I posted this thread on Twitter this morning:
I had decided that I would leave aside discussion of the monarchy and its role in our society until the Queen's funeral had passed. But now that her death is being used by politicians to further their aims I have changed my mind. A thread….
I have written since the Queen's death about her own significance and about the need to respect her family's grief at her loss, and to respect the grieving of those who feel likewise. I stand by that. But, too much has happened very quickly to ignore its significance any longer.
The good governance of any country requires that it have an effective government that is accountable for the decisions that it makes to the representatives of those who put it in place, and then to the electorate.
It was very hard to say that we had anything approximating to such a government over the summer due to the Tory party leadership election, which left us in limbo for months when decisions on the energy crisis needed to be made.
Now, after only limited debate, and an almost meaningless statement from Liz Truss on what might best be called a non-plan for energy last week, parliament has been suspended indefinitely as a result of the Queen's death. This is utterly unacceptable.
The role of the monarch in the UK is to be part of the mechanism of government. It is not to open hospitals, or to host banquets. It is to be the person who consents to the passage of legislation after giving and receiving advice on the issue.
In that case, if the continuity of the monarchy is to be emphasised the most important thing to happen would be for the business of government to continue - after the appropriate pause for reflection that was provided on Friday and Saturday - starting on Monday morning.
Other business is continuing next week. Debts will also be chased. Schools and other public services will all operate. But the process of accountable government will be suspended. That is a powerful and worrying symbol suggesting there is no accountability in the UK, after all.
There have been ample such other symbols, all of which have been troubling. I was astonished that the Accession Council was not asked its opinion on the ascent of Charles III to the throne: not once were the 200 or so Privy Councillors assembled asked their opinion.
If the so-called ‘great and good' were present to offer counsel - as is their task - why was their opinion not sought on the matter laid before them? And yet it was not. A simple call for ‘Ayes' and ‘Noes' would have sufficed. But it did not happen. So, nor did democracy.
Instead Charles III ascended as of right. And of course, the Accession Council would have confirmed that fact. We all know that. But that is not the issue. Eugenics trumped democracy here - and our leaders didn't even pretend otherwise.
Worse, the accession proclamation said that Prince Charles has ‘become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third'. A liege is the vassal of a feudal superior, where vassal means a person holding rights on conditions of homage and allegiance.
I have to say that I object to the idea that I hold anything as a favour from a monarch who did no more to acquire that right than to be born. Every political sensibility that I have is offended by that idea.
This notion also affronts my senses as a believer in the equality of all.
It offends me as a democrat.
And as a libertarian (and socially I am a libertarian) this suggestion challenges all that I believe about my freedoms and rights.
Let's also be blunt: there is nothing about this that can be reconciled with any declaration of human rights. So the question has to be, why was this wording used?
I know many will say that tradition and ancient forms of wording require this. But tradition would also require support for slavery, child labour, gender discrimination and much else too, so that is no excuse. Those issues were absent. There was, then, no excuse for the language used.
That is, unless its use was deliberate and a reflection of what is really happening on this accession. Might it be, in other words, that the language was deliberate, just as the rush to get Charles on the throne whilst the country is still in shock also very deliberate?
In other words, the whole point of this massively rushed exercise that emphasises status, inherited power, the perpetuation of wealth and control of the populace, coupled with a wholly unnecessary suspension of parliamentary scrutiny, is to highlight the real power in this country?
I wondered until it was announced that the new King would do a tour of the capitals of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I cannot object to that. I can when he is to be accompanied by Liz Truss as new prime minister.
It could, of course, be argued that the King must act in consultation with ministers. But the message is deeply dangerous. First, it seeks to tie the Crown to the Tory party, which is threatening to the monarchy. Second, it makes the Crown political, and it should not be.
Truss is playing with fire here. We know her own love of media attention. We know too of her party's distaste for inclusiveness and democracy. And we know the links between old hierarchies of power and the Tories. In other words, we know she will tolerate abuse.
