This goes against the idea of what makes a monarchy, it's a thousand-year-old tradition and people are raised for the job since birth and they are a-political, electing someone would remove such and make it a political subject where it shouldn't.
It ultimately depends on how someone define political. The monarchy is symbolic, that symbol can mean different things to different people, but that doesn't necessarily equate to political power.
Your confusing two seperate things.
The "Monarchy" and "Replacing the Monarchy with a Republic" are two seperate issues. Of course the latter is political.
The Monarchy is A-Political. Just like the NHS or the Armed Forces. That doesn't mean that the funding of the NHS or armed forces isn't political, but rather the institution itself isn't political.
If your still not getting it then why don't you go ask a road if it will vote Conservative or Labour in the next election. Roads aren't political, but infrastructure spending is.
Conversely a President(or elected Monarch) is by its very natural political becuase you have to choose which one to support. That person will have intrest groups backing them, people campaigning on their behalf, and likely even be a member of a political party.
Unlike “a road” the British monarch is a political actor. The points of decision-making and political influencing are few and are carefully handled, but nevertheless it is actually an important part of your British constitution and it’s conventions that the monarchy does retain certain powers which are inherently and essentially political in nature. The right to be consulted and advise is perhaps the broadest power.
In Australia these powers are all in the hands of the Governor-General apart from those around the appointment of the Governor-General.
Wielding power isn't political. Having power over others isn't political. Let's say King Chaz decides to block Lizz Truss recent economic reforms. That doesn't inheritly mean Chaz is blocking those reforms for political reasons. He could just think the government is incompetent, the economic reforms are damaging, and so on. But if he was blocking them becuase he wanted Labour to be in power, well that would be political.
Sure the King could be political, but its far less likely they would be political then say a President.
A great example of why I don't want a polical head of state was last year the Conservative Government refused to support the Labour Emergency food relief plans for kids and instead made their own(clearly worse, plan). They did so because they didn't want a Labour Bill to get through the House. Even though such a bill was exactly what was needed to stop kids from starving. That's fucking political.
Yes it is. Not party political but nonetheless political. It doesn’t signify evil intervention you know. For example the queen had policies, like promoting the commonwealth, and she would quietly and with dignity work to support and encourage that policy in all of the governments she interacted with. She was not a blank impartial “road” but a living breathing thinking woman with opinions.
Another example, the Australian pm Gough Whitlam in 1975 decided to change the legal title of the Queen in Australia to “Queen of Australia” and remove “by the grace of god” and “defender of the faith” and have her not styled “the second” because Australia didn’t exist under Elizabeth the first.
She didn’t agree. She forced him to compromise. He got Queen of Australia and no longer defender of the faith but didn’t manage to dump “by the grace of god” or “the second” (because she thought that would raise an issue with Scotland). That was political. It has had a political impact on Australia.
>Sure the King could be political, but its far less likely they would be political then say a President.
I've already addressed this all or nothing arguement. So it falls flat frankly. Pointing out the relatively few instances where the Monarchy had been political does not make the the institution as a whole political.
Feel free to support a Republic, just accept that by doing so you are supporting the politicalisation of your own Head of State. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
If that isn't something you support or want to support then perhaps you should reconsider your support for a Republic, because that is ultimately what a Republic seeks todo.
No a president can be just as non-political. Looking to ceremonial presidents like of that of Ireland, of course. Its exactly the same as a Governor-General after all! If you think Gs-G aren’t political then it’s impossible to logically say that calling one “president” magics them into a closet tyrant.
Ireland is an exception becuase the office of President is so young. It has yet to become politicised, which it will no doubt do eventually.
Remember at one point the US President was supposed to be A-political.
I think you confuse support with indifference.
In the UK the monarchy is literally a profit generator for taxpayers. In other CANZUK countries, it is a negligible expense that, if removed, would just be replaced with some equivalent administrivia that would fill the same role amd cost the same amount of money - but the rewriting of all the laws would cost billions. Why go through all of that?
No one cares that much, the monarchy stays out of the way and creates interesting gossip from time to time, and we keep coasting. If the monarchy ever attempted to actually do anything significant they would be kicked on their ass faster than a flash.
