Australian Politics Forum - the CHOGM's head

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32164
Gender: male

Re: Tolerance - What Is It Good For?
Reply #15 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 10:36am

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

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

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

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

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 ?

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?

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16038
Gender: male

Re: Tolerance - What Is It Good For?
Reply #16 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 10:45am

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

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

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

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

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

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 ?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51355
At my desk.

Re: Tolerance - What Is It Good For?
Reply #17 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 11:00am

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

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16038
Gender: male

Re: Tolerance - What Is It Good For?
Reply #18 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 12:17pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51355
At my desk.

Re: the CHOGM's head
Reply #19 - 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.

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16038 Gender:	Re: the CHOGM's head Reply #20 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 12:34pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16038
Gender: male

Re: the Commonwealth's head
Reply #21 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 12:39pm

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 12:44pm by MeisterEckhart »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51355 At my desk.	Re: the CHOGM's head Reply #22 - 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?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16038
Gender: male

Re: the CHOGM's head
Reply #23 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 2:34pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51355
At my desk.

Re: the CHOGM's head
Reply #24 - 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 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 113117
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Tolerance - What Is It Good For?
Reply #25 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 3:25pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16038
Gender: male

Re: the CHOGM's head
Reply #26 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 5:18pm

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 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.

You embarrass yourself.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16038
Gender: male

Re: Tolerance - What Is It Good For?
Reply #27 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 5:25pm

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

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.

Kaiser Wilemn did have real power.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16038 Gender:	Re: the CHOGM's head Reply #28 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 5:29pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 113117
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Tolerance - What Is It Good For?
Reply #29 - Jul 22^nd, 2025 at 6:03pm

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

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

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.

Kaiser Wilemn did have real power.

Then why didn't he stop the war?

Back to top

IP Logged