If Scotland Secedes Will The Monarchy Collapse

Will Scotland, Canada, and Australia leave the UK after the Queen dies?

Canada and Australia are not in the UK - they are Commonwealth nations which have Queen Elizabeth as their head of state. This odd state of affairs (pun intended) is probably sustained by the great personal respect Elizabeth enjoys. So it may well be that when she’s gone, they will switch to having someone home-grown instead. (This would not entail their leaving the Commonwealth.)Scotland is part of the UK. The Scottish government will be seeking a second independence referendum as soon as they think that they would win it – this has nothing to do with when the Queen dies. It’s SNP policy that an independent Scotland would still have the Queen (and presumably her successors) as head of state. She is the legal heir of the Kings of Scotland.

Will Britain collapse after the queen dies?

No, not right away. But as I've said with other answers I do think the U.K. will enter a period of deep and intense introspection about the UK’s role in the world, the future of its territories, the Commonwealth, and the monarchy. Her Majesty is truly one of the last of “the Greatest Generation” as Tom Brokaw dubbed the WWII generation. She is truly of a different age and generation and a living connection to that. We really aren't so much like her generation any longer. Once she passes I do believe Australia will probably no longer retain the monarch as head of state and will become a republic. Others could follow. People will wonder over the need to spend for nuclear weaponry, a new generation of submarines and such to defend what's left of our far flung holdings, especially in a Brexit era where Scotland may leave. The cost of retaining the Falklands, Gibraltar, bases on Cyprus and such may be broached. People wouldn't dare speak of it while Her Majesty is still drawing breath.I do honestly think Her Majesty may be all that still holds this enterprise together. I honestly just do not know that Prince Charles has the gravitas, personality, and charm to motivate people as Her Majesty does. Her Majesty has shepherded us from the days of Empire through decolonization, fostering development of the Commonwealth, the Cold War, and so much more. Now it's a generation of stupid spoilt children who lied us into a war in Iraq, nearly let Scotland secede, let Brexit happen, and can't seemingly do anything positive of constructive in general. She probably has a Dubonnet and gin and wonders where the hell it all went so wrong.

Would have the British Queen lost her title had Scotland seceded from United Kingdom?

The short answer is no, but potentially also yes. The Union Act of 1707 creating the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (now only Northern Ireland) survived Irish independence and would endure should Scotland depart the Union. Her Majesty would still be Queen of the United Kingdom as a union and each state seperately, as well as Queen for many of the Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and such.The last referendum on Scottish independence did not, if I remember correctly, address the issue of head of state. In theory Scotland could decide to retain the titular head of the House of Windsor as its monarch serving concurrent in their role as monarch of the United Kingdom. In theory they could select someone from the House of Stewart to serve as monarch, create a new monarchy or abolish the monarchy altogether and go with an elected head of state instead. Scotland isn't seeking an acrimonious divorce as relations with the rest of the United Kingdom are very good at the point so a Stewart restoration is unlikely as that would sour relations. Prince Charles remains fairly unpopular and I rather doubt the Scots would want him as King of an independent Scotland although they have warm feelings for Queen Elizabeth. More than likely they'll opt for an elected head of state rather than retaining Her Majesty.

Which current European monarchy is most likely to become a republic, and which current European republic is most likely to become a monarchy?

In Norway, there are a few MPs who are openly republicans and ultimately want to get rid of the monarchy. However, they are but a minority and the Royal House is supported by around 75% of the public. Unless the Crown-Prince (future King) Håkon f*cks it up somehow (which is unlikely, he’s a dad of three in his 40s, he has responsibilities), I doubt he will get any less popular than his father King Harald.(The Crown Prince is officially Europe’s most Metal monarch. Source: Feiret 40 år)In Sweden, King Gustav is far from being as popular as his Norwegian counterpart, in parts due to quite a number of “affairs” that have tainted his popular image. His daughter, future queen Victoria, together with he husband and young daughter is much, much more popular so i think that Sweden will be okay too.(We’re a happy family ! Also, Swedes ! Source: Sveriges kronprinsesse)As far as Denmark is concerned, I know for a fact that the reigning Monarch, Margrethe, is also very popular, acting more or less like the nation’s funny grandma who doesn’t give too many f*cks. However, I have no idea about who’s coming after her.(Yep, that’s your grandma right there. Source: im fronch honhon)As for the remaining monarchies, well, the biggest threat against monarchy might not be their abolition but rather the splintering o f the countries themselves. The U.K. is likely to implode as Scotland goes solo; in Spain, Catalonia has actual chances to secede, despite the opposition of Madrid; Belgium is and has been in a rock and a hard place between its two main communities for quite a while now… Only the Netherlands and the micro-states are pretty much certain to remain monarchies as they offer a much higher stability than the other three mentioned previously.As for republics turning into monarchies…well, I don’t think any would go back to the Crown in the near future, but give it a few decades and more geopolitical instability and everything will be possible.My two cents, hope this helps.

If Scotland leaves the UK, does that mean the end of the British royal family?

During the campaign on the referendum on independence in 2014, the Scottish National Party pledged to keep Queen Elizabeth II as head of their proposed state. Little has changed since then. No matter what kind of independence Scotland pursues or achieves, the Queen and the royal family are seen within Scotland as their tradition as much as England’s.Let’s be realistic about the relations between any future Scotland and the rest of the U.K. The monarchy would be important to both nations, for an independent Scottish nation would want and need some kind of anchor to tie it to England. As a small and relatively less wealthy prospective nation-state, Scotland would not last long by being reckless. It stands to lose out if it puts all its eggs in one EU basket. It would be practical to keep unusual and close relations with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and perhaps the British pound. Scotland will want the British Queen/King as their own monarch because they aren't disputing their Britishness.Scotland may desire independence to make its own immigration policy and perhaps to skip overseas adventures like Iraq, but only the naive think they could benefit from being distant from England on the fundamental defense and economic issues that affect the island. The Queen and her successors can serve the needs of England and Scotland like nothing else could as unifying symbols—even if they become two constitutionally separate kingdoms.Charles is also respected in Scotland. He married his wife Camilla there in the Church of Scotland, which may be appreciated by some people there. The Church of Scotland permits divorcées with living ex-spouses, such as Camilla, to remarry. The Church of England does not. Even an independent Scottish Parliament is likely to support him as their own king, just as Canada will have Charles as the King of Canada according to Canadian law.

When was the last time a British monarch exercised his or her power? This means voluntarily exercising the power granted to them as a monarch, in a manner that affected state policy.

Queen Anne in 1708 withheld Royal Assent to a bill that would have established a militia in Scotland. However this was on the strong advice of her ministers - since the vote in parliament war had broken out with France again and they had a fleet heading for Scotland. There were still plenty of Scots loyal to the deposed elder line of Stuarts, so having a ready made body of armed men waiting to ally themselves with an invading French army was not considered a good idea. After this assent became pretty much automatic and 'ceremonial', with only the odd specific bill being even considered for refusal by the occasional monarch.The last monarch who appointed his own choice of PM over the candidate who could hold a Parliamentary majority was William IV in 1834. He chose Robert Peel, a Tory, over Lord Melbourne whose government included some radicals who were veering more to the left than William was comfortable with. Since Peel couldn't get a majority of MPs to support his government he couldn't get any legislation passed and it dissolved pretty quickly. New elections delivered a majority for Melbourne again, and the king accepted it. It was futile not to, and no monarch has gone against the will of the voters since.