Commonwealth

Just to keep the mods happy, this is in a new topic.

[quote=“IRONMAN”]

“Commonwealth”, in relation to britain, politically means nations taxed and militarily protected by Britain, and which are ruled by the British Crown. The “commonwealth” applies to nations that Britain ruled by threat of force and which were taxed by Britain, whether they wanted to be or not. These nations supposedly shared a “common wealth” of British resources (lol - they really mean British wealth through taxation eh?). Today, England controls Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Faulkland Islands by conquest only. Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc are no longer under British political rule, and have not been for a long time. Britain has no has any willing subject nations.

The Queen of England has traditionally been the monarch of British commonwealth nations. Today, she is a figurhead only with no direct political power whatsoever, and rules no-one. All that changed with the coming of the 20th century, as I stated previously. In 1901 Australia created it’s own constitution, putting an end to British monarchy there. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II remains as monarch of Canada only as a figurehead, and has no political power whatsoever there, or anywhere at all. Prior to or at the beginning of the 20th century, this scenario took place in every nation that had been considered a British “commonwealth” nation. The British crown in no longer a ruler, and no longer a monarch over nations outside the British Isles. So my friend…

There is no longer a British “commonwealth”.[/quote]

Totally wrong I’m afraid. From the Commonwealth website (www.thecommonwealth.org):

The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.

The association has no constitution or charter, but members commit themselves to the statements of beliefs set out by Heads of Government. The basis of these is the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, agreed at Singapore in 1971, and reaffirmed in the Harare Declaration of 1991. The fundamental political values underpinning the Commonwealth include democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and gender equality, the rule of law, and sustainable economic and social development.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth and is recognised as the ‘symbol of their free association’ by members of the association. Among other things, Her Majesty attends the biennial Commonwealth summits or CHOGMs and the Commonwealth Games which are held every four years. At the Edinburgh summit in 1997, for the first time, she addressed the opening ceremony. On every Commonwealth Day a special message from the Queen is broadcast in all member countries.

What you seem to be doing here is confusing the British Empire, the short lived British Republic under Cromwell from 1649-1660, and the modern Commonwealth.

Your statement about the Queen only being the head of state of Canada is also totally wrong - she is head of state of:
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Jamaica
Barbados
The Bahamas
Grenada
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Antigua and Barbuda
Belize
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
(I may have missed one or two)

The Queen in her role as head of state of the UK is also head of state of the various British Dependent Territories (as the British Empire is now known in these politically correct days). These territories are:
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falklands Islands, and Dependencies
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn
Henderson
Ducie, and Oeno Islands
St. Helena and Dependencies
The Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (Cyprus)
Turks and Caicos Islands

The Government would love to get shot of these (with the possible exception of the Cyprus bases) since they contribute nothing to the UK except bills - and for exactly the same reason these territories generally want to remain British. Kind of blows out your statement that the Falkland Islands are the only British overseas territory.
Oh, and they aren’t ours by right of conquest - there was a British settlement there before the Spanish ever arrived which was kicked out by a Spanish invasion fleet in 1770. It almost led to war then, but the Spanish let us return instead. After Argentine independence, they tried to claim the Falklands as well, on the grounds that the Spanish used to own them (a claim the UK had never accepted). Such Argentine fortifications as there were got destroyed by the USS Lexington in 1831, which then declared the islands “free from government”, with the remaining colonists being removed by the RN in 1833 after they murdered the Argentine governor. They have been under continuous British administration since then, except for the duration of the 1982 occupation.

I’m getting curious as to why you’re always attacking the British…

I’m getting curious as to why you’re always attacking the British - have you got some sort of complex about them?

i guess this will lead to a flame war.

Wasn’t intended to, hence edited slightly. Was hoping to get an actual answer rather than the usual inaccurate comments.

i hope countries of commonwealth will have an independence in a time :slight_smile: ,liberty for them!

For your guidance Erwin, ‘voluntary’ means voluntario in Spanish.

For your guidance Erwin, ‘voluntary’ means voluntario in Spanish.[/quote]

oh,maybe the leaders of the countries,want to be commonwealth,but people from australia,whales and i hope more,want to have independence of the commonwealth.

i have friends of all the world :smiley:

Australia had a referendum recently where they voted overwhelmingly to remain within the Commonwealth and, more interestingly, to keep the Queen as head of state.

Wales is not an independent country, then again, it has a certain degree of self governance. Not many people in Wales want a complete break from Great Britain.

You are still in a state of confusion as to what the Commonwealth is.

Being a member of the Commonwealth does not necessarily mean that country will have the same head of state.

Some countries have left the Commonwealth and returned, some ejected and then permitted to rejoin.

It is run as committee and on commonly affirmed principles.

It is independent of the British government and the decision as to whether any particular country remains in may be taken by other member states voting it out, eg Rhodesia, or by that country’s own government.

No state would remain a member of this ‘club’ if it were costing them money or freedoms !

Yes, most people here think that if your apart of the Commonwealth then your are under Britains rule or som. But that is totally wrong. The Commonwealth is like the EU, an organization that has some background relation to each other (british colonial rule) and they meet together to discuss some things. There are maybe some privileages in joining the Commonwealth. I think South Africa is still in the Commonwealth.

If youre still confused I suggest that you take a look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

“Commonwealth”, in relation to britain, politically means nations taxed and militarily protected by Britain, and which are ruled by the British Crown. The “commonwealth” applies to nations that Britain ruled by threat of force and which were taxed by Britain, whether they wanted to be or not. These nations supposedly shared a “common wealth” of British resources (lol - they really mean British wealth through taxation eh?). Today, England controls Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the Faulkland Islands by conquest only. Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc are no longer under British political rule, and have not been for a long time. Britain has no has any willing subject nations.

