Across most Commonwealth realms - those countries in which he is monarch - the debate over whether to move to a republic is a live issue, albeit to varying degrees.

 

Here, BBC correspondents describe the mood in a selection of nations where King Charles is still head of state - and explore the chances of those countries replacing the monarchy any time soon.

 

READ MORE

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-65426265

 

 

And long may he reign.....God save King Charles ????

Support for the British monarchy is on the decline in most, if not all, countries. (Do a search for "support for monarchy in < insert country>" for confirmation of this fact). A matter of time before a break is made in most countries.

Quote

King Charles III is sovereign of 15 Commonwealth realms

Interesting choice of word, given that realm can be a country and an empire.

 

King Charles III rules over a realm of 15 realms!

Ah, good old BBC.

 

Never really got over Blair never quite making President did they?

 

Splendid timing - 3 days before the Coronation!

Edited May 4, 20233 yr by herfiehandbag

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

Support for the British monarchy is on the decline in most, if not all, countries. (Do a search for "support for monarchy in < insert country>" for confirmation of this fact). A matter of time before a break is made in most countries.

Possibly support for the monarchy itself, but I doubt those same countries want to completely divorce themselves from Britain and no longer have any kind of alliance or support.

  

Basically compared to the coronation in 1953, nobody is that bothered.

 

Those "fans" of pomp and ceremony are looked upon as slightly unhinged. or sad.

 

The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees, a relic of an old outdated family who isn't expected to be King for more than 10 years at the most - this is a "rump" monarchy. Inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living is dropping and the future as an isolated Britain with a doddery old king looks anything but rosy. Any freedoms and future of democracy are looking bleak as the government hastily introduces draconian laws to stop free protestors, corruption is rife and the welfare state is under attack  - no wonder coronation celebrations are hugely undersubscribed – the public has things to worry about other than Charles – a figure we have known for 6 decades and quite frankly aren't excited about in the slightest.

 

Edited May 4, 20233 yr by kwilco

45 minutes ago, kwilco said:

  

Basically compared to the coronation in 1953, nobody is that bothered.

 

Those "fans" of pomp and ceremony are looked upon as slightly unhinged. or sad.

 

The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees, a relic of an old outdated family who isn't expected to be King for more than 10 years at the most - this is a "rump" monarchy. Inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living is dropping and the future as an isolated Britain with a doddery old king looks anything but rosy. Any freedoms and future of democracy are looking bleak as the government hastily introduces draconian laws to stop free protestors, corruption is rife and the welfare state is under attack  - no wonder coronation celebrations are hugely undersubscribed – the public has things to worry about other than Charles – a figure we have known for 6 decades and quite frankly aren't excited about in the slightest.

 

Whether you agree with this analysis as being a good thing or not, I think you've got it pretty spot on there, certainly based on the comments I am seeing/ hearing.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Support for the British monarchy is on the decline in most, if not all, countries. (Do a search for "support for monarchy in < insert country>" for confirmation of this fact). A matter of time before a break is made in most countries.

Fair enough they can all pay for their own presidents. It is entirely up to them.

52 minutes ago, kwilco said:

the standards of living is dropping

...and apparently the standard of English.????

51 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

...and apparently the standard of English.????

you can't tell the difference between EL and a typo? - that says more about you than anything.

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Possibly support for the monarchy itself, but I doubt those same countries want to completely divorce themselves from Britain and no longer have any kind of alliance or support.

I doubt that any of the 15 nations would want anything other than a cordial relationship with the UK (and vica versa) if they were to become republics.

 

Replacing the UK monarchy would simply be a symbolic break with the last remnants of colonialism.

 

In reality, all 15 nations have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

In reality, all 15 nations have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now.

Run that through me again "

    The U.K have been looking to Washington for support for decades now instead of looking to the U.K for support ?

   Did you think that through before posting it ?

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Run that through me again "

    The U.K have been looking to Washington for support for decades now instead of looking to the U.K for support ?

   Did you think that through before posting it ?

Playing "gotcha" much? 

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Run that through me again "

    The U.K have been looking to Washington for support for decades now instead of looking to the U.K for support ?

   Did you think that through before posting it ?

Thank you for pointing out my error. Of course, what I meant to say was:

 

"In reality, St Lucia; the Bahamas; Jamaica; St Kitts and Nevis; Antigua and Barbuda; Grenada; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Australia;  Canada;  New Zealand; Belize; Papua New Guinea; the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now."

