Is the Commonwealth inconceivable without a monarch?
Posted by AlexT - 17/08/09 at 02:08 pm‘The Commonwealth without the monarch at its head is inconceivable’, says Professor David Flint, National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.
Just as the Crown was essential to the evolution of the world’s most successful system of governance, the Westminster model, so it has been at the very centre of the long evolution of the Commonwealth.
No one has put The Queen’s personal contribution as Head of the Commonwealth more clearly than did the thirteen year old Australian youth ambassador, Harry White at the opening of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games:
‘Your Majesty, during the past 54 years of your reign you have been the glue that has held us all together in the great Commonwealth of Nations in good times and bad times. The love and great affection that we all hold for you is spread across one third of the world’s population in our Commonwealth.’
Most citizens of the Commonwealth have known no other Head. Only the elderly remember her father the dutiful King George VI, and the immense feeling of sadness that descended on the Commonwealth on his untimely demise.
It is hard to imagine the end of this present reign, but when it comes there will be again great sadness but recognition, not only in the Commonwealth, but across the world, for her lifetime of impeccable service. Indeed it is probable she will give her name to the long post war era.
Attention will inevitably then turn to the Coronation of the King, and incidentally, to the new Prince of Wales. It is inconceivable that at this momentous time, the Heads of Government would even entertain a suggestion that the central and indeed crucial office of the Head of the Commonwealth should rotate among themselves. This would not only be unworkable, it would be unacceptable. Such a Head of the Commonwealth could never be seen to transcend politics and division as the new Sovereign will immediately demonstrate as the constitutional monarch of not one but sixteen diverse countries.
That the Heads of Government will not immediately accept King Charles III is unrealistic. It is as unrealistic as expecting that when the Archbishop invites the Coronation congregation in Westminster Abbey to do homage and service to him, they would actually refuse.
Admittedly there has been a disgraceful and mischievous campaign against him by rogue elements in the British media, two of whom were convicted for their criminal activities. This campaign has centred on the sort of caricature journalism used against his father, and appallingly, even his young sons. But the fact is Prince Charles commands increasing considerable international respect.
At the recent Group of 20 meeting in London he called – and chaired – a crucial and very effective meeting at the highest levels to preserve the world?s rainforests. Participants included the Indonesian President, the World Bank President, the German Chancellor, the Japanese, Italian, Australian, Guyanese, and Norwegian Prime Ministers, the President of the European Union Commission, Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, the British Foreign Secretary and the Brazilian Foreign Minister. At a time when most are thinking of retirement, he works to fund a whole suite of worthy charities, raising close to a quarter of billion dollars annually.
There can be no doubt that as Head of the Commonwealth he will attract increased international standing for this organisation which by its attachment to principle and enforcement of standards is attracting greater international respect.
Tell us what you think?
Category : Historical Legacy, The Official Commonwealth
Tags: Australia, Charles, monarchy, Queen
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Each organisation and institution has its history and culture,changing the culture means interfering with history,No ,Yes No, in no way should we conceive a Commonwealth without a crown.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Lets be honest, the amount of political jockeying that would occur for the role of the head of the Commonwealth if it ceased to be connected with the British Crown would be huge, and would probably tear the Commonwealth Apart, as nations and politicians jostled for the ‘top job’.
Even, if only in a highly symbolic way, the Monarchy provides the appearance of a unbiased umpire at its head, so the work of the Commonwealth can continue without party-political or nationalist intereference.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:34 am
A well-written post, AlexT. It seems to me that the opposition to Prince Charles’ Succession as Head of the Commonwealth is theoretical rather than practical.
Prince Charles’ commitment to fighting climate change is an excellent reason to grant him the position of Head of the Commonwealth, as Global Warming will, I am certain, be the defining issue of this century and should be the Commonwealth’s greatest priority. He is an advocade of sustainible development, which is precisely the direction the Commonwealth needs to move in.
Simon Frame’s point about political jockeying is further noted.