But if Truss links traditional, patrician Tory values too overtly to the Crown she risks drawing into public view the unacceptability of its claims to power and loyalty to which I have already referred.
At a time of national crisis all this worries me, greatly. Truss has already made clear that she will allow energy poverty to continue. This was implicit in the statement she made last week. She has also refused to tax the war profits of energy companies.
Truss could not than have made it clearer, already, that she favours an unfair and divided society. Charles has ascended to the throne on the basis of feudal promises, and deeply divisive oaths pertaining to religion. Associating these things is deeply unwise, but is happening.
The point I am making is that democracy, equality, and the right of the citizen to be who they wish is under varying challenges in these arrangements, promoted when parliament, and so democratic accountability, is suspended.
This is not the working of a functioning state. Nor is it the work of what I think a parliamentary democracy should be. There is instead in all this an ancient regime seeking to remind the country where power lies, backed by a prime minister all too willing to reinforce division.
I very much doubt the Queen would have been so unwise as to agree to a tour of the country with a new prime minister, herself deeply unpopular and desperate for publicity. Charles has agreed. That, to me, is a very bad sign, amongst many that are worrying.
Truss has made this period of mourning political. That has to be said. And the unacceptability of this has to be noted. Charles has joined with her in making this the case. It is, then, appropriate to provide a political response.
As a result, please don't suggest this thread inappropriate. Look at what is happening instead and worry for us, our democracy, and the Crown as well if you support it, because it's being put at risk.
Just as governments only rule by consent, so too do monarchs. It seems that far too many are forgetting that. Alienating people will not deliver that consent.
And if you doubt me, just wait to see how long it is before the Mail turns on Charles. I suspect it will not be long. He is far too woke for them. He's a Megan Markle in the making for the tabloids. We are moving to turbulent times.
A wise new King would have avoided being used as a political pawn right now. It is not clear that we have a wise King right now. In a febrile United Kingdom that adds another uncertainty into an already unstable economic situation, and that does not help.
I am worried. It's right to say so given what is happening.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“I was astonished that the Accession Council was not asked its opinion on the ascent of Charles III to the throne: not once were the 200 or so Privy Councillors assembled asked their opinion.”
God you really do need to get a life…
I have one
That is why I observe things as I do
God Jim, you really do need to grow up and learn to use what passes for your brain.
They’ve forgotten about the north and equality.
There’s an operation unicorn which said that if the queen died in Scotland, her coffin should be taken to London on the royal train, stopping at every station on the line for people to have the opportunity to pay their respects, just as they are doing in Scotland at the moment.
Today I heard that it’s going to be flown from Edinburgh to London.
So much for tradition.
I’d really like to see how meetings between Charles and Truss play out as far as climate change goes, and which one changes their views. I have a book written by Charles, Tony Jupiter of Friends of the Earth, and Ian Skelly of BBC3, called Harmony, about how we fail humanity if we fail the earth, published in 2010. Somehow I don’t see much agreement between them on food and energy.
Tony was a member if the Green New Deal Group
I thought Tony Juniper would be. Maybe Charles is hoping to show Truss the error of her ways, and show her everything she will destroy by her policies.
Someone has to be optimistic. We’ll see how many environmentalists they meet up with on their tour.
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]
Truss is clearly banking on the respect the unionists at least will have for their new king to produce cheerful crowds on which she can as it were popularity-surf (and not the placards and boo-ing she would otherwise be faced with, if she came without Charles). I wonder if she’ll get that though? If it happens in the next few weeks, possibly – so she’d want to get him shifting fast, except that it could clash with Conference season of course. If it doesn’t happen till after October, I think her – and possibly his – reception could be less positive than she might think. Then again – if the unionists pull out all the stops, and the police get antsy, well, we’ll have to see.