 

Now what point were you trying to make?

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

Thank you for pointing out my error. Of course, what I meant to say was:

 

"In reality, St Lucia; the Bahamas; Jamaica; St Kitts and Nevis; Antigua and Barbuda; Grenada; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Australia;  Canada;  New Zealand; Belize; Papua New Guinea; the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now."

 

Now what point were you trying to make?

Interesting .

In what way have Papa New Guinea , Tuvalu and St Kitts looked to the USA for support ?

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

Thank you for pointing out my error. Of course, what I meant to say was:

 

"In reality, St Lucia; the Bahamas; Jamaica; St Kitts and Nevis; Antigua and Barbuda; Grenada; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Australia;  Canada;  New Zealand; Belize; Papua New Guinea; the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now."

 

Now what point were you trying to make?

Got your facts a bit messed up there.

Tuvalu is supported by NZ and Australia/Fiji only (and there is also a Chinese facility at the Southern end of the island...basically at the end of the runway.)

PNG is really only Australian support, and Solomons is a mix of Australia/NZ/China, although some American money is given for infrastructure.

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Interesting .

In what way have Papa New Guinea , Tuvalu and St Kitts looked to the USA for support ?

U.S. Renews its Commitment to Papua New Guinea with $12 Million USD Agreement

https://www.usaid.gov/pacific-islands/press-releases/4-22-2022-us-renews-its-commitment-papua-new-guinea-12-million-usd-agreement

 

Saint Kitts and Nevis–United States relations

 St. Kitts and Nevis is a beneficiary of the U.S. Caribbean Basin Initiative. U.S. assistance is primarily channeled through multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), as well as the USAID office in Bridgetown, Barbados. In addition, St. Kitts and Nevis benefits from U.S. military exercises and humanitarian civic action construction projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis–United_States_relations

 

U.S. Relations With Tuvalu

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds regional projects assisting communities in accessing financing, building institutional capacity, and adapting to climate change. The Climate Ready project (2016-2022) supports climate finance and management capacity by working with government partners and stakeholders to draft and implement policies to achieve adaption goals; access larger amounts of financing from international adaption funds; and improve the skills and systems within each country to better manage and monitor adaption projects. With the Pacific Community (SPC), the Institutional Strengthening in Pacific Island Countries to Adapt to Climate Change project (ISACC, 2015-2022) is expanding government capacity to manage their climate finances more successfully and supporting the scale up of successful multi-sectoral projects to improve climate resilience. 

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-tuvalu/

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

U.S. Renews its Commitment to Papua New Guinea with $12 Million USD Agreement

https://www.usaid.gov/pacific-islands/press-releases/4-22-2022-us-renews-its-commitment-papua-new-guinea-12-million-usd-agreement

 

Saint Kitts and Nevis–United States relations

 St. Kitts and Nevis is a beneficiary of the U.S. Caribbean Basin Initiative. U.S. assistance is primarily channeled through multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), as well as the USAID office in Bridgetown, Barbados. In addition, St. Kitts and Nevis benefits from U.S. military exercises and humanitarian civic action construction projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Kitts_and_Nevis–United_States_relations

 

U.S. Relations With Tuvalu

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds regional projects assisting communities in accessing financing, building institutional capacity, and adapting to climate change. The Climate Ready project (2016-2022) supports climate finance and management capacity by working with government partners and stakeholders to draft and implement policies to achieve adaption goals; access larger amounts of financing from international adaption funds; and improve the skills and systems within each country to better manage and monitor adaption projects. With the Pacific Community (SPC), the Institutional Strengthening in Pacific Island Countries to Adapt to Climate Change project (ISACC, 2015-2022) is expanding government capacity to manage their climate finances more successfully and supporting the scale up of successful multi-sectoral projects to improve climate resilience. 

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-tuvalu/

I, as a British person an very pleased that its the USA giving them money instead of us .

   BTW , what is the current USA national debt ?

$ 27 000 000 000 000  ? 

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I, as a British person an very pleased that its the USA giving them money instead of us .

   BTW , what is the current USA national debt ?

$ 27 000 000 000 000  ? 

You asked a question. I answered it. Stop trying to deflect.

1 hour ago, couchpotato said:

Got your facts a bit messed up there.

