The Commonwealth Realms are becoming a problem for the RF. At a time when the world is reflecting on colonial pasts, ethnic minorities being treated poorly, Windrush etc the RF looks outdated "reigning" over poorer, black nations (to put it simply). Add to that the RF's hands appeared tied both by sticking to the UK government line (i.e. not apologising for the past it seems, they are also tied to not disagree with the government of whichever realm they are in as well) it means the RF in the middle come out battered by both sides and looking worst off. The Commonwealth of Nations is definitely the way forward - independent countries with a shared past working together to better each other. Charles has been use to speaking out against government ideas (within reason) and this is the one area I would lie to see him do that- i.e. I'm Head of the Commonwealth so have to thing about what is best for all countries not just the UK so on Commonwealth matters I'll speak out. It annoys me that the UK government does so little with the Commonwealth, especially post Brexit. Giving Commonwealth Realms an almost automatic out into being members of the Commonwealth of Nations group may just stop the whole thing rumbling on and on.
I think we have to put things in perspective.
The Commonwealth realms debate has been exacerbated by the recent Caribbean tours and the issue of the Caribbean governments demanding slavery reparations from the United Kingdom. But, apart from Barbados having become a republic (hardly the first Commonwealth realm to do so), or Jamaican politicians saying they want to do the same (which they have been saying for ages), we don't even know how the people of the Caribbean actually feel about the monarchy vs a republic.
Then there is the different question of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (the "rich" and "mostly white" Commonwealth realms).
In Canada, I think we can say for sure that no major political party is campaigning for a republic and, again, even if Canadians are not necessarily fans of the monarchy or are indifferent to it, the politicians do not want to go through the constitutional process to replace the Queen with a President because they fear the provinces, especially Quebec and to a lesser extent the Western provinces, would use it to demand other unrelated constitutional changes too, and Canadians have a big trauma of those constitutional debates from the 1980s and 1990s. There could be also issues with the First Nations if the Crown were abolished. Overall, it is not worth it, especially because the Queen is "harmless" and, in Canada in particular, some Governors General (see Adrienne Clarkson or Michaëlle Jean) already behave as if they were indeed non-executive Presidents anyway.
In Australia, I guess there is a very strong republican movement and most of the political class wants a republic, including the Australian Labor Party which is currently in government. But there was already a referendum and the Republic lost by a considerable margin, and the republicans cannot agree on what model of republic they want. Even the current PM Albanese, who is a left-wing republican, gave up the plans of the previous Labor leader, Bill Shorten, to reopen the republic debate in his first term of office, so I don't see it as something that will happen in the short term or, maybe even for quite same time. The threshold for the referendum set out in the Australian constitution of a nationwide majority and a majority in a majority of states is a very high bar, and going for a popularly elected President, or a ceremonial one appointed by a supermajority in Parliament, will, one way or the other, alienate part of the republican voters.
Finally, I don't know much about New Zealand, but, from what I heard some Kiwis say on the Web, it looks like many also fear, because NZ does not have a written constitution and operates like the UK on conventions that are strongly tied to the Crown, that a republic would raise many delicate constitutional issues, unless they went for a rigid written constitution model, which in turn is something that they don't want either. And there is also the question of Maori rights in the event of a transition to a republic, although I personally think that should not be a problem since the Republic, as the successor to the Realm of New Zealand, should be bound by the same treaty obligations that the Realm had. In any case, I don't think a republic is imminent in New Zealand either, even with republican PMs.
One thing that King Charles
could do, however, and, in my opinion, should do, is to step down, not as King of the realms, but rather as the Head of the Commonwealth as a whole. There is no reason why the Head of the Commonwealth, as this organization exists today, should automatically be the British monarch and, in fact, considering the spotlight that Tommy mentioned on colonial issues, it would be better if he were not. However, both the Queen and the UK government actively campaigned for the Prince of Wales to be named the Queen's successor as Head of the Commonwealth, which is, in my opinion, a colonial or imperial mindset.
And, BTW, my understanding is that any country can leave the Commonwealth whenever it wants. It is a very loose organization and much easier to leave than the European Union for example. Ceasing to be a Commonwealth realm
may be more complicated, depending on the constitutional process in each country, but Barbados for example did it rather easily and the government didn't ever bother to call a referendum! Apparently that wouldn't be possible in Jamaica, but I am not sure.
