King Charles III will likely lose Belize, Antigua and Barbuda from the Commonwealth

On Sunday, King Charles III had meetings and some kind of reception for the Commonwealth Realm High Commissioners, basically representatives and diplomats from the Commonwealth nations. As we’ve been covering for years, many nations which still use the British monarch as their “head of state” have grown tired of this white supremacist mess. Many countries in the British commonwealth are actively looking for ways to free themselves of their colonialist ties too. About 72 hours after QEII’s passing, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda was the first one to say that the country will do a referendum. Belize has also announced a constitutional review:

King Charles III had just taken the throne last week when one Caribbean leader floated the idea of doing away with the British monarch as his country’s head of state.

Gaston Browne, prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, announced he plans to hold a referendum within the next three years to decide whether to remove the king as head of state and become a republic.

“This is a matter that has to be taken to a referendum for the people to decide,” Browne told ITV News. “It does not represent any form of disrespect to the monarch. This is not an act of hostility, or any difference between Antigua and Barbuda and the monarchy,” he added. “It is a final step to complete the circle of independence to become a truly sovereign nation.”

In addition to the United Kingdom, there are 14 countries known as Commonwealth realms that still have the ruling British royal as their monarch. But in recent years, there have been efforts among some Caribbean nations to do away with the British monarch as their figurehead.

At least six Caribbean countries – including Antigua and Barbuda as well as Jamaica and Belize – have suggested they want to remove the British king or queen as their head of state, according to Foreign Policy.

[From NPR]

Jamaica and Belize were two of the countries visited by the then-Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (now the Waleses) during the Flop Tour. The Earl and Countess of Wessex visited Antigua and Barbuda later on, but with the same Flop Tour energy. It would be incredibly funny if every Caribbean country visited by William, Kate, Edward and Sophie were the first ones out the door. Please, that would be perfect. I wonder if and when Canada and Australia will make their moves? I predict Australia will probably go before Canada. New Zealand’s prime minister just spoke about how NZ’s plan is to eventually become a republic, but she does not make it sound urgent whatsoever.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

121 Responses to “King Charles III will likely lose Belize, Antigua and Barbuda from the Commonwealth”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. square_bologna says:

    Good! It’s long past time.

    • Melissa says:

      Canadian here (part British). Happy to cut ties just to sink this archaic institution. We won’t anytime soon, but yeah we don’t need this . If I need a monarch at least let me fund Latizias far superior wardrobe.

      • Prairiegirl says:

        Your Canadian tax dollars don’t fund the monarch or the royal family. They fund the Governor General and your provincial/territorial Lieutenant Governor: their salaries, staff, and living accommodations. Why people think there’s some kind of tithe that goes to the UK, I’ll never understand.

      • Soapboxpudding says:

        Fellow Canadian here – Indigenous land claims are with the Crown and complicate ditching the Sovereign as head of state. Quite a few treaty rights, that were later violated by the Canadian gov’t, have been upheld (as they should be) in the Supreme Court of Canada because they were made with the Crown.

      • Duchcheese says:

        All this can be worked around for Canada to become a republic, nothing under the sun is impossible. And regardless of whether Canadians’ money fund who, that’s not the point. The point is Canada doesn’t need Charles or William or any of those British white supremacists as head of state of Canada. If we want, please let’s elect an indigenous individual to become the first president of the republic of Canada, it’s that simple.

      • Anners says:

        I would just love to not have to metaphorically paste on a happy face when those racist, inbred, arrogant twat waffles deign to affront us with their presence.

  2. Snickers says:

    The Commonwealth is a voluntary organization. If the citizens of those countries vote to leave, they can.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I think Belize, Antigua and Barbuda will cease having the Monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Chucky III) as their head of State but I do not believe Belize, Antigua and Barbuda will leave The Commonwealth of Nations organization. Not all member nations of The Commonwealth of Nations organization have the Monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as their head of State.

      Following the death of Elizabeth II, the office of the Head of the Commonwealth is held by Charles III. He is the head of state of 15 member states, known as the Commonwealth realms, while 36 other members are republics and 5 others have different monarchs.

