Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Coronation

Journal by turgid

Prince Charles became King Charles III on 8th September 2022 upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, that day. However, despite this, there will be a coronation ceremony next Saturday 6th May which is estimated to cost £100M and will be paid for out of public money, i.e. our taxes. This is against a backdrop of 10% inflation, fuel, food and housing poverty, and public services such as education and the National Health Service on their knees.

We, the people of the UK, his subjects, are being invited to swear an oath of allegiance to our king as follows:

“I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.”

There are a number of problems with this as you can see. I will not be swearing such an oath. As an atheist, I do not believe that there is a God to help me. I do not believe that the King derives any sort of power from this God, I do not believe in blind obedience, and I do not believe in an unelected hereditary head of state. It is fundamentally incompatible with a modern democracy.

The UK constitution, such as it is, a hotch-potch collection of customs and documents handed down through history, hasn't really changed much since the Norman Conquest of 1066.

We have the Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons (the nominally democratic bit), and the House of Lords (the appointed/hereditary second chamber).

We elect our Members of Parliament every five years using a First Past the Post system. Effectively this limits our governments to the two main political parties, Conservative (the "establishment party") and Labour (formerly the radical left but now watered-down conservatives). Very occasionally one party does not get an outright majority, and has to form a coalition with the third largest party (the Liberal Democrats), which the Conservatives did in 2010. At that time, the Liberal Democrats were economically on the right and supported many right-wing economic policies that disadvantaged ordinary people, such as regarding university tuition fees. Their reputation has never recovered and they were nearly wiped out in subsequent elections.

Nominally the Monarch is Head of State. All laws passed by Parliament have to be scruitinised by the Lords and then sent to the Monarch to be given Royal Assent. At this point, there may be secret changes to the laws often to benefit Royalty and this has been well documented in the press in recent years.

What happens if a government misbehaves or breaks the law? The British system has relied on government ministers and MPs being decent chaps, who would always do the right thing, and resign if they made a serious mistake. However there is nothing written down in our constitution, no laws. MPs can be banned from Parliament, and they can be deselected forcing a byelection if banned for long enough, but who decides when to ban them and for how long?

The unlawful prorogation of Parliament in 2019, in a proper democracy, might have resulted in a change of government via a general election. It did not.

Under the UK constitution, such as it is, the Monarch has the power to dismiss the government. The last time a Monarch (Charles I) did this in the 17th Century (for autocratic reasons), there was a revolution, led by Oliver Cromwell. The King was put on trial, found guilty and beheaded. Britain became a republic under Puritan rule via Parliament for several years. Eventually, the people tired of the Puritans and restored the monarchy.

As a result, the Monarch is banned from entering Parliament, and there are archaic protocols and traditions to prevent the Monarch or the Lords interfering in Parliament (see Black Rod).

There is also an important legal precedent. When the Monarchy was restored, it was on the condition that it would not interfere with democracy. The short story is that the Monarch still retains the power to dismiss Parliament and therefore call a general election, however, to do so would result in the end of the Monarchy. Obviously it would not result in an execution, which would be abhorrent, but politically it would be suicide.

We find ourselves in a situation where our democracy has a major flaw in its "checks and balances." The code of decent chaps has been broken in these times of Faragism and National Conservatism and there is nothing to stop it.

Freedom of speech is not officially codified in our written laws but it is a custom which is generally defended and upheld. What if you want to abolish the Monarchy and live in a republic with a democratically-elected head of state (president) who has a maximum time in office and can be replaced regularly and frequently via free and fair elections?

There is an organisation called Republic which is organising a peaceful protest in London on the day of the Coronation.

Coincidentally, some new anti-protest laws will come into force just in time for it and intimidatory letters have been sent to the protestors.

Graham Smith, the campaign group’s chief executive, described the letter as “very odd” and said the group was seeking assurances from the police that nothing had changed in relation to its plans to protest on coronation day.

Shami Chakrabarti, the former shadow attorney general, said: “During the passage of this illiberal and headline-grabbing legislation, ministers admitted that the new offence of ‘locking on’ is so broad as to catch peaceful protesters who link arms in public.

Perhaps I should start using a VPN, eh?

Update: Anti-monarchy campaigners have been arrested in London preparing to protest peacefully.

Graham Smith, the chief executive of Republic, had been collecting drinks and placards for demonstrators at the main site of the protest on Trafalgar Square when he was stopped with five others by police on St Martin’s Lane in central London.

And:

Harry Stratton, a director at Republic, who arrived as Smith and the others were detained, said: “They were collecting the placards and bringing them over when the police stopped them. The guys asked why and they were told: ‘We will tell you that once we have searched the vehicle.’ That’s when they arrested the six organisers.

It seems that the new anti-protest laws are being applied, particulary regarding "lock-on devices."

Stratton said the organisers of the protest had not possessed lock-on devices. “What would we lock on to? We are just protesting.” He added that one protestor at Trafalgar square had been taken away by police as he had string on him. “It’s string that was part of his placard, he said. “What was he going to do with that?”