But there is a concern. If the Commonwealth is to markedy change its approach to foreign policy then there is a risk that a more assertive organisation would be seen as the tool of a British Monarch. The falsehood of this is self-evident, but rationality is seldom a factor where post-colonial bitterness is concerned. As our colleague Murangira commented on another thread, there needs to be a way to seperate the image of the ‘Grand British Monarch’ from the actions of the Secretariat. If said actions need to change from their current scope. Which, as this consultation demonstrates, they may do.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I should see no point in a Commonwealth of which the British Monarch was not Head. Prince Charles’ many achievements of course fit him admirably for the role. Should one assume, however, that he will be King Charles III? There would be precedent for his choosing another of his Christian names. King George VII I think would be very appropriate and pay honour to the memory of his maternal grandfather.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Indeed, I cannot imagine how the Commonwealth would ever keep together without the Monarch as Head. As others have stated there would be a scramble and jockeying for the position and the Commonwealth would be the loser – to the extent I imagine, of quite possibly breaking up. Were this to happen one of the remaining forces for good on the international stage would be lost.
One of the strongest arguments for hereditary constitutional monarchy as a form of government is the fact that it is hereditary! There is no question of politicking for power. When the time comes for Prince Charles to take over as King he will make a wonderful Head of the Commonwealth. He works tirelessly for the underprivileged, is a firm believer in the Commonwealth and his prescience on many international matters is remarkable. Whereas I do not accept man-made global warming and thus question some of his statements on this subject (sorry Sir!) I do accept that his work as Prince of Wales has made him a highly respected international figure who is acknowledged for his understanding of different races and faiths and for his Good Works.
The Queen is an inspiration and wonder to us all and it is to her that we really must give thanks for the existence of the Commonwealth today. Her son, as King, will perforce have to leave potentially risky public statements behind, but his work as a networker in the joining of sometimes quite disparate groups together, will be hugely welcome in the multi-national Commonwealth.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The Commonwealth without Her Majesty the Queen (and whoever succeeds her) as it’s Head, is really no Commonwealth at all. The Queen is the person who keeps the Commonwealth together. She is the only person in world who is Head of State of several countries at the same time, all of them so diverse like the Commonwealth itself.
Long live the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth of Nations!
August 19th, 2009 at 2:51 am
To grasp the success and need for the Commonwealth, besides the name, look in the mirror of its structure and intent.
The playing fields of the world.
The evolution of controlled power & conflict before it reached war, took place almost entirely on the playing fields of the world in the last century during the wars, with its genesis and genius arising in the British Isles. The playing fields as we now know them were not found in China or India or Africa or the oil fields of the middle east, but on the cricket pitch and football paddocks of the British Isles.
The simplicity of the sporting field is its eternal strength. A group of people decide on a set of rules to conduct a non violent timed conflict for a prize or prestige to the winner. The agreed rules can be changed by agreement after trial, but the rules are to be enforced by a disinterested referee or umpire, who cannot be bought with money or a threat to his mental or physical well being by any of the participants. Every hour of every day all around the world thousands of sporting conflicts take place to the satisfaction of participants and the audiences.
But immediately the referee can be bribed or corrupted with money, the exercise fails for all but the corrupter, whence the game will be abandoned.
The same principles apply to the political Governments of the world, except the conflicts are not timed, nor are entirely physical, but are eternal about the ceaseless struggle for power by an individual, as on the playing field.
The “Commonwealth” differs from both its predecessors in its function, but whatever the differences it will dissolve or fail
if the referee cannot be trusted by the majority of members. The Queen, following in the footsteps of her father has become the most trusted person in the world because of her mediating ability and incorruptibility. If she or her descendants are to be replaced let us start finding a suitable replacement now, judged on a life time of public service and morality, who would establish a better dynasty.
In the meantime just get on with the present game that still benefits us all.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:24 am
absolutely true. I echo with F Hugh Eveleigh that ” I cannot imagine how the Commonwealth would ever keep together without the Monarch as Head”.
Although I have different opinion in accepting a king as a head of the government to whom human rights and democracy are just pieces of written documents, who enforces all his/her powers to execute his/her will in the name of God or just using the rhetoric of social wellbeing. I assume that majority people who are of the opinion of individual freedom and democracyy in this 21st century, will never expect and accept a king to be an executive head of the government. But there might be exceptions in some countries that still being ruled by kind.
