I started to write a piece yesterday with the following paragraphs. I was not sure where I was heading, but I insert them here in order to give you an idea of what thoughts were coursing through my mind:
Saturday 6th May 2023
Today was a rather silly day. I watched the coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla. It took some two hours to get round to crowning the King, whereas she took about 5 minutes to be crowned Queen. A sort of afterthought throughout the whole process.
To start the day however, I heard that a number of anti-royal protesters had been arrested and detained by police. So much for the start of a parliamentary constitutional monarchy when basic, hard fought for civil liberties are squashed within 9 months of the beginning of his reign.
The past week has had a barrage of repeated programmes about the caring Prince becoming the caring King. All his good deeds displayed and most favourably commented upon by all and sundry, with very little in the way of objection to the whole idea of monarchy. Yes Charles may be a very nice man, but is it worth the cost not only financial but also political in the light of the monstrous repressive action taken by the current government, all in the name of the crown.
There can be no objection to the Royal Family continuing their good works, but not at the expense of the nation. The family is most assuredly rich enough to get by on its rental income and investments. It can easily cover its own costs in managing their affairs, both private and public. The idea that it provides fantastic revenue and support for the tourist industry alone is laughable. It should be noted that the arts (theatre, music, film production etc..) which actually does bring in enormous sums of money from abroad, now gets very little subsidy and is in far more need of it that the royals and their entourage.
The family gets some £86 million a year. There are now approximately 9 active working royals, which presumably indicates that they account for £9.5 million a year each. As against that, that sum of money would only add about £1.30 per week to the pay packet of all staff (1,269,228) working in the NHS.
So that was the unedited start; but now, on reading Polly Toynbee’s piece in the Guardian published Sunday 7 May 2023, I have to rethink. You can find her article at:
It is worth the read.
What is does bring to mind is the power of the myths with which we live. The United Kingdom thrives on its thousand years of monarchy and once great power. It keeps harking back to that place at the top table in world affairs, indeed, as the head of the table for quite some time.
In the film Lawrence of Arabia, there is a short exchange between Colonel Brighton (Anthony Quayle) Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) and Lawrence (Peter O’Toole):
Brighton: Dreaming won't get you to Damascus, but discipline will. Look, Great Britain is a small country, much smaller than yours. Small population compared with some. It's small, but it's great. And why?
Sherif Ali: Because it has guns.
Brighton: Because it has discipline.
Faisal: Because it has a navy, because of this, the English go where they please... and strike where they please. This makes them great.
Lawrence: Right
Brighton: Mr Lawrence, that will do.
The script is from the early sixties, the film was released in 1962. The sentiment of English power is still very much in evidence, but it is no more, as Ms Toynbee so deftly points out. The BBC coverage of the coronation, with its constant referencing of the coronation in 1953 and the continuous streaming of pictures and commentary on the life of Prince Charles, and his good works and achievements, is a propaganda barrage like no other we have seen before. This coverage has nothing whatsoever to do with impartiality. The very idea that this is a completely apolitical event is laughable and in fact yet another wasted opportunity.
Whilst the ‘news’ coverage did show some of the anti-monarchy protests, there was constant emphasis on how wonderful it all was, despite the rain and the brave people who camped out and stood for so long in the wet to trumpet their appreciation of King Charles. There were streams of interviews of worthy pundits telling the various interviewers how great it all is, and what a brilliant King the country will have in the new age of Charles III.
For some reason, foreign dignitaries and world leaders attended the service at the invitation of King Charles. These invites were clearly part of the protocol in trying to promote the still existing power of the British monarchy; however they were barely shown on screen. Much was mentioned but little was shown of the influential world politicians and influencers who attended. This man who has, for almost the whole of his life, promoted saving the planet from extinction, seemingly makes no visible effort to gather together his influential guests to promote his cause. Why was that? Is there something going on behind the scenes?
The royal fairy tale and myth of empire continues without skipping a beat. The impartial BBC coverage endorsing the whole of it, from the emphatic tones of all of its presenters and, so we are led to believe, impartial journalists. “Here we are with this wonderful crowd of well-wishers” was the mantra of the day. Jingoism is a word that would not be out of place in the circumstances. Even the weather conspired to present the stiff upper lip of the British and their pageantry. No other nation can do that quite like Britain. The occasion, in the midst of inflation, cost of living, NHS and housing crisis, was made joyful by everyone giving the appearance of being joyful. God save our gracious King.
Do not get me wrong. I have great respect for Britain. Its history, although steeped in cruelty and hypocrisy, has produced, through the development of the common law, the very foundations of modern civilisation, the rule of law and the duty of care. It may have taken a thousand years to create that concept, but it outweighs any idea that during that same thousand years the ability to conduct a superior coronation pageant is of any real significance. What makes Britain great, despite some of its current politicians who think otherwise, is its adherence to the rule of law and to its unwritten, but very active, constitution. Try as this current government might, there will always be voices to cry out when wrong is about to be done. “Let right be done.” Perhaps I am ever hopeful that that will always be the case in the end.
