The Commonwealth Nations and the British Monarchy News

[Curryong]

@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.

[TLLK]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[Curryong]

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

[TLLK]

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

King Charles no longer Defender of the Faith in Canada ? Royal Central

The 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.

[wannable]

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



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.



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

[Curryong]

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".

[Nightowl]

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!

[Curryong]

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.

[Nightowl]

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!

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

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

[HistoryGirl2]

^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.

[TLLK]

^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:

[HistoryGirl2]

^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.

[Curryong]

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

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[HistoryGirl2]

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

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[Curryong]

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(No_2)

[HistoryGirl2]

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

[Amabel2]

I woudnt hold your breath

[HistoryGirl2]

^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.

[HistoryGirl2]

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.

[TLLK]

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?