The Queen of England has traditionally been the monarch of British commonwealth nations. Today, she is a figurhead only with no direct political power whatsoever, and rules no-one. All that changed with the coming of the 20th century, as I stated previously. In 1901 Australia created it’s own constitution, putting an end to British monarchy there. In Canada, Queen Elizabeth II remains as monarch of Canada only as a figurehead, and has no political power whatsoever there, or anywhere at all. Prior to or at the beginning of the 20th century, this scenario took place in every nation that had been considered a British “commonwealth” nation. The British crown in no longer a ruler, and no longer a monarch over nations outside the British Isles. So my friend…

There is no longer a British “commonwealth”.[/quote]

Totally wrong I’m afraid. From the Commonwealth website (www.thecommonwealth.org):

The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.

The association has no constitution or charter, but members commit themselves to the statements of beliefs set out by Heads of Government. The basis of these is the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, agreed at Singapore in 1971, and reaffirmed in the Harare Declaration of 1991. The fundamental political values underpinning the Commonwealth include democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and gender equality, the rule of law, and sustainable economic and social development.

HM Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth and is recognised as the ‘symbol of their free association’ by members of the association. Among other things, Her Majesty attends the biennial Commonwealth summits or CHOGMs and the Commonwealth Games which are held every four years. At the Edinburgh summit in 1997, for the first time, she addressed the opening ceremony. On every Commonwealth Day a special message from the Queen is broadcast in all member countries.

What you seem to be doing here is confusing the British Empire, the short lived British Republic under Cromwell from 1649-1660, and the modern Commonwealth.

Your statement about the Queen only being the head of state of Canada is also totally wrong - she is head of state of:
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
Jamaica
Barbados
The Bahamas
Grenada
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Antigua and Barbuda
Belize
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
(I may have missed one or two)

The Queen in her role as head of state of the UK is also head of state of the various British Dependent Territories (as the British Empire is now known in these politically correct days). These territories are:
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falklands Islands, and Dependencies
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn
Henderson
Ducie, and Oeno Islands
St. Helena and Dependencies
The Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (Cyprus)
Turks and Caicos Islands

The Government would love to get shot of these (with the possible exception of the Cyprus bases) since they contribute nothing to the UK except bills - and for exactly the same reason these territories generally want to remain British. Kind of blows out your statement that the Falkland Islands are the only British overseas territory.
Oh, and they aren’t ours by right of conquest - there was a British settlement there before the Spanish ever arrived which was kicked out by a Spanish invasion fleet in 1770. It almost led to war then, but the Spanish let us return instead. After Argentine independence, they tried to claim the Falklands as well, on the grounds that the Spanish used to own them (a claim the UK had never accepted). Such Argentine fortifications as there were got destroyed by the USS Lexington in 1831, which then declared the islands “free from government”, with the remaining colonists being removed by the RN in 1833 after they murdered the Argentine governor. They have been under continuous British administration since then, except for the duration of the 1982 occupation.

I’m getting curious as to why you’re always attacking the British…[/quote]

Don’t forget we’re letting the Blue-on-blue machine lease Diego Garcia from us.

I thought (correct me if I’m wrong) that Diego Garcia is technically part of the “British Indian Ocean Territory” that I already mentioned, along with several other tiny islands who’ve seen the results of independence for countries like Fiji and decided they’d rather stay part of the Empire…

This is an interesting MoD site listing some of the peoples of the (then) Empire and Commonwealth who fought in WWII, and their exploits.

http://www.mod.uk/wewerethere/

I thought (correct me if I’m wrong) that Diego Garcia is technically part of the “British Indian Ocean Territory” that I already mentioned, along with several other tiny islands who’ve seen the results of independence for countries like Fiji and decided they’d rather stay part of the Empire…[/quote]

Off the top of my head, I believe that you are right. However, we have leased Diego Garcia to the USAF/USN (the blue-on-blue machine, geddit?) to use as a strategic airbase.

IIRC, either us or them forcibly evicted the inhabitants of said island to make way for the airbase, and occasionally they still kick up enough of a fuss about it to get 1/2" in the papers.

most of gibraltar population is from uk or spain???

Good website here: http://www.gibraltar.gi/info/gibraltar_political_history.asp

So the basic answer is neither - they’re mainly Italians by extraction.

Good website here: http://www.gibraltar.gi/info/gibraltar_political_history.asp

So the basic answer is neither - they’re mainly Italians by extraction.[/quote]

No they’re not they are Fragals.

Ultimately the population of Gib have decided that they wish to remain within the British sphere of influence, much as the Falkland Islanders have.

There are very few ex empire countries who are not actively and voluntarily members of the commonwealth. can any other former colonial power demonstrate the same level of post solonial success?

AFAIK, there exists some organisation of former French colonies, most of them African, but I forgot how it is called, the one thing they have in common is the French language.

Jan

yes there are some former french countries, as well as former portugeuse, fomer belgium, and of course former british. Is anyone familiar with the Rwandan genocide? there is a movie on it now called “Hotel Rwanda” I highly reccomend it, very historically accurate. Anyway Rwanda was formally a Belgium colony, and Im not quite sure w/ the facts but there where two main groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis. When the Belgiums where in rule they shared the power with only one of the groups just because of their physicall appearence, then when they left they gave it to the other group. about 30 or so years later the other group wanted “revenge” or “payback” causing the horrible genocide. Anyway that is just an example of how a country can get messed up because of colonial rule. Another example is Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe was still very successful until a few years ago when Comrade Bob, beloved of the British left, went mad.