Saturday, September 10, 2022


Before Queen Elizabeth II passed away this afternoon, it was common knowledge that she was rich. Like, owns multiple palaces, several sparkly diamond tiaras, a solid gold piano, all of Hyde Park (lol), literally every single swan in the United Kingdom, and a casual abbey R-I-C-H. But how much does she actually have tucked away in the bank, you ask? Answer: It’s complicated because a ton of stuff “owned” by the Queen actually just belongs to the “Royal Firm,” so the time has come to break it all down.

First Up: The “Royal Firm” Is a $28 Billion Empire

According to Forbes, the crown, through the the Firm (which actually goes by “Monarchy PLC”), holds nearly $28 billion in assets. Quick tally of its various assets: The Crown Estate holds $19.5 billion, Buckingham Palace is worth an estimated $4.9 billion, the Duchy of Cornwall holds $1.3 billion, the Duchy of Lancaster holds $748 million, Kensington Palace has an estimated worth of $630 million, and the Crown Estate Scotland holds $592 million.

But not all of this money belongs to the British royals! Some of it belongs to the British Treasury. Let’s take the Crown Estate as an example, shall we?

The Crown Estate technically belongs to the reigning monarch (in this case, Queen Elizabeth II) for the duration of their reign but isn’t their private property nor is it the property of the government. Instead, it’s run by an outside board. Per Forbes, the Crown Estate made £475 million in profits in 2020, and the royal family got 25 percent of that (this sum is known as the Sovereign Grant), while the remaining 75 percent went to the British Treasury. That year alone, that grant amount totaled a truly eye-watering £86.3 million!!
*le sigh*

So yeah: The Queen *did* make money from the royal institution as a whole—but it’s honestly kinda irrelevant because she also had an entirely separate set of assets that were just hers.

The Queen Had $500 Million in Personal Assets

Said assets include but are not limited to personal investments that are “mostly in British blue chip shares,” a truly massive art collection, an equally massive jewelry collection, and real estate—including Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.

Photo credit: Tim Graham - Getty Images

 

Plus, She Inherited Her Mother’s Entire Estate

The Queen Mother left an estimated £70M fortune to the Queen, including many significant works of art. Although according to the BBC, Her Majesty decided the most important pieces left by her mother would be transferred to the Royal Collection, where they would be “held in trust for the nation.”

And speaking of inherited estates, the Queen’s late husband, Prince Philip, is said to have left an estate worth about £10 million, including a collection of paintings by Edward Seago as well as 3,000 books.

The Queen Owned a Wildly Expensive Stamp Collection

According to the Sunday Times, the Queen owned the Royal Philatelic Collection, which is valued at £100 million and is composed of UK and Commonwealth stamps.

There Are Claims She Was Trying to Hide Her Wealth

Back in February 2021, The Guardian released a bombshell report alleging that Queen Elizabeth II “successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her ‘embarrassing’ private wealth from the public.” Apparently, this occurred in the 1970s and “placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen’s private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011.”

But according to The Sun, a spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace shut down this report, saying in part that “any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect.”

Hmmm. Curious! Anyway, in conclusion, the Queen was super rich. Bernie Sanders, get in here!




https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-on-the-question-of-the-right-of-inheritance

We on the contrary take our departure from the present, where we are under the system of individual property triumphant, arid we encounter an obstacle in our ...

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-report-of-the-committee-on-the-question-of-inheritance

At present, in order to emancipate the worker, the human being, and to establish the reign of justice on the ruins of all the political and theological ...


Prince Charles is now King Charles. That's an excellent reason to end the monarchy.

Ahmed Twaij - Yesterday 


The same statement from Buckingham Palace announcing the death of Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday declared that her son Charles had succeeded her as king. And just like that, this unelected man became the head of state for millions around the world. The former Prince of Wales, whose life has been riddled with controversy, is now the strongest argument for ending the archaic institution of the monarchy.
















The queen’s demise ended a reign spanning seven decades and the terms of 14 U.S. presidents and 15 British prime ministers. She was heir to, and in turn passes on, a chain of rule defined by the brutality of the British Empire as it conquered and exploited people around the world. As a British-born Iraqi who grew up in London, it still pains me to visit the British Museum and see what was plundered from the nation during a ferocious colonial rule.

Charles, too, has benefited from this self-interested and abusive conduct, and some of the most odious royal traditions continue under him. For starters, in a country suffering from worsening inflation, a collapsing health service and rising poverty, King Charles III and his family will still enjoy an annual payment from the British government known as the “Sovereign Grant.”

The grant cost British taxpayers £86.3 million ($100.12 million) in 2021 and was further increased by £27.3 million ($31.67 million) over the next two years to help cover a 17% rise in spending by the royals. The grant has been used for a variety of items, from the upkeep of many palaces to £32,000 (more than $37,000) for a chartered flight for Charles to attend a James Bond movie premiere (despite his years of pro-environment advocacy). Playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda’s famous line about the British monarchy in the age of Alexander Hamilton remains true: “Essentially, they tax us relentlessly. Then King George turns around, runs a spending spree.”


