> I can’t see the commonwealth nations welcoming King Charles as their new head of state.
Well this is precisely what is about to happen. There may be some hand wringing articles in major newspapers about whether the Royal head of state is still relevant, appropriate, blah blah blah, but there is approximately zero chance that anything will change in reaction to this news.
"In many [Commonwealth countries] constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong independence movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts. This is expected to bring about a moment of political peril for the new monarch, who, after Barbados became independent in 2021, could face the loss of another prominent part of the Caribbean Commonwealth."
The article is highly dubious. For example, it lists PNG as a state where "Questions are also like to arise ... over whether the new monarch could lawfully appoint a governor general", yet the Constitution clearly states "The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Queen extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
This is surprising tbh. When they changed the act of succession to remove default male succession, part of that was negotiating changes in succession acts around the Commonwealth. This implies that some or even most of those are unconstitutional? Weird.
Anyways, it would be more surprising if the Commonwealth didn't lose a couple now and if a couple more didn't make plans for when Charles dies, which won't be all that long from now.
I wish Canada was one of those, but all I'm reasonably hoping for is that we drop monarch icons on our cash.
The Commonwealth is not the list of countries that had QEII as their head of state. If you check the summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations you can read about it. That article has even been updated in the last 3 hours.
I am aware of that and did not say otherwise. I can see how you might have read that into what I said (as if I had said "across all") but my intention was across the countries in the Commonwealth that do share a monarch with the UK.
Unless you're saying there are countries not in the Commonwealth that have her as the head of state which is news to me, but maybe i am mistaken.
Immediately? Perhaps not, but I think we’ll see a bunch of countries breaking away from having the British monarch as their head of state in the next few years.
I’m pretty sure that (for instance) Australia was just hanging on until we could be sure she was gone, the current government have already planned a referendum on it in a few years if they get a second term.
(I say ‘we’, I am a relatively recent British migrant, and not a citizen yet)
There's a common understanding amongst Aussies (or at least, the Aussies that I know) that we were waiting for Liz to die before getting on with becoming a republic. For 2 reasons:
1. There was a sense of loyalty to Liz personally. She did a good job of Queening and it seemed almost rude to interrupt that.
2. No-one wants Charles as king. He's very weird, and has ideas that he actually wants to do things with.
I fully expect the referendum to be brought forward because of her death, and for it to get a strong "yes".
Well this is precisely what is about to happen. There may be some hand wringing articles in major newspapers about whether the Royal head of state is still relevant, appropriate, blah blah blah, but there is approximately zero chance that anything will change in reaction to this news.