After 396 years under the British crown and 55 years of self-governing, Barbados will henceforth be a republic. Poignantly, the presumptive heir to the throne, Prince Charles, bore witness to the formalities marking the crown’s waning global influence — and not for the first time. His Royal Highness presided over Hong Kong’s handover to China, 23 years earlier.

Barbados’s loss to the Royal Commonwealth, those remaining 14 countries of which the monarch is head of state, is the first since 1992, when Mauritius cut its ties to the crown. As for Elizabeth II, one source tells the London Times that “the Queen knows the world changes and moves on and . . . she rolls with it.” Nevertheless, “there will be a tinge of reflection and sadness.”

If not quite “the Queen is dead, long live the President,” the parallel is not entirely remiss. The governor-general, Dame Sandra Mason, is now president. This post will remain ceremonial. Yet your Diarist cannot help but feel that in some way, Barbados will become diminished by losing its living link with one of the oldest remaining royal families.

Could this be but a start? While the history of Barbados’s connection with the crown cannot be erased, it now becomes no more than part of the dusty past. Nearby Jamaica is keen on realizing a republican future. Meanwhile, Australia has the precedent of 1999, when it bid to cast off the crown. In that referendum, 54.87% voted for monarchy, with 45.13% opting for republicanism.

It was a hollow victory; monarchists owed much to the general indecision as to what form a republican government should assume. And what of other prominent members of the Royal Commonwealth — such as, say, Canada and New Zealand? Both are led by “woke” prime ministers who never pass up an opportunity to burnish their progressive credentials.

This move by Barbados, though its population is tiny, might motivate others to repudiate their colonial pasts, in favor of political aggrandizement at home. Anti-monarchists will point to the expenses entailed by governors-general. Pshaw, we respond. These expenses will simply be transferred to presidential offices, and increased.

An appointed office always applied pressure, effective or not, to keep vice-regal receipts modest. Now, with popularly elected presidential officials, such frugality will be forsworn with abandon. The electoral costs alone for these presidential posts will weigh heavily upon taxpayers, not that we begrudge democratic due process.

To a monarchist like your Brexit Diarist, the very idea of a head of state entering the political arena is hard to process. With campaigns for electoral mandate, how could it be otherwise? One consequence will be the repercussions to the office of prime minister. In practice, the premier is primus inter pares — “first among equals.” Theoretically, he or she is answerable to the Commons. Yet that bulwark of democratic government itself is debased.

Ah, well. The British monarchy and its Commonwealth representatives still manage a majestic aura. In prospective republican forms of government, it remains to be seen whether a premier like Britain’s Boris Johnson or Canada’s Justin Trudeau are so easily defenestrated as was Margaret Thatcher in November 1990. Nor was the crown unmindful of the necessity of keeping up its mystique.

The monarchy must always tread a fine line with the overseas Commonwealth, where republican sentiment is strong. Even within the United Kingdom itself, the appeal of republicanism is never out of question. Elizabeth II ensured her popularity overseas by maintaining a strict neutrality, not only on the particulars of each country but in respect of political controversy in general.

Such foresight is now at a premium. Both Charles and William have endorsed the controversial claims of the anthropocentric global warmists. Were they to get their way in the elimination of fossil fuels, monarchy’s bedrock supporters would be hardest hit. Fuel prices, supply chains, transportation, and electrical expenses, all could become prohibitively costly.

As the crown grows more political, it would not be surprising were countries other than Barbados to wonder how valuable is their connection to a British monarchy ever more out of touch with the realities of life. Are they prepared to be taxed to pay for Charles and William jumping on the climate change bandwagon? Might other commonwealth countries swoon at republicanism?

It wouldn’t take many such cases for the Elizabethan era — we don’t yet know the length of that span — to be remembered as a high water mark on the British monarchy’s influence. So at this passing, let us doff the Phrygian cap. For Elizabeth’s successors might well come to mark the monarchy’s ebb as an international influence on the world stage.

________

BrexitDiarist@gmail.com. Drawing of a Phrygian cap by Elliott Banfield, courtesy of the artist.