What nations have become independent from former British rule?

unclerick

The Republic of Ireland is one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1038669.stm Jul 12 09, 3:39 PM

Watchkeeper

"Also it lists both Australia and Canada; these two nations do not have complete independence or the Queen would not appear on their money." I'm afraid that's an incorrect statement, star_gazer. Both nations are completely independent of UK rule even though the Queen (or whichever monarch is ruling at the time) is Head of State. In law, she is a different personality for each state of which she is Head. "... some countries retained the same monarch as the United Kingdom, but their monarchies developed differently and soon became fully independent of the British monarchy. The monarch of each Commonwealth realm, whilst the same person, is regarded as a separate legal personality for each realm." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Members_with_heads_of_state_other_than_the_British_Sovereign Please note the phrase "Australia is an independent nation" in the following paragraph: "Although Australia is an independent nation, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is also formally Queen of Australia. The Queen appoints a Governor-General (on the advice of the elected Australian Government) to represent her. The Governor-General has wide powers, but by convention acts only on the advice of ministers on virtually all matters." http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html The same applies to many other Commonwealth countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-general#Independent_Commonwealth_realms Jul 12 09, 4:18 PM

star_gazer

So the British Queen appoints the Australian Governor-General who has wide powers. With all due respect, if Australia was a truely independent nation wouldn't the Australian public vote for their Governor-General or have their Prime Minister or some other part of their government appoint him? Jul 12 09, 4:50 PM

Watchkeeper

The Governor-General is Her Majesty's representative, so of course it is she who appoints him (on the advice of the Prime Minister). She is Head of the Australian State but not resident there. The G-G, her representative, is. No-one votes the Queen into office - nor her representative. http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/category.php?id=2 Jul 12 09, 5:12 PM

zbeckabee

A little tidbit in support of Watchkeeper: "The fact that The Queen is Queen of Australia does not mean that we take instructions from the British Government. We do not. It is our Government which makes requests of The Queen in so far as Australian affairs are concerned. Again, the proof that The Queen is subject to the will of the Australian people can be found in the fact that it was they, not the British, who had to decide on whether to retain The Queen or not." http://www.monarchist.org.au/answers.html?sku=16 Australia is an independent nation within the Commonwealth. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state and since 1973 has been officially styled "Queen of Australia." The Queen is represented federally by a governor-general and in each state by a governor. By convention, the Governor-General generally acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and other ministers. However the Governor-General has "reserve powers," including the power to dismiss ministers, last exercised in 1975. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm All of the countries in the list below (See link) have the British Empire as part of their past. Most of these joined the Commonwealth on their independence. Those which didn't are: Burma, Egypt, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Palestine, Sudan, South Yemen and all the Gulf protectorates: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Trucial Oman (UAE). http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/europe/empire.html Jul 12 09, 6:15 PM

Datsmeharse

Nice reference map. The underlined countries in red are still British Overseas Territories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_British_Empire.png Jul 12 09, 6:54 PM

Watchkeeper

"To have an English Monarch as "ruler" of Australia ..." is wrong. The Queen is an Australian monarch as far as Australia is concerned, not an "English" one. "A nation that does not have its own Head of State is not truly independent" is correct, and the Australian Head of State is the Queen of Australia, NOT the Queen of the UK (although, with a different crown on, she's that too). "With so many activities of the federal and state governments, and their bureaucracies, being carried out in the name of the Monarch of the United Kingdom ..." No, they're carried out in the name of the Monarch of Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Australia Jul 12 09, 9:16 PM

unclerick

O.K. Now back to the question. Although it was only for a brief period, we can add Hawaii to our list. In 1843 King Kamehameha 3rd relinquished the islands to British rule. After British rule the Kingdom of Hawaii went back to being an independent nation. It was only later that they became part of the USA but that's another story. http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&PageID=286&returntoname=year%201843&returntopageid=127 Jul 12 09, 9:20 PM