You have raised some important points here which unfortunately Daily Mail and Sun editors and readers would not have a clue what you are talking about. Tub thumping and flag waving are all they care about, niceties about the Anglo-Saxon monarchy’s Accession Council rituals are well above their heads. If it is the “tradition” for this to happen, then this is all that matters and whether we are in the middle of a climate and energy-paying bills crisis in the 21st Century can be brushed aside easily. The crunch will come when King Charles, champion of countering climate heating as he said in his speech at COP26 last year, lover of nature and organic farming and other life-enhancing policies will be signing off legislation for increasing oil and gas extraction from the North Sea and facilitating a massive increase of fracking and other environmental disasters.
I understand that fracking can only occur if local people agree. Thank heavens for nimbys. Energy companies are not happy about that phrase.
Daily Mail has been undermining the monarchy for some time now.
They’ve covered extensively Andrew’s pedophile woes, Charles’ suspicious ‘fund-raising’ activities with fossil-fuel sheikhs etc.
Even the photos of Charles Daily Mail uses are unflattering
Well said Richard.
I agree with all that. In particular, I see absolutely no legitimate reason why Parliament cannot return to work on Monday and very strong reasons why it should.
On a personal level, and despite my firm objection to the institution of the monarchy (as opposed to the person of the Queen), I have to admit that as one of the 10% or so who well remember the death of George 6 & subsequent coronation of Elizabeth 2 (which – age 11 – I watched on my uncle’s television), I was unexpectedly moved by the death of the Queen and found myself unable to resist watching much of the coverage on BBC World.
Due to my increasing mobility problems, I have recently come to the conclusion that I will almost certainly never again set foot in the UK. Although I have no remaining close family there, I shall of course miss seeing a number of very good friends, as well as revisiting the beautiful border countryside of my Welsh grandmother. But events of the last few years mean that I can see little else to regret.
But you have chosen well
The Tory abuse of the sovereign remains intact – using everything they can of Britain to legitimise themselves.
But – is it worse?
Is this a Charles who knows that he cannot ever be as popular as his mum?
Who has realised quickly therefore that his fate is tied to the fate of a party that is avowedly pro status quo?
It’s the making of a most awful partnership.
We’ll see.
Richard please write to Sir K Starmer and invite yourself to consult/advise for the Labour Party. We need all the help we can get just now to get our beloved islands back in the hands of folks who care.
His team know exactly where I am
Perpaps it would not be too untoward to remind them? Just a suggestion.
I agree that for Truss to tour with the new King is deeply unwise – not least for her.
The recent hustings demonstrated that the more people saw of her, the lower her poll ratings went.
She’d be better advised to keep her head down for a bit.
[…] Truss is putting the monarchy at risk by joining Charles on tour Tax Research UK […]
This tour by monarch and PM is so blatant in its politicisation of the monarchy, that I really thought you had got it wrong!
But no; it is indeed all over the internet. It is hard to imagine a more crass beginning by either of them.
Can his advisers really not see what this does – or how strikingly this breaks with the best of his late mother’s example?
As for this Tory government, so shameless an attempt to harness officially sponsored grief is all too familiarly repellant.
Little good will this do either the new monarch or his PM – but the causes of democracy and of Scotland’s independence will surely be, ironically, strengthened. It gives little confidence that the potential pitfalls of the processes of coronation wil be handled with sensitivity or political skill.
It is important for the new King to have a warm welcome on his tour.
Apart from unwise presence of a member of a political party being with the new King, she stands a good chance of marring his tour due to her ill feelings from many people due to her controversial decision to add public money to the coffers of the greedy energy companies. As you rightly confirm the Monarchy should be free of any connection to politics. Liz Truss has had an abundance of publicity during the prolonged hustings and is greedy for more.
The new King has pushed the self destruct button, something that the Queen never did. His early ill made decision makes the strong case for the public to be able to decide if it still wants a monarchy.
Surely even those who ardently support the monarchy in UK cannot agree to this thoughtless decision to include the Prime Ministet.
As a committed independinista and republican, I welcome any mistake by the British state. I am reminded of an observation by an emperor of the French, our (Scots) centuries long allies, ‘never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake’.