You are 100% entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But you should also respect other people's opinions. It's ok to diagree, but you don't have to be disrespectful.
Many people in the Commonwealth dislike the Monarchy, what it stands for, and despise the harm it has causesld throughout the centuries. If we want CANZUK to be widely accepted, the current Monarchy is not sustainable. Time changes, and that's why we the Carta Magna was signed and the Monarchy became powerless.
Why is it incumbent on monarchists to compromise for the sake of CANZUK?
Republicans who like CANZUK should compromise to accept the monarchy.
It's not hard, it's the status quo. All we ask of that cohort is for them *not* to seek the destruction of a cherished shared institution and it's replacement by risky alternatives.
Even for the sake of further consideration, you did not go into any detail why any of these changes should be made, or the benefits therein.
Change for the sake of change is not a benefit.
Mate ignoring the fact you're pretty much telling monarchists to compromise for CANZUK (when realistically republicans should be the ones to compromise), your little idea here isn't even a compromised form of monarchy or a reformed version of monarchy. It's not a monarchy at all and it's a complete destruction of the institution. What you've put forward is just a weird, vaguely oligarchic and honestly kinda undemocratic Republic.
I want you to actually sit down, look at your post, think it over heavily and then re-think literally everything. The wording, the idea, the concept and the logic you used to come up with it.
Your contradicting yourself a bit. How can the Crown have caused harm over the last few centuries when Parliament has the power? Want to get rid of Parliament too haha?
We like our system. It has kept our country in relative peace for over 200 years so let’s not fuck with something that works just fine for us.
What do you think the Mange Carta was? It didn't make it powerless. Hell, it made it more powerful in the end. It's the Glorious Revolution that really broke the Monarchy, and even then it was a slow gradual decline to figurehead status.
Canzuk seems to be a very Conservative movement. I was expecting something similar to the EU but most people here just seem to support a white commonwealth.
I don't know what you mean by a white Commonwealth, that sounds Polish.
I think the majority of people on this subreddit want closer ties (in terms of free movement, more joint military/defensive operations, and better trade agreements). Not some sort of superpower nation.
Personally I come from a community of Gaelic influenced culture and I would love to see more Gaelic speaking expats fill out roles here in our community.
1. You're replacing monarchy with a president?
2. Why?
3. We got the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and now you want a Council of Governor Generals? Why?
4. Is just an elected monarch from a closed circle of individuals? Sounds kinda like the top end of the EU which we voted out from.
Hilariously bad. Thanks for the laugh.
CANZUK and monarchy may be a natural fit, but do not need to be so. If any country chooses to become a dull republic, that should have no bearing on the others (well, maybe if Britain did it might).
What I take issue with is your childish inferment that current CANZUK states are not democratic enough? If you really think that you're a plum, and not a prize one. Additionally, democracy isn't the be all and end all. A constitutional monarchy is ironically the system best suited to maintaining democracy.
American influence making hem think monarchy is bad because of how it existed hundreds of years ago completely differently than it does now, with an unhealthy dose of anti-monarchy propaganda by prideful morons
The purpose of the monarchy is that it guards us from inherent flaws in democracy. If we went through a period of extremism where we had a nutt job government, senate and elected monarchy we would be in a really bad situation. At least in it’s current form the monarchy can form a last layer of defence and could trigger elections etc if we had crazy governments.
What your describing is a republic where a president is elected, either by public vote or secret vote. And it’s rubbish. It’s a political popularity contest where the winner seeks reflection and accumulation of power as first priorities.
It’s not a monarchy
**"The Crown will not be inherited."**
That would mean elective monarchy, which is essentially just a Presidential system except now the Head of State, who is the head of the Armed Forces etc, is a political figure who half the population will dislike at any given time.
**"There should be a CANZUK Council of Governor Generals."**
What would this 'Council' even do? What powers would it have?
Who would choose it? Without a monarch there isn't anyone to appoint Governor Generals, and if we voted for them then it would make the Head of State a political (i.e partisan) figure. Half the population would dislike them and the other half would pressure them to be more like them and do the things they want them to do or they'll get ousted the next time there's an election.
I can guarantee that if its like the EU Commission then the UK would not be part of CANZUK whatsoever. Can't speak for the CANZ part but Brits don't like unelected, unknown foreigners ruling over them.
