The Daily - Can the U.K. Remain United Without the Queen?

Episode Date: September 19, 2022

The funeral of Queen Elizabeth today will be one of the most extraordinary public spectacles of the last several decades in Britain, accompanied by an outpouring of sadness, reverence and respect.But the end of the queen’s 70-year reign has also prompted long-delayed conversations about the future of the Commonwealth and of the four nations that make up the United Kingdom.Guest: Mark Landler, the London bureau chief for The New York Times.Background reading: In Commonwealth nations with British colonial histories, Queen Elizabeth’s death has rekindled discussions about a more independent future.The loss of the beloved figurehead has left many in Britain anxious and unmoored, unsure of their nation’s identity, its economic and social well-being, or even its role in the world.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. When Queen Elizabeth is laid to rest today, it will mark the end not just of her 70-year reign over the United Kingdom. As my colleague Mark Landler explains, it may mark the end of the United Kingdom as we know it. It's Monday, September 19th.

Mark, you are in London where the Queen's funeral is being held today. I'm curious what the feel is in that city right now, if you could set the scene for us a little bit. Well, Michael, it's truly going to be one of the extraordinary public spectacles of the last several decades in this country. It's the first state funeral since one for Winston Churchill in 1965, so the year I was born. It's also the culmination of 10 days of collective national mourning and tributes to Queen Elizabeth, some of which have been really quite striking and poignant. From across the United Kingdom and around the globe, they came and they waited and they queued. There have been lines of people some six or eight miles long snaking across the

River Thames. Why did you decide that you had to do this, that it was important enough to stand up all night long? What did the woman do? She gave us her life and we can't give her this? One day out of my life, for her lifetime of commitment. Waiting to go in and pass by her coffin, which is lying in state. I thought to myself, I'll never see her again. The emotion is just too much. People crying, saluting, bowing, blessing themselves. Deeply moving, solemn, emotional. Yeah, of course.

Very special moment. So there's been this kind of extraordinary national outpouring of sadness, of reverence, of respect. And all of that will sort of come to a symbolic climax today. But with the end of all of this ceremony actually comes the beginning of a kind of a more uncertain period where I think a lot of Britons will begin perhaps a long delayed conversation about what the future holds and what are the long term prospects for this great project that Queen Elizabeth presided over for the last 70 years? And when you say great project, what do you mean? Well, the project is really twofold. On the one hand, you have the four nations of the United Kingdom. And on the other hand, you have this broad constellation of 15 states and territories that are loosely affiliated and share in common the monarch as this symbolic head of state. And that part of it is really very much a vestige of British colonialism. And so the realm, even at the end of her reign, encompassed Australia,

Canada, New Zealand, many islands in the Caribbean, which means that at the time of her death, more than 100 million people around the globe were considered subjects of Queen Elizabeth. And with the passage from Elizabeth to her son, Charles III, there's growing doubt, even within the royal family, about how long this global project will survive and whether this constellation of states over which she presided will remain together or will unravel. Well, Mark, describe for us how this actually works,

starting with those countries that you described as being part of this broader constellation that feels very far away from the United Kingdom, this realm that includes the Caribbean, for example. Well, so even as Britain has given up direct control over most of these countries, many of them have retained the symbolic tie to the queen. She's remained their head of state. Doesn't mean that she runs the government.

Doesn't mean that she has any administrative role. These are independent countries, and that's an important point to make. These are independent countries with self-government but from australia to new zealand to canada to jamaica to antigua the queen remains the head of state or did remain the head of state you know her face is on the currency er is on the post office boxes wow Her visible presence is still in these countries as sort of a link to a past, to a colonial past that is no longer in the current political life of the countries, but is still part of its sort of collective memory. Fascinating. So in so many

different ways, the queen is very present in the lives of these countries and their peoples. Yes. And throughout her reign, she traveled relentlessly around the world, visiting small islands, big countries. 1866, and the beautiful islands of the Caribbean wait to welcome Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, arriving for a five-week voyage in the Royal Yacht Britannia. Always reminding people of the role that she played and became this kind of iconic figure. Once again, they drove through the streets of the capital, where the celebrations for the royal visit were in full swing. And so whether you're in, you know, the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, or the streets of Ottawa, Canada,

she had this kind of mythic stature and role and was also, as here in Britain itself, a revered figure personally. People genuinely liked her. They responded to her. But she put a lot of work into building this throughout her 70 years on the throne. So it sounds like her physical presence in these places is the kind of glue that holds this far-flung kind of sphere together. Yes. I mean, the queen had a very well known saying. She said she had to be seen to be believed. And so in undertaking

