To think the Commonwealth has had its day?

[antelopevalley]

The Commonwealth is a colonialist institution based on a history of conquest and slavery.

"The origins of the Commonwealth come from Britain's former Empire. Many of the members of the Commonwealth were territories which had historically come under British rule at various times by settlement, conquest or cession. The administration of such colonies evolved in different ways, to reflect the different circumstances of each territory."
www.royal.uk/commonwealth

The Commonwealth Games have never been held in an African country. Although there have been exceptions, most years it is held in Britain, Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Since 1930 it has only been held three times in other countries. Or seven countries if you include youth games and paraplegic games.

The Commonwealth has no clear role; it confers no trade privileges upon its members, does not coordinate their defence or foreign policy, and lacks both the budget and the executive authority to make a practical difference in the world.

It is a colonialist hangover that has no clear role and should be abolished.
AIBU?

not quite working though is as the embarrassing William and Kate tour showed

That was but one of all the Commonwealth and other international tours done to mark the Platinum Jubilee.

Even that one was for the most part exceptional and successful, with large crowds turning out and positive local press coverage.

The two or three events (out of the scores of events if you look at all the tours) that were extensively commentated on in UK aren’t that representative, but it does show there are still plenty here who want to tell the little countries what they should be doing or thinking.

When it’s entirely up to them. Leaving the Commonwealth is easy. Independence and also the separate issue of replacing Queen as Head of State are both straightforward. Once countries announce that is their wish, the handover planning begins and the date is set.

I find it somewhere between odd and downright distasteful that there persists a school of thought that says we know better than the actual countries concerned and that self-determination is less important than opinions originating in Britain

Such as? Or do you mean problematic history of BE?

What do you propose the solution is? A PP asked a good question upthread about if countries should be forced out of something they like being part of. OP hasn’t answered funnily enough

What’s the difference you refer to?

As I'm sure you are aware a majority of commonwealth nations are republics or do not have the queen as head of state .
Others are debating or planning to removed the British monarch as head of state .

But what do you think that indicates?

Odd and disrespectful? A strange choice of words when it was the local people protesting at William and Catherine being present.
There was a lot of opposition to the tour, as well as some local people who welcomed it.

31 Republics in the Commonwealth, 5 have their own Monarch and 14 have Queen Elizabeth as Head Of State.

And?

This is not evidence the Commonwealth will disappear any time soon which seems to be your implication.

That countries have, and should continue to have, self-determination

Which means making their own decisions in their own time, and British commentators realising that and refraining criticising currently preferred arrangements. It’s not our business any more, but I do think there are some who can’t let go of the idea that Britain should still be telling other countries what to do

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet what do you think it indicates lol?
They do not want the queen as head of state .

I think only 15 of the commonwealth countries retain the queen as head of state .
If you a small country ( and many are very small) they may feel they benefit from being connected .
They do not need the queen as head of the commonwealth and as indicated below , may not continue with the link .

There is a lot of unhappiness brewing as the disastrous W and K trip highlighted

From what I can see it's unfolding organically anyway. As far as those member states which have Elizabeth Windsor as their unelected Head of State are concerned, I suspect once her time is done it will end with a whimper, not a bang. More and more member states will quietly fall off the edge as a process of evolution, rather than revolution. Ironically, that has usually been the British way.

William and Kate, with that disastrous, misguided, patronizing 'tour', hastened the end of Jamaica's membership. The influence of China, undesirable though that may be to the West, will likely hasten others on the back of Barbados. Australia's republic referendum only voted to keep Queenie as their Head of State by the skin of its teeth, and that was as long ago as 1999. Once Charles is at the helm, if he manages to stay upright and keep off the sauce for as long as five years we'll see what they think to him then. There is of course always the possibility that citizens of the UK will want to rethink our own constitution.

And yes, it does stink of the hangover of colonialism. There will be some interesting questions asked and some local and global changes after our current Head of State's time is past, is my prediction.

Such as? Or do you mean problematic history of BE?
@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet

if you read the link the commonwealth and apartheid is examined in some detail.

And if you want something more up to date, the royal family's failure to address their links to hundreds of years of slavery and colonialism.
'Sorrow ' and a bit of 'reflection' don't cut it

@MarieIVanArkleStinks
You put it much better than I did .
'The stink of colonialism' exactly .

Countries can just not be in it if they want?

I am not sure they need your help deciding.

It will gradually fade away like anything.

The games will be around for a good while I’d think.

That was but one of all the Commonwealth and other international tours done to mark the Platinum Jubilee.

Even that one was for the most part exceptional and successful, with large crowds turning out and positive local press coverage.

I'm unsure how anyone could possibly follow that tour and draw the conclusion that it was for the most part 'successful'.

It was an unmitigated disaster and embarrassed this nation on an international stage.

Yes, well done. It you seem to be implying that signifies more?

By unhappiness brewing do you mean 1 country has made noises about removing the Queen as HoS? What do you think they will do? Because it seems Commonwealth countries are happy being in the Commonwealth

Jamaica has not ended their membership on the Commonwealth.

The last time a country left was the Maldives in 2916, it they have since rejoined. Before that. Zimbabwe in 2003.

Not sure why people are taking like it’s rats leaving a sinking ship

The RF doesn’t deny their links to slavery.

What do you expect them to actually do - turn back time?

*2016 not 2916 🤣

I agree. Even William and Catherine acknowledged it had not been a success with their blaming of the palace aides.

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet
Are we supposed to praise the royals for not denying historical fact?
I agree they would if they could .

'Sorrow' is not the same as openly apologising for their prominent role in slavery and exploitation

Did they? Do you have a source for that?

Do you want an insincere apology from someone who is barely 40 who is several generations younger than the last person who hired slaves in GB?

Would that REALLY make you feel better?

I read better ones at the time, but a 2 second google threw this up.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10770075/Prince-William-plans-modernise-monarchy-Duke-Cambridge-holds-crisis-meeting-aides.html

Why does it have to be insincere?

I've already posted several times in response to your previous posts what the benefits are. All the leaders of the countries speak in equal terms. For smaller countries, they have access to the leaders of some of the largest economies in the world and they can lobby for their interests to be put forward when those leaders meet in financial and political forums. 2.5 billion people give countries opportunities in trade. And the CW also provides support and financial assistance in developing economic development, including education. They all press for democracy and rule of law in countries and suspend countries which do not comply with their stipulations over democracy.
They have different areas of investment set up. If you're truly interested and not just wedded to the idea that you believe the Commonwealth = the British Empire, why not read about what they do? Why would countries that have gained independence from the UK and countries that were never a British colony want to be members if it didn't serve a useful purpose for them? If it truly is an outdated, pointless leftover of colonialism, why is it a growing organisation? If it serves no purpose why would all the countries that have left the Commonwealth bar one (Ireland), want to rejoin?