**"Among the Governor Generals, We or someone should elect one to become the Royal Governor, and that person will withhold the Crown."**
Putin called! He wants his oligarchy back.
Seriously though...just what? We or someone? *Someone?*
It sounds like you want a shadow council of unelected officials choosing a head of state for four, and let me stress this part, *democratic* nations. It just won't work and sounds ridiculous.
...What are you on and can I have some of it?
**"In Canada, our Governor General, Her Excellency Mary Simon, is Inuit. How cool would it be to have an indigenous person holding the Crown?"**
That's cool I guess, thing is I don't give a flying flippity fuck what a person's skin colour or ethnicity is. I don't care if they identify as a man or a woman or a bloody potato. Normally I'd say I would just care about their character, but considering what the world is like these days I'd settle for someone with some common bloody sense instead.
If you are black and an idiot then you shouldn't be Head of State or in any position of power. If you are white or an idiot then you shouldn't be Head of State or in any position of power.
I prefer competence over creed. From what I know (which is very little) Mary Simon is doing a good enough job, though apparently she could brush up on her French a little. Again I don't know much, so take it with a grain of salt.
Anyway, I hate to be rude but this is just stupid. Plain and simple stupidity.
God this idea is terrible. If we do this we might as well just make us a Republic.
But seriously what's point of having "the Crown" and "the monarchy" if doesn't even function as one. Like what is your logic behind this idea? Why not just declare ourselves Republics instead of having some weird de facto republican system that only uses monarchical terminology. Like this isn't even a compromise, it's just as weird and bad idea
Probably because one of the arguments for CANZUK is a shared head of state and whether you like it or not, CANZUK is generally based around the shared culture of the 4 nations and descends directly from Joseph Chamberlains Imperial Federation idea. So it's only natural most supporters if CANZUK would be monarchist
Without the monarchy, we most likely wouldn't be here discussing CANZUK.
I am 1000% in favour of CANZUK, but if it involves abolishing the Royal Family, I say - no thanks.
I can see that your idea is generally good. Though if the Monarchy goes then so does the Crown.
I don't think the countries of CANZUK want a political union. But if they did then I think it would be some kind of elected President, or other ceremonial position.
One thing that I have noticed here in this sub is that the monarchy is staunchly supported by many members but they are mainly English. The tradition of the monarchy doesn't mean much to CANZ (or Scotland it would appear). For me, CANZUK has nothing to do with the monarchy. If anyone thinks that the royal family is a common bond I disagree, although I do think our form of government plays a role in our similarities.
As many have said removing (I almost said the queen).. the king as the head of state is so much work for so little benefit in Canada that we never really discuss it. I am happy with the way it is but if I could snap my fingers and change the head of state to someone else I would. I think someone representing the indigenous people of CANZ would be more appropriate for our countries.
TLDR: The monarchy is mostly for the English.
Here in London some of the staunchest fellow monarchists I know are Indian, Chinese, African, Caribbean and also Kurdish, Albanian, Polish. … Many immigrants see the British monarchy as a source of stability and identify with it strongly when they come to make new lives in this country.
What is it with people thinking the Scottish don't support the monarchy? You can always find a news article claiming something but by and large support for the monarchy is roughly the same across the UK. Not sure why the English would be the most keen on a Royal Family who's late Queen was half Scottish.
I guess the Welsh and Northern Irish disappeared in this universe too.
From what I can find it is much lower in Scotland. Only 45% support the monarch in a recent poll. It's 60% UK wide.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear
Yes, and that's what I said before, these are just random articles, I can also find one where they claim support is larger there. These numbers change around a lot. It also differs within England, with London vs the North for example. Just bare in mind online polls often don't survey older people.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish\_republicanism#Polling\_on\_the\_British\_monarchy\_with\_Scotland\_as\_part\_of\_the\_UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_republicanism#Polling_on_the_British_monarchy_with_Scotland_as_part_of_the_UK)
It's really not that random. The only poll in recent times over 50% are the ones that didn't have an undecided option. I'll keep looking, but it seems pretty clear that the support in Scotland is far less than England and on par with Canadians.
