It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role.

The HOGS did so unanimously.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 5:48pm:

It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously.

What is it telling you?  That it is the British Comonwealth and its head is the...er... British Sovereign?

Not some Mugabe or Kenyatta or Jacinta Adherrn, elected today, chucked out tomorrow ?

Frank wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 8:17pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. What is it telling you?  That it is the British Comonwealth and its head is the...er... British Sovereign? Not some Mugabe or Kenyatta or Jacinta Adherrn, elected today, chucked out tomorrow ?

Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary role. If it were, Elizabeth II would not have had to express her wish that Charles assume the role when king.

Frank wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 8:17pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. What is it telling you?

It told me that Elizabeth II took the advice of her British prime minister - the political leader of the British establishment - to make a public and personal appeal that the leadership of the Commonwealth pass to her son, hereditary-style.

That flew in the face of the Commonwealth's claim of absolute equality among its members, something quite a few HOGs were saying publicly before her public appeal.

It was also completely out of character for Elizabeth II to relegate the democratic principles of the Commonwealth and make an appeal to aristocratic birthright over a democratic election.

The British establishment had no intention of ceding its control of the Commonwealth, even at the risk of embarrassing the monarch.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 8:24pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 8:17pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. What is it telling you?  That it is the British Comonwealth and its head is the...er... British Sovereign? Not some Mugabe or Kenyatta or Jacinta Adherrn, elected today, chucked out tomorrow ? Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary role. If it were, Elizabeth II would not have had to express her wish that Charles assume the role when king.

Britain is a hereditary monarchy.

The British Comonwealth, by definition, is anchored in Britain.

If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto.

Frank wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 9:38pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 8:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 8:17pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. What is it telling you?  That it is the British Comonwealth and its head is the...er... British Sovereign? Not some Mugabe or Kenyatta or Jacinta Adherrn, elected today, chucked out tomorrow ? Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary role. If it were, Elizabeth II would not have had to express her wish that Charles assume the role when king. Britain is a hereditary monarchy. The British Comonwealth, by definition, is anchored in Britain.

You don't know enough about the Commonwealth to know that it is dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to the equality of all member nations within it.

The decision to accept the then-Prince Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth was extremely controversial.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 9:48pm:

If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto.

Many HOGs were publicly insisting that an election be held for the role of Head of the Commonwealth, similar to the presidency of the EU.

As the role is non-hereditary, that was once what was assumed would be the case in the event of the monarch's death.

When the HOGs met in London after Elizabeth II's public request, they all met without staff, cameras or recording devices to thrash it out.

While it was announced that they'd decided Prince Charles would be the next head, there was the embarrassment of a very nervous Theresa May insisting it was unanimous, with others claiming it was a consensus.

Footage at the time of the request showed a stone-faced Queen and a nervous Prince of Wales.

Elizabeth II had publicly done what she had never done before - asked for hereditary primacy over democracy within the Commonwealth.

https://youtube.com/shorts/zdOXDDEVgAQ?si=3sYuJD6Ujv3Aid9E

Frank wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 10:27pm:

https://youtube.com/shorts/zdOXDDEVgAQ?si=3sYuJD6Ujv3Aid9E

Which one were you dressed as, Agatha Frank (they/them)?

There's nothing wrong with belonging to a Common Wealth of shared interests and shared consideration for one another, and in being part of a body that looks after each member.

Under SEATO Australia fought in Malaya, Borneo/Malaysia during Confrontation - Malays being part of the Commonwealth - and then Vietnam as a strategic posting of a position on the South East Asian mainland.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 10:08pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Many HOGs were publicly insisting that an election be held for the role of Head of the Commonwealth, similar to the presidency of the EU. As the role is non-hereditary, that was once what was assumed would be the case in the event of the monarch's death. When the HOGs met in London after Elizabeth II's public request, they all met without staff, cameras or recording devices to thrash it out. While it was announced that they'd decided Prince Charles would be the next head, there was the embarrassment of a very nervous Theresa May insisting it was unanimous, with others claiming it was a consensus. Footage at the time of the request showed a stone-faced Queen and a nervous Prince of Wales. Elizabeth II had publicly done what she had never done before - asked for hereditary primacy over democracy within the Commonwealth.