    • Duchcheese says:

      @Snickers, they stated that they still want to remain in the Commonwealth. Membership of the commonwealth is different from being under UK monarchy rule. The countries will become sovereign republics and stay members of the commonwealth.

  3. ThatsNotOkay says:

    And, as you leave, don’t forget about your reparations.

    • GR says:

      I wish they’d get reparations. And we should have them in the US too. But not holding my breath.

      • loras says:

        For sure people in this country should get reparations but they won’t at least not in the near future.Too much of a conservative racist agenda with a tight grip on the US.

      • MeganC says:

        Charles is now the owner of a vast private collection of real estate, art, antiques, and jewels. He could easily raise billions of dollars for reparations. Charles II issued the charter that officially kicked off Britain’s participation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The current wealth of the BRF is a direct result of that.

    • Snuffles says:

      Genuine question. If the UK returned everything they stole from other countries and paid reparations, would they have anything left?

      • Chic says:

        Nope! It’s why they won’t apologize for slavery because it raises expectations that the apology must be followed by concrete actions such as reparations. A little more timely, how about reparations and restitution to Windrush who helped rebuild UK after war. I don’t think many folks realize that Windrush were literally citizens of the empire.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        They could pay over time—like they paid slave owners for their “losses” (just finished paying in 2015), though not the enslaved. I’m not that concerned if “Britai”n has anything left. It can all come from the Crown’s pocket, for all I care. Leaving them bankrupt would be the morally correct thing to do. You have a debt, you pay it and figure the rest out. Meanwhile, the “country” has enormous generational wealth from its past abuses and should pay the piper too.

      • Becks1 says:

        Well the British Museum would probably look a lot different.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        @chic I don’t think the thief gets to refuse to pay its debt for centuries and then decide it’s been too long so we should just forget it. And I’d argue that the institutional and structural racism that descendants of the enslaved suffer to this day make it more if not at least as “timely” as Windrush. Besides, it’s not for the thief to declare the debt forgiven. Britain and the Crown are not “forgiven.” And the people owed will one day collect.

      • SarahCS says:

        Nope. I will yet again wheel out one of my favourite twitter jokes –

        Name something that sounds British but isn’t.

        The contents of the British Museum.

        You should read the note they have by the Parthenon (Elgin) marbles explaining why it’s honestly better that they stay here no really it is. This country is built on looted treasures and people.

      • Seraphina says:

        @Snuffles, you bring up a very valid question. They would have nothing left nor would the US. That’s one reason the slavery issue is so avoided – amount many many others. But it would crush both U.K. and US if reparations were paid. Plus, here in the US we also have our Native Americans who will also need damages awarded. The line is long unfortunately.
        @Chic – yes, an apology also has the idea that concrete actions are followed.

  4. Merricat says:

    Charles still thinks Britannia rules the waves. Wakey-wakey, blue bloods. It’s a brand new century.

  5. Jais says:

    Thank god these countries can say not my king.

  6. Traci says:

    Will is gonna be soooo incandescent when all he’s left with is salt island. Off to a great start Chaz!

    • BW says:

      I’m secretly hoping Wales leaves, so the Prince of Wales title evaporates while Wills has it.

      • SAS says:

        Omg I’m dying!! Please, Wales!!

      • Chaine says:

        Me too!

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        I feel like the BRF would just stuck their fingers in their ears and continue using the Prince of Wales title regardless of what Wales does. Like Monaco with all those French titles that they don’t really have any reasonable claim to anymore, but they get away with it because nobody still alive with any claim to it cares.

        Also, I am really hoping that Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland leave the UK and then immediately turn around and hook up with the Republic of Ireland into some kind of League of Independent British States that’s like the European Union with the independent and equal partners thing but just the British Isles, with a great big NO ENGLAND ALLOWED sign on the door.

        That or all apply to re-join the EU and have the official announcement of that go out, like, five minutes after their independence becomes official.

  7. Noki says:

    Let me catch up with my History this week,i have soo many ignorant questions and curiosity on how this little tiny Island managed its grip and hooks everywhere.

