A fairy story already going wrong!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The Petulant Prince” or “The Cantankerous King”

     It sounds as if it ought to be the title to one of the fairy stories that Oscar wrote, a seemingly simple tale, told directly and simply with a poignantly heart-warming moral at the end.

     But this is what is laughingly called real life and though it has a ‘real’ prince, he is not the handsome ingenue all golden curls and peachy skin, no, this is an ageing man who has endured decades of being on the side-lines and now can almost feel the impress of the coronation crown on his head.  He’s well past retirement age and the passions that filled his heir apparent youth, middle age, and early old age, must now be supressed for the greater good of maintaining the position of ‘The Firm’ in the public imagination.

     The image of ‘The Firm’ (a term coined by a man who often unsettled the fantasy of the importance of the Royal Family himself) is a delicate balancing act to maintain, and there have had to have been a certain amount of dynastic acrobatics to keep ‘The Firm’ alive and well. 

     Although The Queen has played her role almost to perfection, in her studied probity, determined neutrality, and political vacuousness, the same cannot be said for her children and other members of the wider family.  Scandal, corruption, speaking out of turn, crassness, divorce, fire, and death – the back story of King Charles III is well worthy of a much saltier series than the reverential TV saga presently working its way towards the present.

     The Transition is a delicate time for any organization, but much more so for an institution that defies reason, logic, and democracy, and really needs the political and social version of smoke and mirrors to justify its existence.

     And what has our Petulant Prince (aka The Cantankerous King) done to ease the transition from QEII to CIII?  Apart from making his every public utterance sound as if he is auditioning for the Boris Karloff role in something like The Sombre Crypt, he has shown all too clearly his pettiness.

     The YouTube films doing the rounds are concerned with pens, and the intolerable pressures that such writing implements put on our new monarch.

     The first bout of pen pressure came during the televised signing of the proclamation of his new position.  The proclamation was on a large sheet of vellum (?) and Charles found that the inkwells were in the way and grimaced and imperiously tried to wave the thing away with regal hand flips while saying “I can’t be expected to move the thing!”  No indeed, moving a small piece of desk furniture is obviously a no-no for a man who has servants to iron shoelaces flat and put toothpaste on his toothbrush!

 

 

 

 

 

     The signing of the visitors’ book in Northern Ireland was even worse when, having first written down the wrong date, he discovered that his pen was leaking.  He did a mini-rampage and swore, “bloody thing!”

     This would all be quite amusing, if such entitled petulance was not from a man who had just been made head of state.  If he finds it difficult to cope with a misplaced inkwell and a leaking pen, it really doesn’t say very much for his future ability to cope with issues that might be of a little more moment!

     But if you could laugh at his various hissy fits over ink and the way it is applied to surfaces (including his fingers) there is nothing funny about the story that, while a thanksgiving service for the Queen was in progress in St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh, warnings of redundancy notices were issued to staff working for the former Prince Charles in Clarence House. 

     While the move from being ‘Prince’ Charles and the heir to the throne, to being King Charles III would of necessity entail some movement – physically from Clarence House to Buckingham Palace, and administratively from Prince to King – the optics of telling staff, some of whom had worked for the Prince for decades, that their jobs were on the line while a commemorative service for the Queen was happening and before she had even been buried, was bad to say the least.  Or crass.  Or unfeeling.  Or even, un-kingly.

     Some people have been quick to defend the king and make the point that his mother had just died, and he found himself under great stress, no matter how long he had waited for the moment and how many plans had been made for a smooth transition. 

     And that is the point, plans have been made for years, every detail has been considered and planned for.  The movement of staff, or their replacement, or amalgamation or whatever must have been planned for, long in advance, so why the hugger-mugger inept and insensitive speed with which to tell long serving employees that they were going to be sacked.

     It remains that the public face of the king is now seen as a that of a petty old man, who demands everything be ‘just so’ and is enraged when it isn’t.  He could, of course, have turned any slight inconvenience into something of a joke and passed-off the moment with deft insouciance.  But he didn’t.  Because he isn’t that sort of man.  And, slight though the ink-related issues might be, the staffing inconsideration is much more worrying.

