,,, New Zealand will select it's own head of State?
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.
'bout time.
the americans did it in 1776.
then the amrericans replaced british royalty with politicians, movie, music, sports, and tv stars.
What confusion? Chuckie tried to pull a fast one. Quelle suprise. His loyal subjects should've seen that one coming.
People should get over Charles and Camilla. The shame of it is that Charles & Camilla really loved each other for all of those years but didn't or couldn't act on it. Charles went through the motions of a marriage to Diana because he was supposed to, and Diana was just a starstruck girl who became disenchanted with the whole thing.
Yoko in general is bad.......nekkid, clothed, singing or not singing.
I had contact with her 20+ years ago - she actually makes Hitlery pleasant by comparison.
I was actually just trying to make a joke about people and opinions........without going to the standard line about we all have them, like other things.
Personally, I don't give a flying flip if he marries her or his polo pony.
I do question whether he is really able to assume the mantle ofthe crown considering how much of a wuss he was in bowing to marrying someone other than the woman he loved/loves. I have no doubt he really and truly loves Camilla and do not understand why so many would deny him the happiness he apparently will get from this marriage.
I've got no use for him, and never have - but apparently she sees something in him.
,,, New Zealand will select it's own head of State?
There are many people whose beef with Charles have nothing to do with his marital status or record. They regard the Prince Charles as like Michael Moore on religious "ecumenism", environmentalism, WOT, etc. Now it is no big deal if he does not try to promote them openly but the fact is that he is trying to raise his stance to public prominence (something which no monarch since George V had done - although his son Edward VIII or later the Duke of Windsor had tried). In other words, he could be trying to breach the constitutional limits his ancestors had gradually set.
In contrast, Prince William is more conventional in his worldview. It is said that he is politically much more moderate than his father and could well be quite conservative when compared with Charles.
Australia almost became a Republic in 1999. A Referendum was held and was narrowly defeated.
The reason the vote was so close was because there were two conflicting issues in operation.
The first is a symbolic issue, the second is a matter of constitutional stability.
I believe the evidence is clear that the majority of Australians believe on symbolic grounds that it is time for Australia to become a republic.
However - and this is critically important, the majority of Australians are also totally unwilling to sacrifice our nations stability for a purely symbolic change.
The 1999 Referendum failed because while most people support the idea of a Republic in principle, for various reasons they did not agree with the model of Republic proposed to replace our current Constitutional monarchy.
We have had a stable government in this country since Federation in 1901. Our worst consitutional crisis (the Dismissal in 1975) was resolved democratically and peacefully largely because our constitutional monarchy means that in the final analysis, critical decisions can be made by a non-politician - somebody who doesn't base their decisions on what is in it for them, or for a particular ideology.
It's not a coincidence, but a deliberate feature of the system, that most modern Governors-General have been retired Generals or Admirals or Judges - people who have served this country in one field or another for many years in a non-political capacity.
Back to my point - if Camilla becomes Queen of Australia, that may well increase the number of Australians who disagree with the monarchy on symbolic grounds.
But I very much doubt it will increase the number of Australians who would vote for a republic on those grounds.
Australia will become a republic when a model is proposed at referendum that, in the judgement of the Australian people, will give us at least the same level of stability as we have enjoyed for 104 years.
Until that happens, I really don't see much likelihood for change.
Myself, I am a Monarchist. I went to school (briefly) with the Prince of Wales, and know him slightly. I know the Duke of York quite well actually. I have met the Duke of Edinburgh - and frankly I admire all three men. I was raised in a tradition of service to the Crown and this stage of my life, I cannot see that changing.
But even so, because I love my country, if a model was proposed to change our system of government that I felt would make the country more stable and stronger, I would vote for it.
Camilla will affect the symbol. But the symbol and the substance are different things, and I think many articles I have seen over recent days are blurring the distinction.
,,, she's a life support system for a pair of ankles, I'm sure. Having said that, I bet she's not as neurotic as his first wife.
Stick with the magna carta.
English commonlaw has stood for hundreds of years.
Why give that up for an unknown future?
I love the American republic but there is no guarantee a new Austrailian republic would function in the same way.
Up the StK&NRA!
There is no alternative. It must be King William V. Charles, shut up and sit down.
Regards, Ivan
With regards to my country, this is just another attack on Canadian traditions and values. Same old, same old. Let's replace our Christian traditions with multi culti diversity, which means destroying the anglosphere. Yes, we white devils will have to be stopped.
To begin with, New Zealand's and Australia's overwhelming republicanism is the journo's wishful thinking.
Australians HAD a referendum on monarchy or republic just about a year ago, and republicans lost. Pollsters and media trumpeted inevitable demise of the monarchy there exactly like they did the victory for the Labor before the last Aussie elections. The only thing their spectacular failure proves is that both are full of radical campus alumni. What's new?
As to NZ, Helen's, her lesbo-communist coterie's and chardonnay revolutionaries' opinion is not the country's opinion. It's shame that the Commonwealth's procedures will leave the leaders, not the people of the member states to decide this constitutional issue.
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.