UK
The advisers to King Charles III have scored an own goal on the eve of his coronation.
The crowning of a new monarch is the obvious opportunity for the British public – and the Commonwealth – to re-examine their monarchical v republican sympathies. And the resultant opinion polls make grim reading for King Charles III and his “heirs and successors.”
A YouGov poll for the BBC this week showed that a majority of the British public – 58 percent – supported the monarchy. However, among 18-24 year olds the figure was only 32 percent.
King Charles is also head of the Commonwealth and head of state in 15 Commonwealth countries. A straw poll of the 15 indicates that almost all of them are likely to become republics during the coming reign. As for the head of the Commonwealth, that is an elected position and Charles had to campaign hard to succeed his mother in the role.
In the midst of this monarchical uncertainty, Buckingham Palace (or possibly the Archbishop of Canterbury) has dramatically changed a key part of the coronation ceremony and in doing so alienated millions. The king’s subjects watching the ceremony on television are being asked to stand and swear “that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty and to your heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.”
I have no problem with this because I separate the person from the institution. To my mind the monarch is the physical repository of British history, tradition, culture and law. Swearing allegiance to him (or her) is a bit like Americans swearing allegiance to the Star Spangled Banner.
But most people fail to see this distinction, and the wording of the oath does not help. They don’t go beyond the person, whose faults include committing adultery against the glamorous and much loved Diana. They may support the monarchy but not necessarily the monarch and resent being asked to do so.
France
France appears to have a self-image problem. It also has a problem with economic realities, political crises and their relationship with their president.
This week the annual May Day parade descended into riots which in turn led to accusations of heavy-handed police tactics. Another general strike (which probably means more riots) has been scheduled for 6 June.
The immediate cause of the general discontent is President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to a decree that raised the pension age from 62 to 64. The rise made was backed by sound economic reasoning and undermined by poor political logic and tactics.
The row over the pension age was the straw that broke the back of the French body politic. Voters have been disturbed for some time by Macron’s tendency to do what he thinks best with scant regard for the views of his fellow Frenchmen.
This week the French president has been on a countrywide tour to try to explain his pension policies. It is too little too late. Almost everywhere he has gone his speeches have been drowned out by the angry banging of pots and pans.
On top of that, a recent survey exposed an underlying French discontent with their lot in life. The poll revealed that 67 percent believe that France ranks with the United States in social and economic inequality. The United States is 71st out of 169 countries with 169 being the least equal. France is 6th, just below the Scandinavians.
Discontent has political consequences. It feeds populist politicians who promise simple solutions to complex problems. A poll last month by the Elabe Group for BFM TV revealed that if a presidential election was held then it would be won by Marine Le Pen, leader of the Far Right National Rally. She would, according to the survey, garner 55 percent of the vote compared to 45 percent for Macron.
Marine Le Pen has already announced that she will stand again for the presidency in 2027. Macron is constitutionally barred from standing for a third term. His greatest fear is that he will be known as the president who paved the way for Marine Le Pen entering the Elysee Palace.
Russia
According to the Kremlin, Ukraine sent a drone, at the urging of the Americans, to attack the Senate in Moscow in a failed bid to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Americans have denied the charge. The Ukrainians have dismissed it. Dimitri Medvedev, Putin’s number two, has declared that the attack shows that the Russians now have no alternative but to take over all of Ukraine.
So who did it and why? Was it a serious attempt to assassinate Putin ordered by President Biden and carried out by President Zelensky? Was it a Ukrainian attempt to bring the war home to Russians? Or was it a false flag effort by the Russians to justify an escalation in their war effort.
For a start, let’s look at the actual event. The attack involved two drones. One hit the dome of the Russian Senate at 2.27 Wednesday morning and the second exploded next to the flagpole over the Senate building at 2.48. Putin was nowhere near the Senate at that hour and does not sleep under the dome, so we can rule out the claim that it was an assassination attempt.
According to Western defense intelligent experts, the drones themselves were carrying a small explosive payload. Thus, if it was ordered by the Ukrainians, its purpose was to demonstrate the vulnerability of the Kremlin. This is an important point, because the Russians are proud of the extensive anti-missile defences which ring Moscow. Drones, however, are small. They can be coated with anti-radar reflective paint and they can fly low and fast under defensive systems. This is especially true if the drones are launched and controlled at a relatively short distance from their target. Again, according to Western intelligence, this appears to be the case.
If the intelligence people are correct then the attack was either a Russian-orchestrated false flag operation or the Ukrainians conducted a daring attack in which they smuggled two drones and explosives across the border and into Moscow to make the Russians look foolish.
Either scenario is quite possible. We may never know for as isolationist-minded US Senator Hiram W. Johnson said: “Truth is the first casualty of war.”
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain".
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Maria Jones from The Box of Delights would agree that Die Hard is a Christmas film
Number 12: The Innocence Mission - Black Sheep Wall
Lib Dems see off Reform in Barnsley with double their vote
Cleanliness at Harris Academy swimming pool #dundeewestend
Welsh councils still facing financical difficulties
Ken Westmoreland
David Rogers
Peter Martin
Tristan Ward
13 Comments
Two brief comments post Coronation :
1. Tom Arms writes, “In the midst of this monarchical uncertainty, Buckingham Palace (or possibly the Archbishop of Canterbury) has dramatically changed a key part of the coronation ceremony and in doing so alienated millions”.
