The coronation of King Charles the Third comes at the worst of times as levels of poverty and homelessness—plus worsening mental health—are soaring throughout the United Kingdom.
"I have started celebrating! I just bought a whole lot of hats, flags and special cups for my party I am having on the coronation! You can buy all this in special packets at the supermarket!" stated 'Paul' {not his real name} who was waving a small paper Union Jack flag while dawning a hat with a Union Jack on it …and also while drinking a pint of Guinness. He seemed already elated by either events or his drink! Paul actually met King Charles who once inspected his work at a charity called the 'Prince's Trust' and proudly showed me his photo with the then-Prince Charles. Asked whether he was a monarchist, Paul declared, "I am neutral. I have even invited a friend who is a staunch republican but I don't know if he will turn up!"
Paul told me that he was also 'neutral' when it came to the question about whether Scotland should become independent or not. The reason is he has witnessed terrible arguments where people have fallen out over this issue. "I am not enthusiastic about the suggestion we have another referendum to vote for independence. There was so such conflict and division around the last referendum that I would not like to see this again."
In contrast to the ambiguity of Paul, 50-year-old Mary Hamilton told me 'I have sent the new floral stamps with King Charles III 's head on them. They 're the first stamps to be produced with his head on them. The flowers are beautiful. He's a keen gardener and his grandmother had a really beautiful garden at a castle in Scotland. I like gardening and John has a communal garden at his flat. So I'll have access to a garden when I move. How blessed we are??? Very !'
So while Mary Hamilton sees King Charles III as a fellow gardener, John views Prince Charles as former inspector of his work.
But not everyone is so enthusiastic about the coronation of King Charles III coming on the 6th of May. When I spoke to another man he told me "This is not a democracy but a fascist state. You don't have freedom of speech. Some protester was arrested just for speaking out against the monarchy."
Although memorabilia is ubiquitous some polls indicates there is not a lot of enthusiasm for the coronation. According to a significant 64% of those polled, on You Gov, Britons either do not care at all or not very much about it. Some view it all as largely remote and irrelevant to their lives. Perhaps an estimated 20% of the British population are against the monarchy and favor it's abolition. They regard the monarchy not only as an anachronism that belongs to another age but a symbol of unfair privilege and inequality.
Some people have become indignant and angry about the appeal to the public to pay homage to the King. Why should people be put under pressure to swear allegiance to the King? In addition, opponents of the King have been sent letters by the police warning them of the new public order act which has come into force. And during the coronation, the police will monitor all those who attend this demonstration with one of the biggest 'live face recognition' surveillance technologies. The technology is to be used to identify people who might disrupt the coronation ceremony.
This surveillance system should not astonish people. Britain has the biggest number of surveillance cameras in the whole world. There is almost always someone watching you in a cafe or street corner. This was after all where George Orwell's novel 1984 was written.
In historical terms the connection between the monarchy and surveillance is not unprecedented. If you look at the famous Rainbow portrait of Queen Elizabeth the First you will notice that her dress has many eyes and ears embroidered on it. The message of the portrait to her subjects was to watch their step. The Queen was always watching them through her highly professional espionage system. The French Ambassador went as far to state that she was 'a great princess, whom nothing escapes.'
One of the strangest things about the monarchy was the fact that the Pope awarded King Henry 8th the title 'Defender of the Faith' for writing a book defending the Catholic faith from the Protestant reformers. But then King Henry the 8th broke away from the Roman Catholic Church…
and made himself head of the Church of England. Despite this break the king never gave up this title!
Even today English coins still display the initials F.D. which stands for Fidei Defensor, Defender of the Faith. It is just one of the absurd things about the odd symbolism the monarchy preserves.
So what does D.F. stand for? How can you continue to put this on coins when each monarch who comes to the throne must swear that he will not allow a Catholic to become a successor? How can he or she become a defender of a faith they no longer profess? The King will be crowned on a stone stolen from a Scottish king! This still irks many Scots. The King or Queen is supposed to be the head of the armed forces but can't issue an order to stop it invading Iraq!