So what does the head of the commonwealth do?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 8:42am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 10:08pm: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Many HOGs were publicly insisting that an election be held for the role of Head of the Commonwealth, similar to the presidency of the EU. As the role is non-hereditary, that was once what was assumed would be the case in the event of the monarch's death. When the HOGs met in London after Elizabeth II's public request, they all met without staff, cameras or recording devices to thrash it out. While it was announced that they'd decided Prince Charles would be the next head, there was the embarrassment of a very nervous Theresa May insisting it was unanimous, with others claiming it was a consensus. Footage at the time of the request showed a stone-faced Queen and a nervous Prince of Wales. Elizabeth II had publicly done what she had never done before - asked for hereditary primacy over democracy within the Commonwealth. So what does the head of the commonwealth do?

For the British establishment, it maintains control over one of its pillars of soft power that sustains its sense of world supremacy.

It's important enough in the establishment's estimation for the British parliament to include 'Head of the Commonwealth' in the title it offers and bestows on the monarch upon his taking of the oath. It's as close as it can get to bestowing the title of Emperor, (Emperor-adjacent, if you like), which it retired in 1947.

Much like the British monarch, the Head of the Commonwealth 'reigns' over the Commonwealth.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 10:37pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 10:27pm: https://youtube.com/shorts/zdOXDDEVgAQ?si=3sYuJD6Ujv3Aid9E Which one were you dressed as, Agatha Frank (they/them)?

That's not very tolerant, is it?

https://youtu.be/YrbGCGBsGYs?si=1LCG1qpHcigvyFk9

Bonus
https://youtube.com/shorts/Eo7KPd9-jww?si=cIbnmONdXkRF3iBs

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:52am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 10:37pm: Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 10:27pm: https://youtube.com/shorts/zdOXDDEVgAQ?si=3sYuJD6Ujv3Aid9E Which one were you dressed as, Agatha Frank (they/them)? That's not very tolerant, is it? https://youtu.be/YrbGCGBsGYs?si=1LCG1qpHcigvyFk9 Bonus https://youtube.com/shorts/Eo7KPd9-jww?si=cIbnmONdXkRF3iBs

So a bit of fiddling with the budget at Prince William's swooshing, then eh, Agatha Frank (they/them).

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 9:52pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:38pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 8:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 8:17pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. What is it telling you?  That it is the British Comonwealth and its head is the...er... British Sovereign? Not some Mugabe or Kenyatta or Jacinta Adherrn, elected today, chucked out tomorrow ? Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary role. If it were, Elizabeth II would not have had to express her wish that Charles assume the role when king. Britain is a hereditary monarchy. The British Comonwealth, by definition, is anchored in Britain. You don't know enough about the Commonwealth to know that it is dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to the equality of all member nations within it. The decision to accept the then-Prince Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth was extremely controversial.

Why?

Who do you think should have been made head?

Gnads wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 10:36am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:52pm: Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:38pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 8:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 8:17pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. What is it telling you?  That it is the British Comonwealth and its head is the...er... British Sovereign? Not some Mugabe or Kenyatta or Jacinta Adherrn, elected today, chucked out tomorrow ? Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary role. If it were, Elizabeth II would not have had to express her wish that Charles assume the role when king. Britain is a hereditary monarchy. The British Comonwealth, by definition, is anchored in Britain. You don't know enough about the Commonwealth to know that it is dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to the equality of all member nations within it. The decision to accept the then-Prince Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth was extremely controversial. Why? Who do you think should have been made head?

Beyond the Anglosphere, there was significant debate about there being an election held among and chosen from the 56 nations' HOGs, in keeping with the Commonwealth's democratic principles.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:09am:

freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 8:42am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 10:08pm: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Many HOGs were publicly insisting that an election be held for the role of Head of the Commonwealth, similar to the presidency of the EU. As the role is non-hereditary, that was once what was assumed would be the case in the event of the monarch's death. When the HOGs met in London after Elizabeth II's public request, they all met without staff, cameras or recording devices to thrash it out. While it was announced that they'd decided Prince Charles would be the next head, there was the embarrassment of a very nervous Theresa May insisting it was unanimous, with others claiming it was a consensus. Footage at the time of the request showed a stone-faced Queen and a nervous Prince of Wales. Elizabeth II had publicly done what she had never done before - asked for hereditary primacy over democracy within the Commonwealth. So what does the head of the commonwealth do? For the British establishment, it maintains control over one of its pillars of soft power that sustains its sense of world supremacy.

That doesn't sound like you answered the question. I had never even heard of this position until you decided to tell me it was important and controversial.

