It's really outdated lip service, I know it's important to remember where you came from, but at what point will the nominal tie be cut?
2006-12-26 18:50:05 · 9 answers · asked by brickity hussein brack 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Hey Lori sorry if the question sounded inflammitory. I know a lot of people use the questions that way, but I'm actually sincerely curious. In say two hundred years, will the royal family in England still be observed by Canada and Australia? If so, why? I really want to know.
2006-12-26 19:01:29 · update #1
I didn't know that you could work in other countries without a visa. That definately is an advantage.
2006-12-26 23:55:28 · update #2
I'm not sure the arrangements are as universal or straighforward as buggalugz suggests. Commonwealth citizens living in th UK can vote and don't have to register at a police station like other foreigners do (or did in 1997 when I moved here) but EU citizens get even more (the same tuition fees Brits pay; Commonwealth students are considered foreigners). British people have not been able to vote in Canada for many years so I suspect the same rights are not uniform across the Commonwealth.
Anyhow I like the idea of the Commonwealth, but not all the tinpot dictatorships which refused to stand up to Mugabe in Zimbabwe and have very little in common with Britain/Canada/Australia/New Zealand.
2006-12-27 07:14:01 · answer #1 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The British Commonwealth of Nations is an association of countries (not unlike the OAS, or others) but with a common heritage and the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth.
2006-12-27 16:10:30 · answer #2 · answered by kent chatham 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No and I hate having an English grandmother as head of state in Australia.
Sooner we - Australia get rid of the "royal" family the better.
All that the "old" country has done for us is get us involved with European wars, twice.
King Charles - you have to be jokin !
2006-12-28 00:35:56 · answer #3 · answered by Cameron in OZ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm don't believe it's for defence purposes so much because we're already members of N.A.T.O and the U.N.
I believe that the Commonwealth is there for those who swore allegiance to the King, Queen and the Royal family.
2006-12-27 15:15:21 · answer #4 · answered by Roadkill 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At what point will the United States keep calling itself a melting pot while it refused to wholly accept all members as citizens? Also if this is the case, you should also have African Americans cut their ties as well as any other heritage around. How long will the United States celebrate its independence day? Moot question.
2006-12-27 02:55:00 · answer #5 · answered by Lori S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Having special alliances in areas as diverse as are in the Commonwealth would be really economically advantageous. They just went wrong by leaving leadership just in London.
2006-12-27 02:56:45 · answer #6 · answered by San Diego Art Nut 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it is a apathetically sad attempt for britain to try and hold onto the relics of its past empire.
britain is an old has been, an old dinosuar that needs to be shot.
it is still trying to convince the world of its global importance by being americans lap dog.
2006-12-27 15:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I clicked in to your question not because I can answer well (I'm in the US) but because I think it's a very interesting question! I would think for economic and defense reasons (for all parties) it will stay intact. I'm curious to see what other respondents will have to offer on this subject.
2006-12-27 03:13:27 · answer #8 · answered by Snow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's good for us commonwealthers, cause we can go to all the other commonwealth countries and work there; so I say 'keep it this way!'
2006-12-27 07:22:06 · answer #9 · answered by bugallugz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