Coronation Chicken

[ahinton]

I saw one such notice in a window in my street this morning. Whose king is he?

A question that I have asked of myself but not (yet, anyway) of anyone who displays such notices, placards, &c...

[Pulcinella]

I saw one such notice in a window in my street this morning. Whose king is he?

Everyone else's?

[french frank]

Everyone else's?

A follow-up question might be: Is he your Head of State?

[RichardB]

Whose king is he?

Those who participated in the virtual pledge of allegiance I suppose. I'm not an expert on the constitution but is it not so that according to the 1689 Bill of Rights the monarchy's position is subject to the ruling of Parliament - which with universal suffrage in the meantime is (supposed to be) itself subject to the wishes of the people, as expressed through "democratic" institutions? So anyone ought to be free to say that KC3 isn't their king, and if there are enough of us he could end up being turfed out.

[eighthobstruction]

....I wonder how folk would have faired with the Met had they been silent and determined looking while holding up a plain A4 piece of yellow paper....

[cat]

A follow-up question might be: Is he your Head of State?

Rishi Sunak - not my PM!
Petroc Trelawny - not my BBC R3 Breakfast presenter!
etc...

[french frank]

So anyone ought to be free to say that KC3 isn't their king, and if there are enough of us he could end up being turfed out.

That wasn't the question (as to who's free to say he isn't their king). I doubt very much whether anyone in our street will report No 9 Barleybag Avenue to the authorities for having 'Not My King' in their window. Some may harrumph at the idea that people were not arrested for 'protesting' but for creating a public nuisance/breach of the peace where context is all. I'm quite sure anyone could have paraded in Broadmead, central Bristol, on Saturday with a banner saying 'Abolish Monarchy. Now!' and they wouldn't have been arrested. If you do it in the middle of a crowd celebrating the occasion there are circumstances in which you could be simply annoying all the people around you. You may think very sincerely that religion (as well as being twaddle) is fundamentally evil in creating discord and worse. But if you go into a church in the middle of a service with a banner saying 'Religions are evil' don't expect there to be no consequences.

[I avoided my usual walk on the Common on Saturday and went somewhere else specifically in order to avoid all the community celebrations]

[vinteuil]

Whose king is he?

... "Under which king, Bezonian? Speak, or die."

If confronted by Pistol's ultimatum, how to respond?
I think I wd attempt something along the lines of - "Well now, that is indeed an interestin' question. I s'pose one could say that according to the law of the land, everything is ultimately predicated on the presence of a monarch from whose authority everything else flows, and whose own authority would seem to derive, some folk seem to think, from an anointing with chrism from the Holy Land that invests him peculiarly with divine grace from the holy spirit (tho' where his authority derives from in the period between accession and coronation is moot : I leave that to others more interested in such things.) But some would say that any real authority he has can only work if the people are happy to go along with it, and would say that in some sense such authority has to be earned ; others would say that the whole question is ill-formed....

(hic multa desunt)

... "
And I don't think Pistol wd have had the patience to hear me out

.

[french frank]

When Pistol lies, do this; and fig me, like
The bragging Spaniard.

... "Under which king, Bezonian? Speak, or die."

If confronted by Pistol's ultimatum, how to respond?
I think I wd attempt something along the lines of - "Well now, that is indeed an interestin' question. I s'pose one could say that according to the law of the land, everything is ultimately predicated on the presence of a monarch from whose authority everything else flows, and whose own authority would seem to derive, some folk seem to think, from an anointing with chrism from the Holy Land that invests him peculiarly with divine grace from the holy spirit (tho' where his authority derives from in the period between accession and coronation is moot : I leave that to others more interested in such things.) But some would say that any real authority he has can only work if the people are happy to go along with it, and would say that in some sense such authority has to be earned ; others would say that the whole question is ill-formed....

(hic multa desunt)

... "
And I don't think Pistol wd have had the patience to hear me out

.

