How Charles turned into Charles and why the monarchy is not a decoration

How will Elizabeth II be remembered?

First of all, the fact that she ruled for 70 years is an absolute record among British monarchs. In second place is Queen Victoria, who ruled for almost 64 years, from 1837 to 1901.

The era is gone - with regard to Elizabeth, this is not a metaphor or an exaggeration. During her reign, several generations of Britons grew up and were born.

This era, which is quite rare for Europe, is peaceful. On the other hand, under Elizabeth, the British Empire collapsed, during the existence of which many difficult events took place: there was enormous inflation by British standards, unemployment, and other economic problems. Then - the so-called Thatcherian revolution, and after - the constitutional and other reforms of the Laborites, Tony Blair, entry into the European Union, exit from the European Union.

The last thing Elizabeth managed to do was appoint Liz Truss as prime minister.

What did the queen do?

The queen studied all government papers, the most important excerpts from the debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Queen and the entire royal family personally patronized several hundred charities and other organizations that helped the British: single mothers, unemployed youth, children with special needs. This is a great philanthropic line of work.

The royal family is a working institution, it is quite tangible.

That the queen could not interfere in political matters is a widely held myth. The monarch has very real political powers: for example, he can veto any bill that has passed through Parliament. Another thing is that the monarchs have not used it for centuries. But this option is there. For example, when there was a debate over Brexit, it was quite seriously discussed in the British expert community that the Queen could use the right of veto.

The queen and members of the royal family do not openly express their political position: this is the prerogative and authority of the prime minister, parliament, and so on. But the prime minister met with the queen weekly and discussed with her face-to-face all the most important events in the field of domestic and foreign policy. The queen could speak her mind. Yes, it was not published anywhere later, it was not advertised. But no prime minister would miss what the queen had to say. The opinion of the queen was listened to.

It is wrong to say that the monarchy is some kind of decoration, a beautiful showcase.

What are the implications for Britain and the Commonwealth of the Queen's death?

The main consequence is that there will now be a new king. There will be no fundamental changes, the institution of the monarchy will remain in the foreseeable future. Yes, there will be some changes: for example, the anthem will change (instead of “God Save the Queen” it will be “God Save the King”) and money will change (the portrait of the new king will be printed on banknotes).

But I think that for the British it is much more important not whose face will look at them from banknotes, but how much they will spend these banknotes on a communal apartment and paying for electricity in the coming winter. This will be a much bigger problem for them.

As for the rating of Prince Charles: I would not exaggerate the fact that his popularity among the British is lower than that of Elizabeth II and even his son, Prince William. Basically it means nothing. You can't be loved by everyone, it doesn't happen. I agree, there was a lot to dislike about Charles. For example, he allowed himself to violate the principle of non-interference in the country's politics, openly commented on it, although he did this extremely rarely. But for the most part this is already in the past, experienced and forgotten.

In my opinion, the British monarchy as an institution is safe and will perform its usual functions, mostly ceremonial, but important nonetheless.

Did the institution of the monarchy change under Elizabeth II?

Recently, everyone has become accustomed to the fact that Queen Elizabeth II is such a grandmother with a cane, so the monarchy seems to be something preserved in time. In fact, this is far from the case. The institution of the monarchy is constantly changing and adapting to current realities.

The royal family has pages on social networks that are regularly updated, family members constantly communicate with journalists, participate in events. At the end of the 20th century, with the active participation of Prince Charles, a special plan was developed to reform and modernize the British monarchy. Some of the points of this plan have already been completed. For example, they eliminated the advantage of male heirs over women ( in 2011, men lost the priority right to inherit over women, now the right is determined by seniority. - Approx. "Cold" ). The apparently outdated ban on marriages with Catholics for members of the royal family was lifted. They changed the system of financing the monarchy: before, transport costs were paid by the Ministry of Transport, communications costs were paid by the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sports, and now everything has been brought into a single consolidated fund with audit, transparency and reporting.

The UK has declared 10 days of mourning after the Queen's death. Why so long?

The long official state mourning is a recognition of the role played by the Queen in the country's recent history.

When is Charles III crowned?

We do not know exactly when the coronation will take place, because it is quite a long and complicated procedure. There must be mourning and complex preparations for the ceremony. There have been very different examples in British history, where the coronation took place 15 years after the king became king, or when the coronation took place the next day. Most likely, it will happen in a few months.

Why did Charles become Charles III?

There is a tradition of translating the names of monarchs into Russian. There are other examples besides Charles turning into Carl. If an ordinary citizen with the English name James becomes king, then he will no longer be James, but Jacob. A man named John, who has become king, transforms into John. Such translation rules for royal names.

Will the death of the queen and the coronation of Charles III affect relations with Russia?

Relations between Russia and the UK are virtually non-existent. In the last session, I even canceled the question about current relations between these countries for my students, because there is nothing to tell there.

Now the main trend among political decision makers is anti-Russian, and there are no signs that this will change. There are practically no notable politicians in Britain who would take a different position - this is an absolute consensus, so you should not expect Charles III to somehow reverse this trend. Firstly, it is not at all a fact that he wants to do this, and secondly, he simply does not have such resources.

Why is a monarchy needed in the 21st century?

The monarchy, like other state regimes, has its pros and cons. There are no perfect forms of government. The question is where there are more pluses, where there are more minuses and who evaluates how.

The advantage of the monarchy is that the future ruler is being prepared for office from birth. The current King Charles III was well aware that sooner or later this burden of responsibility would fall on him. He received education, special skills, replaced the queen at important state events when she could not participate in them. That is, this is a person who was prepared in advance to be a king.

Most of the states of Western Europe are monarchies. It's just that the scale, powers, historical and political significance of the royal families are different. But Britain, in fact, did not know other forms of government than the monarchy - except for a short period of bourgeois revolution. For the British, this is an absolutely natural thing.