Here it is: Prince Charles reportedly to succeed Queen as head of the Commonwealth
You don’t say… “Sun will rise tomorrow.”
Respectable enough publication. It was bruited about, according to the brief article, that x hundred (?) years of history could be changed…
Is that for real?
From The New York Times, “Elizabeth, who turns 92 on Saturday, has led the Commonwealth since she became queen in 1952. However, the position is not hereditary, and some people have suggested a non-royal leader would give the group of nations a more modern profile.”
Leo, it’s not been X hundred years. There have only been two Heads of the Commonwealth: George VI and Elizabeth II.
It’s not an hereditary position, but a consensus choice of all the Commonwealth governments.
If Her Majesty had died 15 years ago, I could have seen Mandela being chosen.
It is a pretty standard practice for monarchs to assign important titles and positions to their heir towards the end of the reign to ensure a smooth transition of power and remove any doubt over who the legitimate heir is.
Not that I think the queen is concerned a Jacobean pretender will emerge from the woodwork and challenge Charles’ right to succeed her.
So what was (or became) “The Commonwealth” before George VI, politically? Ie, this “Head”–before that it was the Rex/Regina? (Ie, not a “Head.”)
The Empire? 
Well, yeah. We dunno 'bout this stuff in these here parts.
And yes, obviously this is a post-colonial thing, but did George VI say “Starting with me, the Empire ends”–even in the midst of the dribs and drabs of collapsing empire anyway, (and I understand that Empire is a definite political, defined term of art.
NB: this is the umpteenth thread started by an American and happily replied to by helpful GQ Brits. cf: “What the hell is New Zealand [I’m looking at you, **Apollyon**], anyway vis a vis Elizabeth II and all the rest…”
Pretty much, yes. George was the last Emperor. When India became a republic but stayed in association with Britain and the other Dominions, that’s when the Empire truly became the Commonwealth.
She doesn’t have to do that because Charles will automatically become King of the UK and the other Commonwealth realms on her death. That’s determined by the constitutions of each of the realms and Her Majesty has no say in it. The only thing that would change that is if those countries change their constitutions.
The position of Head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary but chosen by the member states of the Commonwealth. If they did not choose Charles, it wouldn’t affect his ability to succeed his mother as monarch of the Commonwealth monarchies.
The Commonwealth was founded in 1921 but really took its modern form in 1949 when it permitted India to retain its membership after becoming a republic in 1950.
The British monarch’s only imperial title was “Emperor of India.” I don’t know whether there was a formal declaration of an end to the British Empire, but it seems to me that once there was no longer an Indian Empire over which the monarch was an emperor, then logically there was no more British Empire.
So this thing, Commonwealth, was created by some act of Parliament, or by [soi-disant Divine Will of the Royal Leader, as defined by you guys?
And this thing/word “Commonwealth” was used pre George VI as well, wasn’t it? Sort of like (understood) “Empire?”
I’m not being snarky at all. Hell, ask Beethoven about Napoleon when he decided he wanted some of that old-timey recognition.
The King/Queen never were Emperors (I guess there’s a Roman [imperator] line on that, similarly Czars/Caesars)–but the Empire existed, as a thing. So:
George VI and Parliament: “Empire” is right out [Brits say that, don’t they?], and we’ll just re-value and spruce up “Commonwealth.” Am I close?
ETA: ninja’ed by three posts, which I’ll now read.
In the UK nothing is decreed explicitly in law, except the whole ‘not a Catholic’ thing(until recently) and a couple of other details. The tradition of common law states the line of succession. Just as it did in the days or Henry VI or Richard II, but it didn’t work out so well for them.
The Commonwealth evolved gradually from the British Empire as the colonies became more independent. There’s no single foundational document or treaty, but the London Declaration of 1949 lays out the current structure and is still in effect. However, the term “commonwealth of nations” was used at least as far back as the 1920s.
He’s automatically CEO after she dies, no one can change that really, but she’s considering making him Chairman of the Board while she’s still alive. Does that make more sense?
I went to OED on "Commonwealth, since it was handy, and no doubt volumes upon volumes are written of British History and political science, which is what I should consult…and of course I’m flummoxed on the vagaries and history or the governmental use of the word “Commonwealth.” No doubt the little Charles I affair changed irrevocably the sense or subsequent usage of the word.
They absolutely were Queen-Empress and King-Emperor and they were often referred to as such.
“Her Majesty Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India.”
The legal basis for breaking with the pope and founding the Church of England with the monarch at its head, was the claim of English monarchs to be emperors. Even though England did not have much of a empire to speak of in Henry VIII’s day. That was what he went with.
No, that’s not correct. The Act of Settlement, 1701 changed the common law of descent by skipping over approximately 50 to 70 individuals and settling the Crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her lawful issue.
Her Majesty is Queen by virtue of that statute, not the common law, and she cannot unilaterally change it.
Yes, this title (or whatever the word is) has been mentioned upthread, and is singularly for India. No problem understanding that.
Re:griffin immediately above and Henry VIII: he wasn’t Emperor of India, he (dispeople) claimed, in political argument, that Kings–>emperors–> and Emperors can do x, which I Henry, now do." But he wasn’t Emperor of anything, was he, in his stylings (is that the word?)?