I posted this on Twitter this morning:
Politely, what a load of total nonsense. Why not just say a rich man likes institutions of power to pander to his vanity, because that is what this is all about? https://t.co/kPSWGHWcw5
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) March 4, 2023
The article in the Guardian is quite absurd. It is full of mumbo jumbo about oil, tradition, ancient formulas, blessings by bishops in Jerusalem with the clear intention of implying a divine right to govern and much else to cause offence about this whole ridiculous charade of crowning an unelected head of state.
I have been a republican since the 80s, when I joined Charter 88.
My response to those who want Charles as King comes from Tony Benn, whose response to those claiming authority was:
• What power have you got?
• Where did you get it from?
• In whose interests do you use it?
• To whom are you accountable?
• How do we get rid of you?
I know of no way to get rid of Charles as monarch. As a consequence it is clear that I do not live in a proper democracy but that I do instead live in a current that endorses eugenic principles of feudal power, and that is, I think, unacceptable.
Do you agree?
Should we have an unelected hereditary monarch?
- No (86%, 489 Votes)
- Yes (10%, 57 Votes)
- I don’t care (4%, 21 Votes)
Total Voters: 567
Loading ...
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:
You’re the guy who endorsed peoples assemblies not long ago and you complain that you don’t live in a proper democracy. Sheesh.
I have never endorsed people’s assemblies for decision making
I think they can be advisory
I have never gone further
Democracy is not the same as electing representatives. Democracy is people themselves making decisions for themselves. Having other people hold power over you is nothing more than living in some form of servitude. I for one disagree profoundly with that sate of affairs.
I’m afraid I have fallen victim to my habit of reading things too quickly. I read the post up to the words “Do you agree?” and automatically chose “yes” on the poll because I do agree. It was only after seeing the result that I realised that was not the question I should be responding to.
I need to get this right…..
The way the UK is going economically and politically, by the time William is ‘anointed’ King we will just be some quaint Ruritanian backwater.
The only thing to be said in favour of Charles Windsor is that as he provokes very confused feelings amongst the British Establishment that needs Kings and Queens to sustain the British Class system.
Mostly he is just a classic Tory rent-seeker interested in killing small unarmed animals for fun. But then there is the other side.
The Cambridge student that so terrified the Tories by thinking about voting Labour that they had to send RAB Butler to talk him out of it.
That very rare thing, a Tory that is not a climate change denier.
Perhaps not being a rallying point for everything that is bad is the best service he will ever provide for his country.
Apparently the only other country with a state religion and a religous head of state is Iran. Funny how ‘we’ can still see ‘ourselves’ as a modern advanced democracy and Iran as backward beyond the pale.
And now some see Charles as the last part of the system which might resist ultra climate change deniers in government.
How on earth will it ever be possible to get a meaninful national conversation about modernising the constitution?
When William’s son was born there was some debate about what his name might be. I wrote to the Guardian with a demonstration of why it had to be George, based on prime numbers:
Elizabeth the Second – 2 is a prime number.
Charles the Third – 3 is a prime number.
William the Fifth – 5 is a prime number.
George the Seventh – 7 is a prime number.
The republic will follow George, because we can’t run to an Eleventh of anyone
The Guardian declined to publish my letter. Too many numbers I imagine.
Bonnie Prince Charlie should have been Charles the Third, but we wouldn’t let him back in the country to be crowned. This one is Charles the Fourth.
Actually, more importantly, what a waste of good olive oil. Did it come from Palestinian groves or Israeli?
But if Bonnie Prince Charlie had been crowned, the succession afterwards would have been different and our current Charles would never be king, and his mother would never have been queen. So your post strikes me as being incoherent even given your premis.
A number of northern European states still use a church tax but one can opt out. Germany still has Catholic Universities.
The Church of England is our oldest ‘nationalised industry’ and has residual functions. Unidentified bodies are buried by the local council and I was told there is an Anglican priest to conduct a service.
I don’t know of other states with a ‘religious’ Head of State but there are a number which have established religions, mainly Muslim.
I do agree we need to have a debate on our constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Current_state_recognized_religions
I find the fact that the establishment treats the unidentified as ‘one of theirs’ quite abhorrent. Can you imagine the (quite proper) outcry if they were treated as Muslim, or Jewish. As the funeral service is only there for the survivors, why is there a need for any kind of religious presence?
It is partly the hangover from the past when all were assumed to be possible members of a church.
Their answer is that all deserve the sacrament of a funeral even if they are not ‘one of their own’. Obviously not all agree but only this week I heard of a funeral where the deceased had no traceable family. Many would like to think someone marked the event. I think I would.
What I can say though is that looking at what has happened in each generation of the UK Royal Family in recent years and what has happened in other Royal Families there is a question to be asked about the effect that being born into one has on its members and should they be abolished for that reason alone.
BUT being a Monarchy didnt stop the UK being a very equal society in the 1970’s neither does it stop the Scandinavian nations being progressive despite being monarchies with the exception of Finland. In the same way until recently despite being a Republic, the Republic of Ireland was a Theocracy in all but name until recently.
So the challenge is what we replace the Monarchy with.
An Irish style presidency
I support and share Alex Salmond’s insistence that Scotland should withhold the Coronation stone, or Stone of Destiny, which is woven into lore of the Divine succession.
Although the stone held at Edinburgh castle is merely a fake of the fake that was removed from Westminster Abbey by Ian Hamilton in 1950, the British State narrative has managed to absorb the pink Perthshire sandstone and ditch the story about it being brought from Bethel by Jacobite ancestry.
