The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[Mock Turtle]

Well, you are not that we and neither am I. So if it happens there is a we, but not until it happens.

Just putting my views on this, but a poll (1600+ people) this morning on TV voted 55% that the coronation was not worth it. And I suspect that the monarchy is becoming less popular, and not just from the miscreants - Harry and Andrew. Of course I can't predict the future, and a few decent Kings and Queens might change things (given Queen Elizabeth was probably the best we had for a long time), but many no doubt will see the hypocrisy in having a democracy but where one is immune to this - the King or Queen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just putting my views on this, but a poll (1600+ people) this morning on TV voted 55% that the coronation was not worth it. And I suspect that the monarchy is becoming less popular, and not just from the miscreants - Harry and Andrew. Of course I can't predict the future, and a few decent Kings and Queens might change things (given Queen Elizabeth was probably the best we had for a long time), but many no doubt will see the hypocrisy in having a democracy but where one is immune to this - the King or Queen.

Yeah and that is how it should be in a democracy. But until then you are a democratic monarchy. Go figure.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What is “right”? It is an inherently vague term. If you mean civil/social “rights” (privileges), as in the royal motto “God and my right”, then yes, might makes right. Civil rights are by their very nature, things granted to subjects by their sovereign lord; in the case of a republic the Law takes the place of the sovereign. If, as I suspect, by “right” you mean “morality”, then I (along with scores of ethical philosophers, most notably F. Nietzsche) question the very fact of objective mores. Do you believe that there is anything objective about morality? Like David Hume, I am a sensualist. I believe that people view as moral those things which create positive emotional responses in them, and nothing more. The problem with that is it causes shifting moralities, based upon the fickle nature of human emotion.

Sovereign lord? Who gave them such rights? All of history has mainly just been a bloody power struggle, with nominations as to the rights of any who made it into leadership being rather self-given. Several countries do have democracies where they don't have hereditary heads of state, so what is wrong with the UK doing so?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah and that is how it should be in a democracy. But until then you are a democratic monarchy. Go figure.

I'm just arguing the latter term is not necessary - like so many other countries.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Republicanism isn't an extreme view.

No, but organising protests on the day of a coronation is extreme. imo.
It shows no respect for other people.

The police and security forces have a hard enough job with the crowds, without
that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sovereign lord? Who gave them such rights? All of history has mainly just been a bloody power struggle, with nominations as to the rights of any who made it into leadership being rather self-imposed. Several countries do have democracies where they don't have hereditary heads of state, so what is wrong with the UK doing so?

Rights are social constructs enforced by force and ideology. Film at 11.

 

[muhammad_isa]

With kings, short of getting the guillotines out, you can't remove one who refuses to step down..

We've been through all that in the UK .. the monarchy has a role to play, but they are not
beyond criticism, and their power is limited.

 

[exchemist]

That is not the point. The whole hereditary thing should simply be abolished (for any supposed heads of state) and a decent liberal democratic system put in place, and where such hopefully would then represent the views and votes of the people. Why have such figures apart from simply being a cultural link to the past - and a source of revenue from tourism and all the rest? We would need something rather better than we currently have, but at least we would be rid of the ties to the past and be allowed to make our own future. Too big a step for many?

Cutting ties with "the past", i.e. with history, in an ancient country, seems to me both futile and misguided. It's a big part of national identity and culture.

As for a decent liberal democratic system, we have that in the UK already. Whether we have a monarch or an elected head of state makes not a jot of difference. In fact, if the head of state were elected, it would be if anything harder to keep them out of influencing the government of the day, since they would be seen as having a popular mandate of some kind. So I'm not persuaded the "democracy" argument really stands up.

However you can legitimately complain about the expense of the current monarchy. That can be resolved by slimming it down - as I gather is planned. This is what the other monarchies in Europe (Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands) have done. Britain has been slow, due probably to coming to terms with the loss of empire last century.

