possible (32%). A similar number want to remain a constitutional monarchy for the long term (35%). In between are 12% of Australians who want to kick the republican can down the road, saying that the country should only become a republic once the King has died.?

Based on that data, it is very high risk for the Republicans to win. There needs to be, as I said in my previous comment at least a ''mid'' swing (a high swing would really be a relaxing win of really not so hard work to change all what needs to be changed from Monarchy to Republic) in favor of the Republicans in ''all accounts'' for independence. 

The fact that the Australians have voted King Charles winning over any/all politicians from all parties is not a surprise - too many blunders, most of it vengeance, revenge in many areas that are not even monarchy related, which never ends well to the point of losing office.  We've seen it happen. I think as with William (since he also is surveyed in the USA as winner), more compassion, empathy but level headed decision making is in order from countries at least who are in the G-20 United Nations. Do better situation asap. I think we have all witnessed very rash decision making from leaders of the G-20 countries in the past 2-5 years.

Quote from: wannable on October 04, 2023, 02:37:19 PM
Based on that data, it is very high risk for the Republicans to win. There needs to be, as I said in my previous comment at least a ''mid'' swing (a high swing would really be a relaxing win of really not so hard work to change all what needs to be changed from Monarchy to Republic) in favor of the Republicans in ''all accounts'' for independence. 

The fact that the Australians have voted King Charles winning over any/all politicians from all parties is not a surprise - too many blunders, most of it vengeance, revenge in many areas that are not even monarchy related, which never ends well to the point of losing office.  We've seen it happen. I think as with William (since he also is surveyed in the USA as winner), more compassion, empathy but level headed decision making is in order from countries at least who are in the G-20 United Nations. Do better situation asap. I think we have all witnessed very rash decision making from leaders of the G-20 countries in the past 2-5 years.

If Charles and William actually stood for office as politicians and had to put actual contentious issues into the public arena, the picture would be very very different in the US, UK and Commonwealth.

The fact is that non elected officials such as those two are regarded as somewhat neutral and innocuous because they don?t represent anything that directly affects people?s lives.  And in Aus the figures between approval of Charles the King and Albanese, our PM, are about 2%, well within the margin or error. Albanese?s never been regarded with hatred or great dislike even by Liberal voters.

And I stand by my previous comments that this issue is not at the forefront of Australians? minds at the moment. The Voice referenda is. The republic will only be seriously debated in the next term of a Labor Govt and then and only then will a much clearer picture emerge.

I think it might happen with next generation Z, who are the strongest numbers with a few scattered from the previous generation of Millenials - as long as there is a massive vote nationwide by them.  So far the double majority isn't happening in any of the 6 states, they are all bellow 50%. The government and the people know this, a referendum to be succesful - would need what I stated or at least 4/6 states - but so far none have reached 50%.

Are we talking about The Voice, which unfortunately is failing badly in polling, or the future referendum for a republic? Because if it?s the latter there has not been any detailed State wide or provincial cities data produced on what Aussies in say Brisbane in Queensland  or Broome in WA think about a republic as compared to those in say Launceston Tasmania  or Newcastle NSW, since the run up to sole the republic referendum in the 1990s.

As I?ve said it is not at the forefront of Australians? minds at the moment and so it is far too early to jump to conclusions about what Aussies of any age think about a republic with a referendum on it about two years away. And there is not a clear division between what say Aussies of 30+ to 50 yrs think about the monarchy in comparison to 18 year olds or 65+ think of them. A lot in all age groups are indifferent about the issue.

That kind of age divide, as is stated in that YouGov polling, is much clearer in the UK. Many more Aussies of all ages are indifferent to the monarchy for instance than is the case in the UK. That is often forgotten. It?s not part of our national life since no royal lives here. We are half a world away from the UK.

More Australians over 60 years of age are pro monarchy than those 18 to 30 is about all can be concluded from these latest results  and that?s no surprise. It?s always been the case.

That Aussies are by and large just indifferent to the monarchy has also been the case for a good fifty years or more. The exception to this were the huge and enthusiastic crowds that turned out everywhere for Diana when she visited as Prss of Wales.

The Guardian News & Media

Offices: UK, Australia, USA

The numbers provided by The Guardian states the highest ''yes'' votes are Gen Z followed by scattered around the 6 states Millenials. Everyone else not so.  None of the 6 states have reached 50% the closest is Victoria with 46%, but even then with the combo of the 6 states article 128 says it needs ''double majority''.

From that YouGov poll.
?The most common feelings towards the monarchy in Australia are indifference, but more think it is good for the country than bad
Generally speaking, do you think the institution of the monarchy is good or bad for Australia?
Good for Australia
34
Bad for Australia
21
Neither good nor bad for Australia
38
Do you think the monarchy should have more or less of a role in Australia?
More
13
Less
35
No change/ currently adequate
43
Would you say you are proud or embarrassed of the monarchy?
Proud
28
Embarrassed
23
Neither proud nor embarrassed
42
YouGov 2022?

Those numbers will change for the republicans once Gen Z is old enough to vote. ^ The above literally mirrors the results of Sept 2023 Yougov AU and The Guardian AU.

I said ?detailed polling? between Aussies in different States in my last post. There were dozens of such studies undertaken in the 1990s. There has been nothing like that recently.

And I?ve posted links here on this forum several times in the last couple of years on how referenda to change the Constitution work in Australia. I?ll do so again. And Im well aware how the system works. I studied political science at Monash as a mature age student.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/ConstitutionalReferendumsAustralia

And there are plenty of Gen Z Aussies of voting age now, born in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

My comments were just detailed hard facts. Nothing wrong in basically being a messenger of what is in a ''link''.

