The Coronations in XX-XXI cent.

[Mary R.]

You took the words right out of my mouth! Long may she reign!!

Mary R.

[alixaannencova]

Absolutely Robert and all else. EII is our fundamental basis of what monarchy was and is! But what is to come? I dare not think about it yet!

[dmitri]

Generally unsuitable monarchs have been removed. It is to be doubted that given the current heirs age that he will be able to undertake the necessary duties in all the current realms in another ten or more years. Overseas tours are required and sending the next heir will not be considered sufficient. Any British monarch who loses Canada, Australia or New Zealand will go down in history as someone who could not keep the show on the road successfully.

[Antoniam]

Generally unsuitable monarchs have been removed. It is to be doubted that given the current heirs age that he will be able to undertake the necessary duties in all the current realms in another ten or more years. Overseas tours are required and sending the next heir will not be considered sufficient. Any British monarch who loses Canada, Australia or New Zealand will go down in history as someone who could not keep the show on the road successfully.

Well Queen Elizabeth II 'lost' South Africa and this was after a major tour in 1947 to shore up support for the monarchy. George VI didn't really want to go and it was an exhausting tour at that, but South Africa became a republic. QEII also 'lost' Singapore ( a republic), Malta ( a republic) despite Malta being the place where she lived quite happily for a short time and mixed with the locals. That still didn't stop the Maltese from voting in a republic.
George VI 'lost' India, various royals visited frequently.

India and South Africa were far more important ecomonically to the UK than Australia, Canada and New Zealand are. Now those 3 countries are of little economic importance as the UK joined the EU. And in the early 1970's just about devastating the New Zealand diary industry as the UK was their major market and they stopped buying as the Uk was obligated to buy mainly from EU countries. Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders have no advantages in the UK workwise either, unlike EU citizens who don't need visas to work in the UK, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders do. Having the Queen as Head of State may be symbolic to some but there's no really strong ties, especially since those 3 countries have had large number of non-British immigrants who have no connection with a British Queen.

Why is it that people persist in perpetuating the myth that Australians ( and for that matter Canadians and New Zealanders) are tabloid reading simpletons who will reduce the decision as to what system of government they will live under to a popularity quest? One at that run largely in tabloids?
The Australian referedum in 1999 the "no" vote won but it was not a vote for Queen Elizabeth II. It was a rejection of the republican model on offer, that was that the Head of State was to be appointed by the government of the day. Republicans wanted that the people voted who would be the Head of State. Therefore diehard republicans voted "no" not because they wanted QEII to remain the Australian Head of State but because they didn't want the Republican model on offer. They would live to fight another day ( and more than likely get a Republic where the people vote for their Head of State, one who lives in Australia and not the UK) It's irrelevant who the monarch is in the UK, Australians who want a republic want it based on that the Australian Head of State should live in Australia, not a foreigner who resides on the other side of the world. People's personal lives are also irrelevant Australia already has had a Prime Minister who admitted cheating on his wife and who had been an alcoholic. He was voted in more than once.

[Grace]

It is a generalization that 'people's (i.e. politicians) personal lives are irrelevant'.  They may be to you but not to me nor many other Australians either.  I detested Bob Hawke - he was a yob - a clever one - but still a yob.

Let's be honest here, Antoniam - there's no one suitable to be an Australian Head of State - absolutely NO-ONE!!!!  Long live the Queen!   

[Antoniam]

It is a generalization that 'people's (i.e. politicians) personal lives are irrelevant'.  They may be to you but not to me nor many other Australians either.  I detested Bob Hawke - he was a yob - a clever one - but still a yob.

Let's be honest here, Antoniam - there's no one suitable to be an Australian Head of State - absolutely NO-ONE!!!!  Long live the Queen!   

That's your personal opinion, I don't particularly agree. I think Charles would make a good Australian Head of State, especially since he, unlike other British royals, including the Queen, has actually got a personal connection with Australia as he lived here for a short time. If Australia becomes a republic, then I can think of a quite a few excellent candidates who would make good Australian Heads of State.

As far as Bob Hawke was concerned, I think he well illustrates my point that for Australians a politician's personal life is irrelevant to how they do their job. He was elected Prime Minister despite the fact that he was quite open about his personal problems and to use your words "a yob". He was still elected and re-elected. Had his personal life been an issue, he would never had been head of his party and never elected to the prime ministership.

[ChristineM]

This thread is devoted to a discussion about 'The Next Coronation' not to various constitutional issues.

In 1953 when Elizabeth II was crowned Queen of Australia, Canada and etc., it was a very different world.   Up until a very few years before, the map of the entire world was predominately 'pink' - the British Empire ruled the waves.   1953 Australia comprised its native peoples along with a large scattering of Scots, then Irish, Welsh and English.   Today Australia is totally multinational it is perfectly obvious why many of its inhabitants would not want a Head of STate sited on the opposite side of the world.