Now my point is, that the Cth would not be or won’t be an appropriate organisation without having the Queen or Prince Charles as a head of the Cth as it was formed according to the common values of the member countries that were subject of British Empire in the past.
to campaign for Prince Charles to have him as a future head of the Cth, is to operate the wheel of the Cth (due credit to murangira) as he seems to be physically active and hard working. this would be the main strenth of the modern Cth to see him (Price Charles) running all around the world from africa to asia, Australasia to europe to america for the promotion of the values and principles of the Cth.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
From different posts on this site I take it that there is debate as to whether Prince Charles should assume the head of the commonwealth. I also learn from the discussions that the success of the commonwealth can only be attributed to the inspiration and wonder that H.M the Queen is.
This debate shows that having a monarch as the head of the commonwealth does not necessarily guarantee success for the organization that the Cth is, unless it is H.M the Queen.
I think the question here should be; can we find someone who will take on her position and perform her duties with exact perfection regardless of whether the person belongs to the British Monarchy?
If the only obvious choice is the prince, is he the best person to lead the modern commonwealth? or is there another person who can do the job of keeping the unity among the 53 and growing member states, promote democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law, economic and social development and everything else that comes with the modern commonwealth.
Mong, What makes the commonwealth appropriate? Is it having the Queen or Prince Charles as a head of the commonwealth or is it setting the right objectives and having able leadership achieving them? Very soon we shall have Rwanda join and later(I hope) we will have other countries join. The commonwealth is changing.
The commonwealth is conceivable with the right person at the head. So far so good. When time for change comes, may the best person be chosen to fill the position not because he/she is a monarch but because he/she has the inspiration, knowledge, ability and overall acceptance to lead the organization. Or is that the role of the secretary general?
August 20th, 2009 at 6:26 am
From my point of view, the appropriateness of any organisation depends on its whole arrangements,objectives, functions, commonalities and ofcourse right leadership. All of these things are interconnected to each other in order for an organisation to achieve its goal. However, I presume that most people will acknowledge and distinguish the role of right leadership from other contributing factors as being the main ingredient for any organisation to be succesful.
In regards to the Cth, the two positions (head of the Cth and Secretary-General) are quite distinguisable from each other in respect of their roles and functions. where the position of the Head of the Cth (HE The Queen)seems to be ornamental, the role of HE the Queen (Prince Charles as her successor)should be regarded as a guardian of the Cth nations. therefore, her/his role should be keeping up the unity, diversity and common values of the organisation. He/she can give advice, suggestions and even give order if it seems necessary and appropriate.
On the other hand, Secretary-General should be the main active figure with the necessary supports from his/her crew in terms of implementing, monitoring and supervising the policies of the Cth. He/she can be nominated, selected or elected based on his/her acceptablity to mass people, the academic/political records, experiences, skills and influence on the international politics. He/she has to be held more accountable should he/she fails to perform the given duties and responsibilities properly.
if I recall the metaphor that Murangira used that the Cth is a vehicle, I would put the SG in the driving seat while recognising HE the Queen or Price Charles as the main engine of that vehicle.
Now if we drive a car for a long trip, the engine and the driver both need to be active and perfect in order to reach that certain spot without causing unreasonable delay. the more the car is fit, especially the engine, the longer it can run. It also benifits the driver as well.
We are so much previleaged that we already have a car and most importantly we have set up our destinations and goals where we want to go and what do we want to achieve. If we convert the history, the status and the position of the British Empire in the world political arena from the past to up until now, into just simply an engine of the vehicle, it will not only be just a vehicle with good condition, from the Cth perspectives it will be more than that- having royal image with the vehicle. thus, having Prince Charles as the future head of the Cth will be more benifial for the Cth itself, because of his global image and his committment to save the planet from the common phenomenon of environmental disaster.
what remains last thing to do is to have a driver who will not only be an expert, but also should have the personel committment and friendly attitude in mind while working with his/her crew, to get the Cth (car) up to that standard where there will hardly be any people who will find any criticism about the role of Cth.