Do you not know what the head does?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 11:00am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:09am: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 8:42am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 10:08pm: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Many HOGs were publicly insisting that an election be held for the role of Head of the Commonwealth, similar to the presidency of the EU. As the role is non-hereditary, that was once what was assumed would be the case in the event of the monarch's death. When the HOGs met in London after Elizabeth II's public request, they all met without staff, cameras or recording devices to thrash it out. While it was announced that they'd decided Prince Charles would be the next head, there was the embarrassment of a very nervous Theresa May insisting it was unanimous, with others claiming it was a consensus. Footage at the time of the request showed a stone-faced Queen and a nervous Prince of Wales. Elizabeth II had publicly done what she had never done before - asked for hereditary primacy over democracy within the Commonwealth. So what does the head of the commonwealth do? For the British establishment, it maintains control over one of its pillars of soft power that sustains its sense of world supremacy. That doesn't sound like you answered the question. I had never even heard of this position until you decided to tell me it was important and controversial. Do you not know what the head does?

So as the owner of a politics forum, you've never heard of the nation's head of state's role as Head of the Commonwealth!

I'm guessing you've heard of the Commonwealth...

The Head of the Commonwealth was created to supersede the role and title of 'Emperor of India' bestowed on all British monarchs from Victoria to George VI until India's independence and its decision to become a republic, but not to leave the Commonwealth.

The role was made non-hereditary to distance the Commonwealth from the British Empire and to enhance its democratic credentials and its position that all nations within it are equal.

The role has not been assigned any specific duties other than what the Commonwealth nations decide it will have. Given the role is less than 100 years old, pre-existing aristocratic traditions have not bound it to any imperial functions or powers.

I've heard of CHOGM. I just never knew it had a head, or needed one. Or what the head does.


Quote:

The Head of the Commonwealth was created to supersede the role and title of 'Emperor of India'

Is that what the head does?


Quote:

The role has not been assigned any specific duties

So why is it important? Does it have any authority or responsibility?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 12:29pm:

I've heard of CHOGM. I just never knew it had a head, or needed one. Or what the head does.

Yep, that'd be my point... Blinding ignorance for the owner of an Australian politics forum.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 12:29pm:

So why is it important? Does it have any authority or responsibility?

Evidently, it's important to the British establishment, enough to have the monarch's titles include it, replacing 'Emperor of India', and second only to the title of king... And to have the last monarch ask that her son be appointed to the role for life as its head.

The role has no official role or powers.

Quote:

Evidently, it's important to the British establishment

So not to you or me? Why are you trying to make an issue of the fact that I was unaware of something that you are not prepared to say is important?

Who told you it was important? Was it in a pamphlet?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 1:15pm:

Quote: Evidently, it's important to the British establishment So not to you or me? Why are you trying to make an issue of the fact that I was unaware of something that you are not prepared to say is important? Who told you it was important? Was it in a pamphlet?

Referring back to another thread's theme... do you see a moment sometime soon where you'll realise you're making a fool of yourself?

For someone to run an Australian politics forum and not be aware of the role of Head of the Commonwealth, clearly not even bothered to do a quick Google on it... then to not be able to follow the thread in the first place... y'know...

The point was about the monarch's and the British establishment's attitude towards the role, not mine.

Finally, change the thread title... CHOGM refers to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, not Head of the Commonwealth... Could you manage that, you think?

Quote:

For someone to run an Australian politics forum and not be aware of the role of Head of the Commonwealth

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 12:39pm:

The role has no official role or powers.

So the role has no role, and you think it is important that I am aware of the details of that role with no role, because I run a website?

Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 9:48pm:

If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto.

Royalty has no real power - it's only ceremonial roles.

Look back to 1914 -
the German and British royalty are related -
in theory they controlled the armed forces of Germany and England
but they couldn't tell both sides to go home to stop WW1.
They were powerless and it cost millions of lives.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 3:11pm:

Quote: For someone to run an Australian politics forum and not be aware of the role of Head of the Commonwealth MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 12:39pm: The role has no official role or powers. So the role has no role, and you think it is important that I am aware of the details of that role with no role, because I run a website? Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares.

You embarrass yourself.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 3:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Royalty has no real power - it's only ceremonial roles. Look back to 1914 - the German and British royalty are related - in theory they controlled the armed forces of Germany and England but they couldn't tell both sides to go home to stop WW1. They were powerless and it cost millions of lives.