Full speech: King Charles III promises ‘lifelong service’ after death of Queen Elizabeth II     Duration 8:51     View on Watch


In June, The Sunday Times reported that Charles had previously accepted €1 million ($1.16 million) in cash for his foundation in a suitcase, part of €3 million ($3.48 million) in total, from a former Qatari prime minister. The charity was later found to have accepted millions from Osama Bin Laden’s family as well.

In February, Scotland Yard announced a probe into the circumstances under which an aide to Charles allegedly accepted donations to a foundation set up by Charles from a Saudi national in exchange for help to obtain British citizenship and a knighthood. Clarence House once again said that Charles had “no knowledge” of a cash-for-honors scheme.

On political matters, though the British monarch is supposed to stay strictly neutral, Charles as prince lobbied the British government for various policy shifts through handwritten letters that were dubbed the “black spider memos”; the letters were obtained by The Guardian after a legal battle. A spokesperson for Charles responded that he was only “raising issues of public concern, and trying to find practical ways to address the issues.”

The memos include a letter to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair urging a change in herbal medicine policy from the prince, who later went on to set up an alternative medicine company. Charles said at the time that Blair had asked him for his opinion on new European Union rules on the products. Other of his lobbying efforts were far more sinister, including one letter to Blair expressing concerns that British troops didn’t have the necessary resources while waging the Iraq War, which had already claimed thousands of Iraqi lives.

In the modern world, placing such power in an unelected individual can’t be a birthright. For a country that claims its Parliament is “one of the oldest continuous representative assemblies” in the world, having an unelected monarch marred with controversies as head of state is by no means democratic.

Charles also has no claim to moral leadership, negating any argument that the monarchy remains important as a sober ceremonial force in society. Charles famously engaged in an extramarital affair with Camilla Parker Bowles while being married to “People’s Princess” Diana. He now assumes not only the throne but becomes the head of the Church of England — another inherited role that should be discontinued.

Of course, the arrogance of Charles presuming to be a religious figure was passed down for generations within the British monarchy. The Church of England was first established because in 1534 King Henry VIII, frustrated by Catholicism’s prohibition on divorce, established a new branch of Christianity, made himself the head and promptly permitted divorce. Without Henry’s entitled precedent, Charles would not have been able to divorce Diana and still have a claim to the crown.

When you add in the treatment of Prince Harry’s wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and the behavior of Charles’ brother Andrew, the standing of the British royal family is only further degraded. To expect us to instantly refer to Charles as “His Majesty,” as if he is automatically a man of dignity, is laughable. The monarchy should have ended years ago. With Charles at the helm, it most certainly should end now.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Members of some diaspora communities call for Canada to break ties to Crown

Yesterday 

Some Canadians from diaspora communities called for the country's independence from the Crown on Friday, saying the death of the Queen is a chance to rethink its ties to the monarchy.


Members of some diaspora communities call for Canada to break ties to Crown© Provided by The Canadian Press

More than 50 countries with historical links to Britain are part of the Commonwealth, which Queen Elizabeth II was head of throughout her reign. Her death Thursday came as a growing number of nations debate their relationship with the British Crown amid demands that the country apologize for its colonial-era abuses and award its former colonies slavery reparations.

Parmod Chhabra, the president of the India Canada Association, said he respected the Queen as the sovereign of Canada but thinks it's time for the country to break ties with the Crown.

“I think it is the time for the monarchy to go away,” said Chhabra, recalling atrocities committed against Indians when the British Empire ruled that country.

“We should start rethinking about it, and think about total freedom, instead of having the Queen as our head whom we don’t elect," he added.

That sentiment was shared by Monir Hossain, the president of the National Bangladeshi-Canadian Council, who said Canada should be a fully independent nation like other countries around the world.

“I think we all want independence these days," he said. "The world is moving forward.”

The Royal Family has faced multiple controversies this year surrounding the Crown's continuing role in Britain's former colonies as members travelled to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, which marked her 70 years on the throne.

In March, Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge were sharply criticized for being "tone deaf" and perpetuating images of Britain's colonial rule during a tour of Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas.

Though many people welcomed the royals, they were also greeted by protesters demanding an apology for Britain's role in the enslavement of millions of Africans and reparations for the damage caused by slavery.

The following month, the Earl and Countess of Wessex -- Edward, the youngest son of the Queen, and his wife Sophie -- postponed the Grenada leg of a Caribbean tour on the eve of the seven-day trip after consultations with the Grenadine government and the governor general, the Queen's representative on the island.

They had been likely to face similar calls for a British apology during their planned visit to Grenada, where activists had requested an audience with the royal couple.

Barbados cut ties to the monarchy in November and Jamaica has said it will follow suit.

In Canada, the Queen’s death will likely fuel conversations about getting rid of the monarchy, as well as responses that the country's system works well and would be too hard to change, said Jonathan Malloy, a political science professor at Carleton University.

“The Queen’s longevity has allowed us to perhaps put off some conversations,” and some will see her passing as an opportunity for change, he said Friday.

The monarchy is anachronistic and represents values that no longer align with Canada’s direction, but the system “does actually work fairly well … and it would be extremely hard to change,” he said.

For instance, the Crown is at the heart of our legal and political systems, and cutting ties with it would, among other things, undermine treaties with Indigenous nations, he said.