[ahinton]

Those who participated in the virtual pledge of allegiance I suppose. I'm not an expert on the constitution but is it not so that according to the 1689 Bill of Rights the monarchy's position is subject to the ruling of Parliament - which with universal suffrage in the meantime is (supposed to be) itself subject to the wishes of the people, as expressed through "democratic" institutions? So anyone ought to be free to say that KC3 isn't their king, and if there are enough of us he could end up being turfed out.

The distatseful and, to me, at least, pseudo-feudal call for a pledge of allegiance, not only to Charles III but to his successors (assuming that there might be any) apparently originated from the Archbishop of Canterbury or "sources close to" him rather than from the monarch himself; Charles III's longstanding friend Jonathan Dimblely is on record as having declared the idea to be "abhorrent" to him (Charles III, that is) and, from, what little I know, it does indeed seem rather out of character, although one would have thought that, if he found it sufficiently unpalatable, he would have ensure that it be dropped entirely. What you write about that part of the 1689 Bill of Rights is indeed correct, although who knows what the current government might do to overthrow details of this, given its seemingly natural penchant for poking holes through human rights legislation however well and long established? Of course anyone in UK is and indeed should be as free to declare that Charles III is not their king as are and should be others to declare otherwise. There have been various conflicting published statistics as to the current support or otherwise for the institution of monarchy in UK but, as I sought to suggest above, should the infrastructure of UK Parliamentary democracy begin to fray around the edges as a consequence of ever fewer people voting because of their burgeoning disgruntlement with and distrust of party political practitioners of all hues and none, what then?

[vinteuil]

.

... Simon Jenkins -

"Heredity is indefensible as a basis for high office, but it can survive if legitimised by consent. A king should indeed enjoy popular support, or he is nothing. But the question remains: is this popularity more safely guaranteed by unobtrusive moderation or by great congregations of soldiers, golden coaches, screaming jets, pop stars, bishops and God?"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/08/crowned-king-climate-activists-arts-bodies-monarch

.

[french frank]

.

... Simon Jenkins -

"Heredity is indefensible as a basis for high office, but it can survive if legitimised by consent.

Another question might be: what is implied by 'high office' anyway? No government minister is elected to high office. MPs are elected by their constituents to serve their constituency. I can't find the story online, but the front page of the Indy has the headline 'Britain more open to idea of 'political' king' ' Public is increasingly receptive to the UK's monarch campaigning and becoming vocal on political issues, new polling suggests. This may also indicate lack of trust in politicians and a return to the age when king and people made common cause against the powerful elite. I note the Morning Star had two editions with different headlines: Not Our King or Police State. Take your pick.

I bumped into a neighbour and his comment was "Too much b****y religion. The best bits were to and from the Palace."

[ahinton]

Another question might be: what is implied by 'high office' anyway? No government minister is elected to high office. MPs are elected by their constituents to serve their constituency.

The question is indeed valid, but the office of MP might be regarded by some as "high office" even though dependent upon its holders having been elected thereto; that said, how politically "high" should be regarded the office of monarch given that it does not include the power to create legislation?...

[french frank]

how politically "high" should be regarded the office of monarch given that it does not include the power to create legislation?...

Exactly. And his position as Head of State is usually designated 'ceremonial'.

I note that a Scottish paper has carried out a poll of its readers asking who they would like to see as Head of State if not the 'English King'. 90% went for either Alex Salmond (55%) or Nicola Sturgeon (35%). The remainder was divided among Lesley Riddoch (a radio broadcaster, m'lud) 4%, Andy Murray 3% and Brian Cox (the actor, I assume) 2%. So it's between two SNP politicians. Does that mean an English poll would have e.g. Boris Johnson on 55%, Rishi Sunak (or Liz Truss) on 35%, Vanessa Feltz on 4%, Emma Raducanu (don't think we could have Cameron Norrie) 3% and Benedict Cumberbatch 2%? With the remaining 1% divided between 60,000 individuals who all voted for themselves?

[Old Grumpy]

'Britain more open to idea of 'political' king' ' Public is increasingly receptive to the UK's monarch campaigning and becoming vocal on political issues, new polling suggests.

This is actually on the front of the i Newspaper rather than the Independent.