No. 4May 6, 2023

The Coronation of Charles III

Coronation Day in the United Kingdom

(Photos: Republic, Corbyn project, European Republican, Dr. Farbod, J.F Sky, H. Craven, S. Ward, Mark, P. Davies, J. Gordon, G.B. Ecology, Ungagged, K. Nevens, I. Magara, S. Berry, N. Walters, G. Swanson, Liberty Action, Sudden Beth, Mr. A., AMS, B. Hays, Sparkels40, Outsider Sue, Eastbourne Solidarity, I. Claudia, C. Boad, JM Shewbery)

The Persona Charles Envisions for Himself

On Saturday, May 6, the coronation of Charles III took place at Westminster Abbey. Charles Windsor, Prince of Wales, acceded to the throne on September 8, 2022, upon the death of his mother Elizabeth II. The whole ceremony and process is being presented as legitimate because it is said to provide stability and predictability.

While many view the monarchy as a disgraceful, elitist and arrogant show of wealth and medievalism, Charles, from the moment of the Queen’s death and since being proclaimed King, has been creating and formulating the fiction of what he represents. An individual of immense personal wealth, Charles, is now attempting to step into the role of the fictional person of state established at the commencement of the 1650s to deal with the perceived problem of the striving for democracy by the “mob,” whether under Cromwell’s Protectorate or subsequently under a restored monarchy.

As such, Charles, stepping into the role of the fictional person of state, is said to be merely symbolic, a benign force and to hold no real power. It is said of Elizabeth II that she did her duty, was non-political and was a benign force. She represented a link with the past, especially with Britain’s history and “glorious victory” during World War II. She is seen as a historical figure who was able to unify factions, appease the peoples of Scotland, Wales and Ireland and keep the people feeling happy. At the end of her life, she was seen having tea at Buckingham Palace with “Paddington Bear” – the mascot of so-called British values of multiculturalism and diversity. The image of the Queen as everyone’s “granny” or great granny” was unmistakable.

The idea communicated by the Queen was that no matter what was happening in society and in people’s lives, at home and abroad, this is what Britain stood for and they were safe, they could rest easy. Everything would turn out well in the end, no matter what. She was seen as doing her duty to society no matter what. She was one with the people despite her personal trials and tribulations. She was us. It was a fiction and so too today, Charles has to create a fictional account of what he stands for which is seen to represent what we all stand for. In Charles we are supposed to see ourselves and be happy we are in such safe hands.

A tall order indeed. Only the very few who might benefit from what are called the King’s Charities and his personal ventures and projects have a self-interest to see themselves represented by the image the King is presenting of who he is and what he stands for. The coronation is a central part of attempting to create a persona for Charles which is at once the person of state who represents the sovereign power which guides the decisions taken by the British state in all its forms and to whom all must pay homage as subjects. When the Archbishop of Canterbury anoints the King, he is enacting the Covenant with the Almighty, and the fiat, the commandment of God, that all must obey the King as His mediator to stand in judgement over matters of crime and punishment, war and peace. As defender of the faith, he represents the Christian values of the United Kingdom and all “his realms and territories.” His inclusion of representatives of different churches and faiths is to shore up the idea that Christian values are universal values which apply to the peoples of all countries irrespective of what personal beliefs they may have.

It is going to be a tough sell and had in fact already unraveled before the coronation even took place.

Letter to the Editor

Coronation ceremony

The coronation attempted to present Charles as the modern king, embracing diversity and multiculturalism. The inclusion in the ceremony of various minorities, of women doing aspects of the ceremony for the first time and inclusion of other religious leaders or representatives brings to mind how the Trudeau government presented itself when it was elected in 2015. It had a majority female cabinet; an Indigenous Attorney General (who eventually rejected the role given to her of overseeing how the government would manage to dispossess Indigenous Peoples with their consent); a female neo-Nazi sympathizer as Foreign Minister to help stage a neo-nazi coup d’état in Ukraine, strengthen NATO and eventually embroil Canada in waging the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine in the hopes of smashing Russia; and a Punjabi Minister of Defence (who prior to this even served with the U.S. military), to lead the U.S./NATO war effort in Afghanistan which became a major foreign policy failure when the U.S. eventually abandoned its “partners” and abandoned Afghanistan to fend for itself having stolen all its reserves.

Canadians have our own experience with these attempts to create a fiction in which we are supposed to see ourselves represented in the government and the monarchy. The idea is that because we see ourselves represented, we do not need to deliberate on the major matters of war and peace, crime and punishment. We can rely on the prerogative police powers the system of constitutional monarchy generates to make us secure and defend our interests. We are told that while our aversion to being ruled by those who use their positions of power and privilege to acquire great wealth has merit, we can trust those who “look like us” to represent us because they “are like us.” Somehow, “looking like us” becomes “they are like us” and then, through sleight of hand, they “are us”! It is a farce.

Despite the inclusion of various minorities and representatives of various religions, what doesn’t change is who rules and and by whose authority. A convoluted system of representation enforces the rule of the powerful and privileged over us to keep us disempowered. The more the King and all his courtiers attempt to present an outdated institution as being modern and the more the King dons a fictional modern persona, the more their reactionary character is revealed. The material conditions and the needs of humanity have far surpassed what they are and represent.

Our Security and Our Future Lie in the Fight for the Rights of All!