Kaiser Wilemn did have real power.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 3:11pm:

Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares.

Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 5:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:25pm: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Royalty has no real power - it's only ceremonial roles. Look back to 1914 - the German and British royalty are related - in theory they controlled the armed forces of Germany and England but they couldn't tell both sides to go home to stop WW1. They were powerless and it cost millions of lives. Kaiser Wilemn did have real power.

Then why didn't he stop the war?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 5:29pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:11pm: Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares. Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage.

Autistic rage, eh??   ;D :D :D  Thank you, Sigmund. You project, he has an autistic rage. ::)



Anyway.

The Head of the Commonwealth is the ceremonial leader who symbolises "the free association of independent member nations" of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation that currently comprises 56 sovereign states. There is no set term of office or term limit and the role itself has no constitutional relevance to any of the member states within the Commonwealth. The position has always been held by the monarch of the United Kingdom, and thus is currently held by King Charles III.[1] Head of the Commonwealth is also a title of the monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms according to the Royal Style and Titles Act.

By 1949, what was then called the British Commonwealth was a group of eight countries, each having King George VI as monarch. India, however, desired to become a republic, but not to leave the Commonwealth by doing so. This was accommodated by the creation of the title Head of the Commonwealth for the King and India became a republic in 1950. Subsequently, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, other nations, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ghana, and Singapore, also became republics, but, as members of the Commonwealth, recognised her as the organisation's head.[2] Per agreement reached at the CHOGM in 2018, Charles III succeeded Elizabeth II as head of the Commonwealth upon her death on 8 September 2022.[3]

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 5:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:25pm: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Royalty has no real power - it's only ceremonial roles. Look back to 1914 - the German and British royalty are related - in theory they controlled the armed forces of Germany and England but they couldn't tell both sides to go home to stop WW1. They were powerless and it cost millions of lives. Kaiser Wilemn did have real power. Then why didn't he stop the war?

Churchill comments on this.

He explains that Kaiser Wilhelm felt enormous pressure of German military expectations of him as the Kaiser from German aristocrats and was terrified of being perceived as weak. He also felt a sense of inferiority towards his British relatives, towards his cousin, George V, in particular, and towards British aristocracy in general.

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:13pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 5:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:11pm: Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares. Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage. Autistic rage, eh??   ;D :D :D  Thank you, Sigmund. You project, he has an autistic rage. ::) Anyway. The Head of the Commonwealth is the ceremonial leader who symbolises "the free association of independent member nations" of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation that currently comprises 56 sovereign states. There is no set term of office or term limit and the role itself has no constitutional relevance to any of the member states within the Commonwealth. The position has always been held by the monarch of the United Kingdom, and thus is currently held by King Charles III.[1] Head of the Commonwealth is also a title of the monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms according to the Royal Style and Titles Act. By 1949, what was then called the British Commonwealth was a group of eight countries, each having King George VI as monarch. India, however, desired to become a republic, but not to leave the Commonwealth by doing so. This was accommodated by the creation of the title Head of the Commonwealth for the King and India became a republic in 1950. Subsequently, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, other nations, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ghana, and Singapore, also became republics, but, as members of the Commonwealth, recognised her as the organisation's head.[2] Per agreement reached at the CHOGM in 2018, Charles III succeeded Elizabeth II as head of the Commonwealth upon her death on 8 September 2022.[3]

Agatha Frank (they/them)...

The role is already non-hereditary for a reason.

Keep Googling... not for gay porn, of course, focus specifically on non-Anglospheric attitudes towards the role...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:03pm: Then why didn't he stop the war? Churchill comments on this. He explains that Kaiser Wilhelm felt enormous pressure of German military expectations of him as the Kaiser from German aristocrats and was terrified of being perceived as weak. He also felt a sense of inferiority towards his British relatives, towards his cousin, George V, in particular, and towards British aristocracy in general.