King Charles III is unlucky. His coronation could not have come at a worse time. He is caught in 'the perfect storm'. In recent years the monarchy has been plagued with all kinds of scandals and accusations from his son Prince Harry as well as the disgrace of his brother Prince Andrew caught in an alleged sex scandal.
And over the past decade people in Britain have experienced unprecedented poverty, food inflation of 18% along with shortages of basic vegetables in the shops and a National Health Care system which can no longer cope with mental health problems which have shot up. Some ask, "Why should we spend such money on extravagant parades at a time when people are being forced to choose between heating and eating?"
Some observers claim that the popularity of the monarchy is waning. It may face collapse. But those premature predictions about the collapse of the monarchy have been made many times before. For instance, in the mid 19th century many people thought that as Britain introduced new democratic forms the monarchy would be abolished. It did not happen. Queen Victoria reinvented the image of the monarchy with a book titled 'Our Lives in the Highlands, '1868. The monarchy survived the King Edward and Mrs Simpson episode of 1936.
History has proven time and time again that the monarchy is resilient. It can be shaken, or shattered but not uprooted or abolished. Well not yet anyway! One of the reasons for the survival of the monarchy might be the conservatism of the British, their love of old customs and traditions as well as the apathy of so many people. They see the monarchy as a symbol of unity, family and religious values and virtues. One critic stated "We have come to believe that it is natural to have a virtuous sovereign."
The appeal of the monarchy often lies not only in the love of pomp, ceremony and rituals but often in the irresistible charisma of some monarchs. For instance, the late Queen Elizabeth conveyed the distinct impression that she was wholly absorbed in paying attention to anyone she was visiting. Nothing appeared to escape her attention. She was also a great listener.
I recall that around 1970, my parents took us all to see the Queen coming to George Square in Glasgow. The Queen gave everyone a lovely smile which was genuine. My mother said, "The Queen was giving us a great wave." My father countered, saying, "Rubbish , she was giving a wave to everyone in the crowd." But the fact that some people felt they were being singled out for attention is a testimony to how people felt she really paid attention to them.
It is worth pointing out that Britain has not always been a monarchy. For 11 years under Cromwell {1649 to 1660} Britain became a republic. The experience was a disaster. Cromwell banned the celebration of Christmas and Easter, playing with toys on a Sunday, and the theater. This dismal dictatorship collapsed after the death of Cromwell and left most of the British people with a long distaste of republics.
Does the monarchy have any power? At school we were largely told it was a mere figurehead! It was largely powerless in at least political terms. Walter Bagehot in his classic book “The English Constitution” {1867} argued that Britain was 'a disguised republic' in which the monarch had the right to be consulted, to encourage and to offer advice but not govern. That may be true!
But the facts remain that the King is formally the head of the state, the armed forces and can also veto any bill passed through the House of Commons…
He can also step in to choose who can be appointed prime-minister if politicians reach a deadlock. He is also the head of the Commonwealth. He also grants medals, awards and knighthoods to people in recognition of their achievements. The monarchy also turns up to comfort victims in many catastrophes. So the idea that the monarchy is no more than a figure head misses the mark.
The King can exert an imperceptible influence on events. But there is a widely unwritten rule that the king must remain above and beyond politics. He must not express his political opinions in public or should attempt to be very discrete about this.
Given the fact that his mother Queen Elizabeth was an able, outstanding , charismatic and popular Queen, the King has a hard act to live up to. One widespread image of the King is that he is lacks good communicative skills, is eccentric and can seem like a crank. There are all kinds of anecdotes about him talking to his plants and trees !
In reality, the king is a very thoughtful, reflective and intelligent person. He is no fool! He is perhaps very underestimated. His first King's speech went very well. In this speech, he applauded all volunteers who were going out to help the homeless, the poor and the sick. He even started to sound like a socialist or republican!
The future perspectives suggest the monarchy as an institution is most likely to linger on. I as a republican might not relish this fact, but I doubt there is much that can be done about it at present.
The monarchy might limp on but it won't fall down yet.