King Charles III was crowned last week at Westminster Abbey, the first new Monarch the United Kingdom has had in more than seven decades. The man who, for the longest time in history, was the Prince of Wales and heir to the throne, sat in St Edward’s Chair and wore St Edward’s Crown.
The ceremony was sombre and grandiose, steeped in history but still richly contemporary. It was shorter than that of his mother, but still over two hours long, and was, at times, boring. Even so, watching on the television I could tell I was witnessing history unfolding. Before this, there were few people alive who had ever seen a new Monarch crowned, and fewer still a new King. Before the arguing inevitably begins, let’s just appreciate that.
After he was anointed with oil and led out of Westminster Abbey in all his finery, the King was carried in the Gold State Coach down the Mall to Buckingham Palace. His Majesty then waved to the massed people from the balcony, all the while accompanied by the also newly-coronated Queen Camilla, his wife.
Putting aside the significance of this moment, if you stand back and look at the whole thing, it does seem a bit ridiculous. A seventy-something year old man in the world’s most expensive jewels being paraded through the streets of London, lined with kilt-and-bearskin clad soldiers, in a gold-plated coach drawn by white horses. If I hadn’t have grown up watching British military pageantry on the TV on Remembrance Day or the occasional Jubilee, the whole affair would seem frighteningly odd.
The ceremony was viewed by a peak audience of over 55 million people worldwide, with 20 million in the UK alone. This was less than her mother’s funeral a few months prior, which peaked at almost 30 million UK viewers, but this was to be expected. Queen Elizabeth II was an iconic figure, recognised by all and loved by most. She is still one of the first things people think of when thinking of Britain and her funeral marked the ending of an extremely important chapter in British, and world history. Perhaps the most important.
Charles is less…well, just less than his mother was. Less appealing, less liked, less known, less cared for. Perhaps not by a majority of people, but just less than his mother. There are certainly more people who actively dislike Charles than disliked Elizabeth. No wonder less people watched his coronation than her funeral.
It was inevitable that Charles’ coronation would spark debate around the Monarchy’s future. As I have said previously: Elizabeth, for many, was the Monarchy. Her death meant the death of the Monarchy’s relevancy.
Anger against the coronation has been widespread, with many feeling insulted that it is happening against the backdrop of an ongoing cost of living crisis. Charles’ jewels alone have an estimated value of between £3-5 billion, enough to run the NHS for ten days.
The arrest of anti-Monarchy protestors at the coronation has exacerbated the situation, with freedom of speech around the Monarchy coming further under question. The protestors in question had been arrested for possessing “lock-on devices”, the use of which for protesting purposes now carries up to six months in jail under the new Public Order Act.
You can see here a piece of why the Monarchy is declining in popularity, especially now. The cost of living is making lives harder each day for working people. The Government are not doing enough to help and the people know it, and the Government defer to the Monarchy, which is not suffering at all. In fact, they just threw the biggest party the UK has seen in over seven decades, complete with marching bands and flying Red Arrows, all at the taxpayer’s expense. It’s not the best timing.
I have explained in my article upon the death of Queen Elizabeth why the UK should remain a Constitutional Monarchy. Abolishing the Monarchy would be a point of blinkered, single-minded republican principle, and it would not solve any problems, only create new ones.
That is not to say the institution does not need reform. As it comes under increasing spotlight, it must tighten its belt for the good of the people. The Sovereign Grant, in the grand scheme of things, is not a lot of money. £86.3 million, or £1.29 for each person in Britain, would not go too far to solve the cost of living crisis if added back to the national budget.
However, security costs are always picked up by the Metropolitan Police. Also, profits from the private holdings of the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall all go directly to the Monarch, amounting in a true cost of around £345 million, according to anti-Monarchy group Republic.
A contribution that is often overlooked by groups like Republic is that of the Crown Estate, the Monarchy’s public property portfolio. All profits from the Crown Estate go to the Treasury, which in turn calculates the Sovereign Grant at 25% of those profits. The other 75%, around £259 million, stays at the Treasury to pay doctors and nurses and teachers and so on, although it isn’t making much difference as all three of those groups have some form of strikes scheduled.
Sovereign Grant money, in my view, should only be accessible by the Monarch, the heir apparent, and their immediate family, i.e. King Charles, Camilla, Prince William, Catherine, and their children. Peripheral royals have been given a very bad name after Prince Andrew’s legal troubles, and although I have great respect for Princess Anne and absolutely no idea about Prince Edward, public money in a cost of living crisis is better spent elsewhere.
Most Brits didn’t even know who Prince Andrew was until the allegations against him started coming out a few years ago. His activities have painted the Monarchy as an institution in bad light, especially those around the Monarch who are seen to be leeching off the sovereign grant, however true that may actually be.
As for Prince Harry, his is a saga that I have actively tried to avoid. Too much ink has been spent on him already. The life of a royal is a deeply privileged and fortunate one, born into immense wealth and influence, given lands and titles by right of blood. If they all were to start complaining about how hard the job is and how mean the press are, what public sympathy is left for the family will dissipate. Harry’s story has not helped in this regard. The man is no longer a working royal and therefore should no longer be able to access the sovereign grant. Unless he wants to start campaigning for Republic, he should mind his own and his family’s business a little more.
For now, to refrain from insulting the public, the sovereign grant should be reduced, and the less public attention on the peripheral royals, the better.
stay safe
/e