     I think that Charles starts his reign with an overarching sense of, “it could have been done differently.”

     Perhaps that might just sum him up.

    

 

Blank Resistance Now!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While not actually apologising, the commissioner for the Met has issued a statement emphasising that the police have been reminded that the right to protest exists and that it is enshrined in law.  Is it?  I wonder.

     What are protesters against the unelected imposition of a head of state like Charles III – not him personally of course (though there could be valid objections to his assuming the role given his suspect character) – but to anyone who gets the top job because,  solely because, he happens to be his mother’s eldest son to do?

     Any attempt by the police to interpret laws in a way that restricts reasonable freedom of expression is to be resisted.  But how to resist without putting oneself in the way of considerable danger (both social, political, and legal) and of being true to the cause that you think is worth speaking out for?

     Some protesters have found a way, by holding up blank pieces of paper and having a large banner on which nothing is written.  This is a response to the ill-advised attempt by some hapless policeman to try to arrest someone (in fact a barrister) in Westminster who had held up a blank sheet of paper and asked what would have happened if he had written, “Not My King” on it.  He was promptly asked for his details which the barrister refused to give demanding to be told why he was being asked for them, “Because you said you were going to write stuff on it that may offend people around the king . . .  it may offend someone.”  That sort of response makes any use of an exclamation mark at the end of that extraordinary explanation complete redundant – and of course, inadequate.

     “May offend” is an open invitation for its use being employed to ensure our complete lack of freedom of expression.  Yes, at a time of national mourning, it could be considered crass or bad manners to protest – but being crass and bad mannered are not criminal offences.   

     At this time the police should accommodate protest and not be seen to supress it.  The police are there to protect ordinary people, they are a non-military force who serve the interests of the general public, and they should need to be reminded of their status and their duties.

     I am the first to admit that the policing of a public event like the funeral of the Queen, and the gathering of heads of state concentrating in The Abbey must be a considerable nightmare, and most people recognize that general safety means that some restriction on freedom of movement and access must be allowed.  But apart from the family event of the death of a matriarch, it must also be recognized that the whole concept of the way that this country continues to be governed is also a discussion that needs to be protected.

     If the police and the government are not careful then they will have given protesters against the anti-democratic imposition of a hereditary ruler imposed on them by tradition the simplest of all protests to show that this is not the way that they wish ruled.  All they have to do is hold up a blank piece of paper.  No protest is simpler to make: no writing or sloganizing necessary; no use of felt tips and paint brushes, just a simple blankness.

     After the vicious governmental oppression during and after the 1^st of October Referendum on Independence in 2017, a yellow ribbon became a symbol of support (my Christmas tree in 2017 was covered in them!) and the Spanish government went full paranoid and began banning the colour yellow wherever they could.  So, if you were wearing a yellow t-shirt you were not allowed to go into a football match, or enter certain government buildings, in short it became an absurdity, and the symbol of the yellow ribbon grew and grew.

     If the authorities are not careful, then the blank sheet of paper could take on a similar significance and become a potent symbol in its own right.

 

 

 

 

Break free!

 

 

 

Were I unfortunate enough to see Mr Johnson (the disgraced ex-Prime Minister of the UK) I might opine a comment or twelve, along the lines emphasising his almost criminal corruption and lying disregard of everyone and everything except for his worthless self.  I would be more than prepared to explain my assessment to him personally or shout it out as he walked along.  And would I be arrested for daring to complain about somebody who has taken advantage of the British people and given such poor value for money as, for example, the new King Charles III?

     The stories emerging from the UK of police action against those who have dared to express opinions contrary to the unthinking adulation and hagiographical approbation that we are presumably supposed to be offering uncritically to her late Majesty and his present Royal Highness are, to put it mildly, worrying.

     Some of the comments by those opposing the continuation of the monarch have, to put it mildly, been somewhat crass.  But criminal?  The police are apparently using a new Tory devised bill to extend their powers and clamp down on fully justified opposition.