Dear Murangira, I hope this clarifies your understanding of my point.
August 20th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“Is The Commonwealth inconceivable without a Monarch?”
Yes.
As Harry White pointed out “the glue” that holds The Commonwealth together is the love and affection that we all feel for The Queen. A love and affection that is felt, not just for The Queen Herself, but also for the ideas and ideals that only a King or a Queen can properly represent. Ideas and ideals which, in the longer term, are best maintained and best expressed through our shared Monarchy.
No doubt some will scoff at the idea that Her Majesty’s own son and grandson should inherit such an elevated and privileged position. Who can blame them? This is what young people or immature people are supposed to do. For the members of each and every generation have, at some point, questioned the idea or the basis of The Monarchy. I once did so myself. For it seemed odd at first to witness the love of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation for The Queen. A devotion that they wanted us to join in with and continue – so we too would love our Queen, want to serve Her and, like them, be Her subjects too. I couldn’t understand at it first, I couldn’t understand why. Why did we have to respect someone because they had been born? Why did we have to revere and sort of worship another human because of Her birth?
As you grow older and mature, you begin to realise that when you respect or revere The Queen, you revere something else. Something which is much more profound. You revere all that she “represents” – not only to yourself and to your peers, but also to your forebears and to your nation. You respect the fact that she was born and that she exists – just like you exist. You thus respect the mystery which is life itself. The great mystery which lies behind it all. Whether you believe that be God or a fluke in an ever occurring universe.
By so doing you also revere and respect what our forefathers have done for us. This great history that we have inherited from them. Our common inheritance within The Commonwealth. Their hopes – our dreams. Their ambitions – our shared aims and goals. Millions upon millions of people joining together as one, like our own forefathers before us, to pay homage to a King or a Queen. A King or Queen who has been born to us and who encompasses and represents in physical form “the ideals”. For we pay homage, not only as subjects to a dearly beloved Queen and Sovereign, but also as children to our Mother (Protector) of our one great Commonwealth Family and its values.
These ideas are only expressed via Monarchy.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
The current Head of the Commonwealth just happens to be a monarch, but that is not the source of the title. She was appointed to the position.
It’s ludicrous to argue that we must undo tradition in order to maintain it. If we must continue giving the title to someone for life I would suggest giving it to Nelson Mandela.
Forget Charles. It just won’t happen. It’s utterly unimaginable in 2009 to hand the job to someone out of deference to institutionalized medieval nepotism.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
The Commonwealth is, and always will be, the evolution of the British Empire. To pretend otherwise is pointless. As such its member countries share, to a greater or lesser degree, a common language, law, traditions and culture. The English language and the Common Law are the only elements shared by all. That is not sufficient to justify the Commonwealth’s continued existence.
But the other shared element is the Crown. That transcends politics, and represents a unifying principal.
The Crown now represents the Commonwealth more than the British heritage. Britain itself is one amongst many. The British Crown as at the apex of the Commonwealth, and must stay there.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Res Publica is completely wrong to claim that the “current Head of the Commonwealth just happens to be a monarch, but that is not the source of the title. She was appointed to the position.”
The Queen inherited the position, as anyone with any knowledge of Commonwealth and Empire history would know. The London Declaration of 1949 established that the monarch would be Head of the Commonwealth, as the symbol of the free association of member countries.
If the position were open to others, I would not suggest giving it to Nelson Mandela. Apart from him being older and frailer than the Queen, it would be contrary to the principals of the Commonwealth to appoint a convicted terrorist as its leader.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Paratus seems to disagree with AlexT of the “Getting it right about the headship of the Commonwealth” thread who states:
“The common assumption is that the Headship is vested in the British monarchy. It is not. Under the 1949 declaration it was vested in the person of the King. He was accepted ‘as the symbol of the free association and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.’”
The Commonwealth’s own Web site states: “The London Declaration of 1949 stated that the British monarch would be a symbol of the free association of independent countries, and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. These words meant that republics could be members – they could accept the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth without being their own Head of State. Thus when Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 she became Head of the Commonwealth.”
