I meant, looking at my Commonwealth list, I can see a bunch of countries which have a claim but aren’t on that list. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Here is some good info:
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/htm/commonwealth/about/members/criteria.htm
According to this, you don’t actually have to be a former British colony … having been a protectorate or trust territory of any Commonwealth member will do. So I suppose Israel or Egypt would be eligible, if they chose to apply.
And I’m sure that Israel would have no trouble having the head of the Church of England serve as its head of state either.
I believe Ireland could join too, but for some reason doesn’t seem particularly interested in doing so.
I, and I’m sure many Americans, would be rather offended at the notion of a monarch being head of state, ceremonial or not. Had I the power, I’d start a war over it. That and we have a tendency to hate Brittish people anyway.
The country that was NEVER British that is part of The Commenwealth is Mozambique.
Actually since Britian joined the EU The Commenwealth has lost a lot of its economic wealth
Curiously friedo, in my time in the US I found very, very few people with the same feeling as you (I mean the tendency to hate the Brittish (sic)). On the other count, you’re probably about right.
I seem to recall that you Yanks got all up in arms about stamps or something … tossed some tea about and had a fit.
I think that is it …
The issue about having the Queen as head of state is irrelevant. The Commonwealth was specifically created so that it could include countries which did not want the British monarch as their head of state.
I would be mildly surprised if the treaties by which the Commonwealth was created laid down precise definitions as to which countries could qualify as members, beyond, that is, those countries which were parties to those treaties. If so, the fact that bits of the U.S.A were once British colonies would also be irrelevant.
BobT said:
You don’t run for the office of Governor General, because it’s not an elected position. You are appointed as the representative of the Crown. Theoretically this is done by the King/Queen or his/her representative, but in fact it is done with a whole lot of input from the “host” country’s Prime Minister and the current government.
Well, I was hoping my last link would have cleared this up. I have no idea why BobT and friedo keep bringing up the phony “head of state” issue - I don’t know if they are just teasing me, or there are serious reading comprehension problems here…
Anyway, Mozambique is supposed to be an exception, and not a precedent. My link will tell you that. Countries are supposed to have a historical relationship to Britain or another Commonwealth country as a colony, dependency, or trust territory.
Well, I don’t think it’s a “phony” issue at all. Most Americans I know have a deep sense of pride knowing that we fought for years to do away with the whole concept of Monarchy to become the first major republic in the modern world. I think the vast majority of Americans would be extremely offended by entering into an alliance, no-matter how symbolic or superficial, that makes the USA technically a monarchy.
Obviously the Australians and Canadians don’t have a problem with this…fine. I’d think the American attitude with regard to the matter is far more vile.
I would second Friedo by stating that despite all of the various technicalities about who is the head of state in a country, ultimately, any American would consider the Queen of England to be the head of state in a Commonwealth country.
The U.S. doesn’t want to have anything to do with a monarchy (even though we seem to love having royals visit us) and anything connected with Commonwealth would have the implication of a monarch.
I think you’ll find that some Canadians and some Australians certainly do have a problem with this;). Called republicans aren’t they?
??? What on earth are you talking about? I doubt there is very much evidence at all of significant economic impacts on inter-Commonwealth trade because of GB EU membership, especially as the Commonwealth is not an economic organization.
Membership of the Commonwealth would not make the U.S.A. ‘technically a monarchy’. Of course, the fact that most Americans would undoubtedly fail to grasp the nuances of this would indeed be the reason why no U.S. government would ever seek membership, even if it was thought that such an application would be valid. Note that, although it is only a matter of time before the Australian republican movement achieves its aim, no one in Australia is seriously suggesting that they should also leave the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has survived because of the other cultural ties its members are assumed to share.
Friedo, one last time and slowly - being a member of the commonwealth does not make a country a monarchy. If you need an example, the USA is a member of the United Nations, does Kofi Annan isn’t your head of state.
Make that any American too pig-headed or illiterate to bother to note this is not the case at all.
We Americans may be pig-headed and illiterate, but we aren’t going to join the Commonwealth. Principally, there is no reason why the United States would want to give the impression that its sovereignty was in any way connected with royalty.
I could summarize how Joe American Six-Pack would think,
“Hmm, Commonwealth. That’s a British thing. Well, we don’t want any part of that.”
There has been a lot of testiness here for people debating an irrelevant question.
Yeah. We don’t like such implications, whether they are real issues or not.
Anyone remember JFK? He was dogged his entire campaign by people who were freaked that a Catholic’s first allegiance would be to the Pope, despite everything that JFK said to the contrary.
I would hope that we’re more enlightened today, but I wouldn’t bet the crown jewels on it.
Pardon my ignorance, but huh?