Posted on 03/23/2005 4:39:12 PM PST by NZerFromHK
Some of the sovereign countries who have the monarch as Head of State ‘want out’
THE confusion triggered by the Prince of Wales’s marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles could precipitate a new wave of republicanism across Britain’s former colonies and jeopardise the future monarch’s chances of becoming head of the Commonwealth.
As the debate rages over whether Mrs Parker Bowles will become Queen Camilla, the issue has caused deep concern among some of the 15 sovereign countries around the world who still recognise the British monarch as their head of state.
Joel Kibazo, spokesman for the Commonwealth Secretariat, which is prepared to offer legal and technical advice to its members on the constitutional implications of the marriage, said: “We understand that some of the states concerned do want to know what their options are.
“We do know that one or two want out.”
While the debate in Britain has centred on what title the future wife of the King will bear, the overwhelming view of constitutional experts overseas is that she will be Queen Camilla, wife of King Charles, when he ascends the throne.
The implications could be serious for the monarchy. Apart from a wave of republicanism, the change in attitude further damages the likelihood of Prince Charles taking the leadership of the Commonwealth, at present headed by his mother.
“It is not automatic that Prince Charles will become head of the Commonwealth,” the Commonwealth spokesman said. “It will be decided by the leaders of the 53 member states. It is not something that needs to be addressed now.”
A sounding of opinions among member states suggests that the mood is not favourable for the Prince and that most members would prefer to make a break with the monarchy and choose a leader from another country.
Certainly, the impending royal wedding has reignited the debate in Australia, which voted by 55 per cent to 45 per cent six years ago in a referendum to keep the Queen as head of state — but only, it was claimed at the time, because the alternative offered by John Howard, the pro-monarchist Prime Minister, was a president picked by an electoral college of the country’s healthily despised politicians.
In an article in The Australian newspaper yesterday, headlined “Off with an English head of state”, Allison Henry, director of the Australian Republican Movement, said that “the prospect of a future King Charles and Queen Camilla has reminded Australians about the unfinished business of our republic”.
The Republican Movement has recorded a steep rise in membership in recent weeks after a lacklustre royal visit by the Prince and the doubts raised by his marriage. Two recent opinion polls revealed that slightly more than half of Australians favoured becoming a republic. The figures increased when people were asked about the Prince becoming their head of state.
“Our next head of state is set to be Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor of London, England, whether we like it or not. And if you believe those latest reports out of London, right by his side will be Queen Camilla,” Ms Henry wrote. “These decisions are being implemented on the other side of the world, in accordance with arcane and discriminatory laws, with no input from Australian citizens.”
New Zealand has also signalled that it will follow the republican path. “I can see a future where New Zealand will select its own head of state,” Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, said during Prince Charles’s visit to the country. She added, however, that the decision would not be taken soon.
In the Caribbean, where the Queen is recognised as head of state in 12 nations, Jamaica and Barbados are already taking steps to become republics.
The constitutional ambiguity caused by the marriage could accelerate that process and persuade other Caribbean nations to follow suit. Barbados is the furthest along that route after Owen Arthur, the Prime Minister, proposed saying goodbye to the Queen earlier this year. A referendum is expected to be held this summer and campaigning is just getting under way.
Charles and Camilla Page 1 || Page 2 In Jamaica, P. J. Patterson, the Prime Minister, came out in support of a republican form of government at his party’s annual conference in September 2002 and wants to enact the change before general elections in two years’ time.
“Our position has always been based not so much on the personality of any individual, but on our constitutional relationship with the Queen as an institution and our head of state,” Senator Burchell Whiteman, the Jamaican Minister of Information, said.
One of the largest islands, with a population of 2.7 million, republican sentiment was growing stronger in Jamaica, especially among the young, he said. Having to address the issue of a King Charles and Queen Camilla was “a new development that certainly would heighten interest”.
“I’m sure the matter (of republicanism) will now get greater consideration,” Mr Whiteman told The Times.
Some countries are likely to remain loyal to the Crown, however. Canada, which is opposed to American-style republicanism, remains strongly pro-monarchy.
So do the Bahamas and Belize, the Central American nation which relies on a British military presence to protect it against its larger neighbour, Honduras.
Even on the tiny twin-island nation of St Kitts and Nevis, with a population of less than 40,000, Erasmus Williams, the Government’s press secretary, said that Mrs Parker Bowles’s status was not a big issue.
“I doubt it will make a difference. We are quite monarchical right now,” he said.
WHAT??????????????
It has been stated I don't know how many times she will NOT be "Queen Camilla"
If and when Charles becomes King she will be "Princess Consort"........she will NEVER be Queen.
I should stress that there are a couple of mistakes in the article. Otherwise, the overview seems accurate:
1) Dependencies of and "Territories in Free Associations with" New Zealand like Niue, Tokelau, the Cook Islands, and External Territories of Australia like Christmas Islands, Norfolk Island also ahve the Queen as the head of state. The case for the Cook Island is even more complicated. The Queen as head of state of the Cook Islands derives her constitutional status by virtue of being the Queen of New Zealand, but if New Zealand becomes a republic the Cooks will decide independently if the Queen stays as their head of state even by all means they are still practically a dependent territory (they use NZ dollars, NZ is responsible for their defence and some foreign affairs, they have NZ citizenships) of New Zealand.
2) New Zealand still has a majority supporting the monarchy. I can't really say how it will go in the future, although the Times article is right taht republican sentiment is rising (probably not as fast as Dear Helen would have loved).
3) Fiji is contemplating of return to the monarchy with the Queen as head of state.
There is a loophole in the constitutional laws. We are not sure at this stage but it seems the will be nothing to stop Camilla automatically recognized as Queen consort.
It's like Yoko and the Beatles all over again.
fyi
Apparently she will assume the title of Queen automatically. I don't see why this has people so upset.
fyi
Ping!
I will admit I am not at all versed in British laws and also have not paid much attention to this.........so I will step back and cede to those, such as yourself, who are obviously far more knowlegeable than I.
Please understand, I meant no offense.
She won't be Queen, but she might be Best in Show.
I can understand there being some upset. Princess Diana was very much loved..........Charles was consorting with this woman while married.
However, I am but a mere mortal and a US, not British citizen - so I guess my opinion really doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans, does it? But it is nice to be able to state it (VBEG)
That picture is repulsive beyond words.
I've got a 12 year old mutt that would get that title first!!!!!
They make a wonderful couple doncha think?
Prince Chucky should just renounce the throne and pass it on to William. Thanks to modern medical technology, the queen probably has another decade or so of life left in her (longer if she takes after her mother, who lived to be over 100) which would put William in his early 30's when he took the crown. If the royal family in Britain is going to survive, it needs to shake off its reputation of being a stodgly old throwback and make itself relevant to younger Britons. Installing a king who will likely be pushing 70 when he ascends isn't the way to do that. Installing his younger son just might.
Heh, heh -- I would pay to avoid seeing Charles and Camilla in that state.
Actually, according to British law, a woman who marries a king is the queen, but a man who marries a queen is the prince consort. This goes back to the late 1500's, when Mary and Elizabeth were heading for the throne of England. The House of Lords feared that a foreign nobleman might marry the queen, depose her, and seize control of the country. How a lack of title was supposed to prevent this is beyond me.
Just be glad that we can't use embed tags on this site anymore. The only thing worse that nekkid Yoko is singing Yoko.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.