Princess Elizabeth around 1936. Before she became Queen
Elizabeth II in 1952. (Photo courtesy Royal Family via Town&Country and Getty images)---
Queen Elizabeth II died on September 8, 2022 at 96. As a long-term Constitutional Monarchist I am black clad in grief for widely loved Queen Elizabeth II’s passing.
Elizabeth was a superbly neutral Head of State and successfully evolved the Commonwealth.
With sorrow comes uncertainty whether the institution of the Royal family will falter under new King Charles III.
Historically the two previous King Charles didn’t perform well. King Charles I mismanaged his job into five years of English Civil War (1642-1647) and after his performance appraisal, lost his head. King Charles II wasn't crash hot either.
King Charles III brings the baggage of neglect of his
first wife Diana mainly due to his adulterous love of the new Queen Consort Camilla. Camilla's popularity as ex-royal mistress has always been tarnished. King Charles III, during his long Prince of Wales job, also brings the stigma
of failing to be politically neutral – see the “Black spider memos”.
For Australians King Charles III popularity, or lack of it, will be crucial regarding the long running issue of Australia becoming a Republic. An Australian Republic would replace the British Monarch, as Head of State, with a President. It is significant that following the Australian Labor Party’s victory in the May 2022 Federal Election, new Prime Minister Albanese created the position of Assistant Minister for the Republic. This signalled a commitment to prepare Australia for a transition to a Republic during the future second term of a Labor government, in 2025 to 2028.
I think Charles will have trouble filling the shoes of the widely loved Queen Elizabeth II.
Submarine
Matters, in its very wide brief, will continue to provide updates on the King
Charles III vs Australian Republic issue.
27 seconds into this video is ordinarally the Coronation Anthem. But I see it as a remembrance Anthem for the young, now late, Queen Elizabeth II. Constitutional Monarchists are in trepidation that Charlie can fill the job well.
---
10 comments:
May she Rest in Peace.
There will be a day of state mourning in India on the 11th September.
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/queen-elizabeth-ii-live-health-updates-royal-family-scotland-balmoral-ailing-monarch-1998111-2022-09-08
Yes, I have no doubt that Charles III will be nowhere as popular as her.
===
On a different note, speaking of becoming a Republic, there is a theory out there that in order to prevent Scotland succeeding in an independence referendum (and thereby breaking up the United Kingdom), the British could decide to become a Republic themselves, nullifying any idea of Scottish independence as England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland would no longer be different countries under the same Kingdom, instead all of them would form a single, unified Republic.
Far fetched? Maybe...but stranger things have happened. It's food for thought considering political control over Scotland (which houses the UK's nuclear deterrent) would be of paramount importance from a strategic perspective.
Hi Pete
HM Emperor Naruhito of Japan will attend HM Queen Elizabeth's state funeral. Usually, HM Emperor does not attend funerals of the foreign head of state, but the case of HM Queen Elizabeth is exception.
Regards
It seems the long lived and loved Monarch's somehow churned out less than perfect children. The other big example is the Thai monarchy.
As horrible as Charles' treatment of Diana was (just watch the interviews of Charles and Diana even before they got married ffs), it pales compared to the Thai family. The long reigning King died a few year's ago, and Thailand got a tattoo covered person who lives most of his time in Germany. And his sister is , let's say, interesting as well.
So yes, I was stunned to hear of Elizabeth's passing and not impressed to hear of Charles' rise. But as with most things, it can always be worse.
Andrew
Vale Elizabeth II.
I think Elizabeth II will be judged as one of histories greatest monarchs, even in the judgement of non-monarchists.
She spent seven decades on the throne, carrying out her duties in a dignified, diplomatic manner and always in the best interest of stable government. She reigned a long time and wisely throughout, letting democracy make the decisions.
Elizabeth's popularity is demonstrated by the fact that the the Republican movement made no progress during her lifetime. If Charles III is wise, he will rule in the same low key way as Elizabeth, giving no reason to justify change. IF not, I think change may be rapid, as less than 50% of the Australian population is now of Anglo-Saxon descent. Arguably the Governor General's recent actions did the system no favours either.
If the republican movement is wise, they should propose a republic on the Irish or Finnish models with the head of state being elected but their powers limited and prescribed, much as the current Governor General's role, but with less ambiguity.
In my view republicans are motivated by political principles that may be worthwhile but do not matter to the majority. Most Australians want stable government, no more.
Hi Gessler
Thanks for the tip about India having a day of state mourning today, 11th September. Today is has happened https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/india-mourns-death-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-national-flags-fly-at-half-mast-122091100078_1.html at September 11, 2022 08:55 IST :
"...the national flags at all government buildings including Red Fort and Rashtrapati Bhavan fly at half-mast on Sunday"
For once the Queens death has eclipsed US 9/11 Day throughout the Commonwealth of Nations.
As well as the QUAD India's and Australia's Commonwealth membership unites us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations#Current_members
===========================
On Britain becoming a Republic - the devil may be in the detail. I think Scots would still point out that the main (maybe "Federal") capital would remain London, politically and economically. English voters might remain the largest electorate in choosing a President of Britain. I think a King Charles as Head of State would be way preferable to a President Boris.
All depends how Charlie performs in the end - so a Republic could happen.
Hi Andrew
Yes by 1980 the "Firm" decreed Charles had to marry one of the rare intactus Virgins of the Realm - and preferably aristocratic at that. This always meant his bride would be unusual. With that Diana's immaturity met Charles pre-existing relationship with a Camilla as mature as he was.
Charles indeed looks pretty good compared to some sovereigns.
Pete
Hi Anonymous @Sep 10, 2022, 10:24:00 AM
It is good that Japan's Emperor Naruhito will be attending Queen Elizabeth's state funeral later this month.
It is fitting HM the Emperor is attending the funeral of the world's most famous sovereign. Even in the US when an American says "the Queen" it has always meant Elizabeth II.
Regards Pete
Hi Anonymous @Sep 10, 2022, 5:52:00 PM
Very true that history will judge Elizabeth II "as one of histories greatest monarchs".
The fact that she held the occasionally fractious Royal Family, United Kingdom, and Commonwealth of Nations together is remarkable.
Britain has always done better with its Queens (Elizabeths I and II and Victoria) than with its Kings (the worst maybe John, Henry VIII, Charles I and Edward VIII).
Even Richard I (royal propaganda called him "the Lionheart") preferred milking the English treasury to pay for his constant war hobby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England#Modern_reception
Charles III has long been ahead of his time in a good way: an environmentalist, proponent of containing climate change and a champion of historic buildings and balanced land uses.
As a constitutional monarchist I think Australian should appreciate the wisdom, continuity and stability of Charles III before we vote for a go-getter "President" Malcolm Turnbull or, heaven forbid, Barnaby Joyce.
Indeed "Most Australians want stable government, no more."
Regards Pete
I am surprised he chose to be known as Charles III considering both I and II came to sticky ends and are not considered to be good monarchs.
Personally I felt he could have honoured his father by becoming Phillip I or at least become George VII as both are there in his name.
I admire his environmental cred. However his proclivity to buffoonery can be problematic, a potential banana peel I am sure he is acutely aware of…that said English history is replete with bad and many a time mad kings. 😂
Hi Ghalib
I recall that years ago Charlie half jokingly entertained another name for a short time.
That was "King Arthur" on account of Charlie's real name "Charles Philip Arthur George" *
The mythological** King Arthur who notionally lived somewhere in modern day Wales, with his Court of Camelot, complete with his Knights of the Round Table, would have made excellent copy for decades.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_III
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
Oh well, Charlie it is 😂.
Post a Comment