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

[Hibush]

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.

While they can choose to leave, they would do so without the assets the Crown took from them. They now want those assets back, which requires cooperation.

[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.

While they can choose to leave, they would do so without the assets the Crown took from them. They now want those assets back, which requires cooperation.

Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put into those places over that time?

[Kron3007]

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.

While they can choose to leave, they would do so without the assets the Crown took from them. They now want those assets back, which requires cooperation.

Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put into those places over that time?

You jest right?  You think the balance in in favour of the crown?

[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).       

     

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.

You make it sound as if the monarchy just decided to step aside.  Peaceful revolution is still revolution.

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

[ciao_yall]

Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put into those places over that time?

Well, if we look at the relative wealth of the Crown versus "those places" I think we can tell who netted most favorably.

[dismalist]

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.

One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.

[Kron3007]

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.

One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.

Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct.  The British peacefully gave up power in many countries.  Some are doing well, but many are not.

I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic.  The example of France is where they over three their own government.  This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas.  Apples and oranges.

Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar).  Some former members have done well, others have struggled.  Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.

[dismalist]

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.

One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.

Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct.  The British peacefully gave up power in many countries.  Some are doing well, but many are not.

I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic.  The example of France is where they over three their own government.  This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas.  Apples and oranges.

Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled.  Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.

I meant the October Revolution! :-)

[marshwiggle]

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.

One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.

Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct.  The British peacefully gave up power in many countries.  Some are doing well, but many are not.

I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic.  The example of France is where they over three their own government.  This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas.  Apples and oranges.

Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled.  Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.

I meant the October Revolution! :-)

And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)

And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.

[Kron3007]

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.

One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.

Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct.  The British peacefully gave up power in many countries.  Some are doing well, but many are not.

I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic.  The example of France is where they over three their own government.  This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas.  Apples and oranges.

Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled.  Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.

I meant the October Revolution! :-)

And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)

And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.

I feel this just drastically oversimplifies the situation and conflates correlation and causation.  Of course a peaceful transition is better, but it is not that simple.

Most countries that leave through dialog do so when there is a waning power.  The British didn't relinquish authority out of the goodness of their hearts or somehow see the light.  Heck, they still haven't even renounced the doctrine of discovery.  They only relinquished power because they saw it was their only real choice and with pressure from the USA. 

       

[dismalist]

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.

One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.

Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct.  The British peacefully gave up power in many countries.  Some are doing well, but many are not.

I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic.  The example of France is where they over three their own government.  This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas.  Apples and oranges.

Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled.  Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.

I meant the October Revolution! :-)

And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)

And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.

I feel this just drastically oversimplifies the situation and conflates correlation and causation.  Of course a peaceful transition is better, but it is not that simple.

Most countries that leave through dialog do so when there is a waning power.  The British didn't relinquish authority out of the goodness of their hearts or somehow see the light.  Heck, they still haven't even renounced the doctrine of discovery.  They only relinquished power because they saw it was their only real choice and with pressure from the USA. 

       

Of course a peaceful transition is better

That's all I wanted to suggest.

And addressing monarchies, not countries. Nowadays no one is going to use force to prevent a country from leaving the British Commonwealth, whose titular head is a royal. There is no problem.

[Hibush]

Should that amount be reduced by any amounts the Crown put into those places over that time?

Well, if we look at the relative wealth of the Crown versus "those places" I think we can tell who netted most favorably.

With Antigua and Barbuda specifically, the capital and equity went elsewhere. Imagine if they had infrastructure, equity and locally owned and financed companies based on reinvestment of all the early profits. Even deducting subsequent spending by Britain, which paid for things the local government and industry would have been responsible for. Something like that is what they are looking for.

I don't anticipate that force or violence will be helpful in getting concessions in that direction.

What if they split off a piece of the Dutchy of Cornwall, say 10,000 acres of Cornwall, and gave it to the former colony.  They would own a part of the colonizer and get rent from English citizens.

[marshwiggle]

The USA overthrew the crown by force and have done pretty OK for themselves...

The US of A is an outlier. The French Revolution was a big bloodbath and spawned some guy who tried to do Europe. France didn't quiet down until de Gaulle, a royal figure, came along. Then there is Russia.

One could better say that if the Crown is unable or unwilling to allow evolution, there'll be a bloodbath. But the bloodbath does not bode well for later success.

Perhaps it is an outlier, or perhaps the relationship is not that direct.  The British peacefully gave up power in many countries.  Some are doing well, but many are not.

I think it is also important to note that this is likely also impacted by whether or not it is an imperial monarchy or domestic.  The example of France is where they over three their own government.  This is different than overthrowing a monarch that has been ruling your country from overseas.  Apples and oranges.

Likewise, the fall of the USSR was peaceful (not a monarch, but similar). Some former members have done well, others have struggled.  Again, it simply doesn't seem that directly connected.

I meant the October Revolution! :-)

And let's not forget places like Iran. (China's a bit more complicated, but still worth noting.) (And even for the USA, comparing the violence in the USA to Canada, the revolutionary "burn things to the ground" sentiment is stronger south of the border. Compare Jan. 6 USA to trucker convoy 2022 Canada. The trucker convoy lasted longer but was much more annoying than outright violent.)

And as for how "well" countries are doing after a monarchy, look at how many have had civil war and/or coups after overthrow of monarchy vs. retention or peaceful withdrawal. Once violence is accepted as a legitimate form of change of government under some circumstances, it remains much more a go-to idea anytime people are unhappy about anything.

I feel this just drastically oversimplifies the situation and conflates correlation and causation.  Of course a peaceful transition is better, but it is not that simple.

My point was that the very possibility of a peaceful transition indicates the monarchy has already evolved from previous authoritarianism.

Most countries that leave through dialog do so when there is a waning power.

Yes and no. When small colonies leave, they are typically still much less powerful than the country they separate from. It is not so much that the power is waning, but that the understanding of what is , and is not, an appropriate exercise of that power has changed.