DURING Queen Elizabeth’s lifetime, the number of countries under her reign dropped significantly from 32 to just 14.
Barbados was the last country to ditch the royal family. In 2020 the nation severed its ties with the monarchy and elected its own head of state.
Now, with the ascension of King Charles onto the throne, countries around the world may be rethinking their own relationship with the royals.
Australia
In June, Australia appointed former republican campaigner Matt Thistlethwaite as its first assistant minister for the republic.
The role will help the country work out a potential transition away from the royal family.
In May, an ABC News poll found a majority in the country appeared to oppose Charles becoming King.
READ MORE: Six times the BBC left us scratching our heads over its royal coverage
The survey found 29% were “not at all supportive” while 24% described themselves as “not very supportive” of Charles' ascension.
In 1977, a scandal involving the royals saw the Queen’s representative, John Kerr, resign after years of protest.
Two years earlier he had dismissed the country’s Labour government following a deadlock between the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In 2020, newly released papers showed that the Queen’s private secretary, Martin Charteris, had told Kerr in advance he had the power to dismiss the government.
Other papers revealed a letter Charles had written to Kerr, in which he said: “What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do”.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, has said she expects her country to become a republic “within my lifetime”.
Andrew Little, her party’s predecessor, said in 2016: “The end of the current monarch's reign would be a good time to debate our constitutional arrangements. Do we still want to have our head of state living in London? Or do we want to do something else?"
Katie Pickles, a history professor at the University of Canterbury in the country, said as the monarchy becomes less important to many people, “places like New Zealand hung on because they held the Queen personally in such high respect”.
She said King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla will likely not have the same appeal.
Despite this, Ardern has said that her government will not pursue any moves to change the country into a republic at the moment, adding that other issues were more pressing.
Jamaica
In June this year, Jamaica’s minister for legal and constitutional affairs said the process for transitioning to a republic had “formally commenced”.
Previous prime ministers have promised to look into leaving the monarchy but have all failed.
However, the removal of the royals is easier in Jamaica than in many countries, needing only a simple majority in a referendum.
In March, Prince William and Kate were accused of harking back to colonial days in Jamaica after the pair shook hands with crowds behind a wire mesh fence and rode in the back of a Land Rover, just as the Queen had done 60 years prior.
Demonstrators accused them of benefiting from the “blood, tears and sweat” of slaves, while in the Bahamas they were urged to acknowledge the British economy was “built on the backs” of past Bahamians and to pay reparations.
Jamaica’s prime minister Andrew Holness suggested to William and Kate that his country may be the next to become a republic.
Last year he said “there is no question that Jamaica has to become a republic” while in March he told William and Kate that “we are moving on” and that Jamaica intended to be “an independent, developed, prosperous country”.
Antigua and Barbuda
Gaston Browne, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, said at the weekend he would seek a referendum to become a republic within three years.
He said the plan was “not an act of hostility … but it is the final step to complete that circle of independence, to ensure that we are truly a sovereign nation”.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
A referendum on the issue failed in 2009 but has cropped up in recent years with protests in April during the Earl and Countess of Wessex visit.
Demonstrators objected to the royals’ trip, demanding reparations over the slave trade.
More recently, the country’s prime minister proposed a referendum but insisted it could only go ahead with bipartisan support.
The Bahamas
The leader of the Bahamas, Philip Davis, has suggested next year could be the ideal moment for a debate on the future of the monarchy in the country.
In March, he said: “As we move forward in our celebrations of the 50th anniversary of independence, I hope there is lively discussion and debate about our future: about who we are and what we want to be.
“I agree with the Duke when he says that it is for the Bahamian people to decide upon their future.
“For now, it is enough to say that my administration will listen to, participate in, and fully support those discussions. In time, we can be sure that the will of the Bahamian is always being fully expressed.”
Canada
Canada is one of the countries least likely to wave goodbye to the monarchy as its head of state.
READ MORE: Anti-monarchy group Republic vows to up campaigning efforts ahead of coronation day
Despite polls showing a majority in the nation against the continuation of the royal family after Queen Elizabeth, Canada’s system makes it incredibly difficult to vote them out.
Under the current rules, Canada requires “unanimous consent”. That means a majority of the House of Commons, the Senate and all 10 provincial legislatures.
Emmett Macfarlane, a political scientist at the University of Waterloo, said no constitutional amendment has ever passed such a high bar.
“The irony is that probably the most likely way Canada would abolish the monarchy is if the United Kingdom did it,” he said.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel