That is not what “head of state” means. In many countries, including many where the head of state is an elected president, the duties of that person are largely ceremonial, and power resides with someone else. America is more the exception than the rule in combining the head of state role with real executive power.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
To the OP: Why?
Who would want this? Who would it benefit? The only people I can imagine who might like the idea are a few ancient British Tories, on the far right of their party who are old enough (and that is pretty darn old) to be nostalgic for the days of the Empire.
I’m in favor of re-unifying the Mongol Empire at its theoretical height, including all vassal states and dependencies. At last Ulan Bator will achieve the credit it deserves as the capital of Greater Mongolia. Sure we may not get Japan, but Russia is at least a reasonable consolation prize.
But… Tourism… Seriously, I don’t see the point. Why should Britain? There is no downside to having a King or Queen. None. It’s a net benefit to the state in every way, save perhaps for confusing undereducated foreigners.
I can’t think of any reason at all why this would be a good idea. The British Empire transitioned into the British Commonwealth for a reason; it suited the interests and desires of all concerned, and the fundamentals which drive this have not changed. Why would the British want to form part of a much larger country in which they would be only a minority of the population? Why would the Australians, say, wish to be a far-flung province of a country whose centre of population and centre of economic interests was, quite literally, on the other side of the world? What’s in this for anybody?
It would also include dependencies like the British Virgin Islands, the Isle of Man, Bermuda, etc.
Yes. The countries that no longer have the British monarch tend to be more different in terms of culture or politics. Commonwealth members without the monarch (e.g. India, Pakistan) and non-Commonwealth former colonies without the monarch (e.g. Republic of Ireland, USA), could be offered membership contingent on accepting the monarch, but most likely would not join.
Being as those are already ruled by the British government, I assumed they were included with the United Kingdom.
It’s kind of a moot point anyway. Since the surrender of Hong Kong, Britain’s empire has been pretty negligible. The biggest remaining British possession is Bermuda, which only has 64,000 people. The smallest British possession is the Pitcairn Islands, which has a population of around 56 people. (I say around because I also found cites that said the population is 48 and 67. You’d like to think they could count that many people with a pretty high degree of accuracy but apparently not.)
The population might fluctuate a lot depending on factors.
A better idea then this is simply to create an EU like organization of economically advanced liberal democracies (US+Canada+Southern Cone+European Union+Asian Tigers+Australia/NZ+Israel), with developing liberal democracies (such as India) as associate members. It may even serve as the nucleus of a world government.
Exactly. Whatever you think of monarchy, if you line up the pros and cons, for Britain at least, the pros far outweigh the cons. That may not be true for other countries, but for Britain it’s simply a fact. I mean, come on folks; can you say “Downton Abbey”? The Queen is right up there with Ronald McDonald as a money-maker!!
Oh, yeah, that’s another thing. As things stand now, the British Overseas Territories don’t even have any representation in Parliament. How about fixing that, before asking any Commonwealth countries to rejoin the Empire?
The status of the crown dependencies is complicated, and AFAIK the usual policy is to avoid poking at the issue unnecessarily. Guernsey even has the same issues internally with its own dependencies.
But that’s just the Bailiwick of Guernsey (pop. 65,345), which is constitutionally speaking the last surviving remnant of the Duchy of Normandy, which is why Elizabeth is Duke (not Duchess) of Normandy in her capacity as sovereign of those islands – and, yet, within all of that shit, there’s still internal dissension?! What is it, Jersey nationalism?!
I’ll add a “+1” to Northern Piper’s comments, and I will re-ask his question to the OP: why?
What is in this for any country concerned? For all intents and purposes, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the rest; operate as independent countries. They (with the exception of the UK, naturally) have no representation at Westminster, and Westminster is legally prevented from interfering in their affairs. Yes, a distinction can be made for such places as Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and Bermuda; but the countries (as most people understand the term) that make up the Commonwealth are independent of the UK, and in most cases, have very little in common with it in today’s world.
In fact, all sit at the UN; and at that body, neither Canada nor Australia nor New Zealand (etc.) take direction from the UK. They make their own decisions, and vote accordingly. They are independent. Unless it was some sort of EU-style economic trade agreement covering the Anglosphere, why would they want to reunify politically under the British Empire?
But that’s just the