“Today the Queen is head of state in 16 of the 53 Commonwealth member countries, all of them fully independent in which ? apart from the UK ? she is represented by a governor-general.”
“When the Queen dies or if she abdicates, her heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth. It will be up to the Commonwealth heads of government to decide what they want to do about this symbolic role.”
So, if your interpretation of the London Declaration of 1949 is correct, when did things change such that Charles will not inherit this position?
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
It depends on how you define inheritance. It can be physical, legal or spiritual. You view tradition and inheritance as “deference to institutionalized medieval nepotism”. Others see it differently. As this role is symbolic it is a spiritual inheritance – in the same way Christianity is a spiritual inheritance. You can make this role legal or physical. Or you can ban it. They try to ban Christianity in some countries too. It never works though.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 am
Christians are a minority among Commonwealth citizens. Why should the non-Christian majority accept that the Head of the Commonwealth should always be a Protestant Christian, and why should Roman Catholic citizens of the Commonwealth accept that the Head of the Commonwealth cannot be married to a Roman Catholic? Why should women accept that the Head of the Commonwealth can only be a woman if she has no brothers? And why should anyone accept that the Head of the Commonwealth should be the descendant of a European warlord who managed to dupe his subjects into believing that he has his position through the grace of God?
Retaining the British monarch as Head of the Commonwealth would be as ridiculous as it is implausible.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
I merely gave Christianity as an example of spiritual inheritance. My argument applies to any spiritual inheritance. Jews, Sikhs and Muslims also view their own religions as a spiritual inheritance. Even Pagans and those of no religion have a spiritual inheritance. The term refers to “any thought or emotion”.
Maturity is not to question the rules of the game – in this case the rules of Monarchy. Nor is it to accept the rules of the game. A sign of great maturity is to “respect” these rules, based as they are on our once shared traditions and inheritance. People accept the rules of the game, not because they have been duped or brainwashed, but because they have stood the test of time. Can anyone look a politician in the eye and say the same? Can they say the original motivating principles of our politicians and presidents have stood the test of time? Pass the sick bag please.
Meddle with The Commonwealth at your peril.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The utter fixation on the monarchy by some participants in this forum suggests that, for some, the Commonwealth is little more than a structure for perpetuating deeply offensive ideas. It’s their last tenuous hold on anachronistic imperial sentiments.
Besides the deeply offensive notion of hereditary privilege, Charles cannot be the next Head of the Commonwealth because that would suggest that the enterprise is still centred on Britain.
It’s over, people. Your empire is gone, and so will your Commonwealth be if you don’t learn to embrace the new reality.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
The new reality called “a spiritual death”.
I can’t wait for my children to inherit that.
At least you concede that The Commonwealth is “ours”. One of our greatest achievements. It seems only right it is centred on Britain. We created it, commanded its obedience and loyalty – and then set it free. You cannot blame people if they cannot let go of their loyalty, or if they do not want to see The Empire Sun go down completely. Once it is dark, it is dark. The sun will not return.
Sorry to go on about Monarchy but I have been invited here to participate on the basis of my interest in Monarchy. It is difficult to discuss the relationship The Monarchy has with The Commonwealth if, in a debate with a republican, one is barred from arguing for The Monarchy. It is a bit like running in a three-legged race with a sack over your head. Mind you, better than being a republican. A lame duck with just one leg (or argument) going around in circles all day.
Presidents are also imperial, privileged and there by “nepotistic hereditary right”. Just think of recent occupants of The White House.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 am
“Is the Commonwealth inconceivable without a monarch?”
Yes.
What half-wit republican is responsible for all these utterly useless conversation starters?
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
Please, keep this debate free of generalisations. Attack arguments, not whole political affiliations. I already made my support of the Monarchy clear and I do not wish to see the arguments which we make demeaned by phrases like ‘halfwit’ and ‘lame duck’ directed at Republicans. This is an internet forum, not a National Parliament.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:10 am
You have not made your support for Monarchy clear, RFLowings. On another forum you have argued that the future role of The Monarchy in The Commonwealth is “debatable” and that Monarchy “should not” inherit The Head of The Commonwealth. I’m afraid it appears the only person demeaning monarchist argument is you.
