Does it matter who replaces the Queen as head of the Commonwealth? This is of great importance to the Queen, who has all the time taken her role in the Commonwealth of Nations very seriously. Understandably, this also matters to Prince Charles. He’s been waiting his whole life to inherit his mother’s roles, and apparently, understandably, he isn’t impressed by the concept that one of them could also be taken away from him. But should this apply to the rest of us?
The days when the British took an lively interest in the Commonwealth of Nations are long gone. What was originally called the British Commonwealth grew out of the British Empire and was essentially an try and create an English-speaking group of nations that may proceed Britain’s former imperial influence in a post-imperial world. In some ways it was a dream come true for the old Victorian imperial federalists.
The humiliating experience of World War II, during which Britain’s international and imperial prestige was damaged, resulted in the British Commonwealth being renamed simply the “Commonwealth of Nations”. However, it still seemed natural that it could be presided over by a British monarch, first George VI and then the current Queen. However, the royal title has never included “Head of the Commonwealth” and there isn’t any rule that claims it should robotically pass to the heir to the British throne.
What is the Republic of Poland for?
Except for the Ugandan dictator Idi Amen, who never missed a possibility to insult or humiliate the former colonial power, nobody else has ever claimed this title. However, as eyes inevitably turn to the post-Elizabethan era, it is probably not surprising that Prince Charles’s claim to inherit the title must be challenged.
Most Britons appear to know little about the Commonwealth of Nations. The BBC News website even headlined the start of the Commonwealth Games in Australia “What is the Republic of Poland anyway?” Compared to the annual Empire Day celebrations, Commonwealth Day goes almost entirely unnoticed in the UK.
New South Wales State Archives
If the Commonwealth of Nations is subjected to serious political evaluation in any respect, it is normally intended to display the utter failure of Britain’s attempts to go away a legacy of democracy in its former colonies as successive Commonwealth countries, especially in Africa, fell into dictatorship or war. Even the Commonwealth Games, while consistently colourful and friendly, might be described as a global sport. Without Americans, Russians, Chinese and mainland Europeans, it’s hard to check it to the Olympics in terms of excitement. Is there still room for this post-imperial network of nations in our decidedly post-imperial world?
If the Commonwealth of Nations is seen as primarily UK-centric, and especially whether it is at the center of Brexiteers’ hopes for the UK’s future international role, the answer might be no.
The shocking case of the recent deportation of Windrush immigrants shows that, a minimum of for the Home Office, Commonwealth ties should not a difficulty in any respect in terms of residency rules.
A troublesome act to follow
However, over the years the Commonwealth has evolved and taken on recent roles to adapt to a changing world. Throughout the Sixties, Seventies and Nineteen Eighties, there was a heavy concentrate on leading the opposition to white minority rule in South Africa, often to the annoyance of Margaret Thatcher. In the Nineteen Nineties, it took on a more collaborative role in helping developing countries.
In the post-Cold War world, the Commonwealth became the forum for the middle ground originally envisioned by the Non-Aligned Movement of the Nineteen Fifties. The Singapore Declaration of 1971, prolonged in 1991 in Harare, established the Commonwealth of Nations as a body dedicated to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and the elimination of inequality and racism. Poorer countries that may need little influence at the United Nations or in their very own regional organizations could turn to it for support and a voice. In 1995, Mozambique became the first country to affix the Commonwealth of Nations without being a British colony, followed in 2009 by Rwanda. At a time when former superpowers are rising again and there may be talk of a brand new Cold War, the Commonwealth of Nations can provide a framework by which smaller and weaker nations can work together constructively.
ANNUALLY
Central to this process, as many Commonwealth heads of government have acknowledged, was the Queen. She developed close personal bonds with many Commonwealth leaders and often demonstrated her ability to calm troubled waters or maintain warm relations. Ironically, it’s her success that has made her son’s right to inherit from her less obvious. She has held on to the role not only because of her authority, but in addition because she is clearly good at it. What is the guarantee that Karol can be as good?
The British royal family, against all odds, survived into the early twenty first century and now seems as popular as ever. However, the fortunes of a monarchy can activate the individual quirks or miscalculations of a single monarch. The monarchy survives by knowing what to concede and when. The days when leadership of the Commonwealth passed into the hands of the British monarch are probably over. Prince Charles will surely gain more respect by recognizing and accepting that the Commonwealth must have a free selection on this matter, somewhat than by insisting longingly that it must be his. After all, they could even select him.
