How will Elizabeth II's passing change the UK, the Commonwealth & the world?

[marshwiggle]

The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech.

There is no such thing as rigorous neutrality.

His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.

Case in point. Deporting residents is appalling. Who benefits by this appalling inhumane treatment of human beings?

And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.

So he can be a useless piece of furniture or he can try to make a difference in the life of British citizens and residents.

Which would he choose?

If he chooses the latter, he'll destroy the monarchy. Becoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.

[mahagonny]

Becoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.

What do we have in the USA that has an effect anything like it? I would say the legacy media. They use the reputation for impartiality that was earned decades ago to conceal their culture warring. King Charles is another opportunity for the political left. They want the monarchy, and they'll probably have it.

[ciao_yall]

The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech.

There is no such thing as rigorous neutrality.

His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.

Case in point. Deporting residents is appalling. Who benefits by this appalling inhumane treatment of human beings?

And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.

So he can be a useless piece of furniture or he can try to make a difference in the life of British citizens and residents.

Which would he choose?

If he chooses the latter, he'll destroy the monarchy. Becoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.

Fair enough. Still, not sure what the point is of wearing a crown and waving in parades.

[mahagonny]

The monarch is supposed to stay rigorously neutral in politics and matters of policy, in modern Britain. It has already been widely observed that Charles will now have to withdraw from the advocacy of the causes he favors, e.g. organic farming, town design, and so on. He said as much in his first speech.

There is no such thing as rigorous neutrality.

His recent remark that he found the idea of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda "appalling" was vociferously criticized as an unwarranted expression of opinion on political policy.

Case in point. Deporting residents is appalling. Who benefits by this appalling inhumane treatment of human beings?

And whichever side of politics he championed, if he did champion one, would have the other side vigorously calling for the abolition of the monarchy. So remaining studiously and conspicuously neutral is not only a matter of policy, but of self-preservation.

So he can be a useless piece of furniture or he can try to make a difference in the life of British citizens and residents.

Which would he choose?

If he chooses the latter, he'll destroy the monarchy. Becoming just another partisan political activist is the best way to get the monarchy abolished.

Fair enough. Still, not sure what the point is of wearing a crown and waving in parades.

By the king or queen not doing much to help with others pet causes, it annoys people who deserve to be annoyed.

[Kron3007]

WRT monarchism in Canada,  if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?

I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.

For sure.  I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy.  They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada.  However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.

[marshwiggle]

WRT monarchism in Canada,  if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?

I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.

For sure.  I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy.  They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada.  However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.

I am one of those "oddly into it" because it reminds us of how our system, which is a vestige of a flawed dictatorship, (which, face it, every government is), has changed over time and will continue to change, as every generation will have things about it that look bad to future generations. We can only do the best as we see it in the moment, even if later generations in hindsight see negative consequences of our decisions which we didn't forsee.

[mamselle]

It does give a country recourse to another sense of global credibility and gravitas if the PM, president, or other day-to-day executive is a fool and/or a clown and can't be fully trusted to always be the adult in the room.

M.

[kaysixteen]

One wonders whether the system is useful, if there actually aren't real powers that the parliamentary head of state (monarch or Germany-style parliamentary president) cannot exercise without the consent (or actual command) of the PM/ government?  This in a nutshell was the crux of the problem in 'King Charles III'.  If not, why not just have a well-programmed robot in the job?   This is similar to a decision to vote for the candidate with the proper party initial after his name, even if he personally is just unfit for office.

[dismalist]

One wonders whether the system is useful, if there actually aren't real powers that the parliamentary head of state (monarch or Germany-style parliamentary president) cannot exercise without the consent (or actual command) of the PM/ government?  This in a nutshell was the crux of the problem in 'King Charles III'.  If not, why not just have a well-programmed robot in the job?   This is similar to a decision to vote for the candidate with the proper party initial after his name, even if he personally is just unfit for office.

Neither the British nor the German Heads of State are without power. In both cases powers are mostly for use in what can be called parliamentary emergencies. In the UK this is a response to troublemaking Kings, and in the German case this is a response to the Weimar Constitution, which gave the President one hell of a lot of power in parliamentary emergencies and messed things up big time.

Robots these are not.

