There is an opinion that Britain was able to retain at least part of its imperial past thanks to Queen Elizabeth, who was moderate, nonpartisan and always cautious in her diplomacy. Was Queen Elizabeth really that important in this regard?
The Queen’s role cannot be overstated because, according to the Constitution, the Queen cannot and must not interfere in politics, including diplomacy. I’ve been stuck in the paradox that should not rule. Her role as queen was therefore purely symbolic throughout her reign, and all prime ministers more or less utilized her in international diplomacy. In this sense, the British monarch is the last serf of the land. It’s really in the spirit of the Beatles song: “Her Majesty is a great girl, but she doesn’t say much.” Already lost it completely during Four years after the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. to the throne. Rather, it contributed to the transformation of the Old Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, but again it was about “soft power”, the soft power of cultural symbols, not political power in the true sense of the word.
what happens after she dies? Do you think the concept of the British monarchy will be radically rethought, or slowly dismantled? King Charles III, after all. And other members of the royal family certainly don’t have the same respect as Elizabeth.
Her role was truly historic, not only for the length of her reign, but also for the length of her reign, and will no doubt be reassessed. The only person who grew up in the 19th century and stands at the center of the next century’s greatest turmoil. Two days before the death of Elizabeth II. At the same time, she appointed Liz Truss as Prime Minister. With the monarchy becoming more popular over the past two decades and supporters of the elected head of state long ago being only 20-25% of the population, dismantling is not on the agenda.
The concept of the monarch as the official head of state has a negative connotation today. That is, it relates to the crisis of the Republic and the risk that the people will elect an inappropriate or downright dangerous person as head of state.
However, it should probably be said that the level of popularity does not justify the existence of a monarchy, because the legitimacy of a monarchy is not derived from public opinion or polls, but from a thousand-year-old tradition. . Charles III he certainly had to find his own way to express himself and represent the state, and given his age, the newly appointed Prince of Wales William and his family are increasingly in control. Expect to be involved.
How will Charles III rule? What do we know about his idea of ruling the Kingdom of England?
His long-standing themes are ecology and sustainable living, so in his meetings with Prime Ministers and politicians, they are likely to be topics of conversation. Furthermore, British society is changing rapidly, and the British monarchy is changing with it. I don’t think the main question is whether Britain will accept Charles III. As his king, but if this king could accept him to rule as his society.
And what are your hopes for maintaining the Commonwealth of Nations? Remember, for example, you can find Australia and Canada here, where Elizabeth still ruled as Queen. Will this concept still hold?
The transition of government to a republic is a historic and global one, and in this regard Queen Elizabeth has seen the very notion of a monarchy as head of state change in countries far and wide that are de facto republics in every respect. She has witnessed the gradual collapse.
The concept of the monarch as the official head of state has a negative connotation today. That is, it relates to the crisis of the Republic and the risk that the people will elect an inappropriate or downright dangerous person as head of state. Or that there are personal political ambitions hidden behind efforts to abolish the monarchy, as has happened in the past in Australia, for example. Your question is accurate in the sense that today’s monarchies are not threatened by political rebellion in former colonies, but by the loss of cultural meaning itself.
What political developments do you expect in Britain itself? Could the death of the Queen initiate the liberation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Here the situation today is contrary to that of the former empire and today’s Commonwealth countries. For His Majesty also unites these individual ‘nations’, as they are called here. By the way, it is quite interesting that in British English the word ‘nation’ is used interchangeably not only for ethnically different people, but for British society as a whole. The symbolic power of majesty eventually led Scottish nationalists to first soften Republican rhetoric and ultimately to a promise to retain the Queen as head of state in addition to a common currency even after the Declaration of Independence. If you recall the same squared circle that Vladimir Metial promised voters independence in 1992, you are certainly right.
But the monarchy’s ability to become a symbolic anchor for an otherwise deeply divided nation and an obstacle to separatist efforts is shown here. Also bear in mind that monarchies are perceived differently in each of the countries you mention.In Scotland, one of the former centers of imperial power, monarchies are popular, but in Northern Ireland they are in conflict. was one of the sources of And in Wales, where separatist tendencies were weakest, Elizabeth was typically the Queen of the Poor, who saw her as one of the main symbols of patriotism. Not republican, its problem is language barrier not royalty.
