Coronation Chicken

[french frank]

... ah, but should one?

It's up to one to decide, I'd say.

And to return to the theme - how far shd one go along, authentically or spuriously, with the sort of 'celebration' that is being drummed into us at the moment - not least by the BBC and other media

The good news is ... one isn't forced to. As the lone dissident/dissenter within the family on quite a few issues I've had the best part of a long lifetime in both putting up (with) and shutting up!

[vinteuil]

... to return to the theme - how far shd one go along, authentically or spuriously, with the sort of 'celebration' that is being drummed into us at the moment - not least by the BBC and other media

.

The good news is ... one isn't forced to

... no, not 'forced'. But one may feel rising resentment / irritation at what seems a disproportionate level of badgering, an expectation of interest and involvement, of 'belief' in the whole shenanigans

I am surprized at myself - at the level of irritation which has built up in me since learning of this 'allegiance' and 'homage' hoo-ha

.

[french frank]

I am surprized at myself - at the level of irritation which has built up in me since learning of this 'allegiance' and 'homage' hoo-ha

Think of yourself as a peasant. It wasn't the peasantry that paid homage/allegiance to the monarch: it was the barons and they were powerful enough to pose a threat to the king. The peasants hated the barons too because their life was made pretty hard, so in that respect they shared a common cause.

[CallMePaul]

I am going to have to dissent from the majority of views expressed in this post, some of which border on the seditious. I am a committed Royalist and will be watching the entire proceedings next Saturday (unsure which channel I will watch) and listen to the concert on R3 earlier. I also intend to swear the oath of allegiance to His Majesty and his heirs and successors - God willing, they will in the fullness of time become Kings William V (IV in Scotland?) and George VII.

I also have memories of Elizabeth II's coronation. Aged 3, I had to sit on a hard stool in front of a black and white TV with half our street sat or standing behind me (we were one of very few houses in the street with a TV set, the installation of which is one of my earliest memories). This was followed by a street party and a fancy dress competition won by my 18-month old brother. This time there seems to be little or no interst in street parties in my neighbourhood.

[RichardB]

some of which border on the seditious

Heaven forfend! I had it in mind to ignore the whole thing as I generally do with "royal occasions", finding all this fairly recently concocted "traditional" pageantry too ridiculous to bother with, but, this "oath of allegiance" thing gets my goat, just as it gets Vinteuil's, and it reminded me of how the whole "royal" claptrap does serve to underline assumptions of divinely ordained inequality in our society, generally in a more insidious way but here much more floridly. It strikes me as a symptom of so much that's wrong with British society and its institutions. But then again if it gets more people annoyed, one might hope that it might bring nearer the time when people decide they've had enough of the monarchy, which it seems very many younger people already have, and remove them from their positions. I think that would (at last!) be something to make one proud of one's country.

[kindofblue]

This oath of allegiance is a grotesque, indeed bizarre mis-step. One can only imagine the conversation between Welby and Charles that led them to believe that this might be a good idea. Is the Divine Right of Kings now back on the table? If Charles has a public disagreement with the government, do those who swore the oath follow him? Are Commonwealth 'subjects' also invited? Will their heads of state be under pressure to swear? Will the Prime Minister be expected to in a public forum? Is this a part of the new outward-looking and modern UK? Farage and Rees-Mogg will probably do it live on GB News with a massive Bible, and then they will both weep with emotion.

Can one imagine the reaction if Japan were to suggest this?

The whole event will hold as much interest for me as an afternoon repeat of Cash in the Attic.

[oddoneout]

Heaven forfend! I had it in mind to ignore the whole thing as I generally do with "royal occasions", finding all this fairly recently concocted "traditional" pageantry too ridiculous to bother with, but, this "oath of allegiance" thing gets my goat, just as it gets Vinteuil's, and it reminded me of how the whole "royal" claptrap does serve to underline assumptions of divinely ordained inequality in our society, generally in a more insidious way but here much more floridly. It strikes me as a symptom of so much that's wrong with British society and its institutions. But then again if it gets more people annoyed, one might hope that it might bring nearer the time when people decide they've had enough of the monarchy, which it seems very many younger people already have, and remove them from their positions. I think that would (at last!) be something to make one proud of one's country.