    • Seraphina says:

      @Noki, I am reading the book The Royals by Kitty Kelly. It’s fascinating. Someone on Twitter referenced it and it looked good. And it is. And doesn’t paint the House of Windsor in a good light. AT ALL.
      Can any other CBs vouch for content of book? It not sugar coated so I’m wondering if it’s biased or not.

  8. Mika says:

    As a Canadian, I want out of the Commonwealth, but I know it’s a hard sell due to the process of reopening our Constitutional documents. I think the challenge that larger countries with multiple levels of government, multiple languages and multiple nations have will be renegotiating everything else once the removal of the monarchy opens the constitutional conversation. It will be worth it though. And a very good opportunity to reset our relationship with First Nations and give them the Sovereignty they deserve.

    • elaine says:

      Well said.

    • susan says:

      me too. 100%. But given the current state of politics here I sincerely doubt that an amendment can be passed. Although I did read something that discussed a soft exit that would not require a constitutional change. let’s hope.

    • Mia4s says:

      “but I know it’s a hard sell due to the process of reopening our Constitutional documents”

      How much “reopening” would be required is actually a matter of debate. There’s some sentiment that a lot of it could be handled by basic interpretation legislation (ie where the “Crown” is referenced it shall mean…, etc.). It’s interesting and it’s certainly being looked at in some circles.

      I think the big problem is we have soooooo many other issues to deal with right now and as long as they remain strictly figureheads and keep their damn mouths shut, we can kind of ignore them. No one wants to put the resources towards this one. I think a “soft exit” is exactly what we are likely to see. Gradually, piece by piece, we will just quietly slip away. The reaction to the Queen’s passing has overall been respectful but…muted. I think that is telling in and of itself.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        On television this week, I heard a Canadian historian and political science professor discussing this exact matter. He said the First Nations people have a treaty with “The Crown” not the British Government or the Canadian Government which is the major negotiating problem in this matter.

        Per this historian and political science professor dude person (who was very informative by the way) this all goes back to Canada being federated and given dominion status by the Westminster government of the day in 1868.

        Canadian CBers, please chime in as I really do not know what I am talking about and am only repeating what I heard.

        Foot note: I think the historian and political science professor dude person was from McGill University. Is that the Harvard-Yale of Canada?

      • Prairiegirl says:

        The Canadian Parliament and every provincial/territorial Assembly needs to pass a motion to remove the monarch. This formula was not required pre-1982’s Constitution Act so if we wanted to make a major change, it should have been done decades ago. Also, find me the leader in our country, nationally or provincially, who holds the esteem of enough people who could plausibly lead the country through what would be a very challenging debate. Go ahead, I’ll wait. I’ll be waiting a long time.

        Though government authority is held by the Crown, prime minister and premiers are the real decision makers who lead and make change. The monarch and her/his representatives (the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors) don’t introduce legislation, or mobilize change, or sway public opinion. That’s simply not their role. I understand that republican systems where the Head of Government and Head of State are a combined role do have these powers invested in a sole person but this isn’t true of parliamentary democracies and people need to remember this very fundamental difference.

        This replace-the-monarchy conversation is a parlour game when it comes to Canada. Our country has actual problems that need addressing. Making us a republic will not impact those problems or improve our nation one bit.

        Post-script: McGill is *not* the Harvard of Canada. It’s reputable, it’s publicly funded, and many well placed people in the political and business classes have attended there. It isn’t a pipeline to power like Harvard is in the US. There is no such singular institution here.

      • mazzie says:

        What @Prairiegirl said. It won’t go to Charles, etc. Any changes stay with the Canadian federal and provincial governments.

        Also, most of our universities are public, not private, and they do rank well internationally. I’m sure there are a couple private ones but their names escape me at the moment and I don’t care enough to look them up.

      • Nic919 says:

        Canada can exit the monarchy. It wouldn’t be an issue to draft a law saying that the new nation assumes the obligations of the crown set out in prior treaties. After all the 1867 constitution created the dominion of canada and they were not the ones who entered the treaty. Businesses do succession rights all the time.

        The main issue is political will. Canada could set up a ceremonial head of state like Ireland has and it wouldn’t change much about the country. But the amending formula of the constitution requires a lot of provinces to get together.