Provinces probably also like the current system because it allows them to claim their own direct relationship with the Crown, and changing that would require them to overhaul their systems, Malloy said.

There would also be issues related to how to select a new head of state, and the risk that removing the Crown would open the door to other attempts to change the Constitution, he said.

“No government wants to be consumed by constitutional talks and changes,” he said, pointing to the constitutional crises of Meech Lake and Charlottetown several decades ago.

Not everyone in the diaspora community criticized the Queen and the British monarchy on Friday.

Reuben Wong, 73, who grew up in poverty in Hong Kong before immigrating to Canada in the 1970s, said he wouldn’t be where he is today without the Queen and the British system.

Hong Kong has not been a part of the Commonwealth since the 1997 handover to China, but some in its diaspora in Canada continue to embrace the monarchy.

“The Queen’s spirit lives in my blood,” the Richmond, B.C., retiree said Friday.

Wong said he grew up in a village with no water or electricity, and paid tribute to the free education provided by colonial British authorities that allowed him to immigrate and forge a career as a public servant.

“When I look back, I feel thankful to the British system in Hong Kong and the Queen," he added.

- With files from Paola Loriggio, Nono Shen and The Associated Press

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 9, 2022.

Sharif Hassan, The Canadian Press
Debate on severing ties with the monarchy reignites across Commonwealth

James Crisp
Fri, September 9, 2022 

An image of the late Queen Elizabeth is projected on to the Sydney Opera House - Getty Images

Australia should replace the British monarch as head of state now that Queen Elizabeth II is dead, republicans said on Friday, as former colonies around the world consider ditching the last vestiges of the Empire.

The loss of the much-loved 96-year-old sovereign is ushering in a period of renewed debate in Commonwealth realm nations over whether to be led by King Charles III or one of their own citizens as president.

Adam Bandt, the leader of Australia’s Greens, was criticised for being insensitive after calling for his country to get rid of the monarchy in the same breath as tweeting his condolences.

He said: “Now Australia must move forward... We need a Treaty with First Nations people, and we need to become a Republic.”

Republicans in the country have been pushing to sever the historic link to the imperial past for the past two decades.

In May, just two days before the Platinum Jubilee celebrations began, newly elected prime minister Anthony Albanese boosted prospects for a referendum on whether to replace the late Queen as head of state.

Anthony Albanese, - Mick Tsikas/AP

The centre-Left leader, who has described Australia becoming a republic as “inevitable”, created the new role of “assistant minister for the republic” despite the referendum not being part of his manifesto.

But after her death, Mr Albanese shrugged the question off when asked if Australia should now become a republic.

“Today’s not a day for politics,” he told Radio National. “Today’s a day to pay tribute to the service of Queen Elizabeth.”

That debate is now taking place across the world, particularly in the Caribbean, where Barbados last year became a Republic, bringing 396 years of the British monarchy’s reign over the Caribbean island to an end.

Belize, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Kitts and Nevis have all indicated they plan to follow suit.

Andrew Holness, the Jamaican Prime Minister, is planning a referendum.

In his statement of condolences, he described Queen Elizabeth as the British sovereign and a “close friend” of Jamaica. He did not mention that she was Jamaica’s head of state.

Prince William with the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness in Kingston. During the Royal tour of the Caribbean, Holness made clear his country's intention to sever ties with the British monarchy - PA

The visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge in Jamaica in March was met with protests outside the British High Commission in Kingston - RICARDO MAKYN/AFP

An August survey showed 56 per cent of Jamaicans favoured removing the British monarch.

“Jamaica needs to free itself from the shackles of colonialism finally,” an official in the capital Kingston told The Telegraph.

“We want our own head of state and not one in a faraway place in Europe. Look now our people cannot even travel to this kingdom without a visa. How can that be fair when our head of state is in the UK? How do you make sense of that? It is now the right time or never.”

An official in Antigua shared similar sentiments.

“Antigua and a number of other Caribbean islands would ideally like to sever all ties with the now kingdom of the United Kingdom. I don’t think that with her passing that they will want to have a king as their head of state,” they told The Telegraph.

The official added: “The Queen kept everybody together in the Caribbean. She was well loved in the archipelago. Now there is real talk about proper independence where we can have our own head of state.”
‘A general movement toward republicanism’

Allen Chastanet, a former prime minister of St Lucia and now leader of the opposition, said that he backed what he said was a “general” movement toward republicanism in his country.

“I certainly at this point would support becoming a republic,” he said.

Members of the British Royal family made two separate trips to the Caribbean earlier this year. But they were confronted by massive protests at every stop of their tour and calls for reparations for Britain’s role in the slave trade.

The Duchess of Sussex’s allegations of racism within the Royal family have also hurt the monarchy’s reputation in the Caribbean countries.

In New Zealand, the public debate over replacing the monarchy would “build up quite a head of steam now”, Sir Don McKinnon, a former deputy prime minister and former secretary-general of the Commonwealth, told Radio New Zealand.

Last year, Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, said she believed her country would become a republic in her lifetime.

“I’ve been very clear that despite being a republican, I’m not of the view that in the here-and-now in my term of office, that this is something New Zealanders feel particularly strongly about,” Ms Ardern said at the time.

