The biggest illusion – and utility – of royal events such as the coronation is that we are somehow a part of them. We are, of course, in a way; we need to be for the institution of monarchy to have any meaning at all. But not as equals. We have the worst of both worlds: the royal family gives us nothing, and we in turn legitimise it, give it meaning and audience and pay, through subsidies and tax exemptions, for its ability to wow us. The monarchy does provide a service, but not to us. It is to an entire system of political decline and economic inequality that cannot withstand closer scrutiny, and so it must be embellished and cloaked in ceremony.
Dunno Love. We English haven’t had a war in the streets over who should be head of state since, umm, 1745? Can a Presidential Republic – let’s take your native Sudan as an example – say the same thing?
The coronation pulled a screen across a desperate, polarised nation – just as intended
Nesrine Malik
Which nation does she mean: hers, or the English?
You don’t have to go as far as Sudan even. Isn’t France on its Fifth Republic or something?
Another day, another cheerful article for guardian readers to enjoy over their breakfast egg.
Is she wrong though? You do seem to be a country being dragged in directions the majority of the people don’t want to go. And like others, this extravaganza has been put on to give an illusion of unity. Of the Brits I’ve been in contact with, I don’t think there’s one has had a good word to say about HRH Jug Ears.
This is worth reading about the person rather than the propaganda:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/07/king-charles-a-reactionary-ruler-2/
If she doesn’t like it here…
1746 shirley?
Royal Events are a spectator sport.
We get to cheer the red coated soldiers, go “ooh!” at the aeroplanes and comment “What IS she wearing ?” at the dames.
It’s all for free ( it pays for itself ) and no one makes us do it.
Those of us with an IQ larger than our shoe size tend to react to actions rather than words. So, thank you for your opinion, Malik, but I’ve rarely taken advice from people like you when I see what your own group have achieved. Been back home for a bit of a national celebration recently? Like in the last couple of decades?
Bugger off, then…
BiS – A real mixed bag in my social sphere (elderly rural curtain twitchers, middle class commuter families, a pride of lions at the safari park, and tradesmen).
My anecdata is that the monarchy got a lot less popular after Elizabeth went back to her heavenly father. The only unabashedly pro-royalists I’ve encountered this weekend are old people and little kids.
Most people under the age of 50-ish don’t seem to like Charles and Camilla. Opinions vary between apathy to outright hostility (tho the latter is rare.) The general feeling is bemusement and disconnection from current events.
This isn’t 1979 stylee “down with the system, yeahhh!” punk rock attitude, it’s a weary and suspicious feeling that the centre is not holding, mere anarchy awaits, and we no longer trust our institutions or expect the future to be better.
I think people would love to be monarchists, if only they could somehow feel like King Charles is on their side.
But he isn’t, is he?
The whole shebang for less than what we used to hand over to the EU every week!
It’s possible that there hasn’t been fighting in the streets of Sudan since 1745. That is 5:45PM for those who prefer the 12 hour clock format.
Andy, it seems you’re unlikely to be correct in your hope. But then I did watch Sky, so anything is possible…
Bloke in Aberdeen,
Tim did say “we English”, I think the rebels had retreated back over the border by end of 1745.
SSexit was a lot more prolonged and violent than Brexit.
Of the Brits I’ve been in contact with, I don’t think there’s one has had a good word to say about HRH Jug Ears.
I am not a monarchist and ignored the whole farrago, however Jug Ears has a useful role to perform. To keep the failed politicians out of that seat. That’s it.
As with “If we cancel HS2 we can spend £150 Billion on…..”, why does there have to be an alternative to a King or Queen? Can’t we just have the Prime minister as head of state? With the passing of Liz it’ll still be a fuckwit if it’s a Royal and at least we can vote out a fuckwit of a politician.
If you need someone to launch an aircraft carrier, open a Tesco’s or meet with the leader of the world Klaus Schwab, just ask a sleb…
The only unabashedly pro-royalists I’ve encountered this weekend are old people and little kids.
Adopting the modern day extremely loose definition of kids (whenever politically or culturally expedient) I would say the same applies to the small number of unabashed republicans I came across.
Most of us are in the middle. Enjoying the unashamed Britishness of the occasion (which is what really pisses Nesrine and that daft bint from Bridgerton off) rather than eulogising the rather underwhelming person.
I did enjoy the simultaneous reverence/irreverence of drinking a pint of “Cheers, Big Ears”! at the pub.
I’m “old” and therefore ipso facto a Royalist… But even I think that CIII is a bit of a nob. However, compared to the alternative idea of a “President Blair” HRH is an absolute shoo-in!
‘To keep the failed politicians out of that seat. That’s it.’
You’ve got it Longrider. If they manage to push another referendum for a republic, I’ll certainly be voting ‘no’.
“‘To keep the failed politicians out of that seat. That’s it.’”