“Half wit” and “lame duck” seem pretty tame descriptions to me. They are only meant as jolly japes and to get some of our readers, particularly younger readers, laughing. I’ve read far worse on the Internet. Anyway, as you say, this is an Internet forum and not a National Parliament governed by its unwritten conventions and rules. Funnily enough, rules enforced by faceless and humourless people.
I’m free to say what I like, when I like and how I like. It’s called freedom and members of my family were shot, drowned and gassed for it. Get on your knees and thank them for it. For freedom is something the majority in politics (whether Left or Right) are not too keen on. It’s a trait they share with racists and bigots. Another sweeping generalisation. But it does not mean that it is not true.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:23 am
“It seems only right it is centred on Britain. We created it, commanded its obedience and loyalty”
With lines like that I encourage you to get involved in every discussion promoting the monarchy as the Head of the Commonwealth.
September 5th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Thank you RFlowings for his most recent comment on the standard of this debate.
There have been a lot of sweeping generalisations written so far and for me they detract from the quality of the debate. A web forum is no excuse for resorting to insults and abuse. If anything, web forums like this one should allow participants to read and think about their responses before replying.
I’ll just repeat some basic facts, outline my argument, and nominate someone better than Charles.
The Commonwealth is very conceivable without the British Monarch as head. It won’t fall apart if Charles is not the next head. The Queen is not universally loved. The royal family are not politically neutral (as debates over global warming have verified). Appeals to religion and God have limited cogency. The majority of Commonwealth citizens are not Christians. The Commonwealth’s stability is due to far more than one person’s symbolic leadership. The Commonwealth is not ‘like a car’. It is an international forum and international institution.
The stability of the Commonwealth will be maintained by consensus building carried out by diplomats from 53 governments. A symbolic leader might be helpful but it is not essential. The process is far more complex than that. Prince Charles has experience in many things but symbolically he cannot escape the legacy of aristocratic privilege and empire.
Charles appears to be a strong candidate only because the whole role of the Head of Commonwealth has been arranged around royal protocols and traditions. Bishop Desmond Tutu would have made a good Head of the Commonwealth but he is only a few years younger than Elizabeth.
If the position remains I nominate
MUHAMMAD YUNUS. From Bangladesh, Nobel Peace Prize winner (with a multitude of other awards), Professor, Banker, Economist, a man dedicated to alleviating poverty. A symbol of what the Commonwealth needs to work on as an organisation.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:14 am
We in the Commonwealth share not only a love, respect and affection for the Queen.
More importantly we recognise we share the basic need and respect for the Rule of Law.
The Commonwealth allows us to share our common experience and our various and different ways of dealing with issues with a mutual respect which other organisations may not share.
That the Commonwealth shares concepts and well as games, such as cricket, is reflective of its relevance across all sectors of the cultures of its members
September 7th, 2009 at 4:23 am
Change of Head of the Commonwealth is a very interesting thought but, absent some remarkable person from somewhere in the Commonwealth who could take over from the Queen, the issue on choice could cause more division than any benefit a change or rotation of Head would involve.
It is interesting and concerning that luminaries, such as Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, are suggested. They may well be remarkable people who could do the job admirably. However, it is no disrepect to them to recognise that their age renders their being chosen unlikely.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Gregory, Am certain there are other people not just Mandela or Desmond Tutu. Though they may not be easy to come across and have that universal acceptance that H.M the queen has.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Gregory Ross’s comment exemplifies the myth. “We in the Commonwealth share not only a love, respect and affection for the Queen”?
Who is ‘We’ exactly? In Britain alone there are tens of millions of people who dislike the Monarchy and everything it stands for.
Finding a new head of the Commonwealth (if the position remains) will be a consensus political decision. There is no reason to fear debate and disagreement and characterise it as being all about division and dispute.