This week, Ms Ardern paid tribute to an “extraordinary” Queen as New Zealand entered a period of mourning for Her Majesty.

Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, has said that citizens are not interested in constitutional change, despite another poll in April showing a growing share of 51 per cent of his people saying the monarch should disappear in coming generations.

She was one of my favourite people in the world,” Mr Trudeau said after the news of the monarch’s death broke.

A February poll found 49 per cent of respondents would prefer to have an elected head of state, with just 21 per cent saying they would rather keep the monarchy.

The survey found that 34 per cent of Canadians would prefer Prince William to take over as King rather than his father Charles, who was supported by just 17 per cent of the respondents.


When Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1953, Britain had more than 70 territories overseas but the Empire was in terminal decline.

At the time of her death she was the sovereign of 14 independent countries: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Charles' succession stirs Caribbean calls for reparations, removal of monarch as head of state


By Kate Chappell and Michela Moscufo

KINGSTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The accession of King Charles to the British throne has stirred renewed calls from politicians and activists for former colonies in the Caribbean to remove the monarch as their head of state and for Britain to pay slavery reparations.

Charles succeeds his mother, Queen Elizabeth, who ruled for 70 years and died on Thursday afternoon.

The prime minister of Jamaica said his country would mourn Elizabeth, and his counterpart in Antigua and Barbuda ordered flags to half-staff until the day of her burial.

But in some quarters there are doubts about the role a distant monarch should play in the 21st century. Earlier this year, some Commonwealth leaders expressed unease at a summit in Kigali, Rwanda, about the passage of leadership of the 56-nation club from Elizabeth to Charles.

And an eight-day tour in March by now heir-to-the-throne Prince William and his wife, Kate, to Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas was marked by calls for reparation payments and an apology for slavery.

"As the role of the monarchy changes, we expect this can be an opportunity to advance discussions of reparations for our region," Niambi Hall-Campbell, a 44-year-old academic who chairs the Bahamas National Reparations Committee, said Thursday.

Hall-Campbell sent condolences to the Queen's family and noted Charles' acknowledgment of the "appalling atrocity of slavery" at a ceremony last year marking the end of British rule as Barbados became a republic.

She said she hopes Charles would lead in a way reflecting the "justice required of the times. And that justice is reparatory justice."

More than 10 million Africans were shackled into the Atlantic slave trade by European nations between the 15th and 19th centuries. Those who survived the brutal voyage were forced to labor on plantations in the Caribbean and the Americas.

Jamaican reparations advocate Rosalea Hamilton said Charles' comments at the Kigali conference about his personal sorrow over slavery offered "some degree of hope that he will learn from the history, understand the painful impact that many nations have endured 'til today" and address the need for reparations.

The new king did not mention reparations in the Kigali speech.

The Advocates Network, which Hamilton coordinates, published an open letter calling for "apologies and reparations" during William and Kate's visit.

The Queen's grandchildren have the chance to lead the reparations conversation, Hamilton added.

Jamaica's government last year announced plans to ask Britain for compensation for forcibly transporting an estimated 600,000 Africans to work on sugar cane and banana plantations that created fortunes for British slave holders.

"Whoever will take over the position should be asked to allow the royal family to pay African people reparations," said David Denny, general secretary of the Caribbean Movement for Peace and Integration, from Barbados.

"We should all work towards removing the royal family as head of state of our nations," he said.

Jamaica has signaled it may soon follow Barbados in ditching royal rule. Both remain members of the Commonwealth.

An August survey showed 56% of Jamaicans favor removing the British monarch as the head of state.

Mikael Phillips, an opposition member of Jamaica's parliament, in 2020 filed a motion backing the removal.

"I am hoping as the prime minister had said in one of his expressions, that he would move faster when there is a new monarch in place," Phillips said on Thursday.

Allen Chastanet, a former St. Lucia prime minister and now leader of the opposition, told Reuters he backed what he said was a "general" movement toward republicanism in his country.

"I certainly at this point would support becoming a republic," he said.

(Reporting by Kate Chappell in Kingston; additional reporting by Robertson Henry in St. Vincent and Michela Moscufo in New York; Writing by Julia Symmes Cobb; Editing by Rosalba O'Brien and Leslie Adler)


With Queen Elizabeth's death, republicans sense their chance


By Michael Holden

LONDON (Reuters) - During Queen Elizabeth's 70-year reign, republican rumblings surfaced on occasion, but the affection and respect she enjoyed meant that the movement to do away with the monarchy struggled to make a lasting impression.

Now, with her death and the accession of her less popular son Charles, republicans believe that the end of the 1,000-year-old institution could be a step closer.

"The queen is the monarchy for most people. After she dies the future of the institution is in serious jeopardy," Graham Smith, chief executive of campaign group Republic, said earlier this year.

"Charles may inherit the throne, but he won't inherit the deference and respect afforded the queen."

Smith and like-minded anti-monarchists argue that the royal family has no place in a modern democracy, and is staggeringly expensive to maintain.

Royal officials say the institution costs each Briton less than 1 pound ($1.15) annually, but Republic says its true cost to the nation each year is about 350 million pounds.

