#Independence #Australia #NewZealand #KingCharles
Have you ever wondered how countries like Australia and New Zealand can be independent nations, yet still have King Charles as their monarch? 🤔 It’s a fascinating topic that delves into the complexities of the British monarchy and the concept of constitutional monarchy. Let’s break it down for you.
**The History of British Colonization**
1. **Colonial Roots**: Australia and New Zealand were both colonies established by the British Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries.
2. **Constitutional Monarchy**: As colonies, they were governed by British-appointed governors who represented the authority of the British monarch. This system of government is known as a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch’s powers are limited by a constitution.
3. **Independence Movements**: Over time, both Australia and New Zealand developed their own sense of national identity and began movements towards independence.
**The Path to Independence**
1. **Australia**:
– The Constitution of Australia was enacted in 1901, establishing the country as a federation of states with its own government and legal system.
– The Australia Act of 1986 severed the remaining ties to the British Parliament, making Australia fully independent in terms of legislative authority.
2. **New Zealand**:
– New Zealand gained more autonomy in the early 20th century with the Statute of Westminster 1931, which granted full legislative independence.
– The New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 further solidified New Zealand’s status as an independent nation.
**The Role of the Monarchy**
1. **Symbolic Head of State**: Despite achieving independence, Australia and New Zealand still recognize King Charles as their monarch. However, his role is largely ceremonial and symbolic.
2. **Constitutional Monarchy**: The monarch’s powers are limited by the constitution of each country, and they do not play a direct role in governing or making decisions.
3. **Royal Visits and Representations**: While the monarchy may seem like a vestige of the past, it continues to be an important symbol of tradition and heritage for many Australians and New Zealanders.
**Implications of Monarchical Ties**
1. **Political Debate**: The question of whether to maintain ties to the British monarchy remains a topic of debate in both Australia and New Zealand.
2. **Cultural Identity**: For some, the monarchy is a symbol of national unity and history. For others, it represents a colonial past that should be left behind.
3. **Evolving Independence**: Despite the ties to the monarchy, Australia and New Zealand have developed their own unique identities as independent nations on the world stage.
In conclusion, the relationship between Australia, New Zealand, and King Charles is a complex one that reflects the evolution of colonial history and the concept of constitutional monarchy. While both countries have achieved independence in terms of governance, the ties to the British monarchy continue to play a role in their cultural and political landscapes. The balance between tradition and modernity is a dynamic one that will continue to shape the future of these nations.
For more insights into the history and politics of Australia and New Zealand, visit our website for in-depth articles on this topic. #Independence #Monarchy #AustralianHistory #NewZealandHistory #ConstitutionalMonarchy.
It’s mostly symbolic. We have a governor general that represents the crown, but their role is mostly ceremonial and only exists as a tradition. Our respective parliaments hold power, not the crown.
Think of the governor general as a school council president. Having one is just a tradition, but they don’t actually have power, the school does.
Because they’re part of “The Commonwealth”
Basically when the British empire was falling apart, instead of fulling breaking away, they went “Hey United Kingdom, we are gonna go ahead and make our own parliament and stop being colonies, but we’re gonna keep the King/Queen like you have, so we’re still gonna be buddies.”
And the UK, having no real way to stop the countries from leaving, said “Hey that sounds like a GREAT idea, so much so that we’re gonna set up this whole process for you guys to do it and help you get set up with your new parliament.” Because at least with the commonwealth there remained some kind of imperial connection, albeit very thin these days.
TL:DR when the British empire was falling apart it told it’s (now former) colonies “we will let you leave and even help you get set up if you promise to keep the king/queen.”
So now a bunch of countries share the same monarch.
No one is “under” King Charles, not even the UK.
The British Monarchy is largely ceremonial and wield no real political power. They are recognized as a symbolic head of state due to history and tradition.
They were given autonomy and independence through a variety of agreements. The Commonwealth of Nations are former British territories that are now free and equal.
The Monarchy is largely symbolic and could be removed if the country’s wanted to. It is kept for historical and cultural reasons.
Becaue Charles is seperately the King of Australia and seperately the King of New Zealand (as well as Great Britain and various other territories), they’re not under the rule of the King of England, he just happens to *also* be the King of England.
More to the point as they are all constitutional monarchies the King is a figurehead and even his ceremonial duties are delegated to the Governor General who is effectively chosen by the Australian/NZ governments to carry out the ceremonial stuff the King would normally do. While theoretically the king/governor general has to sign every law into power and can dissolve parliament it’s a very british fudge that everyone knows he can but if he ever did parliament reserves the right to get rid of him (again).
Oddly enough Australia is the only place in recent history where the governor general screwed the whole thing up by actually using the power of the King to dissolve parliament unilaterally and caused a constitutional crisis by doing [so](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)
Technically it’s a “[personal union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_union)”. The same person is the head of state of more than one state, in this case fifteen states. In the same way, from 1603 England and Scotland were separate kingdoms ruled by the same monarch until they united to become the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Ireland still remained a separate kingdom in personal union until it united to become part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
The fifteen Commonweath realms are careful to keep their rules of succession identical to avoid ever having different monarchs. This was carefully orchestrated recently when the rules to give females an equal right of succession came into effect in 2015. Queen Victoria’s predecessor was also the King of Hanover (a German state) but Hanover did not permit females to rule, so that personal union came to an end when she ascended the British throne in 1837.
its like, you can be the CEO of the car wash and the CEO of the laundromat company
they are not the same company, you are one person
same guy runs both companies, but both companies got different staff and priorities so they are run as two different companies despite the same owner.
there might be some overlap like they use the same bank or stuff
Countries like Australia, NZ, UK, Canada, Norway, Spain and many others are what we call constitutional monarchies.
There is no technical definition of the term, but essentially the nation’s constitution recognises a head of state.
Australia has a King named King Charles of Australia who is very seperate from King Charles of New Zealand or King Charles of the UK.
Important to understand the difference between ‘head of government’ and ‘head of state.’ Too long to go in to here but check it out. Almost all Western democracies have both.
Hint: the US does not make this distinction. The president is both.
The social answer is that Australia and NZ consists of a majoirty of people being of European descent, more specifically, from the UK. Aussies and NZ’ers are just the long lost cousins of the Brits. Lots of ties to the mother country = favourable view of UK. Aussie population is also an aged one, meaning there are more older people than younger. The older folks are usually the ones with the strong British ties.
This isn’t the case more recently, I believe. Australia is becoming more of a multicultural nation. If you were to go to Sydney CBD and ask 10 random people what their thoughts on independence are, my money is on the majority in support of it.
As an Aussie, I personally believe in independence. I reckon Brits are getting more value out of this whole commonwealth situation than the Aussies are. So many Brits pack up and leave for Aus because it’s better living conditions here, and its easy AF for them to do so. Meanwhile, it’s rarer for Aussies to pack up and go to the UK.
The King has the job of King of England, and also has the parallel job of King of Canada, so that Canada is in no way subordinate to England. 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.
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.
“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.
Is there someone who can explain it like the lord of the rings?