Potential Changes to the British Monarchy. What is the Commonwealth?

well for Brits, Canadians, Aussies and kiwi's the news that the British may actually try to update laws around royal succession should come with no interest whatsoever. Personally I'd normally give this law about as much time as I do the upcoming royal wedding (which is to say, none). However, being that British history (well it's colonial history) was a huge part of my BA I felt like I wanted to jump in on this one, if for no other reason than to make fun of the whole thing. The fact is that CNN, as usual, gets the story about half right. The laws passed in 1701 demand that a man inherit the throne if a male heir is available and that Catholics are banned from the monarchy. This was done in response to the 17th century, in which England had the Stewarts, a civil war and a puritan republic (picture Saudi Arabia today) and then another two Stewarts the last of whom, James II married a catholic and brought England to the brink of another civil war. So he was dumped by parliament who brought William and Mary of Orange over to be the new king and queen (they were Dutch, but not Catholic) and upon their deaths laws were written up to make sure that the insanity of the 17th century would not be repeated in the 18th. It worked. Catholics were removed from British politics and to this day no catholic has ever been a monarch or an active PM.

However, the clause about women was added as much because of fears of a queen marrying a catholic and him thus having more power in the realm as it was out of fear of women in power. In those days the king was superior to the queen in all legal things. Charles II of Spain had tried this ploy with Queen Anne (successfully) and then Queen Elizabeth I (less successfully) as a way to add England's power to his own and keep England catholic. British parliament felt that this was unacceptable and with the newfound powers they had after James II was booted they passed laws over decades to secure Britain's sovereignty (much of the laws from these times were cited by American colonists as they rebelled almost a century later. They were claiming their rights as Englishmen, not throwing off a tyranny from afar). Not surprisingly it worked and a united Great Britain rose to become the most powerful state on earth for nearly 200 years. Even by the 19th century, when religious fanaticism had given way to enlightenment principles these laws stayed on the books and lasted through the 20th century and in to today, when the monarchy is little more than a figurehead and the Commonwealth little more than a sports venue.

So does it matter today?

Well in theory William and Kate could have a daughter who chose to marry a non-Commonwealth citizen who would then become king? Nope. As with Elizabeth II's husband he would become a "prince" and thus the Queen would remain the head of state. So the argument for preserving the dynasty are gone. What about those pesky catholics? Well in 2011 the UK does more business, trade and tourism with its catholic EU partners than it does with any of its old Commonwealth buddies. There are more practicing catholics in England (not Scotland or Wales though) than there are practicing protestants (practicing as a definition in this case is weekly church service). Yet no one seems to care. I'll admit that this new pope may very well be the Terminator and that if Polish communism kept him down then I'm not sure those Leninists had it all wrong. However, many Catholics are not as insane as he is, and certainly none that I know of wish to overthrow the British monarchy (even Robopope). So I think we seem cool with catholics in 2011? As a side issue to this, how many Commonwealth citizens are still even practicing protestants (using definition above, which is a solid one both for today and for 1701 when these laws were written)? I mean, there are close to 100 million people that call the Queen their head of state. Most of these live in the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Four very multi-cultural, largely religiously apathetic countries. Others such as Fiji or the Caribbean states are similarly developed. I hardly think it matters in 2011 (or 1811 for that matter).

As to women in power. Well actually the UK has been far more progressive in this manner than revolutionary US or France. Margaret Thatcher was among the top 5 most power people on earth in the 1980's. From Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II England/Britain has had a long history of successful female rulers (throw in Bodeicea and Victoria for good measure). Also, in many other cultures female rulers are villified after their deaths (look at the various dowagers and one female emperor of Chinese history and how they are remembered). I'd be hard pressed to name a female ruler in Spain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia or the USA that was remembered fondly if she even existed. The Commonwealth, in contrast, has been very progressive on this front. Of the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand only Australia has never had a female PM (though Canadians have never elected a female PM, so I'll say 2.5 of 4 have had one if that makes sense). Therefore, it seems very odd that this inheritance law is still on the books at all.

To get this law passed, all 15 Commonwealth states that recognise the monarchy must agree to it. So far only St. Lucia has, though I can't see anyone really vetoing this. However, I think it's the one thing besides sports that still brings the Commonwealth together. I mean, at the end of the day what is the Commonwealth? It's a collection of nations that were connected (often unwillingly) together and from 1949 to 1997 completely went their own ways. It's totally illogical that the institution still exists at all in many ways. As a point I'll use a few former Commonwealth nations as examples:

Canada - has far more in common with the USA than any commonwealth state (don't get petty nationalistic, it's true). From trade and tourism to accents and even social philosophies Canada and the USA share more with each other than with the UK. Heck Canada can't really even jump in to the sports area as we don't play rugby or cricket in any serious capacity so we are left with the Commonwealth games and that is it. Canada's biggest trading partners are in North America and Asia. If it weren't for the queen, NATO and tourism there would be very little that we'd still do together. I mean we're all still friendly (and rightly so) but that's where it would end.

Australia - well everything I just said about Canada is true with subbing New Zealand for the USA and omitting the sports thing. Australia still has the union jack up in the corner, but that's about where it ends. Australia plays cricket and rugby union with the UK but the UK's biggest sport, soccer, registers barely a blip on the Aussie radar. Add to that half of Australia being more excited for the AFL than any other sport and you have a situation where even the sports connection isn't what it once was. Australians seem to have finally picked up on the fact that they are closer to Indonesia than anyone else geographically and their largest trading partners are east Asian nations such as China, Korea, Thailand and Japan. Tourism between the UK and Australia is still VERY high but that's about it. Australia/New Zealand probably have the closest cultural links to the UK and even those are fading fast.

Malaysia/Singapore - no queen, no union jack and a cultural identity more geared towards China than Britain. Trade is at a minimal, especially compared to their trade with other Asian nations. English is the main spoken language in Singapore, but not in Malaysia and neither recognises it as an official language. In fact, if it weren't for colonialism it would be hard to see any reason for these two nations to be linked in any meaningful way, other than just to be friendly.

Ireland - oddly enough (Barry if you are reading this you may want to stop) the one nation that is completely removed from the commonwealth is the one that may have the most in common with the UK. Two of each others largest trading partners and Ireland's top choice for emigration (those practicing catholics mentioned above, most are republican Irish). They play all the same sports and Ireland actually watches many British made TV shows. In fact, if it weren't for Britains oppressive colonial policies in the past the relationship today could easily be akin to Australia/New Zealand or Canada/USA. Yet Ireland is totally removed from the Commonwealth (not even in the Commonwealth games). Go figure.


So, to sum up what might be the longest blog I've ever done. All this history, culture and geography means precisely nothing to 99% of Commonwealth citizens living today. Our lives will not change one bit. There might be a different face on some of our currencies but that will be about it. However, strictly from the point of view that women should have just as much right to occupy an outdated office of dubious legitimacy, I hope this law passes. Though I hope one day that Canada, Australia and a few others finally have a head of state that lives within their own borders. Well better yet would be one head of state for all of humanity but lets take baby steps :)


*EDIT - It was pointed out to me by my friend Barry that Australia has now elected a female PM (as of June 2010).