Tuvalu is supported by NZ and Australia/Fiji only (and there is also a Chinese facility at the Southern end of the island...basically at the end of the runway.)

PNG is really only Australian support, and Solomons is a mix of Australia/NZ/China, although some American money is given for infrastructure.

That might well be the case but it supports the premise that the UK's support in the 14 countries named in the article is relatively insignificant.

42 minutes ago, RayC said:

That might well be the case but it supports the premise that the UK's support in the 14 countries named in the article is relatively insignificant.

Charles is Austrlia's head of State - but the UK doesn't "support" Australia.

Troll post and reply removed

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

  

Basically compared to the coronation in 1953, nobody is that bothered.

 

Those "fans" of pomp and ceremony are looked upon as slightly unhinged. or sad.

 

The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees, a relic of an old outdated family who isn't expected to be King for more than 10 years at the most - this is a "rump" monarchy. Inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living is dropping and the future as an isolated Britain with a doddery old king looks anything but rosy. Any freedoms and future of democracy are looking bleak as the government hastily introduces draconian laws to stop free protestors, corruption is rife and the welfare state is under attack  - no wonder coronation celebrations are hugely undersubscribed – the public has things to worry about other than Charles – a figure we have known for 6 decades and quite frankly aren't excited about in the slightest.

 

To add to your very reasonable comments, I think there is also a growing disquiet about the cost of the monarchy, their incessant demands for special exemptions (inheritance tax, for example) and the totally undemocratic nature of an unelected head is state who uses their position to further bolster their own affairs. 

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

To add to your very reasonable comments, I think there is also a growing disquiet about the cost of the monarchy, their incessant demands for special exemptions (inheritance tax, for example) and the totally undemocratic nature of an unelected head is state who uses their position to further bolster their own affairs. 

If we qualify your your premise with the not unreasonable suggestion that the far most likely source of an " elected head of state" within the UK would be a former Prime Minister; and then apply the test of likelihood of using the position to bolster their own affairs, one name over the last 4 decades springs to mind as the most likely candidate to pass that test, and most likely to occupy the position without doing so - one Margaret Hilda Thatcher!

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

an unelected head is state who uses their position to further bolster their own affairs. 

As opposed to a more expensive elected head of state who would obviously never use their position to bolster their own affairs. ????

 

Charles doesn't need to bolster anything. His status in society is set by nature of his birth. Even if he wasn't legally head of state he would still be King Charles and still be as wealthy. 

 

Stability is the key to a countries prosperity. 

I believe Canada to be a bit more pragmatic.???? The country is bilingual with a large 'French" population yet I don't see call for a revolution and guillotines. 

Having a British head of state keeps them culturally separate from their loud neighbours to the south.

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

If we qualify your your premise with the not unreasonable suggestion that the far most likely source of an " elected head of state" within the UK would be a former Prime Minister; and then apply the test of likelihood of using the position to bolster their own affairs, one name over the last 4 decades springs to mind as the most likely candidate to pass that test, and most likely to occupy the position without doing so - one Margaret Hilda Thatcher!

As much as a disliked the woman's politics, if she had been elected president then it would have been through a democratic process, and that same process would have allowed us the opportunity to remove her from office too. 

Edited May 5, 20233 yr by RuamRudy

2 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

As opposed to a more expensive elected head of state who would obviously never use their position to bolster their own affairs. ????

 

We don't even have a presidential model so to suggest that it would be more expensive than supporting the current coterie of parasites, their flunkies and hangers on is a nonsense.

 

2 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Charles doesn't need to bolster anything. His status in society is set by nature of his birth.

The nature of his birth? He wasn't delivered to the hospital on the back of Boadicea' chariot. He most certainly wasn't imbued with special powers and uncanny insight. He is simply a flawed and generally unimpressive man who was very, very lucky to emerge from a specific, venerated vagina. He did nothing to deserve it and has done little since to show gratitude for it.

 

2 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Stability is the key to a countries prosperity. 

True - and while the French method was effective in the long run, I would advocate a more modern approach to introducing democracy to the UK.

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

We don't even have a presidential model so to suggest that it would be more expensive than supporting the current coterie of parasites, their flunkies and hangers on is a nonsense.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/think-a-republic-would-be-cheaper-than-monarchy-think-again-40065/

 

France more

Italy more

Germany about the same

Poland the same.