He should have put the lives of millions of people ahead of his feelings.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:26pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:13pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 5:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:11pm: Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares. Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage. Autistic rage, eh??   ;D :D :D  Thank you, Sigmund. You project, he has an autistic rage. ::) Anyway. The Head of the Commonwealth is the ceremonial leader who symbolises "the free association of independent member nations" of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation that currently comprises 56 sovereign states. There is no set term of office or term limit and the role itself has no constitutional relevance to any of the member states within the Commonwealth. The position has always been held by the monarch of the United Kingdom, and thus is currently held by King Charles III.[1] Head of the Commonwealth is also a title of the monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms according to the Royal Style and Titles Act. By 1949, what was then called the British Commonwealth was a group of eight countries, each having King George VI as monarch. India, however, desired to become a republic, but not to leave the Commonwealth by doing so. This was accommodated by the creation of the title Head of the Commonwealth for the King and India became a republic in 1950. Subsequently, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, other nations, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ghana, and Singapore, also became republics, but, as members of the Commonwealth, recognised her as the organisation's head.[2] Per agreement reached at the CHOGM in 2018, Charles III succeeded Elizabeth II as head of the Commonwealth upon her death on 8 September 2022.[3] Agatha Frank (they/them)... The role is already non-hereditary for a reason. Keep Googling... not for gay porn, of course, focus specifically on non-Anglospheric attitudes towards the role...

They can always leave the ... er...British Commonwealth, those off-white 'non-Anlospheric' countries.  It's not compulsory, you know.



The point - the ONLY point - of the British Commonwealth is that it is about the Britannic inheritance of its members, whether constitutional monarchies or republics. The 'British' bit is the ONLY glue. and the head of state of Britain and therefore of the British Commonwealth, is the Britich monarch.


And there is no need for your 'autistic rage', pal, every time someone exprsses a disagreement or offers a mild correcticve to your lurches into monomania.

Stay sane, stay cool. You are a mystic, after all, not some hysteric, aren't you?

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:29pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:17pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:03pm: Then why didn't he stop the war? Churchill comments on this. He explains that Kaiser Wilhelm felt enormous pressure of German military expectations of him as the Kaiser from German aristocrats and was terrified of being perceived as weak. He also felt a sense of inferiority towards his British relatives, towards his cousin, George V, in particular, and towards British aristocracy in general. He should have put the lives of millions of people ahead of his feelings.

Having been born with a withered left arm, Kaiser Wilhelm was plagued his whole life with being perceived as a weak cripple - a huge problem in public life before the late 20th century.

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:35pm:

The point - the ONLY point - of the British Commonwealth is that it is about the Britannic inheritance of its members, whether constitutional monarchies or republics. The 'British' bit is the ONLY glue. and the head of state of Britain and therefore of the British Commonwealth, is the Britich monarch.

And Gabon, Togo, Mozambique and Rwanda... Agatha Frank (they/them)?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:03pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 5:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:25pm: freediver wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 9:48pm: If the assembled leaders got involved in selecting the next head of the commonwealth, it would probably just lose them votes at home, and international goodwill. It is not a position of actual authority anyway. Just the last vestige of the old system that were convenient to hang onto. Royalty has no real power - it's only ceremonial roles. Look back to 1914 - the German and British royalty are related - in theory they controlled the armed forces of Germany and England but they couldn't tell both sides to go home to stop WW1. They were powerless and it cost millions of lives. Kaiser Wilemn did have real power. Then why didn't he stop the war? Churchill comments on this. He explains that Kaiser Wilhelm felt enormous pressure of German military expectations of him as the Kaiser from German aristocrats and was terrified of being perceived as weak. He also felt a sense of inferiority towards his British relatives, towards his cousin, George V, in particular, and towards British aristocracy in general.

German-British relations in a nutshell.


The Germans overcame their 18th century inferiority to the French in 1870 and then again in 1914 and beyond.
Not so with the British.

But the Germans, after the Scandis and the Dutch,  are most like the British than anyone else in the non Anglophone world.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:45pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:35pm: The point - the ONLY point - of the British Commonwealth is that it is about the Britannic inheritance of its members, whether constitutional monarchies or republics. The 'British' bit is the ONLY glue. and the head of state of Britain and therefore of the British Commonwealth, is the Britich monarch. And Gabon, Togo, Mozambique and Rwanda... Agatha Frank (they/them)?

Quote:

membership of the modern Commonwealth does not depend on formerly being part of the British Empire.

https://thecommonwealth.org/about/joining

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:38pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:29pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:17pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:03pm: Then why didn't he stop the war? Churchill comments on this. He explains that Kaiser Wilhelm felt enormous pressure of German military expectations of him as the Kaiser from German aristocrats and was terrified of being perceived as weak. He also felt a sense of inferiority towards his British relatives, towards his cousin, George V, in particular, and towards British aristocracy in general. He should have put the lives of millions of people ahead of his feelings. Having been born with a withered left arm, Kaiser Wilhelm was plagued his whole life with being perceived as a weak cripple - a huge problem in public life before the late 20th century.

