A Question For Citizens of the Commonwealth

[Sionnach Glic]

In another thread, Kendall commented that one of the reasons he'd never vote for the Bloc Quebec party in Canada was because they were traitors to the crown (sorry to single you out, just thought it was a good example).
We've got a few members from various Commonwealth countries here, so I thought I'd ask a few questions on how the whole thing is seen by its non-British citizens.

How do you feel about having your country - which is practicaly a sovereign state - having a continued connection to Britain?
How do you feel about having an unelected Queen from a foreign country as your head of state?
Would you prefer it if such ties were cut off, and you became a completely sovereign state?

As a member of a country that tried its damn hardest to get out of the Commonwealth, I'm interested in the opinions of those still in it.

[Captain Seafort]

As a member of a country that tried its damn hardest to get out of the Commonwealth, I'm interested in the opinions of those still in it.

Technically, you didn't.

You did your damnedest to get out of the UK, and succeeded, but unless I'm very much mistaken Eire was happy to be part of the Commonwealth, and to have the King as head of state. Then somebody's ego got better of him (for the umpteenth time) and the Republic was declared unilaterally (violating the terms of the Anglo-Irish treaty, IIRC).

[Sionnach Glic]

Kind of. When De Valera's scapegoats (uh...I mean delegates) went over to discuss the ceasefire, a boatload of problems came up and Lloyd George pretty much told them "sign the damn treaty or we invade again". Michael Collins was part of the delegation, and was realistic enough to know that we hadn't a chance of causing any more damage to the Empire (he estimated we could hold out for another three weeks or so before running out of ammunition) and decided to sign it.

Now, De Valera got rather pissy over this, because he had warned them not to sign anything without consulting him first. It was eventualy decided that there would be a vote to decide whether to accept the treaty, in which case we'd remain part of the Commonwealth, or burn the treaty and get back to some good ol' killing again.

De Valera's anti-treaty faction was soundly defeated. The people weren't exactly great with the terms, but realised that it was a damn sight better than being invaded yet again. Deciding that the will of the Irish people suddenly wasn't good enough for him, he figured it'd be a great idea to start a civil war. Sinn Féin and the IRA pretty much split in half, and the country fell into chaos. But because all the inteligent people were on the pro-treaty side, the anti-treaty rebels ended up getting themselves run out of pretty much every city in the country and went back to guerilla tactics, but with little real success.

The war went on for a while, with the pro-treaty government getting British support, allowing them to really put the hurt on the rebels. Then the president, Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Féin, died of a heart attack. Collins then became president, but he was also the head of the military. Understandably, this made quite a few people worried. However, Collins never tried to set up any sort of dictatorship. He was later assassinated in an ambush on his convoy in the south of the country.

Following this, a ceasefire was called, and more votes were held. After his hissy fit was finaly over, De Valera agreed to return to the parliament and discuss the matter rationaly. He eventualy became president, and when Britain was distracted by World War 2 he pretty much tore up the treaty, refused to let the Royal Navy use the ports we'd agreed to let them use and declared the country to be fully independant. He then threatened to team up with Hitler once Churchill rightfully went upside his head with The Big Book Of How To Honour A Fucking Treaty (though given our actions during the war, we were allied to the Nazis in every way other than militarily).

So you're right that technicaly we never left the Commonwealth officialy, but I think setting fire to our treaty with you lot and palling around with Hitler kinda puts paid to any idea that we're still in it.

[Monroe]

Well with as weak of a queen as Elisabeth's been probably most people don't give a rat's ass.

[Reliant121]

She isn't weak. That's a misconception. The point is that she holds no power to use with us. The only reason Elizabeth is weak is because she hasn't actually got any power to begin with. She is merely a figurehead, nothing more. I am relatively anti-monarchy because I really dont see the point.

[Monroe]

She isn't weak. That's a misconception. The point is that she holds no power to use with us. The only reason Elizabeth is weak is because she hasn't actually got any power to begin with. She is merely a figurehead, nothing more. I am relatively anti-monarchy because I really dont see the point.

Wouldn't that be exactly why she's weak?

When did the monarchy become a full fledged figure head anyway? Queen Victoria I know had power so somewhere between Victoria and Liz II they lost it completely.

[Captain Seafort]

Actually, it was Victoria would really developed the monarchy into it's modern form. The real loss of power was during the 17th century (with the key moment being the Glorious Revolution) and during the early Hanoverian period, when the Kings' lack of English lead to them not generally attending cabinet meetings, and political power therefore shifting from them to the PM.

