Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others, still part of the UK?

Are these countries still apart of the UK

  • Yes, these countries are still part of the UK

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • No, these countries are independent from the UK

    Votes: 58 85.3%
  • It’s complicated

    Votes: 9 13.2%

  • Total voters
    68
I always wondered this. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other that I can list are dominions and territories are associated with UK and recognized the British Monarch as their sovereign. However, most of them still have things, like Independence Days, and their own foreign affairs and diplomatic relations.

So the question is, are these countries technically still part of Great Britain, or are they independent, or is it more complicated?
 
Completely independent. Elizabeth Windsor is the head of state of all three, but not in her capacity as head of state of the UK. She holds a large number of entirely separate roles simultaneously.
 
Not only are they independent, but they were never part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Northern Ireland after 1922). They were colonies (later self governing Dominions) not part of the metropole.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Mmm it's also a little more complicated, because the British Empire started falling apart before most of it was added.

The United States was pretty straight-forward - they had a rebellion in 1776 that worked, and they got to run their own country and pay their own bills.

The problem is the second British colony - Ireland - which had got conquered in the seventeenth century and mostly didn't want to be ruled from London.

While Britain was busy putting together the Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Ireland was busy trying to get out ... 'Home Rule' was a recurring crisis.

A proposed solution was an Imperial Federation, by which there would be an Imperial parliament at Westminster that would bind the entire British Empire. Including the UK.

In OTL, the idea foundered because of differences in economic interests between the agricultural-exporting colonies and the desire of the UK for cheap corn, and because of a view in the colonies that this Imperial parliament would subvert the powers of their own governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Federation
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Completely independent. Elizabeth Windsor is the head of state of all three, but not in her capacity as head of state of the UK. She holds a large number of entirely separate roles simultaneously.

And the countries involved have agreed that the same person will be their Head of State in the future i.e. follow the same line of succession. But any of them could change their mind (or decide some other way of assigning HoS).
 
It would be amusing if somewhere down the line one of them decided that Charles is just too much of a dunce, to the point that Randy Andy would be the better king.
 

Ian_W

Banned
It would be amusing if somewhere down the line one of them decided that Charles is just too much of a dunce, to the point that Randy Andy would be the better king.

A more likely issue is if Charles converted to something other than CoE, which is Just Fine under various constitutions that have freedom of religion ... but not under current UK law.
 
Australia, Canada and New Zealand broke their last legal links to the UK in the 1980s. The Australia Act was the last for Australia. That didn't mean they were a part of the UK, just that the UK had some legal authority in some areas. For example the Privy council was the final court of appeals.
 
The other reason Imperial Federation fell over was the distances involved. But, yes, we were part of a colony, then a colony, then a dominion, then a dominion with the Statute of Westminster.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand broke their last legal links to the UK in the 1980s. The Australia Act was the last for Australia. That didn't mean they were a part of the UK, just that the UK had some legal authority in some areas. For example the Privy council was the final court of appeals.

New Zealand ended appeal to the Privy Council in 2004.
 
I hated the fact when I first joined the provincial civil service in 1978 I had to swear allegiance to the Queen. Thankfully she has had a long life, I'm retired do not have to swear allegiance to Chuckles, though I don't know if they do that anymore.
 
While the enactment of the 1931 statute of westminster in 1942, backdated to 3 sept 1939, is considered to be the point where Australia officially independent I think an earlier unofficial date is more important. In 1931 PM Scullin appointed Australian born Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor General, against the wishes of the King, the first time this had been done. Having the Australian PM prevail in a disagreement with the King is a big thing for a young and still legislatively subservient country.
 
I hated the fact when I first joined the provincial civil service in 1978 I had to swear allegiance to the Queen. Thankfully she has had a long life, I'm retired do not have to swear allegiance to Chuckles, though I don't know if they do that anymore.
I don't know. He reminds me of Edward. He will probably be solidly competent for the decade he survives after Elizabeth goes.
 
Mmm it's also a little more complicated, because the British Empire started falling apart before most of it was added.

It's really not complicated at all.
You're quite right to talk about the interesting (if completely quixotic) Imperial Federation schemes, and to point out that the Empire was not a story of continuous growth than decline.

But the OP's post is based on a misconception, and it's important to clear things up:

Australia and New Zealand are not part of the United Kingdom. There has never been a proposed scheme to make them part of the United Kingdom.* Australia and New Zealand have never, at any time, been part of the United Kingdom.


Malta came closer to being part of the UK than any of the Dominions ever did.


*Imperial Federation would have ended the existence of the UK, incidentally- the 1800 settlement would have been brought to an end.
 
Quite, but Malta actually had a pathway to representation in the House of Commons in the 1950s. My point was that that unlikely scenario of Malta being part of the UK was far closer to reality than Australia or New Zealand (or Canada, for that matter) joining ever was.
 
I always wondered this. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other that I can list are dominions and territories are associated with UK and recognized the British Monarch as their sovereign. However, most of them still have things, like Independence Days, and their own foreign affairs and diplomatic relations.

So the question is, are these countries technically still part of Great Britain, or are they independent, or is it more complicated?
Queen Elizabeth's title in Canada is Queen of Canada, a legal entity distinct from the Queen of England.
 
Completely independant nations with the same Monarch. The Commonwealth is a voluntary organisation that any of them could leave if they wished.
 
Top