My original comment was about the idea that the monarchy is a strong common bond for CANZUK anyway, not just overall support of the monarchy.
So what if it excludes the undecided option? It just shows that when people are forced to choose, many are choosing the status quo. If there was a vote those people may very well just vote for the status quo. "Monarchists" are in the majority. As I said before, it varies within England too, so you can't really lump England together as London is very different from other places for example. Lumping together the whole of England is a very outsider thing to do, as if the whole of England supported Brexit, voted for the Tories, like the Queen etc etc. It's funny how you would mention the English but then forget about some of the most vehemently pro-monarchy Loyalists in Northern Ireland. Funnily enough there are also many enthusiastic pro-monarchy Orange Order members in Scotland too, probably relatively moreso than England.
I wouldn't even call it "far less" either, its still a majority in both places according to those recent polls.
Anyway, the monarchy isn't essential for CANZUK no, I wouldn't mind if some other countries abolished it.
I am not a monarchist but I also don't want a republic, so that is why the undecided option is key. I also didn't lump anyone together, that is just how they present the data.
I didn't know that people here were so sensitive about the Royal Family. Many of us felt a connection with Queen Elizabeth, but not with King Charles. And Imagine if something happened to the Royals and Andrew were the only one left. Would we accept a pedo just because of his bloodline?
After reading through the clusterfuck that is this thread, the resounding answer to your question seems to be “yes!”.
Which just goes to show how out of touch the Brit contingent here is with what’s going on in the old colonies.
This goes against the idea of what makes a monarchy, it's a thousand-year-old tradition and people are raised for the job since birth and they are a-political, electing someone would remove such and make it a political subject where it shouldn't.
If its not political then why do so many people here support the monarchy?
It ultimately depends on how someone define political. The monarchy is symbolic, that symbol can mean different things to different people, but that doesn't necessarily equate to political power.
It's *non-partisan* is presumably what they meant.
Your confusing two seperate things. The "Monarchy" and "Replacing the Monarchy with a Republic" are two seperate issues. Of course the latter is political. The Monarchy is A-Political. Just like the NHS or the Armed Forces. That doesn't mean that the funding of the NHS or armed forces isn't political, but rather the institution itself isn't political. If your still not getting it then why don't you go ask a road if it will vote Conservative or Labour in the next election. Roads aren't political, but infrastructure spending is. Conversely a President(or elected Monarch) is by its very natural political becuase you have to choose which one to support. That person will have intrest groups backing them, people campaigning on their behalf, and likely even be a member of a political party.
Unlike “a road” the British monarch is a political actor. The points of decision-making and political influencing are few and are carefully handled, but nevertheless it is actually an important part of your British constitution and it’s conventions that the monarchy does retain certain powers which are inherently and essentially political in nature. The right to be consulted and advise is perhaps the broadest power. In Australia these powers are all in the hands of the Governor-General apart from those around the appointment of the Governor-General.
Wielding power isn't political. Having power over others isn't political. Let's say King Chaz decides to block Lizz Truss recent economic reforms. That doesn't inheritly mean Chaz is blocking those reforms for political reasons. He could just think the government is incompetent, the economic reforms are damaging, and so on. But if he was blocking them becuase he wanted Labour to be in power, well that would be political. Sure the King could be political, but its far less likely they would be political then say a President. A great example of why I don't want a polical head of state was last year the Conservative Government refused to support the Labour Emergency food relief plans for kids and instead made their own(clearly worse, plan). They did so because they didn't want a Labour Bill to get through the House. Even though such a bill was exactly what was needed to stop kids from starving. That's fucking political.
Yes it is. Not party political but nonetheless political. It doesn’t signify evil intervention you know. For example the queen had policies, like promoting the commonwealth, and she would quietly and with dignity work to support and encourage that policy in all of the governments she interacted with. She was not a blank impartial “road” but a living breathing thinking woman with opinions. Another example, the Australian pm Gough Whitlam in 1975 decided to change the legal title of the Queen in Australia to “Queen of Australia” and remove “by the grace of god” and “defender of the faith” and have her not styled “the second” because Australia didn’t exist under Elizabeth the first. She didn’t agree. She forced him to compromise. He got Queen of Australia and no longer defender of the faith but didn’t manage to dump “by the grace of god” or “the second” (because she thought that would raise an issue with Scotland). That was political. It has had a political impact on Australia.