The coronation should have been about cementing relationships with countries abroad and of encouraging others to do what is right. To show to the world that the United Kingdom, despite its problems, will always promote and do what is right. Unfortunately it became a public relations exercise to allow the British public to feel good about King Charles III. As to the rest of the world all it said was “aren’t we good at putting on a show.” Surely the new age of Charles III must be more that that.
As to the adherence to myth and legend, the United States has yet again had a mass shooting in Texas. My friend Bob in California sent me a copy of the full article I referred to in my last blog “What has become of America?.” The article is by David French, published in the New York Times titled “Gun Idolatry is destroying the case for guns”. Mr French writes that he and his family have suffered serious harassment as a result of his anti-Trump articles. He states, inter alia:
"I was born in Alabama and grew up in Tennessee and Kentucky. As a son of the South, I was no stranger to firearms. We had a gun in our home. I learned to shoot at a young age. So did my wife. After the episode of the man demanding to see me, she not only bought a handgun, she attended multiple classes to train in armed self-defence….
I share this story to make two disclosures: Yes, we own guns. And yes, I support gun rights, not just for hunting or shooting sports, but for the purpose of self-defence. I’ve written in support of gun rights for years. I grew up in a culture that approached firearms responsibly, safely and with a sober mind. They were a tool — a dangerous tool, to be sure — but nothing more. In a fallen and dangerous world, a responsible, trained gun owner could help keep his or her family safe.
So what we have here is the classic American view of gun ownership. They are a tool, just like any other tool. Is that not a specious argument? The constitution saw the necessity for individual citizens to possess a rifle of some kind, in order to put together a standing militia in case of conflict with another nation. At the time 1776, in order for the United States to have an army of any kind, its soldiers had to bring their own kit. This has been translated down the ages as the right to bear arms in any circumstances.
What has happened to a country whose citizens are so terrorised by each other that they feel it is imperative that they are armed against one another? To claim that gun ownership is perfectly OK so long as one is a responsible gun owner is a nonsense. Everyone goes on about responsible gun ownership. After all it’s just a tool for self-defence. That a society should be at such odds with each other that they are in constant fear of their lives and require armed response to any possible transgression or interference in their lives, is a moral decay beyond comprehension in more civilised societies.
Mr French does point out that the jury’s verdict in finding young Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty by reason of acting in self-defence, is extremely problematic:
“When you travel, armed, to a riot, you’re courting violent conflict, and he found it. He used his semiautomatic weapon to kill two people who attacked him at the protest, and a jury acquitted him on grounds of self-defence. But the jury’s narrow inquiry into the moment of the shooting doesn’t excuse the young man’s eagerness to deliberately place himself in a situation where he might have cause to use lethal violence…
Rittenhouse has gone from defendant to folk hero, a minor celebrity in populist America….
Or take Daniel Perry the Army sergeant who was just convicted of murdering an armed Black Lives Matter protester named Garrett Foster. Shortly after the conviction, Tucker Carlson effectively demanded a pardon. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas responded the next day, tweeting that “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defence that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney.” Yet Abbott ignored — or did not care — about the facts exposed at trial. Perry had run a red light and driven straight into the protest, nearly striking Foster’s wife with his car. Witnesses said Foster never pointed his gun at Perry. Even Perry initially told the police he opened fire before Foster pointed his gun at him, saying, “I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me.”
But the story gets worse. In social media messages before the shooting, it was plain that Perry was spoiling for an opportunity to shoot someone. His messages included, “I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex” and “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”
That is not a man you want anywhere near a gun. Kyle Rittenhouse is not a man you want anywhere near a gun."
Despite these outrageous events and decisions, Mr French goes on to conclude:
"Gun rights carry with them grave responsibilities. They do not liberate you to intimidate. They must not empower your hate. They are certainly not objects of love or reverence. Every hair-trigger use, every angry or fearful or foolish decision, is likely to spill innocent blood.
Moreover, every one of these acts increases public revulsion over gun ownership generally. The cry for legal and moral reform will sweep the land. America will change and gun rights will diminish. And the gun owners and advocates who fail to grasp the moral weight of their responsibility will be to blame."
From this I assume, despite the continuing killing and the examples he cites, he maintains that gun rights are an absolute necessity and that gun rights should not diminish. He seems to suggest that it is morally wrong to want to change the second amendment. How can any sane individual be in favour of allowing a society to continue to terrorise its own citizens and live in constant fear of their life?
They may say, if we all behave responsibly with our
guns, what’s the problem? The first responsibility of an adult citizen, in my
view, would be to get rid of the guns. No gun, no hair-trigger use, no spilling
of innocent blood. Responsibility is not about owning guns, it’s about respecting
others, the duty of care and the rule of
law. It's what the coronation of a British King was all about, wasn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment