There are many occasions in a year when, if I am honest, I feel embarrassed to be associated with the institutions of the British government, which I am as a consequence of having a UK passport. The approximately annual ritual of the King's speech is one of those occasions that brings out that sentiment within me.
Little offends me more than hearing somebody who is sitting on the throne as a consequence of an accident of their birth telling the assembled unelected peers and misrepresentative MPs about what ‘their' government will do in the next year.
I do not want to live in a country where the government is the apparent possession of a monarch. I want to live in a country that is governed by those elected to represent the true interest of all its people, to whom they are genuinely accountable.
Is that too much to ask for in the 21st-century?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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 agree.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m tired of being a subject, and want to be a citizen! And one with all the rights out current monarchical government is seeking to remove.
Agreed
Heard ‘his government’ used by the BBC this morning, thinking how he will say ‘My government’ during the speech and thinking ‘It’s not yours – it’s ours, we voted in and will vote it out’.
Could not agree more and unfortunately this what I mean by corruption in plain sight – we have a King (a multi-millionaire) who is just the rich people’s representative really – not ours – calling the shots.
Never mind ‘House of Windsor – more like house of ‘Win-win’ if you ask me.
Putting to one side the status of “subject” an equally important issue is land ownership.
Kevin Cahill in “Who Owns the World” shows that the ultimate owner of all land in the UK (& a number of other places) is the monarch. “Free hold” definition “an interest/holding in land in fee simple”. All freeholders are tennants (of the monarch). Thus all people in the UK have a status similar to that of serfs, who owned a couple of things, but could not own land. As an English lawyer said to me “we learn this in 1st year at law school”.
I am hopeful of getting another nationality, when I do I will renounce my British nationality, the country and many of its inhabitants & their attitudes, disgusts me. The fawning and grovelling. Pathetic.
I applaud the clarity: “I want to live in a country that is governed by those elected to represent the true interest of all its people, to whom they are genuinely accountable.” [A poignant statement that could be owned by most of humanity – Jews, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Russians, Africans in particular come to mind.]
Readers are likely to be appalled by our British ‘traditions’, yet the widespread belief is that near-term reform is ‘impossible’. This post challenges us to examine our personal (unconscious?) belief. Have we given up on really good government?
Richard has identified the need. Can any of us identify glimmers of light/ articles/ actions/ movements/ coalitions/ allies/ whatever … that have led to reform elsewhere or might succeed here?
Proportional Representation is a good place to start. MakeVotesMatter and Electoral Reform Society can get us on the way.
Thanks Mike.
I am wondering if this is also true in Scotland where laws are different. Does anyone know?
“the ultimate owner of all land in the UK (& a number of other places) is the monarch. ”
Sorry, not having that.
Ownership of the territory of his kingdom is a tenet of England’s monarchy or constitution, but it was never a tenet of Scotland’s monarchy or constitution. Scotland’s territory is owned by its sovereigns, its people. That’s not just a quaint but meaningless tradition, it is exactly why the Scots monarch was always titled the King or Queen of Scots, and never King or Queen of Scotland, and it’s also the basis of the Scots’ legal Right to Roam over all of Scotland.
Neither the Union of the Crowns nor the Union of the Kingdoms conferred the ownership of Scotland’s territory to the monarch of England or to the monarch of the UK, since no-one with sufficient authority to do that did that. As Scotland’s monarch didn’t own Scotland, Scotland’s parliament didn’t own Scotland, England’s monarch didn’t own Scotland, and England’s parliament didn’t own Scotland, then there is no legal or constitutional justification that the UK monarch or his UK parliament can lay legitimate claim to own Scotland’s territory, or the resources it contains.
And Westminster’s so-called parliamentary sovereignty doesn’t cut it, either, for essentially the same reasons; no-one with sufficient authority to remove, transfer, or demote the sovereignty of the Scots did any of those things, either. At best, the UK parliament can manage Scotland’s territory and its resources as a trust, acting on behalf of, and in the interests of its real owners. Taking on that management renders it accountable to its owners for that management. When Alex Salmond declared, ‘It’s Scotland’s oil.’, he was speaking a deep constitutional truth.
Thanks Xaracen
In response to Xaracen.
1925 Land Act (UK): defines two forms of ownership: freehold and leasehold.
Land Registration Act (2002): defines “freehold”: is an interest in an estate in land in fee simple” Freehold is itself a tenancy i.e. tenancy in fee simple held of the monarch.
The monarch is the monarch of the United Kingdom comprised: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I don’t blame the Scots for wishing this was not the case – but the reality in law is that the monarch owns Scotland. Point a ligne.
(and if it makes you feel better the monarch also owns: Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc).
This is not arcana, but realities – which for a range of reasons are not much discussed. I cannot imagine why.
(& in answer to the curious – I have a index in my head – which references the books in my very large library).
Mike Parr – according to thecrownestate.co.uk – it says that under our legal system, the Monarch, as head of state, owns the superior interest in all land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
This seems to suggest that he doesn’t in fact have superior interest in all land of Scotland.
Some googling suggests that there is certainly an argument to be had on what the correct interpretation is. I have seen an argument that the Scottish Crown is separate from the English Crown, and has a different notion of ownership of the land along the lines of what Xaracen says.
In particular, this does impact who has the oil rights if Scotland goes independent. Under your interpretation, all the oil is owned by King Charles III, whereas Xaracen would argue it is owned by the people of Scotland.
Further to my reply to Mike Parr – looking at the legislation.gov.uk website at the Land Registration Act 2002, if you turn on the “Show Geographical Extent” and look at Part 7, The Crown, it only applies to England and Wales.
There is a separate Land Registration (Scotland) Act 2012, that has no obvious mention of the The Crown.
Mike, Mr Google advises that “Scotland does not have leasehold properties. All properties as of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 brought ‘fuel holds’ (the equivalent of Scottish leaseholds) to an end.”
Land ownership in Scotland is a bit of an anachronistic mess (cf a very detailed book ‘The Poor Had No Lawyers’ by Andy Wightman) and the small number of affluent owners who own much of Scotland’s land would certainly contest any assertion of royal rights to their lands. Indeed the king is one of them.
I think in this area non-lawyers should fear to tread. Mr Parr, I am not a lawyer, but I do not think you are right about the 1925 Act. Denton’s have helpfully provided some simple general guidance why Scottish property law is different. Here is an excerpt:
“As they are all part of the United Kingdom, there will not be any differences between transacting with property in Scotland or in England and Wales, right? Wrong!
Different systems of property law operate in each jurisdiction and, while some legal concepts are similar, there are plenty of distinctions to navigate and to catch out the unwary.
Types of ownership of land. In England, the two commonly encountered types of ownership are freehold and leasehold: freehold is where the property is owned outright and is not time-limited. leasehold is where there is an exclusive right to occupy the property for a set period of time. The term of a leasehold interest can vary from the very short (for example, a matter of weeks) to the very long (for example, 999 years).
In Scotland, the equivalent to ‘freehold’ would be ‘heritable’ interest. This is by far the most common way of ‘owning’ property in Scotland. In addition, Scotland also has a concept of leasehold ownership. While it is possible in Scotland to occupy property under a long lease, legislation has been passed (Long Leases (Scotland) Act 2012) which converted certain ultra-long leases (with an initial term of more than 175 years and an annual rent of £100 or less) into heritable title (outright ownership).”
As an illustration of difference, Scottish Land holdings followed a Register of Sasines. The National Records of Scotland describes this in the following terms: “An instrument of sasine (pronounced ‘say-zin’) is a legal document that records the transfer of ownership (usually a sale or an inheritance) of a piece of land or of a building. It will normally detail the names of the new and previous owners and will give a basic description of the property transferred. There will usually be an indication of the price paid for the property. Sasines can also give you information about family history, particularly where an individual is passing land to another family member, or where the family designation is revealed (for example ‘John Campbell of X’). Sometimes information given in one sasine will give you clues as to earlier titles in the chain and so lead you back to the earlier history of the ownership of a building or piece of land …… There were several attempts to start a national register of sasines in Scotland. One early attempt, The Secretary’s Register, started in 1599 and ended in 1609. It is very incomplete. The full register really begins from 1617 and it runs until the present day. Since 6 April 1981 it is being gradually replaced, county by county, by the system of Registration of Title (ROT) but the sasine register still remains one of the oldest continuing records of land transactions in Europe.”