He was an arse hole then.

There was no reason for the Germans to attack France in 1914.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:57pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:45pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:35pm: The point - the ONLY point - of the British Commonwealth is that it is about the Britannic inheritance of its members, whether constitutional monarchies or republics. The 'British' bit is the ONLY glue. and the head of state of Britain and therefore of the British Commonwealth, is the Britich monarch. And Gabon, Togo, Mozambique and Rwanda... Agatha Frank (they/them)? Quote: membership of the modern Commonwealth does not depend on formerly being part of the British Empire. https://thecommonwealth.org/about/joining

Pull your head out, pal. Curb your autistic rage, what?  :D :D :D


You: The British Commonwealth has nuffin to do wiv nuffin', especially not wiv Britain."

"an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances".


"an applicant country should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions, such as the use of the English language as the medium of inter-Commonwealth relations, and acknowledge His Majesty King Charles III as the Head of the Commonwealth"

From your link, bozo.

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 7:57pm:

Pull your head out, pal. Curb your autistic rage, what?  :D :D :D You: The British Commonwealth has nuffin to do wiv nuffin', especially not wiv Britain." "an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances". "an applicant country should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions, such as the use of the English language as the medium of inter-Commonwealth relations, and acknowledge His Majesty King Charles III as the Head of the Commonwealth" From your link, bozo.

Maybe you should trawl for gay porn, Agatha Frank (they/them), I'm guessing Agatha needs some back pussy action.

Members of the Commonwealth are required to acknowledge the current Head of the Commonwealth, not because he is the British monarch, but because he has been acknowledged by a consensus of members as the head of the Commonwealth.

The Head of the Commonwealth is a non-hereditary role.

During the controversial 2018 CHOGM in London, a very nervous Theresa May insisted that the decision to acknowledge the then-Prince Charles as Elizabeth II's successor to the role of Head of the Commonwealth was unanimous. However, May was contradicted by other HOGs who advised that it was a consensus.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 7:37pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:38pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:29pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:17pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 6:03pm: Then why didn't he stop the war? Churchill comments on this. He explains that Kaiser Wilhelm felt enormous pressure of German military expectations of him as the Kaiser from German aristocrats and was terrified of being perceived as weak. He also felt a sense of inferiority towards his British relatives, towards his cousin, George V, in particular, and towards British aristocracy in general. He should have put the lives of millions of people ahead of his feelings. Having been born with a withered left arm, Kaiser Wilhelm was plagued his whole life with being perceived as a weak cripple - a huge problem in public life before the late 20th century. He was an arse hole then.

Most of his relatives and other European aristocrats would have agreed with you.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 8:15pm:

During the controversial 2018 CHOGM in London, a very nervous Theresa May insisted that the decision to acknowledge the then-Prince Charles as Elizabeth II's successor to the role of Head of the Commonwealth was unanimous. However, May was contradicted by other HOGs who advised that it was a consensus.

It can be intuited that the consensus was reached due to the deep personal respect, regard and affection in which Elizabeth II  was held, such that a majority of HOGs decided to accede to her personal and public request.

The test will be at a future CHOGM, where the same question will be asked regarding the current Prince of Wales - Prince William.

It will also depend on Prince William's desire to assume the title - he may prefer to defer to an open and public process of selection with alternative HOG member candidates, or their respective HOS, proposed... This would be in keeping with the Commonwealth's democratic principles of equality.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 5:29pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:11pm: Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares. Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage.

Who told you that this is important Meister?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 8:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 5:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:11pm: Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares. Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage. Who told you that this is important Meister?

Quote the context so I know you've read it and you're not just onto your next rant.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 8:53pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 8:50pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 5:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:11pm: Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares. Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage. Who told you that this is important Meister? Quote the context so I know you've read it and you're not just onto your next rant.

The bit about who is the head of the CHOGM. The role with no role. You seemed to think it was important and controversial and there was some issue with me not knowing about it. Who told you to think that?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 8:55pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 8:53pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 8:50pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 5:29pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 3:11pm: Again, who told you that this is important? As far as I can tell, you are the only one here who cares. Refer back to the original comment regarding the Head of the Commonwealth, and requote it in its context... without your autistic rage. Who told you that this is important Meister? Quote the context so I know you've read it and you're not just onto your next rant. The bit about who is the head of the CHOGM. The role with no role. You seemed to think it was important and controversial and there was some issue with me not knowing about it. Who told you to think that?