The true home of Scottish kings is not Edinburgh but Stirling, where the later Scottish monarchs James V and VI and Mary Queen of Scots were crowned.
The last British monarch to seek a Scottish Coronation as a mark of respect to this nation was Charles II in 1651 before the fault lines appeared in the bloodline.
As an act of deliberate intent, Stirling Castle with it’s regalia, artefacts and Scottish state history was progressively trashed during the military occupation of Victorian and Edwardian times after royalty had “relocated” to Balmoral.
The cumulative disrespect to Scotland shown by this imposter royal household, patronising us with their self appointed grand titles, needs to be called out and called time on.
The New Pretender
Not my King.
You seem to have omitted a word from the last paragraph Richard.
I think that the current state that we live in is becoming, if it is not already, a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy.
As you say the whole procedure of being anointed by “holy” oil of chrism, implies a divine right to govern. However, at no is the divinity’s opinion of the matter sought.
In Shang dynasty of ancient China, before a emperor could ascend to the throne, a suitably inscribed turtle’s plastron was cast into the flames and the cracks that appeared on the bone were then interpreted as an answer to the question of whether or not the candidate emperor enjoyed the Mandate of Heaven. History does not record any instance of the answer being “no” but it is notable that in bronze age China it was felt necessary to ask Heaven’s opinion and not merely to assume it.
Incidentally, if the powers that be wish to incorporate a similar ceremony into the coronation, I am willing to offer my services as an interpreter of cracks on bones.
John Boxall ” … being a Monarchy didn’t stop the UK being a very equal society in the 1970’s neither does it stop the Scandinavian nations being progressive despite being monarchies …”
The UK was not a particularly equal society in the 70’s for black and Asian people. The Scandinavian countries are not particularly equal societies for immigrants from West Asia.
Paul Langston ” … The only thing to be said in favour of Charles Windsor is that as he provokes very confused feelings amongst the British Establishment …”
An individual monarch such as Charles who happens to have some slightly enlightened views is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a religious monarchy is a desirable constitutional arrangement.
David Willetts ” … Democracy is not the same as electing representatives. Democracy is people themselves making decisions for themselves. Having other people hold power over you is nothing more than living in some form of servitude. ”
Correct – we have a long way to go.
70’s society wasn’t particularly equal for women, either.
Emphatically not
Or anyone but the white male patriarchy
It looks like the march for Scottish Independence on 6th May in Glasgow will be a good alternative to engaging with the sycophancy and herd following of the monarchists on that day.
Well, by whatever metric you choose the issue isnt so much Republic or Monarchy but how it is set up.
Ending the Monarchy is part of a process not an end in itself otherwise we could simply end up with a Government — amongst other options going down the lines of the US in its current form or Ireland in the pre 1990’s neither of which I would suggest are desireable.
I will always be a Cromwellian even though his republic was a disaster. I only wish Henry VIII could have seen it in the flesh. The ghost of Thomas Becket will haunt him forever.
If we keep constitutional monarchy then send it to a vote. Moody teenagers need not apply.
His policy in Ireland was pretty grim too (take that as understatement)
Come to that, few Scots had reason to like him
Nor was he much of a democrat
But……
Ironically…in Scotland sovereignty resides with the people, who have the right to reject the Monarch if they feel said Monarch is unfit for purpose. Yet another reason, one supposes, that Westminster…and the Monarchy… are so unwilling to allow Scotland to decide her own future.
Incidentally, Richard…on many occasions I would have loved to share your posts…but I don’t do Twitter, which seems to be the only vehicle…
Facebook, Linkedin and Mastodon options are also provided under each post
Forgive me…but…as on this post…the only links I see (to the right) are these…
“Follow me
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Mastodon
@RichardJMurphy
Twitter
Tweets by @RichardJMurphy”
The share options are at the bottom of the post
Interesting – I couldn’t see any Share options either, using Safari on a Macbook. I could see the “Buy me a Coffee” button but no others.
I checked this blog post in Firefox and I could see them fine there.
So I thought to take a look at my Safari Preferences (Websites tab) and this site, like most others, had Content Blockers defaulted to On. By switching that to Off for this site the Sharing links and some other items are now visible.
Sorry, not directly relevant to this post but perhaps useful to DanTDog and maybe others…
Thanks
I appreciate you checking this but may get some code added to highlight their presence
I’ll be washing my hair on May 6th, or something, but one thing I’ll not be doing is watching the Coronation circus.
The State and its authority is sovereign to me and that is enough.
I’m tired of having the bullshit situation we have now with a very expensive mascot for the rich and our establishment, endorsing the status quo. This mascot is then showered with gifts – and exploits them for personal gain – just to shut up and do as he/she is told when the moment requires it.
Sovereignty must always be granted by the people to the state/government alone. This ‘twin sovereignty’ bollocks we have here at the moment just ensures that the establishment rich have their needs met before anyone else in my view.
Many thanks to Matt Carter…even in Firefox (my default browser) there’s no FB link…
I got round sharing this particular post by copy/pasting the url…seems to have worked, although not my preferred method… Cheers!
Can I check – have you blocked pop ups?
Not deliberately. And the notifications about links to other share options are at the right of the thread, not the bottom…
They are definitely at the bottom
The right hand column is to follow me, not share the post
I think there must be something wrong with your browser settings
Sorry