all these travels around the world, she was putting herself physically in front of all of the people in these countries. And that was a vital part of maintaining the myth. Britain at one time was the most powerful empire in the world. And I think that the Queen saw her role as sort of infusing British values and culture, and even democratic values for that matter, as broadly as she could. And in doing so, she allowed Britain as a country, you know, to punch above its weight diplomatically. This was part of the reason that Britain continued to be arguably a country with an outsized influence in the post-war period, because it wasn't just a small set of islands off the northern coast of Europe. It was part of this greater constellation of realms, of territories

around the world that even if they weren't submitting to the queen, they recognized the symbol of the monarchy. And so it was a crucial part. It wasn't just diplomacy. It was almost an act of preserving mythology. Right. It's interesting you use the word myth mark because why would these countries want the queen in their lives? Well, it's a very interesting question, which people who write about colonialism wrestle with all the time. And I think for some of these places, even though they didn't submit to her in their daily lives, the fact that she was there, the fact that her image was on postage stamps was a sort of a source of continuity, even as they were developing their own national identities over time. So given the dynamic that you've just laid out, why is there a fear now

that this could all crumble? Well, first, let's stipulate there were always people in these countries that wanted to throw off the yoke of the monarchy. There were always strong voices that argued that the queen was at best an anachronism and at worst, you know, a symbol of colonial brutality. But what happened in the last couple of years that really galvanized the whole movement grew out of the George Floyd killing in Minneapolis. Take your knees, someone! Take your knees! I can't breathe! I can't breathe!

And the Black Lives Matter protests, which spilled across the ocean into the Caribbean countries. I am tired of what's happening in America, but us as a country, Jamaica, before we start talking about what's happening in America, we need to talk about what's happening within us. There were Black Lives Matter protests in Jamaica, in Barbados. The president is right here in Barbados.

And in some of these protests... The Royal Barbados Police Force is not your force. It's the Queen's force. The demonstrators drew a direct link between notions of police brutality and the queen as the symbol of law enforcement. The truth is there's a lot of pain and hurt that we've carried forward in the constitutional monarchy. And so that became part of kind of a renewed drive in a couple of places

to cast off the queen as head of state. The concept of the monarchy as the head of state came about as a result of our being a colony. We are no longer a colony. And one of the places we saw it happen was in Barbados. We've been having these discussions for almost 20 years. Which did sever ties with the Queen last year and the Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Motley. We respect Her Majesty. But I do think that at this point in time, we have a duty to young Barbadians so that they too can believe that they can aspire to be the head of state in their own country. You know, hailed it as a moment that Barbados could stand up on its own, could sort of carve out its own destiny and its own identity. And that will complete our process of independence

and sovereignty. And now you have similar movements underway. In 2022 in Jamaica, the head of state of Jamaica is King Charles III. Lord, Mrs. Come on. No, no, no. In Jamaica, in Antigua, where the prime minister has said that they're setting a goal to be severed from the queen within three years. This is not an act of hostility or any difference between Antigua and Barbuda and the monarchy, but it is the final step to complete that circle of independence to ensure that we are truly a sovereign nation. So there is this kind of

new second wave, if you will, of people moving in this direction of moving away from the monarchy. It's fascinating, Mark, that the Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, which are directed at white police officers as an oppressive cultural force, translate in the Caribbean into anger at a white royal monarchy. Yeah, and I think what's interesting about it is in the Caribbean, it's sort of forcing a reckoning with the colonial legacy. As in the United States, it is a reckoning with the history of slavery, with the history of racial discrimination and oppression. And so BLM was kind of a trigger for a much larger reckoning, and it also sort of accelerated a process that's been simmering for many years, but has now really gathered force.

Right. So this movement to cast off the queen makes a lot of sense now, given the history you have just described and the fact that the queen is no longer the queen. given the history you have just described and the fact that the queen is no longer the queen. Well, and that's, I think, really the key difference here. In King Charles III, you have someone who doesn't have these decades of associations of memory. It's not that Charles hasn't traveled to all these places he has,

and he has worked hard to kind of follow in his mother's footsteps. But, you know, to some extent, she's irreplaceable. And so Charles is trying to do something that's just inherently very difficult, which is to step into or to put on the mantle of this person who is a living icon. It's a really, really formidable task. Well, why is that? Why is she irreplaceable to these countries? Of course, a system of monarchy is designed so that everybody is replaceable. There's a line of succession that's a mile long. Well, look, at one level, she is replaceable. She's been replaced. King Charles now sits on the throne. But I think

that as a symbol, it's a function really primarily of time. It's 70 unbroken years where this one person has embodied all of these symbols and values. And I think also it's her manner. It was the fact that she sort of projected a constancy, a dignity, a stoicism, a sense of duty. And, you know, Charles, for all his other virtues, is a very different figure. He's a more socially controversial figure. He's had a messier personal life. He doesn't exist at the level of myth the way Queen Elizabeth did. And I think to that extent, there is something irreplaceable about her.