The overall wealth of the family is also hard to gauge due to the opaque nature of its finances and what it directly owns. A Reuters analysis in 2015 suggested it had nominal assets worth almost 23 billion pounds at the time.

Polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of Britons back the monarchy, with support for the queen herself running at similar or higher levels. Republicans accepted they had no chance of changing the system while she was alive.

But surveys have also shown support is slipping, especially among younger Britons, and that Charles is less popular.

Backing for the 73-year-old taking the throne has also fluctuated, with some polls suggesting that many people believed the throne should pass to his eldest son Prince William instead.

GENERATION GAME?

The new king's second wife Camilla also remains a divisive figure, surveys show, and the greater popularity of William and his wife Kate could help counter moves towards abolishing the monarchy in Britain and abroad.

Britain's mass-market newspapers have largely embraced the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, who are a regular feature on the front pages as they carry out royal and charitable duties across the country.

One former senior royal aide told Reuters the younger royals were more media savvy than the older generation, and that an enormous amount of planning and care went into ensuring their work and personality shone through.

In a rapidly changing world, the stability of an ancient institution like the monarchy was also something on which people could rely.

The aide said the royal family provided "sort of a ballast" to the country, especially in difficult times.

Yet even William and Kate are not immune to criticism, with a recent tour of the Caribbean overshadowed by protests over Britain's imperial past.

'BIG DIFFERENCE'

In the last few years, Republic has stepped up campaigning on social media and with billboards.

Smith and other republicans have long argued that when Britons face up to the reality of Charles as king then support for the monarchy as a whole will dwindle.

He has said that following the queen's funeral and before the coronation, he and other activists would vociferously push for there to be a referendum on the future of the institution.

"It is an opportunity to campaign, but it is not going to be an easy campaign," he said. "We are going have to work hard to get that referendum."

There is no clear path to removing the monarchy in Britain, which does not have a codified constitution that lays out the steps. Its opponents argue that if public opinion turns overwhelmingly against it, the royal family could not continue.

The only time the royal line was interrupted was in 1649, when King Charles I was tried for high treason, convicted and executed, ushering in a brief period of an English republic.

It ended in 1660 with the restoration of the monarchy, presaging the establishment of an institution with vastly reduced powers from what came before.

REBELLIOUS REALMS

It is not just in Britain that the monarchy's status could come under threat. Despite most of Britain's empire dissipating during Elizabeth's reign, Charles still becomes head of state of 14 other realms including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The popularity and admiration for the queen had mostly kept a lid on republicanism, but the issue is now likely to reignite with renewed energy.

The decision of Barbados to ditch the queen as head of state in November, 2021 was seen as a boost for the republican cause, and others realms such as Jamaica and Belize have indicated they wanted to follow suit, with the royals saying they would not stand in their way.

"I want to say clearly, as I have said before, that each member's Constitutional arrangement, as republic or monarchy, is purely a matter for each member country to decide," Charles said at a Commonwealth summit in June this year.

"The benefit of long life brings me the experience that arrangements such as these can change, calmly and without rancour."

In Australia, 55 percent of voters backed keeping the monarchy in a referendum in 1999, but recent polls have given a contradictory picture on where sentiment currently lies.

A 2020 survey suggested 62% wanted an Australian head of state, with the accession of Charles considered key, while a poll in January 2021 found only 34% wanted a republic.

"I've got a lot of respect for the constitutional monarchy, and if it ain't broke, I don't see the need to fix it," former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said when Charles's second son Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, visited in 2018.

However, the decision of Harry and Meghan to quit royal duties in 2020, and later to criticise Buckingham Palace and accuse one unnamed royal of racism, could work against the royals.

Australia's centre-left Labor government named the country's first "assistant minister for the republic" when it came to power this June.

The Australian Republic Movement https://www.reuters.com/world/australian-republicans-offer-condolences-queen-call-debate-2022-09-09/ offered condolences on the queen's death but noted that she herself had backed Australia's right to become a fully independent nation during the 1999 referendum.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has spoken in support of moving toward a republic. But on Friday he said: "Today's a day for one issue and one issue only, which is to pay tribute to Queen Elizabeth II."

In Canada, recent polls suggest about half of Canadians believe the country should end its ties to the monarchy with the death of Elizabeth.

However, experts say removing the monarchy from the Canadian constitution could prove difficult, perhaps stymieing any imminent moves towards a republic.

In New Zealand, where voters in a 2016 referendum rejected changing their national flag to remove the Union Jack - the flag of the United Kingdom - polls indicate a divided public, with younger people leaning towards a republic.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in March 2018 that she expected New Zealand would become a republic within her lifetime but it was not a matter that the government was prioritising.

Reacting to the queen's death on Thursday, Ardern https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/she-was-extraordinary-says-nz-pm-ardern-world-mourns-queen-2022-09-09/ said: "There is no doubt that a chapter is closing today...she was extraordinary."

(Editing by Mike Collett-White and Angus MacSwan)

Charles III Might Not Be King of Australia 
for Long, if Republicans Get Their Way

Philippe Naughton
Fri, September 9, 2022 

JILL GRALOW

Her body barely had time to get cold in its Balmoral bedchamber before the first rumbling came from a former British colony that Queen Elizabeth II should be the last English monarch allowed to reign over a distant realm.