        The bigger issuer right now in Canada is the new leader of the opposition. He is a fake populist and wannabe fascist who wants to replicate the GOP nonsense.

      • Andrea says:

        Yves Francois Blanchet wants out of the monarchy—he is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. He has made it known he doesn’t think we should belong to them anymore. But he has maybe 32 seats in Parliament that would vote along with him? I feel like he might be able to get Jagmeet Singh on board (NDP leader), but there are a lot of PC’s and Liberals that are royalists and monarchists that would carry on status quo.

    • Athena says:

      If the U.K can exit from the European Union, Canada can untangle itself from the British monarchy.

  9. Snuffles says:

    Yes! More! MORE!

    I actually think Scotland and Wales are about to do the same! Let them fall like dominoes!

    • BW says:

      It would be so great if Wales left and the Prince of Wales title suddenly became obsolete.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        From what I have read, correct me if I am wrong, the Welsh Nationalist want a 100% clean break…bye-bye British Monarch and bye-bye Westminster. The SNP want a complete and independent break with and from Westminster but want to keep the British Monarch as their head of state as the British Monarch is the rightful Scottish Monarch.

    • Pip says:

      I have to say that twit “gifting” Wales to his son made me absolutely wince. & I’m not Welsh. We really need a grown-up discussion in the UK about the monarchy – it clearly isn’t appropriate right now but I think the winds are blowing that way.

      I’ve said elsewhere, the last few days of ridiculous anachronistic tone-deafness have prompted me to become a paid-up member of Republic & I bet many other people are doing the same. The times they are a changing, Charlie-boy.

      Not my king.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The twit is Edward I (8 June 1239 – 7 July 1307) and it is hard to believe that the royal family has been grifting that long.

        Edward I of England invested his son Prince Edward (born in Caernarfon Castle in 1284) as the first English Prince of Wales in 1301.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        I’m pretty sure at that point it was an actual, like, traditional ‘holding territory’ sort of thing. As in, Edward I had JUST conquered Wales, so the first Prince of Wales was essentially a military governor of an occupied territory, and most likely would have lost the title if he lost the territory.

        I think by the point Henry VIII was king it was on it’s way to devolving into a purely ceremonial role, but also a huge part of that was likely because he was the monarch who officially annexed Wales into England and made Wales and the Welsh people equal under the law. Considering just how war-riddled England was as recently as his fathers’ reign it seems likely that the Prince of Wales thing was still a rather serious administrative role up until AT LEAST the end of Henry VII’s reign in 1509.

  10. Lady Esther says:

    The DF is reporting that the new P and P of W are off to Australia in 2023….so maybe we can add that to the list of countries that will try to leave, lol!

    • Noki says:

      Have those two ever been to Africa ? They sure love going to a select number of countries .

      • Becks1 says:

        Nope! William has been a few times, I think mostly just to Kenya, but could be wrong about that. but even those trips have been nothing like the ones harry has done or the one Harry and Meghan did in 2019. Kate has never been on an official trip to any African country IIRC.

      • CuriousCole says:

        Noki – the new Wales’ have never done an African tour. William has gone privately many times, and he allegedly proposed to her in Kenya, but I doubt Kkkhate would ever willingly tour an African country. Charles would likely have to hold her buttons hostage to force her to go.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – William went to see Jecca Craig and she just happened to be in Africa at the time. LOL! LOL!

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay both during his cousin’s wedding and one of his children’s first Easters (charlotte?) LOL. What a catch.

    • Carrie says:

      Don’t want them in Australia thanks very much. Don’t want to pay for a PR porn tour. Republic now please Australia.

      • Debbie says:

        Sorry, Carrie. That still won’t help Australia because the U.S. said goodbye to England long ago but William still threatens to come over uninvited.

  11. Roo says:

    I hope they all leave in the next year, though I know that’s not likely as it will take planning.

    Kaiser, I apologize for this tangent, but I had to mention it. Is anyone else struck by how nervous or overwhelmed Camilla looks? Are all the chickens coming home to roost?

    • Chic says:

      She got to work! Kates gonna have that same wake up call too. She’s got to earn her keep. Meghan is gone.. Cams and Kate are the stars . Think about the workload of QEIJ?