So what happens now in Jamaica, in Antigua, with their relationship to the queen? Are we really now expecting them to just cast off their relationship to the monarchy in the next couple of months and years? Well, in each of these places, it's going to take a little bit of time. But there's no question that the circumstances have changed. The ties with the monarchy have frayed.

And in all of these places, it's really now a conversation about when, not whether, there's going to be a new relationship or a severing of ties to the monarchy. And interestingly, as threatening as all that sounds, that's not even the biggest problem that the monarchy is facing, which is that at home, in the United Kingdom itself, this shift, this transition from queen to king, is possibly going to play into an unraveling of the four nations of the United Kingdom itself, which, by comparison to what's happening in the Caribbean, is really a much more existential problem

for both the monarchy and Britain itself. We'll be right back. So, Mark, before the break, we were talking about the monarchy's fears of losing its bonds with countries outside of the United Kingdom. I want to turn now to what you described as its fear of losing its relationship with countries within the United Kingdom, because that's surprising to me. These are countries that are much closer, their relationships with the monarchy much more formal. I have to imagine these bonds are much harder to dissolve. Well, indeed. I mean, remember, the United Kingdom consists of four countries. It

consists of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. And in the case of two of them, there are longstanding, deeply rooted independence movements where there are people who have been calling for both Northern Ireland and Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. Right. Well, let's talk about these one by one, starting with Northern Ireland. So in Northern Ireland, the tensions are rooted in decades, if not hundreds of years, of sectarian conflict between the Irish nationalist Catholics and the unionist British Protestants. And Northern Ireland itself was created in 1921 as a way to protect the rights of the Protestant majority on the northern part of the island, and is administered and ruled by Great Britain, by the Queen, in a country, in an island, that was majority Irish nationalist.

A massive car bomb in Northern Ireland has killed more than 20 people, including children. About 100 people have been injured. But that solution for decades led to simmering violence and occasional eruptions of violence between Catholics and Protestants in the north. It's the worst bomb attack in 30 years of terrorism in the province. the north. It's the worst bomb attack in 30 years of terrorism in the province. For Catholics, the monarchy and the queen were a symbol of what they viewed as British occupiers in the north. It's believed that the dissident Republican group calling itself the real IRA planted the bomb. And for the royal family, the IRA, the Irish Republican Army, were a sinister force that was targeting them.

A day of tragic violence in Ireland. Lord Mountbatten of Burma has been killed by an explosion on his yacht off the Republic's coast. The provisional IRA have already said they killed Lord Mountbatten. In 1979, Lord Mountbatten, who was a beloved relative of Queen Elizabeth, was blown up by IRA militants. Local people say the yacht was about 100 yards from the shore when there was a massive explosion throwing everyone on board into the sea. So now you have this inflection point with the death of Queen Elizabeth and a new king coming at a time when the political landscape

in Northern Ireland is also shifting. The Irish Nationalist Party is now the largest party in the North, and the demographics of the North are also changing in a way that the Catholic Nationalist population is becoming larger. So at this time of transition in the monarchy, there's also a political transition underway. And the question is whether we're now going to see an acceleration of the movement of Northern Ireland away from the United Kingdom and towards unification with the Irish Republic. Got it. So the forces aligned against the Queen, in this case, the Catholics in Ireland, are flexing their muscle, they're getting bigger, and they may be taking that entire part of the UK out of the system.

Yes. And it's important to note that under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, which is the peace accord that brought peace to Northern Ireland could vote to leave the United Kingdom. And I think that's both a fear for the new king and it's a fear for the British government. And from everything you're saying, that seems increasingly likely. Is there anything that the monarchy can do

and has tried to do to stop that? Well, you know, Charles very pointedly went to Belfast on the second or third day after the death of his mother. And Queen Elizabeth poured a lot of energy into trying to reconcile the Irish people with the British people and heal the wounds of the past. She made a very famous visit to Ireland in 2011 where she wore green and she spoke Irish.

