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

[mamselle]

It seemed as if an important conversation were beginning in the reflections on the RIP thread.

That more detailed conversation is worth having; members of this community may have a variety of viewpoints from which to reflect on it.

I just listened to the first speech by King Charles III here:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EFKKOR4cZM

I have not been among his fans for a very long time, but I thought it was well-written, well-read, and to the point.

What thoughts do others have?

How does it look as if things will change globally, and within the Commonwealth's various spheres of influence?

M.

[Hegemony]

I think some members of the Commonwealth will leave, and more will not.

The vicious fury that often erupts on Twitter is certainly in evidence with the death of the Queen, and any private individual who expresses sorrow gets savaged pretty quickly. But I'm guessing official policies operate more slowly.

[hmaria1609]

Of interest, Charles III is scheduled to meet with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth on Sunday (9/11).

[ciao_yall]

Thinking about Queen Elizabeth...

She was a young girl when she came into the public eye, and had not had much of a chance to express her own opinions before becoming Queen at a very young age. As a result, she adopted and kept a neutral/ "blank slate" persona on such matters. I never thought of her as having much of a purpose, really.

Charles, on the other hand, has not had the same strictures. He has opinions on things and activities. I'd like to think he has a more active role in setting the politics of the day - hopefully in a more progressive direction.

[mahagonny]

Thinking about Queen Elizabeth...

She was a young girl when she came into the public eye, and had not had much of a chance to express her own opinions before becoming Queen at a very young age. As a result, she adopted and kept a neutral/ "blank slate" persona on such matters. I never thought of her as having much of a purpose, really.

Charles, on the other hand, has not had the same strictures. He has opinions on things and activities. I'd like to think he has a more active role in setting the politics of the day - hopefully in a more progressive direction.

Not reinforcing progressives is purpose enough, if that was her thought process.

[Hegemony]

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. 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.

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.

[kaysixteen]

That is the traditional policy, yes, but what if he does not do this?  Anyone see the BBC's 'King Charles III', about six years ago?

[kaysixteen]

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?

[Anselm]

I collect coins from places like Canada and Australia so naturally the only thing I am thinking about will be the new coinage with Charles's image.  That will take some getting used to after a lifetime with QE2.

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.

[mahagonny]

Well, he could always become the non-binary Quineen of England.

[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.

[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. 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.

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.

The one thing a monarch can (and should) champion is the constitution and system of government (as Charles did in his speech). The monarchy symbolizes the messy but continual development of democracy, independent of the peculiarities of the current office holders.

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.

[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?

[hmaria1609]

That is the traditional policy, yes, but what if he does not do this?  Anyone see the BBC's 'King Charles III', about six years ago?

"King Charles III" originally was a stage play before it was adapted for BBC & PBS's "Masterpiece."

Long time "Masterpiece" fans may recall that Tim Piggot-Smith as "King Charles III" (TV adaptation) was among his final roles before his death in 2017.

[Ruralguy]

If I had to guess, I'd guess he'll attempt neutrality, but that there will occasionally be a "gaffe" (he'll accidentally say the quiet part out loud).