    • FhMom says:

      I don’t think Camilla ever wanted to be Queen. She was able to walk away from Charles and marry someone else. I get the impression that for Charles, she was the One Who Got Away and that he is more into her than vice versa

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @FhMom – Agree with you 100%. I believe Camilla wanted to remain married to Andrew Parker-Bowles, be a non-titled aristocratic wife and remain the official Royal Confidant of the now Charles III. Much like deal with Alexandra “Sacha” Hamilton, Duchess of Abercorn and Prince Phillip 25-30 years ago.

    • Chaine says:

      To me, both she and Charles look nonplussed sitting on those silly gilded thrones. I think the realization is slowly dawning on both of them… “this is it… and is this all it is?” after a lifetime of waiting, they got to where they wanted to be, and “there is no there there.”

      • Watson says:


      • PunkPrincessPhD says:

        Has anyone else seen that video going around from earlier today, where Charles signs the wrong date, keeps asking are you sure it’s the 13th, not the 12th? Then his fancy pen starts leaking and Cams rushes to grab at while Chuck curses the “bloody stupid” pen? Charles, and I quote: “I hate this. I hate this!” (*This perhaps referring to more than the pen, but who knows? 🤷‍♀️)

      • Debbie says:

        Perhaps he was under the mistaken impression that one of his “kingly” powers was to alter time and change dates. Are you sure it’s not the 12th? Quite sure? (Hint, hint. I’m the king now, so if I say it’s the 12th, doesn’t it mean it’s the 12th? Please?).

    • Renae says:

      Cam looks like she wants a cigarette……. and a drink…….in fact, a LOT of drinks.

  12. Denise says:

    Looking at photos, Charles looks happier than he has looked in years

  13. RoyalBlue says:

    I don’t think the Royals care if they lose the commonwealth. They never really gave a damn about the Caribbean islands anyway. Didn’t Bulliam say they won’t stop them.

    Interesting to read about New Zealand considering becoming a republic here, because on another article I read it said it was not a consideration.

    • Dominique says:

      i dont think they give a damn and honestly ( small island national here), neither do we. we got rid of the Queen ages ago and we installed a President.
      i think maybe the Queen cares a great deal and i got the impression that following Brexit, there was a flurry of activity at the request of the British Government to re-activate this dead horse. The Royals ( and the Brits in general) care a great deal abt the countries that make up the United Kingdom, their economic importance on the World Stage is linked to these countries but the CW , maybe apart of countries like Canada, Australia etc, i dont think they give a damn. If they had, they would have invested way more energy into that they have in the past 50 years

    • Truthiness says:

      Charles got Togo and Gabon to sign up for the Commonwealth just this year. I’m sure it was for financial incentives.

      But no no no to reparations and returning jewels/antiquities to their original country. I just hope Togo and Gabon aren’t giving away resources in some way.

  14. Over it says:

    Camilla looks so miserable for someone who finally got what she wanted

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I don’t think Cams ever wanted the titles, in fact am not convinced that she really ever wanted to marry him and it took them long enough to get married as it was.

      Like Wallis Simpson, I think Cams was happy being the mistress.

    • Nlopez says:

      Karma is a bitch!

  15. Mariana says:

    Look at the white man getting a high and lucrative position and accolades for doing almost nothing.

  16. C-Shell says:

    Well, well. LOL.

    The pics of C&C on thrones is weird, unsettling, and anachronistic in the extreme. CIII looks satisfied and smug, Camilla looks awkward as hell. I’m already tired of all the ritual and pomp, tbh, and I don’t get why some US outlets (looking at you, CNN) are producing wall-to-wall sycophantic coverage of every moment of it. Hearing the accession proclamation read once was enough for me, thank you very much. I don’t need to hear it read in every commonwealth country. If there’s an upside, it’s that with all this micromanaging of Op London Bridge we’re seeing what kind of man and monarch CIII really is and will be. So there’s that.