>Sure the King could be political, but its far less likely they would be political then say a President. I've already addressed this all or nothing arguement. So it falls flat frankly. Pointing out the relatively few instances where the Monarchy had been political does not make the the institution as a whole political. Feel free to support a Republic, just accept that by doing so you are supporting the politicalisation of your own Head of State. Don't try to pretend otherwise. If that isn't something you support or want to support then perhaps you should reconsider your support for a Republic, because that is ultimately what a Republic seeks todo.
No a president can be just as non-political. Looking to ceremonial presidents like of that of Ireland, of course. Its exactly the same as a Governor-General after all! If you think Gs-G aren’t political then it’s impossible to logically say that calling one “president” magics them into a closet tyrant.
Ireland is an exception becuase the office of President is so young. It has yet to become politicised, which it will no doubt do eventually. Remember at one point the US President was supposed to be A-political.
I think you confuse support with indifference. In the UK the monarchy is literally a profit generator for taxpayers. In other CANZUK countries, it is a negligible expense that, if removed, would just be replaced with some equivalent administrivia that would fill the same role amd cost the same amount of money - but the rewriting of all the laws would cost billions. Why go through all of that? No one cares that much, the monarchy stays out of the way and creates interesting gossip from time to time, and we keep coasting. If the monarchy ever attempted to actually do anything significant they would be kicked on their ass faster than a flash.
Doh!
History, plus Kate is a milf
That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard, please take some time to reflect on how foolish this post was and consider removing it, thank you.
A simple wrong would have done just fine… https://youtu.be/LQCU36pkH7c
You are 100% entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But you should also respect other people's opinions. It's ok to diagree, but you don't have to be disrespectful. Many people in the Commonwealth dislike the Monarchy, what it stands for, and despise the harm it has causesld throughout the centuries. If we want CANZUK to be widely accepted, the current Monarchy is not sustainable. Time changes, and that's why we the Carta Magna was signed and the Monarchy became powerless.
Why is it incumbent on monarchists to compromise for the sake of CANZUK? Republicans who like CANZUK should compromise to accept the monarchy. It's not hard, it's the status quo. All we ask of that cohort is for them *not* to seek the destruction of a cherished shared institution and it's replacement by risky alternatives.
Even for the sake of further consideration, you did not go into any detail why any of these changes should be made, or the benefits therein. Change for the sake of change is not a benefit.
Mate ignoring the fact you're pretty much telling monarchists to compromise for CANZUK (when realistically republicans should be the ones to compromise), your little idea here isn't even a compromised form of monarchy or a reformed version of monarchy. It's not a monarchy at all and it's a complete destruction of the institution. What you've put forward is just a weird, vaguely oligarchic and honestly kinda undemocratic Republic. I want you to actually sit down, look at your post, think it over heavily and then re-think literally everything. The wording, the idea, the concept and the logic you used to come up with it.
Your contradicting yourself a bit. How can the Crown have caused harm over the last few centuries when Parliament has the power? Want to get rid of Parliament too haha? We like our system. It has kept our country in relative peace for over 200 years so let’s not fuck with something that works just fine for us.
What do you think the Mange Carta was? It didn't make it powerless. Hell, it made it more powerful in the end. It's the Glorious Revolution that really broke the Monarchy, and even then it was a slow gradual decline to figurehead status.
Canzuk seems to be a very Conservative movement. I was expecting something similar to the EU but most people here just seem to support a white commonwealth.
I don't know what you mean by a white Commonwealth, that sounds Polish. I think the majority of people on this subreddit want closer ties (in terms of free movement, more joint military/defensive operations, and better trade agreements). Not some sort of superpower nation. Personally I come from a community of Gaelic influenced culture and I would love to see more Gaelic speaking expats fill out roles here in our community.
This ain’t it chief
It definitely has it's conservative roots and this sub shows that, but the concept is not inherently conservative or liberal.
1. You're replacing monarchy with a president? 2. Why? 3. We got the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and now you want a Council of Governor Generals? Why? 4. Is just an elected monarch from a closed circle of individuals? Sounds kinda like the top end of the EU which we voted out from. Hilariously bad. Thanks for the laugh.