Don’t forget its entirely likely that Jimmy Saville would have walked a Presidential vote at the peak of his popularity……..
If we’re going to be ruled over by a jug-ears i’d rather it was HRH, for all his shortcomings, than President Lineker.
I think over the coming years the monarchy will wither back to something more manageable. It’s only at this state because Eleizabeth lasted so long than multiple extra generations arrived. As they die off the monarchy will retreat back to the “normal” King&Queen and a few family. And everybody knows Charlie is a caretaker king, he’ll be dead in a decade and we’ll be back to a young(ish) King. I think the best thing Charles did was wait until his mid-30s before having children to spread the generations out, something William has also done. Elizabeth’s “problem” was having a clutch of kids in her early 20s.
This article about the utterly appalling Provo commentariat at the Guardian is fun.
“The entire grotesque cast of the Guardian comment team seems to have shown up to shout their indifference from the rooftops, from Zoe Williams, to Marina Hyde, to Catherine Bennett — the last of whom was very miffed to discover that the Church of England is, like, making the coronation religious?? Apparently, plaintive calls for a “secular coronation” have been ignored. No reports as yet if the world’s smallest violin will feature in the coming festivities.”
https://thecritic.co.uk/compulsory-coronation/
I was pleased to see the organisers of the concert didn’t invite that annoying cvnt Ed Sheeran to play.
One appearance by an irritating ginger over a Royal weekend was enough.
Watching all the “not my king” types this weekend has pushed my needle a bit more monarchist than I’d expected.
I supported it because it sort of works, but I wouldn’t have defended it if KC start to abuse his position, but I’m not even sure about that. The problem is that the only thing that unites republicans is their hatred of the monarchy and like all revolutions in the past they can’t agree on what should replace it. That’s why all European revolutions end in bloodshed and never ending Terrors.
King Charles a reactionary monarch? Excellent. Glad to hear it.
Most of the people I have spoken to are neutral to warm on Charles 3 and the monarchy. Of course there’s a few shouty republicans and – as mentioned above – keen atheists who were surprised by the religious nature of a ceremony performed in church. And there’s even been a bit of dissent from the odd conservative, who has become so unhappy with modern Britain that he’s crywanking over pudgy despots.
It is early days anyway. Even her late Maj went through periods of unpopularity. So far the chap with a ceremonial role has performed the ceremonies well.
@Bravefart – amusing article! “in the case of the coronation they have finally found a form of government spending they oppose”
@Addolff agreed, not having a head of state never seems to come up as an option. Let whatever half-wit currently holding the PM job do the work.
The Garter Principal King of Arms introduced him as “The Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Monarch, our Sovereign Lord, Charles III, now, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. At which point your argument basically falls apart.
. . . HRH Jug Ears . . .
That’s insulting.
It’s HM Jug Ears. I think further titles were added such that in full it’s now HM Jug Eared Twat Stain.
The great thing for Australians is that we get to enjoy all the pomp etc but don’t have to tip in a cent. I’m not a huge fan of King Charles, but I enjoyed the coronation – ok, mostly because of the music – and despite his nuttier opinions, he does seem to know how to do the job.
I must admit to a bit of a smirk at seeing Camilla, who has copped a lot of abuse over the years getting crowned. Good on her.
I’m with you Boganboy on the referendum if/when it happens – stable, hands off head of state vs some local power grab opportunity, no contest.
King Charles a reactionary monarch? Excellent. Glad to hear it.
Even more campaigning against our interests in favour of transnational delusions? No thanks.
The deal is “your bloodline gets exclusive access to the ceremonial shiny in exchange for shutting the fuck up”.
It’s rather nice that the overwhelming majority of people who don’t live inside the M25 had something to take pleasure in rather than being dictated at by the new puritans
King Charles a reactionary monarch? Excellent. Glad to hear it.
Problem is, his reactionaryness seems indistinguishable from the progressives.
Former Aussie PM Gough Whitlam would probably disagree, were he still alive.
Once the celebrations are over and HRH inevitably reverts to type it will be interesting to see if he puts his money where his mouth is re the Koh-I-Nor diamond and, more amusingly, whether he decides to “return” it to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Someone’s going to be unhappy.
I’d at least grudgingly respect if he chose to echo Solomon and offer to split the priceless jewel into 3 pieces. It won’t happen of course because it’s always someone else’s shit that gets repatriated, never your own. Just like it’s always other peoples lifestyles that are ruined beyond repair by green policies the likes of which C3 will undoubtedly throw his weight behind.
John Galt – The Dismissal is a good example of why I want to see Aust stay a constitutional monarchy. Major crisis, deadlock between the executive and Parliament, got resolved without blood in the streets. OK, Gough wasn’t happy, but he got his chance at re-election afterward and lost. In a Westminster system, someone has to have that power and I’m glad it wasn’t the winner of the last popularity contest.
I agree, Ltw. Of course I didn’t vote for Gough anyway.