[Kron3007]

WRT monarchism in Canada,  if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?

I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.

For sure.  I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy.  They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada.  However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.

I am one of those "oddly into it" because it reminds us of how our system, which is a vestige of a flawed dictatorship, (which, face it, every government is), has changed over time and will continue to change, as every generation will have things about it that look bad to future generations. We can only do the best as we see it in the moment, even if later generations in hindsight see negative consequences of our decisions which we didn't forsee.

I can be reminded in the history books.       

I resent supporting the monarchy, both symbolically and financially.  If I were an immigrant, I would resent being forced to pledge allegiance to the King/Queen (especially from some countries of origin).       

       

[marshwiggle]

WRT monarchism in Canada,  if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?

I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.

For sure.  I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy.  They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada.  However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.

I am one of those "oddly into it" because it reminds us of how our system, which is a vestige of a flawed dictatorship, (which, face it, every government is), has changed over time and will continue to change, as every generation will have things about it that look bad to future generations. We can only do the best as we see it in the moment, even if later generations in hindsight see negative consequences of our decisions which we didn't forsee.

I can be reminded in the history books.       

I resent supporting the monarchy, both symbolically and financially.  If I were an immigrant, I would resent being forced to pledge allegiance to the King/Queen (especially from some countries of origin).       

     

It would be interesting to compare societies that retain or peacefully give up monarchies with those that overthrew monarchies. I think you'd find generally the first group to be much better than the latter. Evolutionary change works better than revolutionary change.  The evolution in the status and powers of the monarch reflect that long-term change, despite the oscillations of what party is in power.

[Hibush]

WRT monarchism in Canada,  if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?

I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.

For sure.  I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy.  They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada.  However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.

How much support of the Crown is there in Québec? Don't some there don't think it is more than a vestige?
What about the prairie conservatives? The libertarian aspect seems positively anti-monarchy, but other aspects could bow to tradition.

[Hibush]

Why would nations leave the Commonwealth just now with a new monarch?   I assume that there must be some economic advantages to remaining within it.

I don't think it's as much economic as cultural. Commonwealth countries are kind of like siblings, who still like to get together for holidays and family members. Generally we're all still on good terms with the one brother who disowned the family and left, but we're still OK acknowledging Mom and Dad even though we're all independent adults.

What a good description!

I heard the PM of Antigua and Barbuda this morning. That country appears to be a restless sibling. Mr. O'Marde is willing to make his country a republic as soon as Britain has paid appropriate reparations for the wealth they built at their expense. The holiday dinner will be interesting for sure.

[Morden]

WRT monarchism in Canada,  if it were to be that a secret ballot national plebiscite in Canada were held, on the question of severing ties with the monarchy, what do fora Canadians think would happen, now that Elizabeth is gone?

I think results would be really split by regions (for example, I can't imagine Quebec would want to keep ties to the British Crown). But I also think that some Indigenous groups would resist cutting ties since many of the treaties were between Indigenous groups and the Crown. That's not to say that they don't also want an apology from the Crown.

For sure.  I would love it if we severed ties with the monarchy.  They are a vestige of a flawed dictatorship and serve no function in modern Canada.  However, a lot of Canadians are oddly into it and I doubt we would end up leaving.

How much support of the Crown is there in Québec? Don't some there don't think it is more than a vestige?
What about the prairie conservatives? The libertarian aspect seems positively anti-monarchy, but other aspects could bow to tradition.

We're currently deciding province by province over whether or not to declare a statutory holiday for the day of the Queen's funeral. So far federal employees get a stat holiday; the Maritimes & British Columbia have decided to go with the stat holiday; Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan have decided not to. Manitoba has declared a day of mourning, but schools are open, and Alberta is dithering. I'm not sure what the territories have decided.

[marshwiggle]

heard the PM of Antigua and Barbuda this morning. That country appears to be a restless sibling. Mr. O'Marde is willing to make his country a republic as soon as Britain has paid appropriate reparations for the wealth they built at their expense. The holiday dinner will be interesting for sure.

The fact that countries can freely choose to cut ties to the monarchy is a reflection of how the institution has changed. What was once established by force is now completely a matter of choice. That evolution over time (and the obvious implication that further evolution will continue) refutes the idea that burning everything to the ground is the only way forward.