Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain died on 8 September. In addition to inviting the reader to consult the Gazeta do Povo obituary of the monarch, this case raises some speculation. As far as political issues are concerned, none of them are of course very short term, as the next few months will be marked by official ceremonies. And then, however, what could be the specific political consequences of the death of the longest-lived monarch in British history?

For a significant part of the British population and several countries that are the possessions of the crown, Elizabeth II was a symbol in the positive sense of the word. For these people, it meant resilience, stability, a familiar face in politics. It also meant, especially for older people, British fame, “good times” when these people felt they ruled most of the Earth, she who was the last monarch of the British Empire as she once was.

Of course, this is a short goal, limited to one paragraph. The fact is that Elizabeth II connected the British generation Z of 2022 with the baby boomers of the 1950s, the fusion of British identity and the constant presence in the imagination of these supporters. It also became a symbol of behavior compared to political and personal scandals involving children, sisters, daughters-in-law and grandchildren. In short, Elizabeth was a kind of “collective grandmother” who had ruled since the 1950s and whose public functions date back to World War II.

Charles III

For all these reasons, the symbol that was Elizabeth II will not have a suitable replacement. At least not his son, the new King Charles III, or his grandson in the line of succession. And this is and will continue to generate concrete political consequences, not only in gossip tabloids or protocols and codes of etiquette. The first and most obvious aspect is that the popular image of Charles III is far from favorable.

In recent years, there have been speculations at various times that he might abdicate in favor of his eldest son, William. Let’s remember that British law is customary and the precedent for abdication that exists today is that of Edward VIII who abdicated in 1936. a wife may at some point claim the crown.

For Charles III to abdicate on behalf of his son, if any, would require another Act passed by Parliament. For a number of reasons, including mourning for the longest-serving British monarch, this is not possible. Charles III is king, it remains to be seen if he will be crowned. Edward VIII was not even crowned as the ceremony is not immediate to observe a period of mourning for the deceased monarch. Interestingly, the unpopularity of Charles III can be partially reversed, depending on his role in the farewell ceremonies for his mother.

United Kingdom

Other implications for British domestic policy are also possible. Not in the short term, of course. No political leadership will risk appearing disrespectful of due rites and national mourning for this powerful symbol that has passed away. One is the strengthening of the Scottish demand for a new independence referendum, as already promised by Nicola Sturgeon, whose Scottish National Party has a majority in the local parliament. Opinion polls on this topic are practically a draw.

Scotland’s independence is also being strengthened by Brexit, which further affects relations on the island of Ireland, a problem that we have already seen several times here in our space. The loss of the monarchy’s most powerful symbol could strengthen Irish republicanism in the long run. Reminding our reader that in the context of Northern Ireland, “republicanism” does not simply mean secession from the United Kingdom, but reunification with the Republic of Ireland on a single island.

This does not mean that Elizabeth’s death directly reinforces these principles, but rather that the power of her symbol prevented further progress towards Scottish independence or Irish republicanism. Republicanism has the same effect on the other dominions of the British crown. When we say that Elizabeth was the last monarch of the empire, we mean how many territories became independent and how many of the crown’s dominions became republics, completely separate from the United Kingdom.

In the first decades of her reign, Elizabeth lost the crowns of Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana, countries in which she was head of state even after independence. It was not just a historical process. Fiji and Barbados have become republics in recent years. Barbados was even the topic of a column here in our space, and on this occasion we have already talked about the rise of republicanism in the British kingdoms after the Queen has carried out the natural course of life, which is what happened now.

republicanism

In the medium term, we will see an increase in Republicanism in New Zealand, Australia and the Caribbean. In May 2021, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stated that she believed the country would soon become a republic. Polls put a sort of “tie” on the issue in public opinion, while programs such as a new national flag without British symbols and greater Māori participation in politics enjoy more support.

In Australia, Republicanism is winning in several opinion polls, in addition to being defended by the Labor Party and the Greens, and the Liberal Party is strong. The same debate cited about the flag and the political role of the indigenous population also applies. In the case of these two countries, relations with London may not be supported by the monarchy or King Charles III, but by the fear of worsening relations with China. Republicanism would probably mean a closer rapprochement with the US.

It would be naive to think that the death of Elizabeth, which interrupted the political trajectory of such a powerful symbol as her reign, would have no political consequences. It will be a big national commotion, maybe worldwide, but after that commotion, many will ask themselves, “Now what?” And many of the answers that will come up will not be pleasing to London ears, let alone the new King Charles III.