Mrs. Windsor was a 110 percent performer in her job for 70 years. Astonishing. The job of inherited head of state is, of course, immoral. That was not her fault. I have turned off the BBC until this is all over. Responding with fury to other’s grief is not a good look.
It would be nice to think that the British Empire will be buried with her. I expect there will be more work to do. In the ’14 I met many old people whose loyalty to the Crown was loyalty to The Queen, and while the ‘demographic drift’ at 0.5 percent per year does smooth our path to self-determination, I don’t expect the same personal loyalty from the very old next time.
Tory leader touring Scotland with King? Which PR genius thinks this will do either of them any good with those under 80 years old?
David is absolutely spot-on with “Tory leader touring Scotland with King? Which PR genius thinks this will do either of them any good with those under 80 years old.” I might add that plenty of over 80s will also share his view.
I can see the joint visit to Scotland being “eventful”: Truss will surely get the kind of reception which Nigel Farage experienced in Edinburgh (he had to be escorted by police into a pub of all places for his own safety) and Charles will be there wondering if it also applies to him. Well, he should pay heed to the old saying that respect is not automatic; it has to be earned. While the Queen was broadly well-liked in Scotland, even by many republicans, her (and Charles’s) interference in the legislative process didn’t go down well here and rightly so. Her passing alone was always likely to push Scottish opinion further towards independence, but the politicisation of Charles’ visit just gave that tendency a hefty nudge.
Not one word of your piece is in error here, Richard. Spot on. And the stupidity or naivety of Charles in aligning himself with Truss in the way you describe is gob smacking. Then again, maybe he senses – as many of us do, and as you regularly remark on this blog and in your tweets – that we’re now heading down the path toward an authoritarian state at an ever-increasing speed and he knows on which side of the fence he chooses to sit. After all, as one of the ‘elite’ who will undoubtedly benefit from such developments he has nothing to fear from Truss and acolytes, or the Tory party in general, of course (witness Cameron’s defence of Charles’s ‘right’ to attempt to influence and interfere in politics on the BBC this morning. We’re certainly ‘moving to turbulent times’ – and that may well prove to be one of your few understatements.
Apparently No 10 has ‘clarified’ that it is not a ‘tour’ and that the PM will not be ‘accompanying’ the King but just attending the services of reflection. It doesn’t seem very clear whether this is rowing back, or whether the initial reporting was the result of poor communication or media distortion. Even so, it is unclear why Truss feels it so important to join the various services (apparently to ‘offer support’, though one wonders why on earth she thinks that a King who is 73 and vastly experienced needs her support – it speaks volumes about her own sense of self-importance and, as you say, love of publicity). One also wonders how it was proposed to the Palace and what the Palace reaction was (Truss does not strike one as someone who can take a hint and it would be more or less impossible for the Palace to tell the PM flat out not to come, I suppose). But I suspect that Truss is the one who is likely to get most of the criticism for putting the monarch in an invidious position out of self-interest (showing once again, just as with Johnson and prorogation, that the contemporary Tory party actually doesn’t care two hoots about the monarchy or anything else that conservatives of the Burkean type would value)
Each nation has its own political leadership, its own church, its own tradition
None require Truss
Whatever No 10 says this is Truss trampling on devolution
Part of the problem is that Alister Jack, Douglas Ross, Stephen Kerr and the rest of the Unionist backwoodsmen who are the spokesmen for the fast-fading Scottish Conservative gerontocracy; encouraged and abetted by the Conservative Government, have chosen a political strategy that has made the devolution settlement effectively their political enemy; through the inevitable electoral consequence of the SNP winnning elections, and simply being in Government.
I suspect even Charles III is far more aware of the real difficulties this obtuse, reactionary approach to politics creates for the British State, than Liz Truss or the Conservative Party cares to admit.
I suspect you are right
I HOPE that you are right about that.
I have to say that when Charles stood in for his mum as the last state opening of parliament, the way he read what the government was going to do had a slight air of incredulity to it.
On another note, life for the stinking Tories is still going on.
One of my local railway stations (Chesterfield) has been told that its ticket office is closing by next May.