Adam Bandt, leader of the opposition Greens party in Australia, used a tweeted message of condolence—“Rest in Peace Queen Elizabeth II”—to call on his country to “move forward” and become a republic.

Bandt was quickly slapped down by Australia’s new prime minister, Anthony Albanese, who told a radio station “Today is not a day for politics.”

But if Bandt’s timing was off, his political judgment was probably spot-on.

King Charles III Is the Name. So Get Used to It.

In her 70 years on the throne, as head of state in Australia just as in Britain, Elizabeth earned widespread respect, and even affection, among her “subjects” Down Under. Her portrait hangs in thousands of government offices, small-town police stations, and RSL social clubs around the country.

But that respect, inherited as a young princess and nurtured in 16 separate visits over the decades, might simply die with her. There’s little support for the monarchy as an institution, or for Charles III personally in Australia or the 14 other former colonies—including Canada, New Zealand, and Jamaica—where he now succeeds his mother as head of state.

In regular visits to Australia over his lifetime, Charles, now 73, will have heard the royal anthem—“God Save the Queen”—dozens of times. But he may never get to hear a rousing Aussie rendition of the country’s new royal anthem—“God Save the King.”

Officially, the machinery of succession is already in motion. Charles’ image will start appearing on Australia’s coinage from next year. Queen’s Counsels, as the top Australian lawyers are titled, have already become King’s Counsels. In due course, if nothing changes, Australian passports will be issued in his name, rather than hers.

But it will take an act of parliament to formally adopt Charles as head of state Down Under, and republicans might decide it is easier not to bother.

Despite slapping down Bandt for his crude politicking, Albanese is himself a committed republican who has appointed a minister with the express role of steering Australia toward a republic. The plan, had the queen lived, was to aim to push for a formal referendum in Albanese’s second term in office.

Australians were last given the chance to ditch the monarchy in a constitutional referendum held in 1999. Fifty-five percent voted to keep the queen as head of state and republicans came to agree that the cause would never be won during Elizabeth’s lifetime.

It was on her 21st birthday, on April 21, 1947, that Princess Elizabeth promised in a radio broadcast from Cape Town that her whole life, “whether it be long or short” would be devoted to the “great imperial family to which we all belong.”

Prince William Imagines Royal-Free Commonwealth, After Controversial Tour

And although the language changed, as Britain lost its empire, her personal promise was fulfilled. The Commonwealth, the grouping of former British colonies, was always close to the queen’s heart; indeed, she was the glue that has held it together.

Until Barbados declared itself a republic last year, the last Commonwealth country to do so was Mauritius in 1992. Jamaica is expected to follow suit by 2025 and a number of other Caribbean countries might copy their example.

Officially, the royal family’s position has been that it is up to individual Commonwealth members to decide whether to become republics: as long as they remain committed members of the Commonwealth itself.

One of Australia’s most fervent republicans is former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who was dubbed the “Lizard of Oz” by the British tabloids after breaching protocol by touching the queen’s back during a royal visit.

Barbados Declares Rihanna ‘National Hero’ in One of Its First Acts as a Republic

In a tribute Friday, Keating was unstinting in his praise for the queen and her selfless service—but clear that, in historical terms, she was a one-off.

“She was an exemplar of public leadership, married for a lifetime to political restraint, remaining always, the constitutional monarch,” he wrote in a statement.

“In a 70-year reign, she was required to meet literally hundreds of thousands of officials—presidents, prime ministers, ministers, premiers, mayors and municipal personalities. It was more than one person should ever have been asked to do.

“Her exceptionally long, dedicated reign is unlikely to be repeated; not only in Britain, but in the world generally.”


Queen Elizabeth’s Passing Could Push Some Countries to Alter Their Ties to the British Monarchy

Amy Gunia
TIME
Fri, September 9, 2022 

JAMAICA-UK-PROTEST-ROYALS
People calling for slavery reparations, protest outside the entrance of the British High Commission during the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Kingston, Jamaica on March 22, 2022.
 Credit - Ricardo Makyn—AFP/Getty Images

Queen Elizabeth II’s passing has sparked an outpouring of mourning across the world, but in many places, the end of her reign is also raising questions about what the future holds.

Over a dozen countries recognized the late monarch as their head of state, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Belize, Jamaica, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Her death is likely to ignite debate about whether her successor, King Charles III, should fulfill that role. Already, there have been calls for change.

Adam Bandt, the leader of Australia’s Greens Party, posted condolences to the Queen’s family on Twitter. But he added “Now Australia must move forward,” saying “We need [a] Treaty with First Nations people, and we need to become a Republic.”


Katie Pickles, a professor of history at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, says “As the importance of the monarchy became less important in society, places like New Zealand hung on because they held the Queen personally in such high respect.” She tells TIME: “King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla will likely not have the same appeal.” Cindy McCreery, a senior lecturer in history at the University of Sydney who specializes in monarchy and colonialism, agrees that republican sentiment will be given impetus. “I do think that now that the Queen has passed on, that does give republicans in Australia and elsewhere more room to speak openly about the constitutional future and to kind of prepare the path for a republic,” McCreery says.


