Earlier this month, millions worldwide watched the coronation of King Charles III, who ascended to the throne after the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, the longest reigning monarch in British history. The ceremonial day consisted of lavish clothing, a procession through the streets of London, golden chariots, and the crowning of a new king and queen.

While the grandeur of the day drew the eyes of millions, the context of the last decade leading up to the king’s coronation cannot be lost. The backdrop of the coronation is a United Kingdom that has experienced a tumultuous decade, including a complicated exit from the European Union, five prime ministers, and a renewed interest by some countries to exit the Commonwealth of Nations.

We asked SIS professor Garret Martin, co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center, a few questions about what a new king means for the UK and the Commonwealth Realms.

Great Britain has, over the past decade, experienced a contentious vote for Brexit, a contentious actual exit from the EU, five prime ministers, and the death of the longest serving monarch in British history—not to mention the global pandemic endured by all of us. What does the coronation of a new king mean for the political and/or social stability of the UK?  

While the citizens of the U.K. welcomed having an extra vacation day, it is doubtful that the coronation of King Charles III will have any significant impact on the country’s political and social stability. This is first and foremost because of the significant challenges that the U.K. is currently facing, including low economic growth, continuous strikes across many key industries, the prospect of a renewed spike in energy prices in the winter, and deadlock in the Northern Ireland executive, to name a few. But it also stems from the fact that the monarchy in general, and Charles in particular, is far from commanding universal support across the U.K., and especially among young people.

Could a new king impact Scotland’s push to secede from the UK? 

Again, it is unlikely that King Charles III will have any major impact on the possibility of Scotland seceding from the UK. Support for independence is already very well entrenched in Scotland, with pro-independence and pro-Union sentiments often running neck-in-neck in the polls, and the main drivers of the support for independence–opposition to the exit from the EU and to the policies of the ruling Conservative party in London–have little to do with the monarchy. King Charles could possibly have an impact if there were to be a second referendum on Scottish independence. Like his mother, he would be expected to try and preserve the Union. But a referendum could only happen if the UK government consented to another vote, which seems unlikely in the near future.

During her rule, Queen Elizabeth II maintained political neutrality. King Charles, however, had been accused of wading into politics in the past. How low is the bar of perception for what British officials, other European leaders, and the British people would consider “political” activity or opinions from King Charles?  

Before becoming king, Charles was indeed no stranger to controversy and not shy about expressing his views on certain subjects, especially the environment. And the release of the so-called ‘black spider memos’ in 2015 showed a willingness to privately lobby the UK government in the early 2000s. So there will be great scrutiny of King Charles to see if he can follow in his mother’s footsteps and avoid wading into politics. After all, any of his public statements, or whom he chooses to host at Buckingham Palace, could easily be construed as a political activity.

With awareness that King Charles also serves as the monarch for the Commonwealth Realms, do you have a sense of how the King will be received by other nations within the Commonwealth? Is the monarchy something that is valued in these nations? 

Queen Elizabeth was deeply committed to the Commonwealth of Nations, the voluntary association of 56 nations that is mostly composed of former British colonies. And while her son, King Charles III, succeeded her as the Head of the Commonwealth, he will likely face a struggle to preserve the relevance of the organization. There is a growing movement among some of the fifteen nations of the Realm to formally become republics and remove Charles as their head of state, and Jamaica is likely to hold such a referendum in the next two years. Moreover, there are also growing calls across various states of the Commonwealth for the UK monarchy to reckon more sincerely with its imperial past, especially for its role in colonialism and the slave trade. Charles has spoken in the past about the ‘depths of his personal sorrow’ over the slave trade, but there remains a growing gap between how the UK perceives its Empire and how it is perceived by former colonies.