    • windyriver says:

      I’m not a big one for analyzing body language, but the above is really striking. Charles is so relaxed, he could be on the sofa in the den watching tv. He really has been waiting for this his whole life – and yes, the last couple of days have been unpleasantly revealing about what kind of man he really is, and monarch he’ll be. Camilla, on the other hand, has her hands clenched in her lap. I agree with DU above, I’m not sure Camilla really wanted this. And it happened so fast, she looks a bit shell shocked. You break it, you buy it, m’am.

    • Carrie says:

      Very amazed that the US is giving it so much coverage AND prolonged coverage at that.

      • Iz_Q says:

        I am in the US and I’m so over it! Just bury this woman already and let her rest in peace! But nope…have to traipse her coffin all over the country like some reboot of Weekend at Bernie’s!!

        It is so OTT at this point that it borders on morbid spectacle!

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “don’t get why some US outlets (looking at you, CNN) are producing wall-to-wall sycophantic coverage of every moment of it”

      CNN from the very beginning specialized in on-scene 24/7 coverage of disasters such as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the Baby Jessica Rescue and Hurricane Katrina disaster. I think coverage of QEII fits right in.

      • C-Shell says:

        👋🏼 BTB! The Baby Jessica Rescue MADE CNN. I’m chuckling that QEII’s death is included under the heading, “Disaster.” Or, maybe it’s CIII’s interminable progress that’s the disaster. Anyway, CNN has gone over to the dark side. I can’t watch it anymore.

      • MsIam says:

        @BTB All of those events happened on US soil or involved US interests. I don’t see why we should be interested in all of this minutiae about Charles becoming king. My local NBC station announced they would be covering Charles address to some body, Parliament or some such, starting at 5:15 am local time! Wtaf! Not even the change in the UK PM is getting this kind of coverage here and that’s something that is actually consequential.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @MsIam – I have a friend that works for CNN and she told me that CNN views themselves as an “international” broadcaster that just happens to be a US corporation in order to separate themselves from Fox and MSNBC. CNN sees BBC World News channel as the major competition not the almost 100% political Fox and MSNBC. This “international” outlook and alignment is one of the reasons that CNN “experimented” with having Piers Morgan host a “news” program.

      • C-Shell says:

        CNN, under new management, is on record that they are competing with Fox for viewers and are/have changing/changed their slant to cater to same.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      All I can think about are the pictures of Ghislaine Maxwell and Kevin Spacey sitting on Elizabeth’s thrones. You stay classy, British royals.

  17. Moderatelywealthy says:

    Charles is many things, but he is not dumb. They sent their ” most popular” royals to the Caribbean and it flopped. People of colour even dared to bring Meghan and their treatment of her. William does not care about the Commonwealth, but I think The flop Tour made Charles not care either

    This is partially why I said that Chaz will only do the bare minimun when it comes to Harry and if it costs him nothing. Dont et me wrong: Chaz would prefer to teh the King of hearts and all. But waiting his whole life made him pragmatic. They have to stick by the racists and the passive crowd of on lookers. If William himself cannot appeal to the younger audiences, Chaz surely cannot.

    • MsIam says:

      Charles pragmatic? The man who tried to get Netflix to put a disclaimer on their fictional series? The man who made sure the BBC will never air the Diana interview again? He absolutely wants to be loved or at least respected like his mother was. Right now he’s being booed in his own country and ridiculed the world over. Its killing him, just like it is killing William to have Flop Tour on his record. Charles may or may not care about Harry but he sure wants to use his popularity, especially outside of the UK. I think negotiations are continuing behind the scenes.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I said something similar, too. I think the Caribbean flop tours by William and Edward showed Charles that the outside world, particularly communities of color, don’t like the royal family. So why waste effort trying to court them when it’s a lost cause? It’s better to put his efforts into placating the white communities within Britain who still support the monarchy, and keep THEM happy. That’s why I don’t think Charles will try to make amends with Harry, because Harry is now aligned with America and thanks to their smear campaign, is less popular with white Britons. Charles will cut his losses and focus on holding support among his “base.”

  18. Digital Unicorn says:

    TBH none of this is new or surprising as its been on the horizon for a while and is inevitable.

    Over the past decade there has been countries who have left the Commonwealth and recently there were 2 new countries who joined.

