Joe Ramlet, opinions editor
The recent passing of Queen Elizabeth II, the longest-reigning monarch of the British Empire and second-longest in the world’s recorded history, has led to a global time of mourning. People both under her rule and across the world adored her and the symbol she created. But many are also taking advantage of the moment to have a well-deserved look at the future of the crown as we know it. The thing about Queen Elizabeth is that when people from our generation—Gen Z and Millennials—learned about “the Queen,” it was Elizabeth. The same goes for our parents, and likely our grandparents or even great-grandparents. But the world was a very different place in 1952 when Elizabeth ascended to the throne.
The status and continuity of Queen Elizabeth’s time on the throne left the big names (i.e. Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Jamaica) little room for discussion of constitutional amendments or public referenda to declare themselves a republic. Many criticized the monarchy, seeing the Queen as elitist or out-of-touch, but they pretty much all accepted that’s the way it was and would be. Now though, with her passing and the installation of King Charles III as the new monarch, things might change. And frankly, they should. Queen Elizabeth herself is the main reason that the monarchy was maintained as long as it did. Certainly many countries in Africa, Oceania and Asia gained independence and self-rule during her reign, but it wasn’t without effort. Now that she—the reason people saw the monarchy as favorable—is gone, it’s far more likely that people will find it time to move on.
Just seven years after the end of World War II, Europe as a whole and the United Kingdom specifically were reeling and recovering from the catastrophic impact of conflict. In the 70 years since then, Queen Elizabeth oversaw the decolonization of her empire, which had a brutal history of oppression and violence. Many former colonies and dominions gained independence as sovereign states, capable of self-governance, as opposed to being subject entirely to British rule. In these cases, the Queen was retained as the ceremonial head of state, but nothing more. Many countries also voted for republicanization. For you non-political scientists keeping score at home, I’m not referring to the American political party but instead the form of government where power is retained by the citizenry through elected representatives. However, the big players have maintained their statuses as a monarchy, accepting royal rule from overseas.
Will we lose the royal rule of the United Kingdom? That’s doubtful. But why should people thousands of miles away from Buckingham Palace be subject to its rule? Charles is nowhere near as popular as Elizabeth was, the Royal Family has been rocked by scandal after scandal, and the institution is increasingly viewed as archaic and stagnant—not taking action on important issues like climate change and indigenous rights. Some argue that’s what the monarch should do—remain moderate, be the public face of the country, and leave politics to those elected to Parliament. But the fact that countries are still officially headed by the King and not a republican system is inhibiting self-rule and the ability to carry out politics as they wish.
This idea is nothing new—it’s been floated or proposed or even voted on in various places quite a bit in the last century. But for some reason or another, it hasn’t fully blossomed in some of the last remaining states under British rule. If the people of those countries wish to make the change, the major thing they needed was the right moment—and that moment is now.