Eli5; how are countries like Australia and New Zealand independent yet they still are under King Charles?
In: Other
The King has the job of King of (edit) the UK, and also has the parallel job of King of Canada, so that Canada is in no way subordinate to the UK. They both have the same King.
These Commonwealth countries have been on a centuries-long path of independence from the UK. That’s a very different process from the US and other colonies who cut ties abruptly. It’s been happening gradually as more and more responsibility moves over from Britain to the former colonies.
When Australia, Canada and NZ (and also South Africa before full independence) were created as Dominions they still had a lot of ties to the motherland. For example, Canada didn’t have a fully-domestic supreme court until well into the 20th Century. Foreign affairs, militaries and other functions were still performed by Britain. A big change happened in 1931 when the Statute of Westminster devolved essentially all of the King’s powers to the governor-general.
The shared head of state is the last tiny piece of dependence to UK still in place. And that’s mostly because getting the King to appoint the governor-general keeps things simple. Any change would require constitutional amendments that nobody wants to tackle.
The crown holds no power over my government (Canada) but we still owe allegiance to the monarchy. Any role the King has is simply symbolic and amounts to nothing.
There are similar rules in Britain itself, they have a government that rules and the monarchs signed over pretty much all power to the government, but the government still derives its authority from the crown.
A lot of people have given good answers explaining the personal union side, but I’m going to add in some commentary on the constitutional side.
Think of a board game like monopoly, it has a set of rules that are written down which tell you how to play.
Now think of a game like tag or Simon says. Somewhere along the way someone told you how to play the game. The rules and any changes (like turning tag into freeze tag) came from a person who created it.
Countries like the US are set up like the board game. There’s a set of written rules which tell everyone how the country is supposed to run. When America became independent they wrote their rules down. Sometimes they change them, but at the end of the day they’re all written down, just like a board game.
Countries like the UK, were set up like a game of tag. Somewhere a long time ago a king got enough support and power to control part of the modern day UK. The king had all the power so he made all the rules. Over time the area he came to control more and more land, gradually becoming King of England, Great Britain, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Over time other powerful people convinced (or forced) the king to let them help (advise) him on how to use his powers. Today, the King pretty much goes along with whatever his advisors (Prime Minister or other ministers) say to do, but legally all they’re doing is helping him decide how to use his powers.
When countries like New Zealand, Canada, and Australia became independent, they could have chosen to say “forget the king.” If they did though, the person who made the rules of how their country ran would be gone, so they would have to make a bunch of new rules and write them down board game style. When you do this, a bunch of people have a lot of opinions, often disagreeing with each other, about what the rules should be. Another easier option, was just to say, we’re going to keep the guy (or woman) who created the rules we’ve used since the beginning, but now they’re going to be our rules instead of the UK’s rules.
So tldr, they could have gotten rid of the king or queen, but it would have created a bunch of headaches on top of the headaches that came with separating from the UK.
It’s purely ceremonial now they are independent in everyway that actually matters.
But yes you still need to swear allegiance and your parliament is the crowns parliament but it’s just like with anything. The vast majority of the country either like it or dont like it but not enough to kick up a fuss.
They’ll probably go fully independent eventually but for now it really doesn’t affect anyone in their day to day lives.
“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Is probably the short answer.
Australia, well known for its classlessness, is also secretly very classist. See “private boys school” for more info.
Coincidentally, a lot of Australia’s politicians and senior public servants went to private schools.
Knighthoods and other titles can only be bestowed by a monarchy, probably irrelevant, or not.
The king’s representative in Australia is mostly ceremonial. No real politics is involved. And it sort of works. Except that one time.
“The lucky country” has had relatively stable governance for a century or more. That’s money in the bank.
When a change to becoming a republic comes up, the inevitable question is “what sort of republic?”
The Democratic Republic Of The Commonwealth States Of Australia maybe?
The question also impacts the states.
What we have works, mostly. It’s sort of comfortable but wearing thin in places.
The challenge is for the Republicans and anti-monarchists to come up with something that appeals to most Australians.
That’s a big ask considering we couldn’t even say yes to something that would have helped many Australians and hurt none.
Speaking for Canada. On paper, Charles III is Head of State. It’s that way because of various reasons like tradition and close ties with other Commonwealth countries, but mostly because it’s too much bother to change something that has no real influence over how Canada governs itself.
If Charles or any other monarch actually tried to exercise hard power over Canadian affairs, the calculus of the situation would change. We would immediately see Canada begin the process of doing away with the monarchy.
The commonwealth realms are a form of personal union, in which the same person is monarch of all of them separately, but they remain distinct sovereign states. The political power within the commonwealth realms is ultimately held by their sovereign parliaments.
Is there someone who can explain it like the lord of the rings?
Two countries having the same king is a little bit like two different companies having the same CEO.
They’re still completely different companies. They have different property. They have different workforces. They don’t have to ask each other for permission to do anything. But the same person fills the same important job.
The big difference with these countries is that the king is less important than a CEO of a company would be. He makes way less decisions than a CEO would. In fact, he’s really more like a brand ambassador, rather than anything else. (Well, no, really, he’s like an ambassador-ambassador. He’s a diplomatic figure.)
So how can different companies have the same brand ambassador? Because they want to. If they ever stop wanting to, they’ll just pick someone else for that role.
Latest Answers