    The big change will be with the realms – the countries where he is head of state. THATS where the big changes will happen during his reign – currently there are 14 realms and I suspect that will be dramatically reduced by the time Peggy takes the throne.

  19. SussexWatcher says:

    I really hope Scotland and Wales leave along with the CW countries mentioned. Those 2, plus Northern Ireland, are the ones I believe they really don’t want to lose (see QEII’s meddling in the last Scotland referendum). And then that’s followed by a stampede of remaining countries that have any ties to England.

    And didn’t Australia say they didn’t want Peggington and Jeggington to come last time they floated a tour? Or am I thinking of something else?

    • Becks1 says:

      Nope, you’re thinking of Australia. Granted that was bc they were going to view the damage from the wildfires, but still.

  20. Becks1 says:

    I mean, I think we all saw this coming after the Flop Tours. If Sophie and Edward can’t convince you to stay , who can?!?!?

  21. Jjjj says:

    Canada made it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to remove the monarchy as our head of state. Unlike most commonwealth countries, who need majority to pass the removal, we need a unanimous vote

    • Mia4s says:

      True. But even the polls taken when the Queen was alive showed the majority of Canadians wanted to abolish the monarchy. Now that it’s King Chuck? The sentiment will only grow and politicians will want an easy, popular win. We will get out, but it will take time.

      We have a lot of other issues to address that are more pressing though so if Chuck and Co. are smart they will stay the hell away and stay quiet. The less conspicuous they are the less likely kicking them to the curb will be a priority.

      And yes, Australia will be out first (and good for them).

      • Prairiegirl says:

        It isn’t necessarily an ‘easy, popular win’ to remove a constitutional monarchy and replace it with a republic. Go ask the USA and France.

        Also, find me a leader at either the national or provincial/territorial level with the gravitas, intelligence, and moral authority/esteem of enough Canadians to lead this multi-year, even decade, long debate and campaign, since that’s what it would take. I’ll wait.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I heard (or maybe heard on TV) that New Zeeland is also talking loudly talking about showing The British Monarchy the door.

    • Jaded says:

      Exactly. There would have to be separate referendums from each province, as well as the 30+ treaties that our First Nations’ peoples have with the Crown separate from our government. It would be a long, arduous and complicated process and a total rewrite of our constitution. If the groundswell of anti-monarchist sentiment keeps growing, I can see this taking upwards of a decade or more to manage.

  22. equality says:

    What are the big advantages of being part of the commonwealth anyway? Many commonwealth countries were on the list for needing covid vaccines and the UK didn’t seem to want to help out any until other countries got involved. And there’s certainly no advantage to having a UK monarch as their head of state. I have my doubts about the monarchy bringing tourism to the UK even. They definitely don’t bring it to Caribbean countries. Most of the Caribbean tourism is from the Americas.

  23. Cathy says:

    Ugh, Jacinda Arden is only wanting to keep her name in the world media and that’s why she’s talking about will NZ become a republic. But not yet as she’s after getting a Damehood, Prime Ministers often get a knighthood here once they are finished in the job.

    Becoming a republic here will be a long task due to the Treaty of Waitangi being between Māori and the Crown. It would be like having to go right back to the beginning and starting again?

    • equality says:

      So the monarchy keeps people invested by giving them silly titles that mean nothing?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I do not get it either. Why would someone care about a Damehood or a Knighthood when a zillion people have a Damehood or a Knighthood. Who wants to be in the same club as Lord Sugar and Sir Philip “Shifty” Green?

        The French “Legion of Honor” or the USA “Presidential Medal of Freedom”, I could see wanting but a Damehood or a Knighthood I do not understand.

        What do I get if I give (donate???) a $1,000,000.00 to one of Chucky III’s charities? Is it like donating to Trump were you get a set of shot glasses with Trump’s face on them or do I get an OBE?

    • Smonty says:

      No, Prime Ministers do not often get knighted. There hasn’t been a Canadian prime minister knighted since 1914. While there were two previous New Zealand prime ministers knighted, it can hardly be called common.

      • Nic919 says:

        There is a law against getting titles in Canada and it’s how Chrétien forced Conrad black to renounce his Canadian citizenship so he could keep his British peerage.