The Guardian AU poll detailing Gen Z was Sept. 2022, they are sandwiched between Millenials and the new Gen Alpha - who might tip the scales if the government does more blunders.

I'm not a fan of The Guardian, much less when gaslighting is involved, they are basically saying the Gen Z are blunderers too - sandwiched.  Every generation has to live whatever happens during their time, is what I can say about it all and worldwide. Although traditional countries like China and Russia might end up ruling the planet.

Monarchy isn't ideal, but Canadians don't care enough to abolish: poll | National Post (https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadians-king-charles-monarchy-poll)


?But asked how they would vote today (the poll of more than 2,000 Canadians was taken in February and March), and the republican impulse weakens. Twenty-three per cent would vote to keep the king, and 47 per cent would vote to abolish.

Curiously, if asked to predict the result of a referendum held tomorrow, Canadian republicanism seems even weaker still. People think 36 per cent would vote to keep things as they are, and 40 per cent would vote for abolition.

These results are in line with the common anti-monarchist view that Canadians would reject the monarchy if they ever paid it more than passing attention. But they don?t, so they don?t.

It?s not quite procrastination. It?s partly that there are bigger fish to fry in Canadian public life. But it?s also partly that Canadians don?t care enough. There is also an expectation that the monarchy will naturally fade into irrelevance as an interest only of older generations.?

And, curiously, that?s the view of many people in another two of the realms, Aus and NZ. Indifference and a feeling that the monarchy is irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people and will, as the years progress, become even more so. Especially from halfway across the world. Yawn, yawn. And that tide can?t be reversed.

Is Charles set to fly into a new 'end the monarchy' row with his visit to Australia? Palace aides are drawing up a plan for the King's Sydney trip next year
The planned visit to Sydney will coincide with Commonwealth summit meeting

King Charles is set to face the biggest test to his reign next year when he flies to Australia ? where calls for the country to become a republic are ever-increasing.

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that royal aides are preparing for a visit to Sydney to coincide with his first attendance as the head of the Commonwealth at its summit meeting in Samoa.

A senior Australian government minister last night said the visit would lead to a ?renewed conversation? about the country having its own head of state.

Charles is due to be at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) next October and it is predicted that he will extend the tour to visit Australia, New Zealand and Fiji.

Matt Thistlethwaite, the assistant minister for the republic ? an anti-monarchist role created in the Australian Labor Party last year ? told the MoS: ?The King will always be welcome in Australia and greeted fondly by the Australian people. But in modern-day Australia his visit will trigger a renewed conversation about having our own head of state who lives with us, represents us and is an Australian.

Is Charles set to fly into a new 'end the monarchy' row with his visit to Australia? Palace aides are drawing up a plan for the King's Sydney trip (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-12606099/Charles-monarchy-Australia-King-Sydney-trip.html)

On recommendation by PM @AlboMP, His Majesty King Charles III has approved the appointment of Ms Samantha Mostyn AO as Australia's next Governor-General.

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australias-new-governor-general

Yes Samantha has certainly had a long, varied and illustrious career. I'd say that here in Victoria, if people know her at all, it's in connection with her work in the AFL (Australian Football League; not soccer or rugby but our game, played since the early 1850s), notably in getting the AFL women's League off the ground. After all that, being GG should be a doddle!

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 03, 2024, 09:05:48 AMOn recommendation by PM @AlboMP, His Majesty King Charles III has approved the appointment of Ms Samantha Mostyn AO as Australia's next Governor-General.

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australias-new-governor-general

Congratulations to Australia on the appointment of the new Governor General.

Meet the anti-monarchist who will be representing King Charles in Australia: Republican businesswoman who once branded Australia Day 'invasion day' in controversial deleted tweets is appointed Governor-General -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13269779/Meet-anti-monarchist-representing-King-Charles-Australia-Republican-businesswoman-branded-Australia-Day-invasion-day-controversial-deleted-tweets-appointed-Governor-General.html

I just took it for granted that she was. Several of our GG's and many of our State Governors, who have the same powers, are republicans and have talked about it on occasion. And Australia Day has become contentious among younger sectors of the Aus population over the past decade.

The Canadian parliament broke into God Save the King after MPs voted against removing the oath of allegiance.

The Government and most of the Liberal and Conservative MPs joined forces to vote down the private member's bill, which was supported by the Left-wing NDP and nationalist Bloc Québécois parties.

MPs voted to keep Section 128, which requires that new parliamentarians must swear to be "faithful and bear true allegiance" to the reigning monarch, by 113 votes to 197.

Greg Fergus, the speaker, repeatedly called for order but eventually gave up as the members continued, undeterred. They carried on until they reached the end of the first verse.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/11/canadian-parliament-breaks-into-god-save-the-king/

Would they know any more than the first verse? Most people don't.

Good Grief. Well, that would certainly never happen here. Our vote of Allegiance remains but the vast majority of members of the House of Reps and the Senate are known to be republicans.

Today is #ANZACDay – which honours the members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) who served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations.

https://x.com/RoyalFamily/status/1783193031702626671

On #AnzacDay we remember all Australians and New Zealanders who have served and died in military operations #LestWeForget 🇦🇺🇳🇿

https://x.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1783247951675957378

Up early today for the Dawn Service at our local memorial. Don't go to the city one any more. Anzac Day is still important here. Thousands have lined the streets to see the marches today, young and old, all ethnicities looking on. It's mostly our Vietnam vets marching nowadays, (those that can still do it) and ex Peace Keeping forces from different conflicts. Friends went to see the Commonwealth Graves from WW1 last year. Still heartbreaking I expect. I saw them as a schoolgirl in France and Belgium but not at Gallipoli.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13347019/anzac-day-dawn-services-australia-new-zealand.html