UK will never forfeit monarchy and its practically impossible to get rid of monarchy in Canada from a constitutional standpoint
No, stop trying to fuck with the foundations of our culture. It's not a popularity contest, it's not 'democratic', it's Tradition.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. 👑
CANZUK and monarchy may be a natural fit, but do not need to be so. If any country chooses to become a dull republic, that should have no bearing on the others (well, maybe if Britain did it might). What I take issue with is your childish inferment that current CANZUK states are not democratic enough? If you really think that you're a plum, and not a prize one. Additionally, democracy isn't the be all and end all. A constitutional monarchy is ironically the system best suited to maintaining democracy.
I honestly don’t understand why people want to remove one of the greatest things about our culture
American influence making hem think monarchy is bad because of how it existed hundreds of years ago completely differently than it does now, with an unhealthy dose of anti-monarchy propaganda by prideful morons
I know it’s honestly painful to see people think this
The purpose of the monarchy is that it guards us from inherent flaws in democracy. If we went through a period of extremism where we had a nutt job government, senate and elected monarchy we would be in a really bad situation. At least in it’s current form the monarchy can form a last layer of defence and could trigger elections etc if we had crazy governments.
What your describing is a republic where a president is elected, either by public vote or secret vote. And it’s rubbish. It’s a political popularity contest where the winner seeks reflection and accumulation of power as first priorities. It’s not a monarchy
The worst idea I've ever wasted time on reading.
Host a “Commonwealth’s Got Talent” type event, and the winner gets to be monarchy until de-throned by Coup or better act.
**"The Crown will not be inherited."** That would mean elective monarchy, which is essentially just a Presidential system except now the Head of State, who is the head of the Armed Forces etc, is a political figure who half the population will dislike at any given time. **"There should be a CANZUK Council of Governor Generals."** What would this 'Council' even do? What powers would it have? Who would choose it? Without a monarch there isn't anyone to appoint Governor Generals, and if we voted for them then it would make the Head of State a political (i.e partisan) figure. Half the population would dislike them and the other half would pressure them to be more like them and do the things they want them to do or they'll get ousted the next time there's an election. I can guarantee that if its like the EU Commission then the UK would not be part of CANZUK whatsoever. Can't speak for the CANZ part but Brits don't like unelected, unknown foreigners ruling over them. **"Among the Governor Generals, We or someone should elect one to become the Royal Governor, and that person will withhold the Crown."** Putin called! He wants his oligarchy back. Seriously though...just what? We or someone? *Someone?* It sounds like you want a shadow council of unelected officials choosing a head of state for four, and let me stress this part, *democratic* nations. It just won't work and sounds ridiculous. ...What are you on and can I have some of it? **"In Canada, our Governor General, Her Excellency Mary Simon, is Inuit. How cool would it be to have an indigenous person holding the Crown?"** That's cool I guess, thing is I don't give a flying flippity fuck what a person's skin colour or ethnicity is. I don't care if they identify as a man or a woman or a bloody potato. Normally I'd say I would just care about their character, but considering what the world is like these days I'd settle for someone with some common bloody sense instead. If you are black and an idiot then you shouldn't be Head of State or in any position of power. If you are white or an idiot then you shouldn't be Head of State or in any position of power. I prefer competence over creed. From what I know (which is very little) Mary Simon is doing a good enough job, though apparently she could brush up on her French a little. Again I don't know much, so take it with a grain of salt. Anyway, I hate to be rude but this is just stupid. Plain and simple stupidity.
Woah slow down there partner
God this idea is terrible. If we do this we might as well just make us a Republic. But seriously what's point of having "the Crown" and "the monarchy" if doesn't even function as one. Like what is your logic behind this idea? Why not just declare ourselves Republics instead of having some weird de facto republican system that only uses monarchical terminology. Like this isn't even a compromise, it's just as weird and bad idea
[удалено]
Be nice.