      One friend of mine suggested that for those living in the UK over the period of the funeral and the accession of Charles III and the sycophantic level of comment from media and The General Population might now understand for a short period what it is like for people living in North Korea all the time!

     The death of the Queen and the ceremonial shenanigans connected with the proclamation of the new king have allowed and continue to allow the population to take their eye off the main concern of the vast majority of the population and that is the cost of living crisis and the degraded level of governmental politics.

     Perhaps by Monday and the funeral over and done with, the country can go Cold Turkey and wake up to the realities of the present condition of the country.

     But I am not confident that this is at all likely!

Reason is gentler!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My barely restrained frothing at the mouth over what I see as the cringingly subservient attitude of many of my fellow countrymen to the royal family, to the past Queen and the present King, are put to shame by some of the well-tempered and constructive analysis by papers like The Guardian.

     While it is generally clear that most of these writers regard a hereditary monarch as an aberration in a mature democracy, a denial of the meritocracy that Britain has paid lip service to for generations, and a reinforcement of the inequalities that still hinder the development of the country, they are still able to write with a subtlety and depth of analysis which brings reason into the argument.

     While I am sure that the republican feelings in the country are growing year on year, I am also fairly convinced that the statistics show that a majority of the country would probably support the continuation of the monarchy if it were ever put to a vote.

     We have to work within the bounds of reality.  Much though I would like to see the institution of the monarchy abolished, it is unlikely to happen.  What is glaring obvious to me is just as obviously not to a large number of people.  But that is what we have got to work with.

     At this time of National Grief, or however you define what is going on at the moment with all responses being fuelled by the unending coverage of the BBC, it is perhaps not the time to call for all out republicanism!  But, at the same time, this so-called transition period as we move from one long serving monarch to a new/old king is surely a time for reflection.

     At the moment the political system seems paralyzed by the concerns for the funeral and succession but as one commentator pointed out, the poor don’t stop being poor for the days until after the funeral.  We need action now.  Action on the cost-of-living crisis and some sort of discussion about the way that we want to see the future of our political systems develop.

     When Macmillan was asked what the most difficult problems in government were, he replied, “Events, dear boy, events!”  There will always be “events” and there will always be reasons for inaction and for kicking difficult problems down the road or into the tall grass of whatever other metaphor you want to use for not doing something.  With people genuinely concerned about affording food and heat next winter; with a serious war in Europe; with political division more pronounced each day – they are plenty of reasons to feel overwhelmed.  But I keep telling myself that the most far-reaching reform of the education system was developed during the Second World War.  Whatever issues seem overwhelming at the moment, compared with the last War we are still sitting pretty, and we have more than enough time and space to consider and debate the future without resorting to panic!

     As guns are fired in salutes; as various officials read out proclamations; as the stately procession of the coffin of the Queen makes its progress through the country; as politicians speak to reassure us of continuity, and as newspapers and the media give worldwide graphic images of a particular vision of our country, everything appears to be slipping back into place. 

     Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

On an altogether more mundane note: I have swum earlish-morning in the community pool for a week (or one half) of the period that my regular indoor pool is closed for annual maintainance.

     I can tell that it is getting cooler and the jump into the pool to start my lengths (or circles in this pool) is something of a shock - but not an unbearable one, so I will continue to do it, until the breath is knocked out of my body by my first insertion!

     My smart watch is set to "Open water swimming" for the pool and seems to take a variable attitude to how far I swim.  On the first occasion I felt that I had not done my customary 1,500m, but I was more than prepared to believe my watch rather than my level of breathlessness.  Today, the obverse of that occurred and I felt (and believe) that I did far more than my allotted length.

     I miss the ritual of my usual morning swim, where I don't have to wait for a smidgeon of sunshine to make the ordeal a little more bearable!  And then there is my tea and baguette in the cafe, that I also miss - but I tell myself that I will be all the more appreciative when I finally return in another seven cold-water days!