Is this our new National Conservatism in action?

Coronation | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 24 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @01:04PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @01:04PM (#1304482)

    You get a holiday on coronation and a holiday when they die.

    As for the 100M, from the same linked article:

    “But worldwide TV rights will more than cover the cost and it will be a massive boost to tourism. Hotels are already being booked out for the coronation weekend.”

    Also, the King's Coronation is expected to bring in around £1billion for the UK economy.

    So seems better than par already, it's not like that many tourists visit the UK for the weather. There's some nice scenery but objectively it's not the best.

    The UK Gov could also do a lot worse like spend 100M on starting/perpetuating wars thousands of miles away. They've certainly done similar things before.

    That said, the Queen was popular and managed to maintain the "Royal branding". Doubt Charles will do as well.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday May 03, @01:19PM (1 child)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 03, @01:19PM (#1304485) Journal

      Why couldn't the Royal Family be retired? They are independently wealthy to the tune of many billions of Pounds Sterling. They own plenty of property, including grand country houses where they could live quietly and comfortably. They would have celebrity status and would still attract media attention and tourism simply because of their family heritage.

      I don't see why they should continue to have a place in our legal constitution particularly since, in practice, they have no useful power (see rogue governments).

      • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 04, @06:05PM

        by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday May 04, @06:05PM (#1304771)

        "Constitutions become the ultimate tyranny," Paul said. "They're organized power on such a scale as to be overwhelming. The constitution is social power mobilized and it has no conscience. It can crush the highest and the lowest, removing all dignity and individuality. It has an unstable balance point and no limitations. I, however, have limitations. In my desire to provide an ultimate protection for my people, I forbid a constitution."

                      Dune Messiah, Frank Herbert

        Just sayin'.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @03:30PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @03:30PM (#1304519)

      I'm in for the show. On the return the royals will be in the Gold State Coach. As noted many places including here, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/elizabeth-ii-queen-consort-coach-westminster-abbey-charles-b2316942.html [independent.co.uk] this vehicle has been nauseating the royals for hundreds of years--it sways and moves in a very unsettling manner.

      The carriage has been used at every coronation since 1831, but even the then-monarch William IV – who was known as the Sailor King – likened it to “being aboard a ship tossing in a rough sea”.

      Queen Victoria was not a fan and complained of its “distressing oscillation”.

      A friend (retired from a career in automotive vehicle dynamics) was asked to look at the suspension of the Gold Coach some years ago, with an eye toward an update. He wisely concluded that he wasn't going to suggest any changes...on the principle that, "the last person who touched it before a failure" would likely be the scapegoat!

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 03, @05:37PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday May 03, @05:37PM (#1304544) Journal

      Do the worldwide TV rights moneys go back into the public coffers or do the royals get to keep it?

      I'm no fan of royalty but if the profits go back to the taxpayers then I definitely have less of a problem with it!

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @01:06PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @01:06PM (#1304483)

    Under the UK constitution, such as it is, the Monarch has the power to dismiss the government. The last time a Monarch (Charles I) did this in the 17th Century (for autocratic reasons), there was a revolution, led by Oliver Cromwell. The King was put on trial, found guilty and beheaded. Britain became a republic under Puritan rule via Parliament for several years.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Wednesday May 03, @01:23PM (6 children)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 03, @01:23PM (#1304487) Journal

      I think they should be retired from official duties with their vast wealth and we should have fundamental constitutional reform with better democracy fit for the modern age. There's no need for revolutions.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @03:05PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @03:05PM (#1304512)

        “I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me Disney.”

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @08:08PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @08:08PM (#1304575)

          I bet janrinok is going to swear! He is a real "respect muh authoritae!" kind of British subject.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by istartedi on Thursday May 04, @10:24PM

          by istartedi (123) on Thursday May 04, @10:24PM (#1304829) Journal

          They have castles, funny hats, and a political opposition attempting to usurp authority within their realm to the likely detriment of the general population through loss of tourist income. Really not much difference.

          --
          Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.

      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:30AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:30AM (#1304629)

        You be 'ead kings, Simple as.

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday May 04, @06:09PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday May 04, @06:09PM (#1304773)

      Compare that to the superspreader-in-chief that the United States had and is still wrangling with under a constitutional republic. Maybe there's something humans benefit from by having both a monarchy and a constitution?

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:36AM (#1304666)

    So they opened shop in North America.. The natives are most grateful :-)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:24AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:24AM (#1304874)

    "I do not believe in blind obedience" scream the Branch Covidians in unison as they reject the Crown. We can be sure they will let no Stone of Destiny go unturned as they critique authority and seat of political power. /s

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @09:17PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 06, @09:17PM (#1305070) Journal
    It's telling how various parties handle protests. For all my criticism of the propaganda surrounding the January 6 protest in the US (the one that ended up in the US Capitol building), they were extremely considerate to the protesters. It wasn't a crackdown on protesters carrying string.
(1)