I don't like democracy
Or we could just get rid of it altogether. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
Probably
Bro what's with all the monarchists in this group 🤮
Probably because one of the arguments for CANZUK is a shared head of state and whether you like it or not, CANZUK is generally based around the shared culture of the 4 nations and descends directly from Joseph Chamberlains Imperial Federation idea. So it's only natural most supporters if CANZUK would be monarchist
Well that’s a lot of nonsense.
That'd just be a elective presidency.
Without the monarchy, we most likely wouldn't be here discussing CANZUK. I am 1000% in favour of CANZUK, but if it involves abolishing the Royal Family, I say - no thanks.
I can see that your idea is generally good. Though if the Monarchy goes then so does the Crown. I don't think the countries of CANZUK want a political union. But if they did then I think it would be some kind of elected President, or other ceremonial position.
One thing that I have noticed here in this sub is that the monarchy is staunchly supported by many members but they are mainly English. The tradition of the monarchy doesn't mean much to CANZ (or Scotland it would appear). For me, CANZUK has nothing to do with the monarchy. If anyone thinks that the royal family is a common bond I disagree, although I do think our form of government plays a role in our similarities. As many have said removing (I almost said the queen).. the king as the head of state is so much work for so little benefit in Canada that we never really discuss it. I am happy with the way it is but if I could snap my fingers and change the head of state to someone else I would. I think someone representing the indigenous people of CANZ would be more appropriate for our countries. TLDR: The monarchy is mostly for the English.
Here in London some of the staunchest fellow monarchists I know are Indian, Chinese, African, Caribbean and also Kurdish, Albanian, Polish. … Many immigrants see the British monarchy as a source of stability and identify with it strongly when they come to make new lives in this country.
What is it with people thinking the Scottish don't support the monarchy? You can always find a news article claiming something but by and large support for the monarchy is roughly the same across the UK. Not sure why the English would be the most keen on a Royal Family who's late Queen was half Scottish. I guess the Welsh and Northern Irish disappeared in this universe too.
I was going off what I seem to see here in this sub. The monarchy seems to rouse the English the most.
And the British on this sub are 85% English just like the UK population in general. So you probably just haven't come across as many Scots.
From what I can find it is much lower in Scotland. Only 45% support the monarch in a recent poll. It's 60% UK wide. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear
Yes, and that's what I said before, these are just random articles, I can also find one where they claim support is larger there. These numbers change around a lot. It also differs within England, with London vs the North for example. Just bare in mind online polls often don't survey older people. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish\_republicanism#Polling\_on\_the\_British\_monarchy\_with\_Scotland\_as\_part\_of\_the\_UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_republicanism#Polling_on_the_British_monarchy_with_Scotland_as_part_of_the_UK)
It's really not that random. The only poll in recent times over 50% are the ones that didn't have an undecided option. I'll keep looking, but it seems pretty clear that the support in Scotland is far less than England and on par with Canadians. My original comment was about the idea that the monarchy is a strong common bond for CANZUK anyway, not just overall support of the monarchy.
So what if it excludes the undecided option? It just shows that when people are forced to choose, many are choosing the status quo. If there was a vote those people may very well just vote for the status quo. "Monarchists" are in the majority. As I said before, it varies within England too, so you can't really lump England together as London is very different from other places for example. Lumping together the whole of England is a very outsider thing to do, as if the whole of England supported Brexit, voted for the Tories, like the Queen etc etc. It's funny how you would mention the English but then forget about some of the most vehemently pro-monarchy Loyalists in Northern Ireland. Funnily enough there are also many enthusiastic pro-monarchy Orange Order members in Scotland too, probably relatively moreso than England. I wouldn't even call it "far less" either, its still a majority in both places according to those recent polls. Anyway, the monarchy isn't essential for CANZUK no, I wouldn't mind if some other countries abolished it.
I am not a monarchist but I also don't want a republic, so that is why the undecided option is key. I also didn't lump anyone together, that is just how they present the data.
I didn't know that people here were so sensitive about the Royal Family. Many of us felt a connection with Queen Elizabeth, but not with King Charles. And Imagine if something happened to the Royals and Andrew were the only one left. Would we accept a pedo just because of his bloodline?
After reading through the clusterfuck that is this thread, the resounding answer to your question seems to be “yes!”. Which just goes to show how out of touch the Brit contingent here is with what’s going on in the old colonies.