To believe the Queen shouldn't be pushing her son forward?

[counterpoint]

I know this is mumsnet and the Queen is a mum and who of us have not at one time or another pushed our little darlings forward to prime position in any school/other activity?

But, this is the British Commonwealth we are talking about. A legacy from the British Empire. An attempt to equalize the status of those countries we pillaged, divided and even destroyed (?).

So, am I being unreasonable to think the Queen has gone too far to put forward Charles to take her place in this non-hereditary position of Head of the Commonwealth when so many more deserving, struggling countries have talent to help make a real difference going forward?

It's now been announced that Charles will be the next head, so the Queen got her wish

Understandable, really; clearly the members think so much of her - and perhaps with justification - that they'd want to honour her wish

I just feel it's a shame she couldn't have left it alone, but as mentioned before, maybe she doesn't feel confident that they'd accept Charles without a little pushing?

There are a few practicals reasons to skip Charles (never mind the wife).

(1) William as King would attract more tourists (if that is their reason for existing).

(2) It potentially saves money on a coronation. At Charles' age, we could be looking at his coronation followed by another one in quick succession for William.

Maybe it's time the commonwealth countries were freed completely from this enforced clique built on slavery and exploitation?

Membership of the Commonwealth is voluntary - it's based on a shared history but there's no mandate for any nations to stay in. Countries have left and returned over the years - The Gambia withdrew in 2013 and then came back in 2018 when a new president was elected. Rwanda asked to join despite having been a Belgian colony, not British.

Having the Queen as Head has meant the the Foreign Office and British Governments haven't been able to ignore these countries, which I'm sure they'd much rather do - especially the ones who suffered most under British rule. I would imagine that the Heads of Government meeting took much the same view - the Royals are probably the most persistent advocates of the Commonwealth and it's members in the British political system.

it potentially saves money on a coronation

I thought it was all a bit cringey.

Reminded me of the time I went for a Saturday job in our local shop (aged 15) and my mum "put in a good word" with the owner of the shop. So embarrassing.

Why do you think Charles is likely to die in the near future? Given his parents have reached their 90s in relatively good health and he has no health issues himself it's not at all unlikely that he could live for another 20 years or so. I think that this speech was more about the Queen acknowledging the Commonwealth and recognising that may well not go to another Commonwealth meeting as she doesn't travel far anymore and at 92 may well die relatively soon. So I see it as mostly a courtesy as much of her role is after all.