I would have agreed with Tom on that, and indeed said so a couple of days ago on LDV, …….. except that….. two hours before the Coronation it is reported Archbishop Welby backed down to a much less divisive formula.
2. I noticed (indeed very much hope) there appeared to be a significant amount of chatting going on between Sir Edward Davey and Sir Keir Starmer as they sat together in the Abbey before the Ceremony whilst on the Laura Kuenssberg programme this morning both Ed Davey and Wes Streeting didn’t particularly break sweat to energetically deny this.
“However, among 18-24 year olds the figure was only 32 percent.”
How many of these do you think remember or hold strong feelings about Charles “committing adultery against the glamorous and much loved Diana”?
I am of an older generation and to me my earliest memories of Charles probably are Hugh Dennis sketches on Mock the Week and Charles being awfully posh and saying the wrong thing/accidentally offending.
I very much doubt a younger generation have any bad feelings towards Charles or Camilla and instead dislike the firm’s alleged treatment of Megan Markle, allegations made towards Prince Andrew, how unfair it is that a billionaire doesn’t need to pay tax or pay attention to equality law and the institution itself. The Met’s treatment of peaceful protestors in name of a British institution is far more important in explaining more negative feeling than who Charles is as a person, in my opinion.
It is said that truth is the first casualty of war. That certainly appears to be the case in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Multiple competing claims are commonplace for every incident. Did the Russian’s blow up their own pipeline in the Baltic? Is Russia responsible for shelling the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant which it controls and where their own soldiers are positioned? Did Russia launch the drone that hit the Kremlin? I don’t wholly trust either side on these questions anyone.
It is impossible to know the truth about these kind of incidents in the Russo-Ukraine war. The blowing up of the Nordstream pipeline is still shrouded in mystery. George Orwell in a ‘Homage to Catalonia’ wrote “Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various “party lines.”
George Thomas 7th May ’23 – 11:47am:
…how unfair it is that a billionaire doesn’t need to pay tax…
King Charles is ‘effectively the highest tax payer in the UK’…
‘King Charles won’t have to pay ‘inappropriate’ inheritance tax on Queen’s estate’ [13th. September 2022]:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-charles-wont-pay-inappropriate-27978154
A YouGov poll for the BBC this week showed that a majority of the British public – 58 percent – supported the monarchy. However, among 18-24 year olds the figure was only 32 percent.
Those percentages are consistent with Lord Ashcroft’s more comprehensive polling…
‘“It might seem a strange system in this day and age, but it works” – my polling on the UK and the monarchy’ [4th. May 2023]:
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/05/it-might-seem-a-strange-system-in-this-day-and-age-but-it-works-my-polling-on-the-uk-and-the-monarchy/
The British constitution, unwritten as it is, has stood the test of time and served the country well enough in times of crisis. I watched an interview with Noam Chomsky earlier in the week in which he was making the case that every post-war US President would be indictable under the Nuremburg principles on war crimes. Presumably, applying the same criteria, an equally compelling case could be made against post-war UK prime ministers.
Constitutional monarchy is invested in the long term and is not the representative of a political party to be dispatched every five to ten years or so. While British Monarchs serve as Head of the British Armed Forces they are not effectively commanders in chief who may bear the responsibility for breaches of International law. The ultimate executive authority over the government is still formally by and through the royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent. In Walter Bagehot’s words: “the sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy … three rights – the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.”
British sovereignty lies with the common people, not the Monarch or the Parliament. It is Universal suffrage that determines the make-up of our Parliament and the continuing consent of the majority that enables the survival of hereditary monarchy as the head of state and centre-piece of the British constitution.
From what I’ve read, Charles found the oath idea dreadful and it was duly ditched.
French people always elect a president because they want ‘change’. Then decide they don’t actually like the change they voted for and the president promptly plummets in popularity. They also are always ‘set to elect a far-right president’ at ‘the next election’. But those opposed unite in the second ballot to keep a moderate in, even if means voting for someone they voted against in the first round.
Actually, I’d say looking across La Manche is a reminder that a monarch isn’t such a bad idea. We hold street parties for monarchs. They burn cars and block roads for presidents!
@Cassie
The French president isn’t a non-political figurehead – the president has a fundamental political role as effective head of government. Quite different from having a head of state – royalty or otherwise – who isn’t part of the government structure.
“However, among 18-24 year olds the figure was only 32 percent.”
There have been various figures quoted in this discussion but the underlying points attempting to be made are somewhat moot. We don’t vote on the existence, or otherwise, of the monarchy. We do vote for some of our Parliamentarians, but they have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch before being allowed to take their place.
The democratic route would be for any change is difficult to envisage. Presumably we would have to vote in a sufficient number of MPs who were prepared to take the oath, but then renege on it to pass a bill to put before the monarch in the expectation that it would be signed into law.
In 1983, soon after Liberals took control of Richmond Council, Prince Charles visited us to find out what Liberal policies were. It was a significant meeting for committee chairs. He was genuinely interested and the discussion went into considerable depth. I decided he was a man who could quietly influence politicians. His environmentally sound actions have proven me right. We should be thankful for our King.
I’ve heard it quoted that the British are more interested in freedom than equality. If this is so it was indeed an own goal. There are more than enough constraints on our freedom already without having to swear an oath of allegance to an unelected head of state.
@nonconformistradical <The French president isn’t a non-political figurehead
I know – that's the whole point.