 

 

 

King Charles III - Act II, The Proclamation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mummery surrounding the succession of the new King continues with the ‘proclamation’ staffed by what appear to be extras from the court of the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland.  The glitteringly archaic heraldic costumes just add that air of luxurious absurdity to what it, after all, an absurd custom to match the absurd reality of a seventy year old man given the throne because he happened to be the first born of a woman whose father was king because his elder brother had an affair (entirely unreported in the British newspapers at the time) with an American divorcee, and chose abdication rather than giving her up.  The stuff of soap operas on daytime television.  But, hey, it’s the way we choose our heads of state in Britain!

     I am beginning to wonder if I can keep up this carping for the whole period of mourning, up to and beyond the funeral.  That was, of course, a rhetorical question as I have no end of dissatisfaction with the way that things are happening at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     The Minority Mandate Prime Minister looks way out of her depth, politically, socially, and culturally.  She is going to be thrust onto the international stage (admittedly as something of a bit player) in a cast of characters all of whom have more experience than her at this level.  It is as if she has been promoted from spear carrier to main role and she simply does not have the character or background to make anything of the dramatic opportunity, which she must see is much more of a very real threat!

     Meanwhile the rest of the world looks on with amused envy: laughing at the blatant silliness of the ceremonial, but secretly wishing that their countries could do something like that to add to the jollity of nations.

     I do not dismiss ceremony, it can usefully add layers of meaning, and be an efficient focus of emotion and awe, I feel less happy when the ceremonial trappings appear to take on a life of their own and become the thing that they are supposed to represent, then I am concerned.

     The Monarchy is an expensive figurehead for Britain.  Given the way that our parliamentary democracy works (in spite of the best efforts of Johnson and the Tories) the Monarch is a cypher.  In theory the Monarch is immensely powerful, but in practice, without the acquiescence of parliament the Monarch is nothing.  A very, very wealthy nothing, admittedly, but with little command.  But the way that we treat this figurehead with robes, crowns, coaches, servants, soldiers, palaces, castles, particular forms of address, etc makes the person ‘special’ in a way that no other person in the country is, no matter how gifted, intelligent, knowledgeable, and rich other might be.  The trappings of the role and the flummery that goes with it, separates the person from the rest of the country and gives the Monarch a unique place – irrespective of that individual’s personal ability, or lack of it.

     I recognize that people feel that they are caught up in an historical moment, a new monarch, the first in 70 years.  Although born in the reign of the previous King I have no recollection of him, and my only early memories are of the late Queen.  When I was a Cub Scout, part of my oath was, “I promise to do my best, to do my duty to God and the Queen”.  QCs, God Save The Queen, Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State on passports, ERII on pillar boxes, her face on stamps, coins, notes – it is a monumental change as uniforms, badges, documents, and a way of thinking has to be changed.

     But, as the days of mourning progress and we work our way to the emotional outpouring of grief that will accompany the magnificence of the funeral, what we are actually seeing is the ruling class cementing its advantages, closing ranks to ensure that the status quo is not challenged, reinforcing the inequality which is exemplified in the very existence of a Monarch in an advanced democracy and watching and encouraging those who lose most by this unfair system actively and joyously celebrate their powerlessness!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charles III cannot fail to be an odd king.  He is the oldest heir apparent to finally accede to the throne.  He has spent over half a century waiting for his turn.  He has been a controversial figure and has made his views felt in a plethora of subjects over the years.  He has passions and on occasions he has made his preferences clear and has used his position in the royal family to advance his agenda.  This must all now change.  He is no longer the heir; he is the Monarch, and he will have to follow the ‘neutrality’ of his mother – or there will be trouble.

     He made it clear, or at least he suggested strongly that he has no intention of abdicating and handing the throne on to a younger generation.  Like his mother he is in the job for life and if he follows her example, he has a couple of decades on the throne left in him.  But he is coming to the job as an old man, beyond retirement age.  He will be dealing with a Government almost entirely younger than he is, in a country that is overwhelmingly younger than he is. 

     He has a hard job ahead of him and a lingering fear that the ceremony of accession televised for the first time today, could also be the last.