This leads us to another point, what benefits are deemed so advantageous that non-fraternal states seek to join, beyond the stability of the structure itself? One relatively basic suggestion is that it is the sentiment of community in which all have an equal voice, thus meaning greater support is present when undertaking trade deals through the organisation. Of course, this is undoubtedly the case for certain states, but seems inadequate at explaining why states that, in the author’s opinion, are self-interested would want to take part in this ‘boy’s club’ of sorts. 

The proposal that it is due to a common history, and that this creates ties between states is perhaps one that explains the states that were members from the outset, but does not justify why Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, has joined the Commonwealth. Perhaps, in turn, we might suggest that material advantages are imparted upon member countries, with these ranging from visa-free travel, the Right of Abode, the exemption from the English language test (for certain countries), an advice department for increasing economic competitiveness, debt management solutions, the means through which to increase investment, and how to best grow fintech within smaller and developing states. 

This does indeed seem to be getting closer to the crux of the reason as to why the Commonwealth has survived for such a lengthy period of time: it is less the cultural or political history that unites these states, rather the material advantages imparted through membership. The primary consequence of this is that we see how non-historically aligned countries see the possibility of aligning themselves with the Commonwealth to acquire these favourable conditions, particularly those of an economic nature, to develop the state’s potency internationally. This then begs the question of whether the Queen’s passing will have any kind of categorical impact upon the nature through which the Commonwealth is maintained.

It is in the author’s opinion that, whilst relations with the United Kingdom specifically will likely change in the coming decade, what with renewed interest in republicanism within the former colonies, this will do little to truly threaten the Commonwealth as an institution in and of itself. This is due to the fact that the economic benefits provided by adhering to the Commonwealth, as well as the political advantages provided to the people, will perhaps create a new face for the organisation which moves away from the legacy of the British Empire, and attains the standing of a predominantly anglophone organisation which facilitates trade and investment opportunities without the formal structures of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. 

Such a re-orientation of policy necessarily entails all states having a particularly equal voice, as in practice, the UK continues, as of the time of writing this, to hold particular sway over the organisation thanks to the relative strength of the Pound sterling. It is, of course, worth reiterating that the tendency towards republicanism that has been outlined and stressed throughout this work is by no means indicative of the commonwealth losing its potency as an international organisation if one adheres to this far more materialistic view of the Commonwealth. 

A critic of this work thus far may very well contest that the lack of attention paid to the historical and fraternal ties between countries misses the mark as to what unifies the Commonwealth. This is a logical criticism, however, given the current trend that can be perceived of states moving away from the UK, whether through foreign policy or constitutional reform, the seeming desire to be associated with the British government appears to be collapsing. In fact, it may be worth noting that proponents of this strain of argument tend to be older academics and journalists with their roots in the UK, though it is up to the reader to contemplate what this might entail.