When is it British and when is it English ?

[Catfish]

So, what is Australia And Canada ? Never part of the UK (?), but belonged to the Commonwealth. But not anymore..

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Catfish

So, what is Australia And Canada ? Never part of the UK (?), but belonged to the Commonwealth. But not anymore..

Now part of the Uncommonwealth. The Commonwealth is a total mystery to me. How does it work in a practical sense?

[Reece]

Basically we're still owned by England, we were discovered and settled by English settlers. Until we vote for our independence and become a republic we belong to the UK, I personally want our ties to persist if for no other reason than security.
America used to belong to England until their fight for independence.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Reece

Basically we're still owned by England, we were discovered and settled by English settlers. Until we vote for our independence and become a republic we belong to the UK, I personally want our ties to persist if for no other reason than security.
America used to belong to England until their fight for independence.

At the time when Australia was found and seized was that captain an Englishman or Briton (latter in reference to modern concept not Roman times)? Also is your allegiance still only to England (if it everwas) or instead to the United Kingdom as whole?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

At the time when Australia was found and seized was that captain an Englishman or Briton (latter in reference to modern concept not Roman times)? Also is your allegiance still only to England (if it everwas) or instead to the United Kingdom as whole?

I believe we first established colonies in Aus in 1788, and Captain Cook made contact with the Eastern coastline during his first voyage between 1768 and 1771, and the Union between England/Wales and Scotland was signed in 1707/1708 which is when the Kingdom of Great Britain came into being. So Cook would have been British by birth, having been born in 1728.

[Oberon]

Canada and Aus are still part of the Commonwealth, there are 53 nations in the Commonwealth and 16 of them have the Queen as technical monarch but membership of the Commonwealth is not dependent on accepting the Queen as anything other than the Head of the Commonwealth but with no powers over the organisation.

It is a bit complicated, but as de-colonisation processes go, it worked out quite well. A bit bloody in some places, but better than the fall of Rome.

[Catfish]

So.. Australia belongs to the UK? Officially?
I thought it was how Skybird put it .. -> completely confused

But you do not have a say in the EU vote
You can partake in the Eurovision song contest though

[Reece]

Labor here in Australia tried to change us to a republic way back in the 70's, IIRC, but the Queen said straight out that it has to be put to the public in a referendum before she'd even consider it. Good on her!!

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Catfish

You can partake in the Eurovision song contest though

Kevin Bloody Wilson would be a breath of fresh air for sure.

[MGR1]

The best way to describe the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is thus: Two Kingdoms, a Principality and a Province. That's England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

All the same, but all different.

Mike.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Catfish

So.. Australia belongs to the UK? Officially?
I thought it was how Skybird put it .. -> completely confused

But you do not have a say in the EU vote
You can partake in the Eurovision song contest though

Well...yes and no, the Prime Minister of Australia technically defers to the Governor-General who defers to the Queen but it very rarely ever goes that way. The last time I think the Governor-General had to get involved in things was during a Constitutional Crisis in 1975.
But yes, she does still have a fair bit of power but it's only really left to her in the knowledge that she will only ever use it in the direst of circumstances. Which is one of the reasons why the British political system is very jittery about the idea of Charles getting the throne because unlike Elizabeth he prefers to take a more direct role in political affairs and has his own pro-environmental agenda, which while I think is noble, will result in a lot of bad blood between parliament and crown if he tries to exercise too much of the power he has.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well...yes and no, the Prime Minister of Australia technically defers to the Governor-General who defers to the Queen but it very rarely ever goes that way. The last time I think the Governor-General had to get involved in things was during a Constitutional Crisis in 1975.
But yes, she does still have a fair bit of power but it's only really left to her in the knowledge that she will only ever use it in the direst of circumstances. Which is one of the reasons why the British political system is very jittery about the idea of Charles getting the throne because unlike Elizabeth he prefers to take a more direct role in political affairs and has his own pro-environmental agenda, which while I think is noble, will result in a lot of bad blood between parliament and crown if he tries to exercise too much of the power he has.

In truth I'd rather Charles gave way to William when the next heir accedes to the throne but I can't honestly seeing that happen, he's waited so long bless his little jug ears.

[MGR1]

He may have a while to wait if the Queen lives as long as the Queen Mum. Perhaps the Queen's deliberately trying to outlive Charles so the throne goes directly to William!

Mike.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

In truth I'd rather Charles gave way to William when the next heir accedes to the throne but I can't honestly seeing that happen, he's waited so long bless his little jug ears.

Is there precedent for such arrangement? Wouldn't Charles abstinence change the line of succession with throne passing to Duke of York or Princess Royal instead of Duke of Cambridge?