So, whether Australia, Canada and the other Commonwealth nations participate in the next monarch's coronation, must, for now, remain a moot point.

tsaria

[dmitri]

Yes I agree with you Tsaria. Charles becoming King is given as the reason why the three important realms may well become republics. To compare these countries to South Africa in 1960, and India and so on is blatantly absurd. South Africa becoming a republic was to do with it being thrown out of the Commonwealth due to a repugnant apartheid system. India and Malta for reasons peculiar to their country. After all The Queen was hardly ethnically Indian or Maltese or Singaporean. The vast majority of peoples in Australia, Canada and New Zealand are still of European heritage even if there are minorities of different ethnic and racial backgrounds.  Antoniam was also very wrong about the republic referendum in Australia. Perhaps he/she has not worked out that the question put to the Australian people was that decided in the constitutional convention, elected largely by the Australian people with appointments also from the federal and state governments. The idea of a popularly elected President was overwhelmingly rejected. It would be truly a tragedy after all the decades of dedicated work put in by Elizabeth II if these three great realms became republics. It would certainly be a slap on the face for the Crown in Britain in the eyes of the British public as it would be a clear rejection of the idea of monarchy as a integral and necessary system of government. I can tell you that there were sighs of considerable relief at the Palace when Australia did not become a republic. The monarchy in Britain obtains considerable prestige due to the fact that it is a many nations monarchy. Remove Canada, New Zealand and Australia and it becomes just a monarchy of a single european union state. That is a considerable loss of prestige. Back to the thread one thing that is guaranteed is that the next coronation will not be like that of Elizabeth II. Her coronation still had the hallmarks of Empire. The next will have none of them.

[CHRISinUSA]

I can completely understand why the "three realms" of Canada, Australia and New Zealand might not want the British monarch as their head of state in the modern era.  The "link" might increase presitge for the monarch, and for Britain of course, but does it increase prestige for the three realms involved?  (Not being a citizen of one of those three countries, I don't know).

As a supporter of a constitutional parliamentary monarchy form of government, however, if these realms did end their link with Britain, I would love to see them establish their own resident monarchies instead of becoming republics.  (I know - odd for an American, but there it is!). 

There probably is little chance of that, unfortunately.  Monarchy can increase a nation's prestige and international standing.  It serves so well as a focal point for national unity and pride.  Costly?  Perhaps, but no more so than the majority of major republican heads of state!

A resident King of Canada?  A resident Queen of Australia?  One can only wish!

[ChristineM]

May I ask you an obvious question Chris - do you have anyone in mind for these posts?

tsaria

[CHRISinUSA]

Oh, I imagine that could be a thread unto itself - who aside from the reigning British monarch would best wear a future Crown of Canada or Crown of Australia?

Were such a thing to happen, I imagine the populace would fall into three camps:  (1) those who would insist that the sovereign be from one of the regal houses of Europe (probably one of the Windsors), (2) those who would demand a native-born monarch, and (3) those who would reject a monarchy all-together.

In this ficticious situation, I myself would vote for a member of a royal house who also had some strong connection to the realm in question.  I have no idea who would be best suited.

[Robert_Hall]

Good question, Tsaria. Who indeed would become monarchs of those independent realms? Farm out the Windsors?
  However, the coronation itself is essentialy a religous rite.  The UK being  the only  European monarchy to retain it. In multi-cultural societies it is an anachronism. It has little relevance except to the lovers of pomp and ceremony.  It could easily be replaced by something akin to the State Opening of Parlaiment. Perhaps followed by a Trooping.
 The Empire is long gone and the Head of the Commonwealth is a constitutional role, not a religous one, so what remains?
 Another question- why must there be a head of state  and a head of government?  In most republics, it is the same person.
 

[ChristineM]

The British Constitution is a bit of a conundrum - particularly since it has never been committed to either pen or paper.   However, certainly until recent years it appears to have worked reasonably well and this is, in part, the reason why we have a Constitutional Monarchy which is separate to, but contiguous with, the organ of government.

For a prospective 'monarch in residence' for Australia, perhaps they need look no further than the delightful Crown Princess of Denmark and her progeny.

She certainly appears absolutely natural.   I don't know about anybody else, but I see a considerable resemblance between her and Kate Middleton

tsaria

[dmitri]

I think Crown Princess Mary is a touch more dignified than Kate Middleton. As for a resident Monarch in Australia there really is no need. The Govenor-General is The Queen of Australia's representative and that person is always an Australian. The office is neutral. Turn them into a President and they become yet another politician. That's something Australian's don't want.

[Robert_Hall]

I am well aware of the British  unwritten constitution. It is like a crossword puzzle at times.  I cannot say the same about Australia or Scotland though. Have not researched the subjects.
 I do hope all are listening to Radio4- they are having a lot of programming  at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival.  A lot of take on the monarchy.
 A Danish Crown Princess as Queen of Australia? Well, why not?  Some say they have a German one now. Who then for Canada? That would be tricky. French or British???  I would not even guess on NZ until I hear from my expat friends who recently moved there. And who knows who would be chosen as  monarchs of the  other "realms"?
 But- the coronation. What do you think of it being a non-religous state ceremony? Sans the big whoop-de-doo at Westminster Abbey?