Perhaps more intractable is the monarchy's role, by its mere existence, in tending to perpetuate the English class system: "Did you know she's second cousin of the Equerry to the Assistant Keeper of the King's Hubcaps" etc. [snore]..... There is still a (small) class of people who get off on this sort of crap. But it doesn't really buy them power in modern Britain. These snobbish cliques exist in parallel with the cliques close to political power and the two barely interact. So I think they are a bit obnoxious but fairly harmless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but organising protests on the day of a coronation is extreme. imo.

Meh.

It shows no respect for other people.

If we were avoiding things that show no respect for the people, there wouldn't have been a monarchy to protest in the first place.

The police and security forces have a hard enough job with the crowds, without
that.

The main factor making security difficult was the large number of royalists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Rights are social constructs enforced by force and ideology. Film at 11.

Yes, but in a democracy people tend to get to vote on such - so perhaps why democracies are so popular - whereas monarchies have not been such enforcers of such things. I know there are many benefits from having a monarchy, especially a titular one, but progress often comes from breaking with the past. Notice what was shouted so heartedly during the event - God Save the King! When the UK is becoming less religious than ever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We've been through all that in the UK .. the monarchy has a role to play, but they are not
beyond criticism, and their power is limited.

And that makes the current system okay?

"Yeah, we have no way to stop a bad monarch from getting the job and no way of removing them once they're in, but at least they won't cause that much damage."

 

[muhammad_isa]

The main factor making security difficult was the large number of royalists.

Royalists?
I don't think so. They just enjoy the culture.

I lived in Edinburgh for a while when I was young.
Culture provides interest, along with the arts.

What a boring world you have planned for us all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Royalists?
I don't think so. They just enjoy the culture.

I lived in Edinburgh for a while when I was young.
Culture provides interest, along with the arts.

What a boring world you have planned for us all.

Do you think that your post is an honest representation of my position?

Just curious.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Cutting ties with "the past", i.e. with history, in an ancient country, seems to me both futile and misguided. It's a big part of national identity and culture.

As for a decent liberal democratic system, we have that in the UK already. Whether we have a monarch or an elected head of state makes not a jot of difference. In fact, if the head of state were elected, it would be if anything harder to keep them out of influencing the government of the day, since they would be seen as having a popular mandate of some kind. So I'm not persuaded the "democracy" argument really stands up.

However you can legitimately complain about the expense of the current monarchy. That can be resolved by slimming it down - as I gather is planned. This is what the other monarchies in Europe (Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands) have done. Britain has been slow, due probably to coming to terms with the loss of empire last century.

Perhaps more intractable is the monarchy's role, by its mere existence, in tending to perpetuate the English class system: "Did you know she's second cousin of the Equerry to the Assistant Keeper of the King's Hubcaps" etc. [snore]..... There is still a (small) class of people who get off on this sort of crap. But it doesn't really buy them power in modern Britain. These snobbish cliques exist in parallel with the cliques close to political power and the two barely interact. So I think they are a bit obnoxious but fairly harmless.

There is still all the frippery associated with monarchy - Lord, Ladies and all the rest (House of Lords!) - but I can understand why so many simply can't make the jump into the future. But if this, the monarchy vanishing, doesn't occur at some point in the future, I would be rather surprised - not that I will be alive to see it.

I know we have a long history, not always pleasant, and that is why so many are attached to the monarchy, but progress as a nation I think will more likely occur if we did just rid ourselves of the monarchy. Not that I will be campaigning anywhere or making the coronation to be any less than it was for all those who attended. I'm sure they all enjoyed it immensely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Notice what was shouted so heartedly during the event - God Save the King! When the UK is becoming less religious than ever.

I noticed something interesting this week: while the (Conservative) Ontario provincial government has been doubling down on its royalism for the coronation, the hashtag that Conservative MPPs have been putting on their posts is #LongLiveTheKing - I haven't seen a single "God Save the King" from any of them.

 

[Augustus]

That is not the point. The whole hereditary thing should simply be abolished (for any supposed heads of state) and a decent liberal democratic system put in place, and where such hopefully would then represent the views and votes of the people.