I heard David Porter (BBC political journalist), today on BBC Radio Scotland, GMS say (in a too typically careless observation), that the Courts in Scotland were “devolved”. No, the Courts in Scotland were not ‘devolved’ to Scotland in 1999 by Westminster, because they had never passed directly to Westminster under the Treaty of Union in 1707, or been subsumed in a formal, unified British system. What we have is a spatchcock of understandings, adjustments, alignments, adoptions and borrowings: a British fudge. There is a good case to say that the functional relationship between the legal systems is difficult adequately to understand for those outside the legal profession; such as the mere electorate (and still less explain its rationale), but it is not helpful to over-simplify that which is not really at all simple.
The remarkable fact is that this three hundred year old, archaic arrangement has miraculously functioned and survived at all; notably the utter witlessness of the Constitution or the inadequate politicians that supposedly binds the clamjamfry together. This Conservative Government is now bringing this system to the edge of being unworkable, through hysterical efforts to reinforce a battered, terminally decayed and dysfunctional political Union few understand, and fewer actually care about; least of all, ironically – the Unionists.
Thanks John
The prospect of increasing tension between the Monarch and his Government is an interesting one!
“We want to see the monarchy abolished and the King replaced with an elected, democratic head of state.
In place of the King we want someone chosen by the people, not running the government but representing the nation independently of our politicians.”
https://www.republic.org.uk/
I agree absolutely in principle. The appearance of this charade is abhorrent. But it is just that – a charade. The monarch does not write their speech – the government does. The monarch does not, necessarily, have any input to the speech – they are just there to read it. That is particularly noticeable this time around with all the non-green proposals that are expected, As we are led to believe the monarch is not a supporter of such proposals but is required to announce them without comment or complaint.
Why not get rid of the charade and all other input the monarch allegedly has into government, given they are entirely impotent to do anything about the government acting illegally. That would be a god first step towards doing away with the institution.
Would you also get rid of the requirement that the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown, not the government or the country?
Re the last, of course
I feel the same way Richard. Graham Smith’s book “Abolish The Monarchy Why We Should and How We Can “ hits the spot for me.
On occasion I catch something on the BBC; this morning it was the Speaker of the House blathering on about the ceremonial clothes he would be wearing for the King’s speech and how pleased he was that a particular mirror was available to him this time. So, no real news then, but wait isn’t there more? It all looked so totally ludicrous, not to mention costly to the public purse, in the middle of a cost-of-living-crisis. I tuned into Al Jazeera for relevant world news from a station that has dutifully featured so much of the seriously distressing coverage from Gaza of late.
Their program, ‘Witness’ was following the harrowing demands on a team of Gaza Paramedics racing through the rubble strewn streets of Gaza city to reach the site of the latest bomb blast. With one driving, the second medic sat next to him up front cradling the broken body of a stunned young boy; he had a head wound, one arm bleeding profusely and he could no longer feel his legs. Shock had muted his cries, as the medics tried to reassure him, holding firm pressure on his arm, limp legs on the dashboard, sirens blazing as their packed ambulance belted through the bombed out buildings for Al Shifa Hospital.
I was seriously shocked by the footage: the gruesome daily reality for medics on the ground in what is currently the most dangerous war zone on earth. I could feel their intense stress, pain and grief as they did their level best under very extreme circumstances. Aceh was one of two badly impacted conflict zones when I went out to Malaboh after the Boxing Day tsunami as a medical volunteer. It is challenging enough to do a humanitarian job in a severely devastated area; thankfully in Aceh, the GAM rebels never harmed us, so there was no live action or bombs being dropped on us!
I cannot imagine working under that much stress for a sustained period as those medics are doing right now; I hope they and their families survive. I just wish our British leaders could stop indulging in silly costumes to perform ancient rituals and focus their attention on real-world politics, especially the desperate need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. I hope, in vain, for their first order of business in the new parliament to be to stop supplying more arms to Israel to kill children in Gaza, in addition to demanding that immediate ceasefire. The massive protests must continue until our insensitive leaders realize the UK should always help facilitate peace. That really would be news.
So many agree with your sentiments. Move to Scotland when it becomes independent. People are sovereign there and a monarchy in the current English sense won’t last long there.