See, there you go again... quote the original context... look back on where you jumped in... Your ignorance of the Head of the Commonwealth is another matter.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 5:48pm:

It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously.

This is the first time you mentioned it.

Who told you that this is important Meister?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:09pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. This is the first time you mentioned it. Who told you that this is important Meister?

What was the context to which it was referring?

Refer further back to the British establishment's maintaining British supremacy, post-empire, in world affairs.

Is it important because the mood of something that has no mood was interrupted by the appointment of someone to a role that has no role?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 8:15pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 7:57pm: Pull your head out, pal. Curb your autistic rage, what?  :D :D :D You: The British Commonwealth has nuffin to do wiv nuffin', especially not wiv Britain." "an applicant country should, as a general rule, have had a historic constitutional association with an existing Commonwealth member, save in exceptional circumstances". "an applicant country should accept Commonwealth norms and conventions, such as the use of the English language as the medium of inter-Commonwealth relations, and acknowledge His Majesty King Charles III as the Head of the Commonwealth" From your link, bozo. Maybe you should trawl for gay porn, Agatha Frank (they/them), I'm guessing Agatha needs some back pussy action. Members of the Commonwealth are required to acknowledge the current Head of the Commonwealth, not because he is the British monarch, but because he has been acknowledged by a consensus of members as the head of the Commonwealth. The Head of the Commonwealth is a non-hereditary role. During the controversial 2018 CHOGM in London, a very nervous Theresa May insisted that the decision to acknowledge the then-Prince Charles as Elizabeth II's successor to the role of Head of the Commonwealth was unanimous. However, May was contradicted by other HOGs who advised that it was a consensus.

Autistic rage.
bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian.


The head of Commonwealth title was created FOR a hereditary monarch to accommodate the off-white Indian chappies like you, bozo.
Give you buggers a finger and you will demand an arm and more.


You buggers can leave the British Commonwealth. You don't need to turn into your kind of shitehole in order to feel good about yourselves.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:20pm:

Is it important because the mood of something that has no mood was interrupted by the appointment of someone to a role that has no role?

You're off on a rant, again.

Did you read the context regarding the British establishment?

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:20pm:

Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian.

Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them).

You're calmer after that.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:24pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian. Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them). You're calmer after that.

You are called out, Rajiv.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:22pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Is it important because the mood of something that has no mood was interrupted by the appointment of someone to a role that has no role? You're off on a rant, again. Did you read the context regarding the British establishment?

Did the Queen tell you it is important?

Why are you so eager to diagnose these quirky "moods" lately? Autistic rage. A "mood to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms". Is someone telling you to say these things?

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:29pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:22pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Is it important because the mood of something that has no mood was interrupted by the appointment of someone to a role that has no role? You're off on a rant, again. Did you read the context regarding the British establishment? Did the Queen tell you it is important? Why are you so eager to diagnose these quirky "moods" lately? Autistic rage. A "mood to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms". Is someone telling you to say these things?

Times of India.

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:27pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian. Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them). You're calmer after that. You are called out, Rajiv.

Go on, get into it, Agatha Frank (they/them)... stick and chicken, up the clack...

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:29pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:22pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Is it important because the mood of something that has no mood was interrupted by the appointment of someone to a role that has no role? You're off on a rant, again. Did you read the context regarding the British establishment? Did the Queen tell you it is important? Why are you so eager to diagnose these quirky "moods" lately? Autistic rage. A "mood to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms". Is someone telling you to say these things?

So anyway, you didn't know there was a Head of the Commonwealth...

Do you communicate with other owners of politics forums?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:32pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian. Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them). You're calmer after that. You are called out, Rajiv. Go on, get into it, Agatha Frank (they/them)... stick and chicken, up the clack...

Not familiar with that Gujarati fetish, Rajiv.

Ten rupees in it for you if you can explain.

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:35pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:32pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian. Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them). You're calmer after that. You are called out, Rajiv. Go on, get into it, Agatha Frank (they/them)... stick and chicken, up the clack... Not familiar with that Gujarati fetish, Rajiv. Ten rupees in it for you if you can explain.