        Chretien himself got an honour from Elizabeth, which was a personal gift, but it is not a Knighthood.

  24. Amy Bee says:

    I think by the end of Charles’ reign, all the Commonwealth Caribbean countries will be Republics.

  25. manta says:

    Does actually removing the King as a head of state automatically mean that the country is out of the Commonwealth? I mean India and South Africa are republics with their own presidents and are still members.
    I’m sure it’s the case for other countries.
    Do people have to vote twice on separate issues (head of state -membership)?

    • Snuffles says:

      Can’t the Commonwealth be an economic entity without having the monarchy and the UK government involved?

    • Prairiegirl says:

      Those are two separate decisions. Any country can join the Commonwealth. Its ‘aims’ are ‘democracy, development and peace’. [Ref.: ]

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The Commonwealth of Nations is a group of countries. If you are a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and the British Monarch is your head of state you are also a member of the “Commonwealth Realms”. If the British Monarch is NOT your head of state then you are just a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

    • Nic919 says:

      It is a separate thing to be in the commonwealth and to have the British monarch as head of state. India and South Africa are republics but in the commonwealth. Canada and Australia have both.

  26. aquarius64 says:

    Countries are starting to jump ship before the queen is buried? You know the courtiers are not happy; they were counting on the mourning period of the queen to get some good will.

    • Lady D says:

      Aren’t those racist zealots out of a job with the queen gone?

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        Eh, depends on if the incoming regime decides to keep them on or give them the boot. I can definitely see King Prince Charles booting Angela Kelly, he wouldn’t stand for anyone getting between him and his jewels and she has a pretty pronounced habit of getting quite ahead of herself there.

  27. Grouchie says:

    Australia can’t get rid of the monarchy until we get rid of the Murdoch’s running most of our media.

  28. NotSoSocialB says:

    That last photo of C&C- looks like they know the jig is up and they are smelling a Marie Antoinette situation in the air. It’s a only matter of time (figuratively).

  29. Seraphina says:

    My God, seeing him on that throne like chair annoyed the eff out of me and then to see that look on his face- UGH.
    And then to see Cams there seated next to me. I can hear Diana’s words in my head. He got what he wanted.

  30. Just Me says:

    Where is the purse?

  31. Pip says:

    As Brits, are we allowed to leave too?!

  32. Smonty says:

    Commonwealth members who have The King as their head of state can remove the monarch as head of state and still be members of the Commonwealth. Each country would have their own procedures for making such changes. I am Canadian. In Canada, changing the head of state would require a change to the constitution. This requires the consent of all the provinces and territories. If you know anything about Canada’s politics, fat chance of all agreeing on anything! But the head of state in Canada, The King, or his representative in Canada the Governor General, the Right Honourable Mary Simon, is purely symbolic. There is no political power endowed in that office whatsoever. It’s just all part of the pageantry and ceremony of government. Political power is entirely in the elected government, and head of government, the Prime Minister. Honestly I don’t think any change will come about. We have more important issues to wrangle with than spending all the time, money, and argument in changing a ceremonial head of state. And besides, we all like a good dose of pageantry.

    • Smonty says:

      Also I forgot to say, that all the historical treaties with the First Nations are all agreements made between those First Nations and the Crown. This would be a huge issue. Despite the problems of the British monarchy and the awful treatment of indigenous peoples, many First Nations feel they have a special relationship to the monarch. Of course, many First Nations and many individuals do not have this view. Nonetheless, the legal and constitutional complexities of removing The King as head of state in Canada are enormous because of these and other issues. It would take years and years to iron all this out. We as a country have a lot of serious issues around reconciliation with First Nations that are very much important. I don’t know if Americans have any idea how cogent and important and current reconciliation between Canada, the provinces and territories, and First Nations is in this current.

  33. TOODLE says:

    Aside from optics if I was Charles I wouldn’t give a sh*t about countries leaving if the riches stolen have already been deposited in my bank account.

  34. Aurelia says:

    Good, will save the UK tax payers money in diplomatic aid

  35. Debbie says:

    Yikes, that second picture of Charles sitting in the high chair is not bueno. Is that his mourning for mummy look?