Commonwealth of Nations

[JohntheBiker]

This website is very instructive:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandco...da/canada.aspx

Not all commonwealth contries are the same. They have their own parliaments and they have negotiated their relationship to the Monarch in different ways.

Canadians used to recieve British knighthoods and lordships but due to our liberal belief that all people are created equal under the law, Canadians are no longer legally entitled to accept hereditary British Peerage titles and remain Canadian Citizens. Lord Conrad Black famously relinquished his Canadian citizenship to accept Her Majesty's lordship.

Instead, Canadians of such merit are inducted into the Order of Canada, a three leveled program that is similar to modern knighthood but does not confer the title "Sir" etc...

I can't speak for other commonwealth nations and realms regarding peerage.

in a Parliamentary system, the leader of the party with the most seats effectively weilds executive power (power to declare war etc...). In a republican system the President is elected outside of the legislature. There is often conflict betwen the executive branch and legislative branch in republican systems.

In a Parlimentary System, the Prime Minister is like combination of the President and the House Majority Leader in the USA.

There is often a non-elected upper house in Parliamentary systems but this is not universal. Some have no upper house and others elect their upper chamber. In the UK the upper house is called the House of Lords and membership can be hereditary.

In Canada, the Prime Minister appoints Senators (two per province) to sit in the Canadian Senate.

In Canada, the elected Parliament (the House of Commons) is supreme and the upper house is a chamber for sober second thought.

Slight correction, the Canadian Senate has 105 seats distributed geographically as follows:

• The Maritimes Division — 24
(New Brunswick — 10, Nova-Scotia — 10, Prince Edward Island — 4)

• The Ontario Division — 24

• The Quebec Division — 24

• The Western Division — 24
(British Columbia — 6, Alberta — 6, Saskatchewan — 6, Manitoba — 6)

• Additional representation — 9
(Newfoundland and Labrador — 6, Northwest Territories — 1,
Yukon Territory — 1, Nunavut — 1)

[Downunder Kilt]

This website is very instructive:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandco...da/canada.aspx

Not all commonwealth contries are the same. They have their own parliaments and they have negotiated their relationship to the Monarch in different ways.

Canadians used to recieve British knighthoods and lordships but due to our liberal belief that all people are created equal under the law, Canadians are no longer legally entitled to accept hereditary British Peerage titles and remain Canadian Citizens. Lord Conrad Black famously relinquished his Canadian citizenship to accept Her Majesty's lordship.

Instead, Canadians of such merit are inducted into the Order of Canada, a three leveled program that is similar to modern knighthood but does not confer the title "Sir" etc...

I can't speak for other commonwealth nations and realms regarding peerage.

in a Parliamentary system, the leader of the party with the most seats effectively weilds executive power (power to declare war etc...). In a republican system the President is elected outside of the legislature. There is often conflict betwen the executive branch and legislative branch in republican systems.

In a Parlimentary System, the Prime Minister is like combination of the President and the House Majority Leader in the USA.

There is often a non-elected upper house in Parliamentary systems but this is not universal. Some have no upper house and others elect their upper chamber. In the UK the upper house is called the House of Lords and membership can be hereditary.

In Canada, the Prime Minister appoints Senators to sit in the Canadian Senate.

In Canada, the elected Parliament (the House of Commons) is supreme and the upper house is a chamber for sober second thought.

Australia operates in very much the same way, though our senators are elected by the people. Australia also has a similiar system to bestowing awards, though you will still find a few Lords and Ladies amongst the population who recieved their gongs prior to the new sysyem being introduced

[Downunder Kilt]

Many Commonwealth countries have a system of government called Constitutional Monarchy and are governed by the Westminster Parliamentary system. The Commonwealth is a group of Countries that share a Monarch and who are tied together by their shared history as former subjects of the British Empire.

Aside from the fact that many residents of commonwealth countries feel a loyalty to the sovereign, there are also more practical considerations for the continued association.

In a Westminster Constitutional Monarchy, the Monarch is the symbolic head of state and represents the executive branch of Government.

While in practice, the executive power is weilded by the Prime Minister, s/he is actually part of the legislative branch of government being the leader of the party with the most MPs (Members of Parliament) elected to sit in a Parliament.

In Canada, the Queen is represented by a Vice-Roy in the form of The Governor General of Canada. The Vice Roy signs bills into law on behalf of the Queen, reads the Speech from the Throne prior to a budget etc...

The Commonwealth participates in summits and events such as the Commonwealth Games, and while it has traditionally been a vehicle for trade and preferred status for immigration, in recent years, the associations have become more symbolic.

That said, the courts of Commonwealth jurisdictions that use common law have been known to refer to legal precedent from other commonwealth jurisdictions in the absence of a domestic legal precedent. This common law is often admissible but it typically does not hold the same weight as a domestic precedent.

If a country wanted to cut ties with the commonwealth, it would involve replacing the Head of State with some form of elected president. This would mean an overhaul from a parliamentary system to a republican one. Many commonwealth residents feel that aside from nationalist sentiment, there is little reason to believe that a country would be better governed by such a move but that opening up such a "can of worms" would be divisive and ultimately quite expensive.

Incidentally, you refer to HRM Queen Elizabeth II as the "Queen of England". This is just one of her titles. When in Canada, she is referred to as the "Queen of Canada". She is also the Queen of Scotland, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Queen of New Zealand, The Queen of Australia, the Queen of Bermuda etc...

Does this answer your question?

Excellent summary Nathan.

[plaid preacher]

I'm curious to understand the purpose of the Commonwealth of Nations. I understand the origins of the Commonwealth come from Britain's former Empire whereas many of the members of the Commonwealth are territories which had historically come under British rule at various times by settlement, conquest or cession. However, I don't see how the Commonwealth relates to the established independent governments of its members. And, I believe the Queen of England is at the head of the Commonwealth? Does the Commonwealth perform more in ceremony of its past relationships or possibly serve as a conduit for trade among countries or ....

As to the question of the relationship of "independent governments" and the Commonwealth, there are many associations that involve sovereign countries i.e. the UN, NATO, the OAS and the G-8, just to name a few. At the heart of all these organizations is the understanding that representation in such bodies and organizations allows like-minded states which common interests to work together for a larger good. (okay, that may be a little too idealistic, but that's just me) With the Commonwealth, there is simply that added element of a common association with the Crown.

The Commonwealth is more than ceremonial, however. They have banded together to influence South Africa to end apartheid, and have called for more democratic and human rights in places such as Nigeria (in the 1990s) and more recent in Zimbabwe. While it is more moral suasion than anything else, it does continue and promote the ideals of human and democratic rights.

[tundramanq]

Our little side excursions help to "peek under the bonnet", see how it works and add more flavor or history to the topic at hand.
Just hard history facts slip away from my teflon memory without the "why" aspect. I have learned a lot today. Thank you much!