And charmed everybody, by all accounts. Charles, too, has been to Ireland many, many, many times. We couldn't hear the words, but the image spoke volumes. He met with Gerry Adams, who was the then leader of Sinn Féin, which was the political arm of the Irish Republican army. The heir to the throne, cup of tea in hand, greeting the president of Sinn Féin. The group that took responsibility for killing Lord Mountbatten. We don't have a huge amount in common, those of us who come from where we come from with British royalty, but we have, at a human level and a personal level, suffered in the cause of the conflict. So both the new king and his mother have made major efforts to build bridges in this regard.

I think the question and the challenge they face is whether the politics have now moved on beyond what any monarch, let alone a new monarch who may not be as popular as Queen Elizabeth, can do to stop the forces that would lead away from the United Kingdom and toward unification with the Republic of Ireland. So if it comes to be that Northern Ireland votes to reunite with Ireland and they decide to leave the UK, what would that mean for the monarchy? Well, I don't think it would be a huge emotional blow for the monarchy, nor would the North be that big a loss economically for the United Kingdom. It's not a huge part of the UK's economy. But what it would do is say that after decades of efforts and diplomacy and outreach on the part of the royal family

and the queen in particular, that that project has ended in failure. This part of the kingdom is going to go its own way and become, you know, a major visible symbol of the dissolution of the United Kingdom. So this is losing a constituent part, a core pillar of the United Kingdom. Okay, and what about Scotland, Mark?

What's behind its movement to potentially leave the United Kingdom and the monarchy? Well, Scotland would be a much bigger deal for the United Kingdom than Northern Ireland. It's a question of historic familial emotional ties, not just between the royal family in Scotland, but between England and Scotland. They share, of course, a land border. Scotland is home to the British nuclear submarine fleet. Scotland also, you know, makes the whiskey that everyone in this country drinks. So the ties are very deep, as deep as the tumblers that people come home to at night. So there's a whole host of reasons why losing Scotland would be a body blow to the UK. And what's given this new life in Scotland is Brexit. You know, people are unable to say what they feel because they're so emotional,

there's tears, there's anger. I want my country to be internationalist, cooperative. I mean, it is almost beyond words just because it's too enormous. Fair, European. A majority of people in Scotland voted against Brexit. Scotland was a long-time beneficiary of aid from the European Union. They felt their wishes were disregarded and that they are net losers in Brexit. I think the way things are, I might have to vote to leave the union. So I think it's a big chance for Scotland to do something different. We're not going to stay part of the UK.

The whole system is broken. It's anti-democratic. I don't really want to be part of it. I don't really want to be part of it. And so that has caused the pro-independence movement to really gain new momentum. Scotland over generations has paid a price for not being independent. Westminster governments we don't vote for, imposing policies we don't support, too often holding us back from fulfilling our potential. And what many in Scotland would like to do is simply break off from the United Kingdom and rejoin the European Union. That reality has really been starker than it is now.

And I should say by way of making an important point here, they're not looking to cast off the monarchy. This wouldn't be about severing ties with King Charles. He would still remain, as he does in Jamaica, the head of state. But the Scottish government would be independent and would be free if it wanted to, to rejoin the European Union. and would be free if it wanted to to rejoin the European Union. That's the goal of the pro-independence movement, which again, with the death of Queen Elizabeth, has once again become a hot issue.

Got it. But this would still, of course, be a major loss for the monarchy because the UK itself, the center of the monarchy, would have been diminished by one quarter, one of the four countries having decided to leave. So the tether between Scotland and the monarchy, it might still exist symbolically, but it would become much less meaningful. Absolutely.

And when you consider that the Queen spent all her summers in the Scottish Highlands at Balmoral Castle, this is a place the royal family considers its second home. And the idea of its second home leaving the UK would be close to intolerable, certainly would have been to Queen Elizabeth, and I think would be equally difficult for King Charles. Well, to that point, you said that since Queen Elizabeth's death, Charles made a pilgrimage to Northern Ireland to try to keep that relationship intact. Have we seen something similar when it comes to Scotland? Well, much more pronounced, actually. I mean, remember, the queen died in Balmoral Castle.