The Queen in not universally accepted. The idea that choosing a new Head when she dies (or is too old to carry out the role) will lead to instability or animosity is too simplistic.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
sigh, Savage, in Britain alone around 80 to 85 percent of the population always support the Monarch.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Whilst i think the UK should keep the monarchy, i want the commonwealth of nations to develop as an important international organisation accepted, respected and supported by all. I think breaking the link with the monarchy is vital following the Queens death, theres no one who could replace Queen Elizabeth II, but following her death theres no way Charles should replace her automatically or even try to.. He will have more important matters to deal with than trying to win over support of people to become the next head of the commonwealth
September 19th, 2009 at 12:46 am
The conspiricy against Dr Malichi Kobina York.
http://savannahnow.com/node/753054
September 20th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I think the monarch is what makes the Commonwealth unique. It has a unifying rallying point that no other organisation has. Take out the monarch and we would be left with another grouping of dull politicians in suits.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I agree with Riley (No. 33)
Monarchy in the Commonwealth contributes sufficiently as its head and is also a traditional and unique thing.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Yes indeed the commonwealth can be without a monarch.
The simple reason is the acceptance that the commonwealth enjoys from all the nations that accede their loyalty to the organisation, it should be known that withuot this willing acceptance and loyalty the institution will not have gotten to where it is now.
All said, it is just proper that the institution gets a head to steer affairs, ofcourse this must be of royalty both in mind and in manner. The acceptance of a leviathan since ages is inevitable if progress and success needs to be chalked.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
from the monarch to the secretary general nothing is elected. yet is meant to be about democracy. this makes no sense to me.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I also greatly support expansion of the Commonwealth beyond the boundaries of the old British Empire. I think that Sudan, Yemen, Ireland, Burma, Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Zimbabwe (the only remaining pieces of the former British Empire which are outside the Commonwealth), plus Algeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Madagascar, and anyone else anywhere in the world who is interested, and can adhere to the Commonwealth’s principles, should be allowed to join. The Commonwealth could become the surrogate UN which would be a forum for solving international conflicts and world trade issues. It would be a global giant. The fact that many countries want membership means that the Commonwealth still means something, but its potential is not being realised. A Commonwealth Council should be set up with a President of the Commonwealth at its head.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
The Commonwealth Education Ministers certainly let themselves and us down by failing to send a statement to the Heads of Government. And this on the 50th anniversary of Commonwealth cooperation in education! We British have not helped improve our image, either. First, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary withdraws support for the eight best off countries in the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Programme and is stubbornly impervious to the protests and entreaties that poured in from all sides. Happily, first, he is offset first by the decision of his colleague, the then Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, to compensate partially with funds up until 2011; and then by his own conscience salving decision to contribute œ500,000 to the Endowment Fund for Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships. Second, the UK had no minister attending the full length of the 17th CCEM in Kuala Lumpur. True, the Minister of State for Higher Education, David Lammy, did make a really gallant effort to get to KL and to stay for a day’s proceedings, before hurrying back to London, where the Prime Minister was reshuffling his Cabinet. But surely the Prime Minister should have urged his colleague to stay for the full length of a 50th anniversary conference? But let’s stay hopeful. The UK DFID is about to publish a fresh strategy paper for its work in education. We know that Commonwealth countries account for most of the children who are not in school in the world and that many of them are at risk of meeting neither the Millennium Development nor Education for All goals. So let’s look forward to DFID making a real effort to work with those countries to achieve both sets of goals. And if DFID, why not Aussaid, CIDA, NZAid and help from that most wealthy (GDP per capita) of Commonwealth countries, Singapore?
October 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
A monarch in the Commonwealth gives such a great organisation its uniquness. Some say that the monarch just keeps the Commonwealth too much like the Empire. But the British monarch is the monarchy of 15 other independent nations. The Commonwealth the just frankly not be the same without a monarch.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:34 am
The Crown is a prerequisite for commonwealth existence! Its hereditary nature solves the problem of power tussle (with its associated divisive tendency) within the commonwealth. Take away the crown and that would mark the beginning of the end of the commonwealth.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Yes- just as Canada, NZ, Australia are.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
The head of the Commonwealth is the British Monarch. Prince Charles will automatically inherit the position. There is no doubt of that. There is also no doubt that some people will try to remove him from that post.
