And a Canadian? Jamaican, etc.? Seeing as she is head of state of all those countries, quite independently of being head of state of the United Kingdom. And if not, does that mean that she isn’t British either?
She is British, but not a British subject or a UK citizen. She was a British subject until she acceded to the throne in 1952, and she would become a UK citizen if she abdicated or if the UK decided to abolish the monarchy.
She is not an Australian citizen, and I would guess that she not a citizen of her other realms and territories.
(Until 1949, no Australian Prime Ministers were Australian citizens either. They were all British subjects, including John Christian Watson [who was born in Chile, and so was presumably a dual citizen, though the question was never litigated], but the status of “Australian citizen” did not exist before 26th January, 1949.)
Right. So if she turned up at Hobart International Airport without a visa, could an overzealous immigration officer refuse her entry to the country? Or is there a special clause in Australian immigration law just for her?
You mean, “noble, patriotic immigration officer.”
She’s really a German in disguise… (Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha).
At Hobart Airport, she would be treated as Queen of Australia, Queen of Tasmania and a visiting head of state. Of course, arrangements for visits like this are made years in advance, but, if she arrived unexpectedly (e.g., if her plane was aiming for Wellington, New Zealand, but was diverted to Hobart), among the actions that the immigration officer would want to take are:
(1) Getting in touch with the Governor-General of Australia and the Prime Minister of Australia, so they could come to greet her.
(2) Getting in touch with the Governor of Tasmania and the Premier of Tasmania so they could come to greet her.
(3) Getting in touch with the Australian Federal Police and the Tasmanian Police, so they could take appropriate security measures.
Pretty much the same would happen for any other visiting head of state, but the protocol gets stepped up a notch when it’'s the head of state of Australia and of Tasmania visiting.
One more thing: she doesn’t carry a passport. After all, a UK passport simply contains a request from her and her government. Since she’s there in person, she doesn’t need to carry her written request.
And all the money from the UK, Canada, ect. has a picture of herself on it.
Not quite, though it was true once in Canada. Nowadays, she’s on all the coins and the $20 bill. Past Prime Ministers are on the other bills: Laurier on the $5, Macdonald on the $10, Mackenzie King on the $50, and Borden on the $100. The Queen was on the $1000 bill, but the $1000 bill has been withdrawn and is no longer printed, although any such bills remaining in circulation remain valid currency. Cite.
In Australia, she is on all the coins and the $5 bill.
Since she’s not a UK citizen, does that mean she’s not able to vote? How about the rest of the Royal Family?
She can’t vote because she’s already part of parliament. She could in theory vote in local or EU elections though. The other royals have to same rights to vote and stand for election as any other citizens, but by convention do neither.
Incidentally, the phony Queen can be recognized by her high-top sneakers and incredibly foul mouth.
Members of parliament can’t vote?!
You mean the Queen can’t vote for herself?
The Parliament of the United Kingdom has three parts: the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. If you belong to one of the three parts, you can’t take part in any of the other two parts. So the Queen and members of the House of Lords can’t take part in elections for the Commons, but MPs are part of the third part of Parliament, so they can take part in elections for the Houses of Commons.
We have a Republican in our midst.
Actually, as an American, I find it interesting that, even though our separation from your Monarchy was the defining act of our country’s birth, the Queen is still “The Queen” to us. Absent any context that would dictate differently, or any qualification, there is only one monarch, when an American says “the Queen”, they mean the Queen of the UK. It must be our shared language; I imagine if that weren’t a factor, we wouldn’t hear so much about the Royals in the first place.
No, although I suppose that is true of all the coin money in the U.K. Not for notes though (after a quick check in my purse).
Well – the word “Republican” has two meanings. In the US, it means a supporter of the GOP, while in Australia (including Hobart) it means a person who supports abolishing the monarchy. The immigration officer could not have been a Republican in the first sense, so presumably he supported abolishing Elizabeth Windsor’s position as monarch of Australia and of Tasmania. Indeed, a “noble, patriotic” person.
Aren’t the members of the Royal Family all nobles of one sort or another? And wouldn’t they therefore be part of the House of Lords? If so, then convention or no, they still wouldn’t be able to vote or run for the Commons. Or is the House of Lords only a subset of the nobility, and if so, how is membership in the House decided? Would the Royals still be excluded from voting in the Commons, by virtue of potential membership in another House?