Speaking of history lessons;
The note on the front page of the UK passport still refers to "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State...". The government is of course officially HM Government. And that is why Australia (and other Commonwealth countries) does not send an Embassy to the UK, but a High Commission. Embassies were sent from one monarch to another. The Queen could not send an embassy to herself, so High Commissions are exchanged between the governments of the Commonwealth Realms.
ScopeD wrote:Do Aussies swear allegiance to the queen or not? I thought that since they are already subjects of Her Majesty, perhaps they can be exempt from all that hullabaloo which they are already part of. Perhaps this must be queried with Her Majesty's government.
Till 2004, new citizens who already owed allegiance to the Queen in one of her other Realms (the eight Commonwealth Realms) did not need to swear allegiance again to the Queen as they already owed her allegiance as the citizen of another Commonwealth Realm.
The original
Section 42 of the British Nationality Act 1981 stated
(2)So much of subsection (1) as requires the taking of an oath of allegiance shall not apply to a person who—...
(b)is already a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen, a British Overseas citizen, a British subject, or a citizen of any country of which Her Majesty is Queen.
.
That section was completely rewritten by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which therefore required even citizens of the Queen's "Other Realms and Territories" to take the oath.
carrick wrote:I would love it if Commonwealth countries could travel freely between each of them and work unrestricted!
Of course, originally, pre-1948, all people who owed allegiance to the monarch were British subjects. Then in 1948, Commonwealth countries started creating their own citizenships, but retained the common "British subject" part. Some renamed it to "Commonwealth citizen". New Zealand was the last country to reluctantly abandon the mother country, not only being the last to ratify the Statute of Westminster (granting it legislative independence from Westminster) in 1947, but also the last one to retain "New Zealand citizen and British subject" till the late 1970s. New Zealand, like the UK, is one of only three countries in the world that does not have a written constitution (the other one being Israel).
Crucially, because of their common status as her Majesty's subjects, Commonwealth citizens did have the same kind of freedom of movement that the EU now enjoys till the 1970s. Commonwealth citizens could also register as British citizens, originally within one year of arrival, but fears in the 1960s of floods of immigrants from the "New" (i.e. non-white) Commonwealth led to Enoch Powell's famous "Rivers of Blood" speech and the significant tightening of immigration controls even against Commonwealth citizens and registration then started requiring 5 years of residence. It was still registration rather than naturalisation, as it was felt that Commonwealth citizens already owed allegiance to the Queen as "Head of the Commonwealth".
It was the British Nationality Act 1981 that brought the rules for Commonwealth citizens in line with other non-Commonwealth citizens and acquiring citizenship was only possible through naturalisation.
Casa wrote:they could also ask to remain seated during the National anthem to avoid even more 'hullabaloo'.
During my naturalisation ceremony, an Aussie and I were the only two people in the group to sing the National Anthem unaided by the notes.
ScopeD wrote:do they have a UKIP (perhaps it's called AuSIP) or a Scottish National Party (or perhaps Tasmanian National Party)???
There is a strong Republican movement in Australia. The current Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, strongly favours a Republic, while his immediate predecessor, Tony Abbott, was an ardent supporter of the monarchy. They are both from the same party though
The Australians did hold a
referendum in 1999 on getting rid of the Queen as Head of State. It failed by about 10% (45% yes to 55% No) on a 95% turnout. The last point is, in electoral terms, massively impressive.
PS: God, I am such a history and politics nerd.
PPS: That did make the current LitUK test ridiculously easy for me.
I am not a lawyer or immigration advisor. My statements/comments do not constitute legal advice. E&OE. Please do not PM me for advice.