The princes many years of campaigning for greater understanding and dialogue, particularly between different faiths, and his championing of ecological causes, makes him an ideal candiate for the position. If he wasn’t going to inherit the post, he would be the ideal candidate for appointment.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Very well said Paratus.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Who would read the Commonwealth Day speach?…
January 30th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Setting aside personal opinions towards Monarchy, this question could be thought of in two parts.
First, while the Monarchy continues, its retention of the position of Head of the Commonwealth seems to favourable, due mostly to the absense of doubt created by this inheritance.
The second case is the potential for the Monarchy to come to an end, with the establishment of a British Republic as an example. In this case I believe the Commonwealth would survive, because it is based on more than a shared Monarch. It is based upon a shared heritage that the Monarch embodies.
This of course does not discount the need for continuity from Constitutional Monarchy. As has been stated elsewhere, politicisation of this role would be unfortunate, possibly even fracturing the fabric of the organisation.
As such the establishment of an appointed Head of the Commonwealth who serves an extended term, of say 10 years, could continue this tradition of service and tireless promotion.
When considering that this need for continuity of heritage and tireless service will embody this long term appointment, there would be few names that would come higher on the list of candidates than the Princes of Wales. Few have as truly outstanding a resume on promotion of Human Rights issues and Humanitarian Missions as even Prince William, nevermind the virtual lifetime of service Prince Charles has given.
Following the end of this first HotC term, not only would continuity have been given its best chance of being maintained through the appointment of a House of Windsor successor, but precedence will have been set for the appointment of individuals of the utmost international standing and dedication to self-sacrificing service to people.
This could allow the HotC title to be awarded in future to other such figures of the highest esteem, Commonwealth subjects who have spent their lives in the service of people and the upholding of Commonwealth values.
As such the title could come to be not just a most solemn service to the Commonwealth, but also its highest reward for a lifetime of dedicated self sacrifice.
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:33 pm
from the many contributors, it is very clear that the commonwealth is more about Britain mantaining its hold over its former colonies. If this was not true why is it that only the Royals of Britain can head the commonwealth.
To many of us the commonwealth is more to do with shared values and not the symbol of the Royals of England. We do not wish to turn the commonwealth into a club of the previleged and the underpreviledged. We have alot to share instead of a monarch from a specific Race.
Thank you
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
“Deus Tusubira”, your statement is entirely wrong, for one many of those who oppose Britain being central to the Commonwealth support the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. Even more, the Queen is head of state and monarch of 16 nations in Commonwealth, there is no other country in the world (with perhaps the exception of Andorra) which shares a head of state with another country. The Queen is a global symbol. And therefore the Headship is the Commonwealth is held by that internationally revered person and the person who is head of state of many of the prominent countries in the Commonwealth.
–
To reply to some suggestions from others:
As for appointment of the Head of Commonwealth position or rotation amongst member heads of state/government. No, simply no. First off don’t make the position political, that would be horrible. As for appointment of those who have served the C’wealth well, they should become Secretary-General for example.
–
“Paratus”: Er, the position of Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary one. The Queen was supported to become Head of the Commonwealth by it’s member states back when she ascended the Thrones of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. However, whoever succeeds her as Monarch will be the one who will almost certainly become Head of the Commonwealth.
March 9th, 2010 at 12:34 am
I can assure you that without Queen Elizabeth, this organization would not have survived at all. Remember, the Commonwealth almost broke because of the South Africa apartheid and most Commonwealth leaders were against Thatcher’s policies. Who saved the day? Who came in the middle and saved this organization? The answer is: THE QUEEN!!!
September 4th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
God save the queen and god save the later to be king.
April 1st, 2011 at 8:44 pm
http://WWW.BBC.MYQNSITE.COM
February 21st, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Very nice post, Thanks for this publishing. Really help me a lot.
March 29th, 2013 at 8:02 pm
The Monarchy is a continuation of a Biblical Promise ordained of God. There shall not fail one word of His Divine counsel. He declared to King David of old, Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. Jesus Christ is the ruler of this world and the British Monarchy is a living memorial to this fact. No other Monarchy or Republic will ever over ride this fact. Republicanism is a futile attempt to do this.