There is a liberal democratic system in place, and the government does (in theory) represent the views of the people.

If we want the government to better represent the views of the people, then reform the political system as they are the ones who hold the power.

Electing a ceremonial head of state does absolutely nothing whatsoever in any substantial aspect of governance.

Why have such figures apart from simply being a cultural link to the past - and a source of revenue from tourism and all the rest? We would need something rather better than we currently have, but at least we would be rid of the ties to the past and be allowed to make our own future. Too big a step for many?

Precisely because they are a link to the past, and our history has left us with an iconic and apolitical head of state which offers quite a few benefits.

Electing some C list politician or celebrity to do the role removes benefits and offers no real advantages. It will probably cost more also as elections cost money and so does having a President, and regardless of which person gets elected, 80% of the country will complain that they "can't believe we elected that massive bellend". Not to mention the distraction and tedium of running an election for just to choose a ceremonial figurehead. I would prefer politicians focussing on fixing real problems than wasting years to vote on becoming a republic, changing the laws, then campaigning for their party's candidate every 5 years

Meeting the King to get an award is a bit special, if you were meeting President Jacob Rees-Mogg you'd probably just tell them to stick it in the post (or up his ****).

Getting rid of symbolic ties to the past is not necessarily a good thing either, and, as you just noted, the monarchy in no way prevents us from doing whatever we want in the future anyway.

Either way it doesn't make that much difference, but as someone who cares nothing for the actual royals, I think it is a better option than the alternatives which offer several disadvantages, while the only advantage seems to be they are emotionally comforting for a few people.

 

[Zwing]

Sovereign lord? Who gave them such rights? All of history has mainly just been a bloody power struggle, with nominations as to the rights of any who made it into leadership being rather self-given. Several countries do have democracies where they don't have hereditary heads of state, so what is wrong with the UK doing so?

All of biological life, and especially of mammalian life is a “power struggle”. The “sovereign” is the most powerful entity within a human social context. Every society has a “sovereign”. In the U.S. it is the Law, especially as embodied in the U.S. Constitution (rather abstract a sovereign for my taste, but I digress). In the U.K. the sovereign is Parliament, proceeding from the victory of the roundheads in the 17th century. In Saudi Arabia the sovereign is the king. In an ordered society, there is always a “sovereign lord”.

As for who bestows the rights of a sovereign, within all contexts sovereignty is bestowed by the strongest… the greatest power, usually in its status as victor. Absolute monarchs have bestowed it upon themselves (as in the old game we boys used to play called “king of the hill”). The British Parliament had it bestowed upon it by the New Model Army. The U.S. Constitution had it bestowed upon itself by the Continental Army after victory in the Revolution.

What I would consider wrong about the U.K. abolishing the monarchy is that it would seem to be an example of “throwing out the baby with the bath water”. The monarchy makes Britain distinctive, and provides a living symbol, not of the British state, but of Britishness. If I were English or British, I would rather favor legislation which would scale back some of the expenditure on coronations, weddings, and similar events, and would require the monarch to become more directly involved with some aspect of executive governance, perhaps receiving citizens having certain problems in an audience, and resolving some of those problems by fiat. A big part of the public disillusionment with the monarchy derives from its aloofness from the population that it represents.

 

[Mock Turtle]

All of biological life, and especially of mammalian life is a “power struggle”. The “sovereign” is the most powerful entity within a human social context. Every society has a “sovereign”. In the U.S. it is the Law, especially as embodied in the U.S. Constitution (rather abstract a sovereign for my taste, but I digress). In the U.K. the sovereign is Parliament, proceeding from the victory of the roundheads in the 17th century. In Saudi Arabia the sovereign is the king. In an ordered society, there is always a “sovereign lord”.

As for who bestows the rights of a sovereign, within all contexts sovereignty is bestowed by the strongest… the greatest power, usually in its status as victor. Absolute monarchs have bestowed it upon themselves (as in the old game we boys used to play called “king of the hill”). The British Parliament had it bestowed upon it by the New Model Army. The U.S. Constitution had it bestowed upon itself by the Continental Army after victory in the Revolution.