People calling for slavery reparations protest outside the entrance of the British High Commission during the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Kingston, Jamaica on March 22,
 2022.RICARDO MAKYN/AFP via Getty Images


Anti-monarchist sentiment in the Caribbean

In some countries anti-monarchist sentiment has grown in tandem with racial justice movements, bringing anti-colonialist thinking and conversations on Indigenous rights into the mainstream. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge faced a raft of protests on a trip through the Caribbean in March, with some groups demanding an apology and reparations for slavery. William and Kate cancelled a visit to a cacao farm, the first stop on their tour of Belize, because of protests. Ahead of their visit to Jamaica, an open letter released by the Advocates Network, and signed by more than 100 local leaders, said: “During her 70 years on the throne, your grandmother has done nothing to redress and atone for the suffering of our ancestors that took place during her reign and/or during the entire period of British trafficking of Africans, enslavement, indentureship and colonization.” Read More: How the World Is Responding to News of Queen Elizabeth II’s Death According to McCreery, “Particularly countries in the Caribbean, which of course have that very painful legacy of British slavery in the past, I think they are more likely to be among the states that choose to become republics.” In June, Jamaica’s Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Marlene Malahoo Forte, said that the process of transitioning to a republic had “formally commenced.” Barbados, once called “Little England” for its tight British ties, became a republic in late 2021.


A group of republicans protests outside the Town Hall before the arrival of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on April 12, 2014 in Hamilton, New Zealand.
Phil Walter/Getty Images

Republicanism in Australasia

The Australian Republic Movement, which wants an Australian to replace the British King or Queen as the head of state, declined to provide a comment for this article. But in a statement issued after the Queen’s death, it hinted at a political opportunity. “It is unlikely we will ever see a Monarch as respected or admired by the Australian people again,” said Peter FitzSimons, chair of the movement.
In June 2022, Australia appointed Matt Thistlethwaite, a former republican campaigner, as its first ever assistant minister for the republic, to help oversee the country’s potential transition. “We’ve got this unique opportunity with a Queen coming to the end of her reign, for us to now lay the groundwork so that when that does happen in the future, we’re ready to go with a campaign and a chance to really create a truly independent nation,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald in an interview published on Sept. 3. Read More: See Colorized Photos of a Young Queen Elizabeth II In 2016, then leader of New Zealand’s Labour Party, Andrew Little, said that “the end of the reign of the current monarch 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? Stand on our own two feet?”

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in 2021 that she thinks the country will become a republic in her lifetime.

Rawiri Waititi, a member of New Zealand’s parliament and the co-leader of the Māori Party, said on Twitter on Friday that “the huge vacuum left” by the Queen’s death “will cause debate.”

One New Zealand republican, who asked not to be named, told TIME that “There’s that very strong feeling of nostalgia with the Queen that doesn’t transfer to her son or grandchildren.” “I think this is very much a moment when the discussion about possible moves to become republics will open up,” McCreery concludes. “I think that there was a great sense of restraint during the Queen’s reign.”

GEMOLOGY

Kohinoor: Why crown jewel is trending

in India after Queen Elizabeth II’s death


Shweta Sharma Fri, September 9, 2022 

Twitter users in India on Thursday set off the hashtag trend of the Kohinoor hours after the Buckingham Palace announced the history-defining moment of the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Hundreds of Twitter users in India began raising the demand for return of the Kohinoor diamond — one of the world’s largest and most controversial — to the country.

The rare historical diamond is set in the crown of the British monarch which is on display in the Tower of London.

The return of the legendary gem stone appeared to remain the popular mood in the country as the hashtag Kohinoor continued to trend on Friday morning with more than 21,000 mentions on the microblogging site.

Kohinoor, also spelled as Koh-i-Noor, is a 105-carat gemstone which means “mountain of light” in Persian.

The diamond has been at the centre of political and legal controversy in India and dispute of ownership with claims just not from India but Pakistan as well.

It maintains a huge emotional connect with many Indians who believe that the diamond found in India in 14th century was “stolen” during the colonial regime.

The diamond was indeed passed through the hands of Rajput rulers, Mughal princes, Iranian warriors, Afghan rulers and Punjabi Maharajas before it ended in the crown of the British queen and found the longest home.

According to the UK Royal Palace, the Kohinoor was unearthed from Golconda mines in central southern India before it was handed to British monarchs in 1849.

It became the part of crown jewels of Queen Victoria along with hundreds of other gemstones that are said to have incalculable cultural, historical, and symbolic value and remain part of the royal collection.

The crown, which also features a purple velvet cap and ermine trim, was made in 1937 for Queen Elizabeth, consort of King George VI, to be worn on her husband’s coronation on 12 May 1937.

It is laden with 2,800 diamonds set into its platinum frame. The band comprises alternating clusters of diamonds forming crosses and rectangles, bordered by single rows of brilliant-cut diamonds.

In this file photo taken on 2 June, 1953 the Queen Elizabeth II poses on her Coronation day, in London (AFP via Getty Images)

Many believe the folklore that the Kohinoor carries a curse with its 750-year bloodstained history of murder, megalomania and treachery.