Agatha's got a thing for subcontinental men, then eh, Agatha Frank (they/them)...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:40pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:35pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:32pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian. Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them). You're calmer after that. You are called out, Rajiv. Go on, get into it, Agatha Frank (they/them)... stick and chicken, up the clack... Not familiar with that Gujarati fetish, Rajiv. Ten rupees in it for you if you can explain. Agatha's got a thing for subcontinental men, then eh, Agatha Frank (they/them)...

You've gone done in a flaiming heap, Meister Rajiv. Again. Stop flailing in an "autistic rage", bozo. 

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 10:02pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:40pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:35pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:32pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian. Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them). You're calmer after that. You are called out, Rajiv. Go on, get into it, Agatha Frank (they/them)... stick and chicken, up the clack... Not familiar with that Gujarati fetish, Rajiv. Ten rupees in it for you if you can explain. Agatha's got a thing for subcontinental men, then eh, Agatha Frank (they/them)... You've gone done in a flaiming heap, Meister Rajiv. Again. Stop flailing in an "autistic rage", bozo.

Aww, Agatha Frank (they/them)... we all know you've seen more cocks than a pox doctor

What was that about the Commonwealth being reserved only for ex-colonies and former imperial possessions?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 10:14pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 10:02pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:40pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:35pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:32pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:24pm: Frank wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Autistic rage. bugger*g pathetic. From an Indian. Broomstick and chicken skin, Agatha Frank (they/them). You're calmer after that. You are called out, Rajiv. Go on, get into it, Agatha Frank (they/them)... stick and chicken, up the clack... Not familiar with that Gujarati fetish, Rajiv. Ten rupees in it for you if you can explain. Agatha's got a thing for subcontinental men, then eh, Agatha Frank (they/them)... You've gone done in a flaiming heap, Meister Rajiv. Again. Stop flailing in an "autistic rage", bozo.  Aww, Agatha Frank (they/them)... we all know you've seen more cocks than a pox doctor What was that about the Commonwealth being reserved only for ex-colonies and former imperial possessions?

Nobody said that, Rajiv. Only you.

British Commonwealth, Rajiv.
Two words. 

British (qualifying adjective) Commonwealth (noun, the thing).

Bugger off and sulk in your "autistic rage", you preposterous little maniac.

Frank wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 10:24pm:

Nobody said that, Rajiv. Only you. British Commonwealth, Rajiv. Two words.  British (qualifying adjective) Commonwealth (noun, the thing). Bugger off and sulk in your "autistic rage", you preposterous little maniac.

Bet your former workmates talk about it... share a few stories...after you were... 'restructured out', eh, Agatha Frank (they/them).

Commonwealth, turns out, open to all nations subscribing to its principles...

Ah well, you can still dress up as a Queen, I guess... dance to Lola...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 9:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:29pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:22pm: freediver wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:20pm: Is it important because the mood of something that has no mood was interrupted by the appointment of someone to a role that has no role? You're off on a rant, again. Did you read the context regarding the British establishment? Did the Queen tell you it is important? Why are you so eager to diagnose these quirky "moods" lately? Autistic rage. A "mood to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms". Is someone telling you to say these things? So anyway, you didn't know there was a Head of the Commonwealth... Do you communicate with other owners of politics forums?

Not that I know of. Why would I do that?

Who told you the role with no role was important?

Did you make the stuff about moods up, or is someone also telling you to say that?

Frank wrote on Jul 21^st, 2025 at 8:17pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 21st, 2025 at 5:48pm: It was telling that, despite the mood within the Commonwealth governments to elect the Head of the Commonwealth for set terms, Elizabeth II, at her last COGM meeting in London, asked the gathered HOGs straight out to appoint Prince Charles, immediately when King, as her successor to the role. The HOGS did so unanimously. What is it telling you?  That it is the British Comonwealth and its head is the...er... British Sovereign? Not some Mugabe or Kenyatta or Jacinta Adherrn, elected today, chucked out tomorrow ?

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.  Not Heads of State.  The sovereign is the latter, not the former.

In some republics the HoG and HoS is the same (US, for example).

But not, obviously, in countries that retained the British system and have the sovereign as their head of state, like Canada, Australia, NZ. etc. These countries do not have ambasadors to each other, only high commissioners since an ambassador in a state representative.

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2025 at 9:12am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 22nd, 2025 at 9:34pm: So anyway, you didn't know there was a Head of the Commonwealth... Do you communicate with other owners of politics forums? Not that I know of. Why would I do that?

Exactly. Wise move.

Who told you the role with no role was important?

Did you make the stuff about moods up, or is someone also telling you to say that?