What I would consider wrong about the U.K. abolishing the monarchy is that it would seem to be an example of “throwing out the baby with the bath water”. The monarchy makes Britain distinctive, and provides a living symbol, not of the British state, but of Britishness. If I were English or British, I would rather favor legislation which would scale back some of the expenditure on coronations, weddings, and similar events, and would require the monarch to become more directly involved with some aspect of executive governance, perhaps receiving citizens having certain problems in an audience, and resolving some of those problems by fiat. A big part of the public disillusionment with the monarchy derives from its aloofness from the population that it represents.

Well perhaps we need to change our image. Plenty in the UK seem to still think of Britain as that which ruled the waves - and a commonwealth - and probably accounts for why we voted Brexit. We still have to move on though and hopefully provide a better future for coming generations. And I doubt this will come from hereditary nonsense and such baggage from history. As I've said, too big a step for most I suspect, even if this would be better for the UK - just as getting rid of guns would be for America.

 

[exchemist]

There is still all the frippery associated with monarchy - Lord, Ladies and all the rest (House of Lords!) - but I can understand why so many simply can't make the jump into the future. But if this, the monarchy vanishing, doesn't occur at some point in the future, I would be rather surprised - not that I will be alive to see it.

I know we have a long history, not always pleasant, and that is why so many are attached to the monarchy, but progress as a nation I think will more likely occur if we did just rid ourselves of the monarchy. Not that I will be campaigning anywhere or making the coronation to be any less than it was for all those who attended. I'm sure they all enjoyed it immensely.

Progress? I don't think progress is affected by what kind of head of state we have, but by our government. Brexit, for instance, has done far more to inhibit our chances of a prosperous and relevant future than anything to do with the monarchy. We spend a lot of time, quite rightly, in our politics arguing about how to achieve progress as a nation. The monarchy simply does not come up, at all, in such discussions. It's just not relevant.

I've never been interested in the monarchy per se or been a great supporter of it, but the longer I live, the more I feel that history and tradition are actually important to the cultural life and identity of the country. The monarchy may gradually evaporate over time, or it may not. Chaz will slim it down and then we'll see whether the people turn against it or continue to indulge it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is a liberal democratic system in place, and the government does (in theory) represent the views of the people.

If we want the government to better represent the views of the people, then reform the political system as they are the ones who hold the power.

Electing a ceremonial head of state does absolutely nothing whatsoever in any substantial aspect of governance.



Precisely because they are a link to the past, and our history has left us with an iconic and apolitical head of state which offers quite a few benefits.

Electing some C list politician or celebrity to do the role removes benefits and offers no real advantages. It will probably cost more also as elections cost money and so does having a President, and regardless of which person gets elected, 80% of the country will complain that they "can't believe we elected that massive bellend". Not to mention the distraction and tedium of running an election for just to choose a ceremonial figurehead. I would prefer politicians focussing on fixing real problems than wasting years to vote on becoming a republic, changing the laws, then campaigning for their party's candidate every 5 years

Meeting the King to get an award is a bit special, if you were meeting President Jacob Rees-Mogg you'd probably just tell them to stick it in the post (or up his ****).

Getting rid of symbolic ties to the past is not necessarily a good thing either, and, as you just noted, the monarchy in no way prevents us from doing whatever we want in the future anyway.

Either way it doesn't make that much difference, but as someone who cares nothing for the actual royals, I think it is a better option than the alternatives which offer several disadvantages, while the only advantage seems to be they are emotionally comforting for a few people.

I know that our monarchy has little role in any governance - so why have it? Politics has been and always will be the last in my line of interests, so all here is just my opinion but seemingly coming from some logic. I don't know what might replace our monarchy - perhaps some council of eminent and politically neutral scholars to appoint a head of government, and where such at least might provide a certain competence in the role - but there are still plenty of issues as to how any government gets voted in anyway.