Apparently the law on sedition was abolished in 2009

Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences – from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today…

It hadn't been much used, and I suppose now the establishment has plenty of other, and quicker, ways of shutting down dissenting voices.

[muzzer]

I wonder how many of HM’s loyal subjects are fully familiar with the details of the ceremony - some of which seem to me quite pagan and arcane - as opposed to the pageantry and pomp more usually seen at Royal events? We haven’t had a coronation for a very long time. The last one is often cited as the start of the tv era, it was that long ago.

Add in this ridiculous audience participation stunt of swearing allegiance, and I think the whole thing risks looking, like its principal participant, out of touch with the wider mood of the nation, however optimistic the puff billing we’ve been dripfed since HMQ passed.

Obviously, there is a committed base of royalists who will be delighted by every detail of the day - and i respect their position. But I am very interested to see how it all goes down. And I don’t feel especially inclined to watch the whole thing on tv. The country is on its knees thanks to a governing class that does not have the country’s interesfs at heart, rather the enrichmenr of an internationally mobile elite. It is the duty of the monarch to have as broad an appeal as possible, and I don’t see that.

[Nick Armstrong]

I don’t feel especially inclined to watch the whole thing on tv.

Well, I suppose you have an alternative option… (Andrew McGregor gets the day off, I see):

[Dave2002]

Apparently the law on sedition was abolished in 2009
It hadn't been much used, and I suppose now the establishment has plenty of other, and quicker, ways of shutting down dissenting voices.

In some places - not in the UK - there seem to be some other ways. I have no wish to live in such a country, and I also wish that other people didn't have to either. If you can come up with a better "least bad" solution for how to run a country than we have in the UK, I'd like to know about it.

[RichardB]

In some places - not in the UK - there seem to be some other ways. I have no wish to live in such a country, and I also wish that other people didn't have to either. If you can come up with a better "least bad" solution for how to run a country than we have in the UK, I'd like to know about it.

Plenty of countries have better records on relative equality and respect for dissent than the UK.

[eighthobstruction]

... ah, but should one?

No....I'm a good hater....I'm on the side of Satan [a very good fellow]....get yer bile out, get some good ol'visceral stirring and blurring of societies lying defiling hugger mugger and the royals pocketing of their snuff boxes full of skin tissue....

[oddoneout]

In some places - not in the UK - there seem to be some other ways. I have no wish to live in such a country, and I also wish that other people didn't have to either. If you can come up with a better "least bad" solution for how to run a country than we have in the UK, I'd like to know about it.

My reference to shutting down dissenting voices was to do with the increasing powers given to, and expected of, the police to deal with those critical of the establishment who make their views known(however quietly/non-disruptively) in public places. I was not meaning the more extreme regimes that have more draconian and permanent ways of dealing with dissent.

[muzzer]

Britain is essentially feudal and there will be no bigger reminder of that than the coming weekend’s pantomime. One side effect is the ease with which dissent is repressed. I wonder how EA will deal with it at Breakfast? Will croissant corner get ditched for the day in favour of Scone Home or somesuch? The last nearly a decade has made it almost impossible to live as a liberal in Britain. I would suggest a self-help safe space thread. Were I a snowflake. ;)

[french frank]

Plenty of countries have better records on relative equality and respect for dissent than the UK.

Plenty of countries have worse records. One point worth considering is the subject of the dissent, here and in other countries, eg topically Russia. As far as the coronation is concerned, everyone is free to ignore the 'celebration'. Many - yes, millions - will positively want to enjoy the day and everything associated with it (even if it's only an extra Bank Holiday). That's the problem: people feel very strongly about this on both sides. Is it, as suggested here, the fact of dissenting, protesting against the monarchy which is the issue? Or is it doing it among a crowd of supporters? One man throws eggs at the King, others shout 'Kill him. Kick him to death.'

To me, both sides are vehemently espousing irrelevance. There is an argument that (constitutional) monarchy guarantees stability. There is an argument that if the monarchy were abolished it would be a significant step towards a more equal society. I think both arguments are moonshine, just secular religions or beliefs which cause conflict, not right v. wrong, better v worse. But that may be wrong too.

What does seem to be the case is that individuals get angry more often and more violently than in the past.