On Thursday, just as Buckingham Palace announced the tragic death of the queen, several people called on the royal family to use Britain’s longest serving monarch’s death as an opportunity to return the jewels.

“Journey of Kohinoor : From India to England. It should come back to its origin, the least UK can do towards the centuries of exploitation, opression, racism, slavery inflicted on people of the Indian subcontinent,” Twitter user Anushree said.

“Queen Elizabeth has died today... Can we get our #Kohinoor Diamond back, which was stolen by Britisher from #India. They created wealth on others death, famine, torchers & looting..” Vivek Singh, another user said.

Several people also demanded that prime minister Narendra Modi and president Droupadi Murmu get the Kohinoor back to India as the two leaders led the tribute to the Queen.

Mr Modi said: “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will be remembered as a stalwart of our times. She provided inspiring leadership to her nation and people. She personified dignity and decency in public life. Pained by her demise. My thoughts are with her family and people of UK in this sad hour.”

In 2016, the diamond was at the centre of a court battle after an NGO filed a petition asking the court to direct the Indian government to bring back the diamond.

At that time the solicitor-general, representing India’s government, said the diamond was a “gift” to the East India company by the former rulers of Punjab in 184 and it was “neither stolen nor forcibly taken”.

However, the government took a U-turn later and the Indian ministry of culture “reiterated its resolve to make all possible efforts to bring back the Kohinoor Diamond in an amicable manner”.

For now, the famous Kohinoor-studded crown will be adorned by Prince Charles’ wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, who will become Queen Consort when her husband is King.

After Queen Elizabeth II's Death, Many Indians Are Demanding the Return of the Kohinoor Diamond

Chad de Guzman
Fri, September 9, 2022

INDIA-SHOW-DIAMOND
An Indian model shows a replica of the famous Indian diamond Kohinoor during a press meeting in Calcutta, 29 January 2002. 

Credit - DESHAKALYAN CHOWDHURY/AFP via Getty Images

Shortly after British monarch Queen Elizabeth II passed away on Sept. 8, the word “Kohinoor” began trending on Indian Twitter.

It was a reference to one of the world’s most famous gems. The Kohinoor diamond is just one of 2,800 stones set in the crown made for Elizabeth’s mother, known as the Queen Mother—but the 105-carat oval-shaped brilliant is the proverbial jewel in the crown.

In India, it is notorious for the way in which it was acquired by the British.

The history of the Kohinoor

When it was mined in what is now modern-day Andhra Pradesh, during the Kakatiyan dynasty of the 12th-14th centuries, it was believed to have been 793 carats uncut. The earliest record of its possession puts it in the hands of Moguls in the 16th century. Then the Persians seized it, and then the Afghans.

The Sikh Maharajah, Ranjit Singh, brought it back to India after taking it from Afghan leader Shah Shujah Durrani. It was then acquired by the British during the annexation of Punjab. The East India Company got hold of the stone in the late 1840s, after forcing the 10-year-old Maharajah Dunjeep Singh to surrender his lands and possessions.

The company then presented the gem to Queen Victoria. Prince Albert, her consort, asked for it to be recut and it was set in the crowns of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary before being placed in the Queen Mother’s crown in 1937.

The Queen Mother wore part of the crown at her daughter’s coronation in 1953. The Kohinoor has been among the British crown jewels since then, but governments in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India have all laid claim to the diamond.


The crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, containing the famous Kohinoor diamond, pictured on April 19, 1994.Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images
Britain’s controversial possession of the Kohinoor diamond

While no plans for the future of the gem have been disclosed, the prospect of it remaining in the U.K. has prompted many Twitter users in India to demand its return.

“If the King is not going to wear Kohinoor, give it back,” wrote one.

Another said the diamond “was stolen” by the British, who “created wealth” from “death,” “famine” and “looting.”

It is not the first time that the diamond’s return has been sought. Upon India’s independence in 1947, the government asked for the diamond back. India made another demand in the year of Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation. These demands fell on deaf ears, with the U.K. arguing that there are no legal grounds for the Kohinoor’s restitution to India.

British-Indian author and political commentator Saurav Dutt says the chances of the U.K. returning the jewel are slim.

More from TIME
Read More: Why King Charles III Was an Unpopular Heir

True, the British recently facilitated the return of the Benin Bronzes—72 artifacts looted by British soldiers in the 19th century—to the Nigerian government. But Dutt says the British royal establishment is still “married to this romantic version of empire, even though it is long dead, and has lost its power.” The Kohinoor is a symbol of that power, Dutt argues, and in turning it over, he believes the Royals “would essentially be eviscerating themselves.”

At the very least, King Charles III must acknowledge the “black history” of the Kohinoor diamond, Dutt says.

“A recognition of the fact that it was obtained through stealth and deception would be a significant step at this stage, that lays the groundwork for the next generation to be able to give it back,” he tells TIME.

Many Indians may not have that patience. In the wake of the Queen’s death, there is only one demand on Indian Twitter: “Now can we get our #Kohinoor back?”


https://www.gutenberg.org/files/155/155-h/155-h.htm

All sorts of rough jests and catchwords were bandied about among them; and the story of the Diamond turned up again unexpectedly, in the form of a mischievous ...