King Charles acceded to the throne in Balmoral Castle. He was visiting his mom on her deathbed at the time. And the first three days of the mourning period for the Queen really were conducted in Scotland. And, you know, there are even people who have wondered whether all of this was somewhat intentional, whether the Queen, you know, knowing that the end was near, thought there might be something helpful about having all this happen in Scotland rather than at Windsor Castle in England. And I think there's a hope that the Scottish people will see this link, will feel a closer bind to certainly the monarchy, but maybe by extension to the United Kingdom. And perhaps that it will take some of the wind out of the sails of the pro-independence movement.

Mark, when we spoke earlier about the countries in the UK's realm, in the Caribbean, and why they are now accelerating their efforts to leave the monarchy, you pointed to the fact that Charles is no Elizabeth. And perhaps that's also true in the case of Northern Ireland and Scotland. But I wonder if it's possible that everything we're talking about here was deeply inevitable, and nobody after Elizabeth could have ever really stopped these forces because these forces are so rooted in history. They were always going to be happening, no matter who succeeded her. in history. They were always going to be happening, no matter who succeeded her.

I think that's a very important point to make, because I think that these things are so much more deeply rooted than whether or not Charles is an appealing figure or a popular king. Right. So to some extent, the monarchy can do its bit, right? The king can continue his outreach. He can visit Belfast, he can spend his summers at Balmoral. But ultimately, whether the people of Scotland vote to leave the United Kingdom is going to be driven by economic considerations, primarily political considerations, whether they see their destiny as part of the European Union, or as part of the UK. And in the case of Northern Ireland, by the shape of that society, whether

sentiment in that society changes enough that a majority of people believe their future lies with the Irish Republic and not with the UK. So these things are, in a sense, much larger than the person who sits on the throne in Buckingham Palace. Mark, to end this conversation, I want to project forward a few years to a time when perhaps these countries we've been talking about leave the monarchy, leave this system, this project we've been talking about.

When and if that happens, what will it tell us about the UK's role in the world? And what will it tell us about the very nature of the monarchy, to have all these countries cast it off? Well, I think, you know, first of all, it's worth noting that both Queen Elizabeth and King Charles recognize the reality and the inevitability of some of this, and I think it's fair to say have probably come to terms with it. of some of this, and I think it's fair to say have probably come to terms with it. That said, what it will deprive the UK of is what it has had since World War II, which is the ability to punch way above its weight, diplomatically, politically, to always have a seat at the top

table. And while the monarchy is not a political institution or a military institution. The queen didn't command any tanks. She did sort of embody an idea and a notion of constitutional monarchy that gives the United Kingdom a real credibility and a real legitimacy in world affairs. So to the extent that that's diminished, I think you see a country that just feels less significant, less important on the global stage. And I think that that's at the root of many of these fears about what this transition that we're now in the middle of is going to lead to, which is a shrunken Britain, a less important place. The Britain of Winston Churchill and Queen Elizabeth is receding into history. And the Britain that we look ahead and see in 10 or 20 years just feels like it's going to be

a smaller place. Well, Mark, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thanks, Michael. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Hurricane Fiona has knocked out power to the entire island of Puerto Rico, leaving 1.5 million people without electricity. The large-scale outage comes five years after Hurricane Maria knocked out the island's power and rendered its power grid highly unreliable.

That storm killed thousands of people. So far, Fiona appears to be far less lethal. And two of Vladimir Putin's closest allies, the leaders of China and India, are seeking to publicly distance themselves from his war on Ukraine, highlighting how isolated Russia has become. Democracy or diplomacy or dialogue. In a televised exchange on Friday, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, told Putin that it is no time for war

and encouraged him to pursue a path of peace. That came a day after Putin acknowledged that China's leader, Xi Jinping, had, quote, questions and concerns about the war in Ukraine. The diplomatic setbacks come as Russia faces major military setbacks in the war. Over the past few weeks, Ukrainian forces have retaken town after town from Russia in the country's northeast, raising fears that Putin may resort to extreme measures.

As Ukraine succeeds on the battlefield, Vladimir Putin is becoming embarrassed and pushed into a corner. And I wonder, Mr. President, what you would say to him if he is considering using chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Don't. Don't. Don't. Don't. In an interview on Sunday night with CBS, President Biden warned Putin of severe consequences if he further escalates the war.

It'll be consequential. They'll become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been. And depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response was heard. Today's episode was produced by Diana Nguyen, Stella Tan, Muj Zaydi, and Michael Simon-Johnson. It was edited by Rachel Quester and Paige Cowett, contains original music by Dan Powell and Marion

Lozano and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Grunberg and Ben Landverk of Wonderly. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.