How an earth can you spread wealth when you are taking jobs off people?
It’s insanity.
Insanity, indeed
Maybe she needs time to get her cabinet of lawbreakers embedded into the public consciousness.
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/truss-cabinet-broken-ministerial-code/
Jenw – Jenny Williams I guess, yes it was me in Breton 50 years ago. I am since 1997 no longer a Labour member (that date is significant), I didn’t rejoin. My thinking has evolved significantly – see my website. https://brianfishhope.com/index.php/abstract
I am a non aligned member of Compass.
Yes, it’s me. That looks interesting. A long read. I look forward to it.
Having spent the week in Ballater, the scenes on Friday and Saturday were deeply depressing and hundreds queued up to be bussed to Balmoral to lay flowers at the gates, presumably. It was reminiscent of a biblical epic rather than a “mature” democratic country which aspires to independence. The whole pantomime smacks of a stage managed version of bread and circuses.
Then I humbly suggest that, whatever you believe, you do not understand Scotland; which is routinely misunderstood by commentators, including Scottish commentators. Nothing is ever, quite what it seems…..
Should be widespread agreement with your thread Richard – I thought the Accession ceremonies and proclamations, despite being fascinating in their G&S pageantry were also troubling in their symbolism – revealing all these shadowy quasi feudal authority remnants as Garter King of a Arms, Earl Marshal etc and – as you point out the Privy Council was not asked for its consent.
The unseemly rush to get the new monarch proclaimed presumably goes back centuries – which sounds fine – except then we weren’t supposed to be a democracy. Who asked for parliament to be suspended ? – presumably the PM (Speaker? Opposition leader?) would have to ask the sovereign?
They probably thought it would be disrespectful if the Commons was its usual knockabout place – but all the damning critiques of the energy ‘plan’ could have been done in a respecful, serious, quiet way? As you say – debt collectors are still knocking on doors during mourning. But there wont be any popular uprising demanding parliament reconvenes, but there should be.
Truss traipsing around the country after Charles III will be self defeating – and probably wont really happen.
But as Robin Butler said today- sacking senior civil servants – is yet another step toward Americanisation at best – and quasi fascist authoritarianism at worst. We have a govt of ERG nutcases so need whatever feeble checks and balances that exist even more – as Butler says, it isnt the govt’s civil service it is the His Majesty’s civil service.
They say Charles might want to slim down and ‘modernise’ the monarchy – Is there an opportunity here to push for some kind of standing committee to be set up to examine some of the murkier corners of the opaque accountability set up – especially between PM and Monarch – e.g. as it affects City money laundering – and even ask whether the system of accession itself needs a bit of modernising?
The Guardian this morning is reporting that Liz Truss will not be joining King Charles on his tour of the UK.
Looks like it was fake news to rank alongside the royal train potentially being used to transport the coffin.
Next up: the Bank Holiday that isn’t – where you have to make back the time off work if you absent yourself to watch the funeral or just have a Barclays.
Stop trolling
She is appearing everywhere Charles is
The claim that she is not on tour with him is spin for gullible people, and you fell for it
You are a smart chap Richard. I have known that for a long time; years I ago I would quote you from time to time in Guardian Comments on who borrows most? – Conservative or Labour governments.
I too was disturbed by Truss going round shadowing Charles but could not define why, not that I tried hard. You are spot on – the constitutional monarch becomes engaged with politics – supposedly the big No-No.
Although, like you, I am not a monarchist, while we have a monarch the protocols must be adhered to. Starmer and the Lib Dem leader should now go round the country to neutralize Truss.
While we have to observe the niceties, this is what the DWP is still carrying on with.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dwp-rejects-benefit-deductions-pause-debt-cost-of-living/
I’m sure the queen would have approved. Or perhaps she wouldn’t even have noticed what goes on in her name.
[…] of the country’s best bloggers did a great twitter thread today which indicated the immensity of what is at stake. It starts with questioning the suspension of parliamentary business for an unspecified […]