[Monroe]

Actually, it was Victoria would really developed the monarchy into it's modern form. The real loss of power was during the 17th century (with the key moment being the Glorious Revolution) and during the early Hanoverian period, when the Kings' lack of English lead to them not generally attending cabinet meetings, and political power therefore shifting from them to the PM.

But kings still had power after the Glorious Revolution. They still had some prerogatives. I mean what power does the monarchy have now at all? My English history comes to an end at about 1705. Things before that I'm relatively knowledgeable in. Anything after that comes from an American history perspective. Did it go away from Victoria not using it or what?

[Captain Seafort]

But kings still had power after the Glorious Revolution. They still had some prerogatives.

Not really. Before the Glorious Revolution the King did what the hell he liked and Parliament got in line. Afterwards, if push came to shove it was the monarch who backed down.

I mean what power does the monarchy have now at all?

She's Captain General of the Forces and Lord High Admiral, which means the armed forces swear allegiance to her personally. She also signs every single bill into law - theoretically she can still refuse Royal Assent (although the monarch hasn't, as I've mentioned, done so for three centuries). If that ever happened there'd be uproar in Parliament, but there'd also be bugger-all they could do about it. She also appoints members of the Order of the Garter without the PM getting a say in the matter.

My English history comes to an end at about 1705.

Strange date to choose. Why then?

Did it go away from Victoria not using it or what?

No, it diminished over time due to George I and II not using it, about a century earlier.

[Monroe]

Not really. Before the Glorious Revolution the King did what the hell he liked and Parliament got in line. Afterwards, if push came to shove it was the monarch who backed down.

True but they could still push a tiny bit.

She's Captain General of the Forces and Lord High Admiral, which means the armed forces swear allegiance to her personally. She also signs every single bill into law - theoretically she can still refuse Royal Assent (although the monarch hasn't, as I've mentioned, done so for three centuries). If that ever happened there'd be uproar in Parliament, but there'd also be bugger-all they could do about it. She also appoints members of the Order of the Garter without the PM getting a say in the matter.

Ah awesome. I really hope Prince Henry becomes a Catholic (since there's a law against that) and refuses to sign some things just to see what happens

Strange date to choose. Why then?

1715 maybe I can't remember for sure. Whenever Mary died... not bloody Mary but the other one.

[Captain Seafort]

True but they could still push a tiny bit.

Still do. And when the Queen's been Head of State (with the political role that entails) longer than the PM's been alive, they'd better bloody well listen.

Ah awesome. I really hope Prince Henry becomes a Catholic (since there's a law against that) and refuses to sign some things just to see what happens

1) Harry's very unlike to become king anyway.
2) If he converted to Catholicism, he'd never become king, so he wouldn't be signing anything.

1715 maybe I can't remember for sure. Whenever Mary died... not bloody Mary but the other one.

1694 is an even stranger date. Maybe you're thinking of Anne - reigned 1702 to 1714?

[Monroe]

oh William died last, reason I was confused. Class went until 1702. I think we ran out of time for Queen Anne.

Had to look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mo ... estored.29

[Captain Seafort]

"Ran out of time"? Ran out of time for one of the most important periods in European history? What idiot was responsible for that?

[Lazar]

In my elementary and high school history courses, they followed this model where they would start with the ancient civilizations and work their way up, and they never once made it to the 20th century or even much of the post-Napoleonic era.

[Aaron]

How do you feel about having your country - which is practicaly a sovereign state - having a continued connection to Britain?

Don't mind at all, in fact I'm rather proud of it (despite my ancestry being Dutch).

How do you feel about having an unelected Queen from a foreign country as your head of state?

Once again, no problem. She holds very limited power which is delegated to the Governor General, who is appointed by the ruling party. Besides, I liked the idea of swearing my oath when I signed up to the Queen. Meaning I was bound not to the Charter of Rights or the party in power but to the Head of State, nicely cutting out all those loyalty issues that arise in a civil war.

Would you prefer it if such ties were cut off, and you became a completely sovereign state?

No. The Queen (through the GG) provides an additional check on Parliament. If it becomes bogged down or ineffective, the GG can dissolve Parliament and appoint a PM and Cabinet until an election can be held.

In another thread, Kendall commented that one of the reasons he'd never vote for the Bloc Quebec party in Canada was because they were traitors to the crown (sorry to single you out, just thought it was a good example).

No problem, I don't make a secret of my contempt for them.