If you were to compare the coverage of the British monarchy in the early 1800s to that which it receives now, which era do you think would be more fearfully deferential, more credulously accepting of the institution?
Upon the death of King George IV in 1830, The Times of London wrote the following obituary:
There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow-creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him? What heart has heaved one throb of unmercenary sorrow?
Putting aside whether that’s a fair assessment, compare it to the coverage in British newspapers of the news that, during King Charles III’s coronation this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury will call upon:
[…] all persons of goodwill in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the other Realms and the Territories, to make their homage, in heart and voice, to their undoubted King, defender of all.
Yep, all that guff requiring dukes to pay homage to the new monarch is totally archaic and played out. Instead, we’re going to ask civilians to say, out loud, on their couches:
I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.
The bishop then says “God save the King”, to which all are asked to reply “God save King Charles, long live King Charles, may the King live for ever.”
But, you know, only if you want! It’s not weird! Tim Smith will be pleased, at the very least.
If you’re expecting the same paper that eviscerated George IV for his preference for “a girl and a bottle to politics and a sermon” to raise any eyebrows about any of this, you’ll be disappointed:
Below the details on how the ceremony will unfold — you can subscribe to a whole newsletter about it! — you’ll find commentary on how “Charles and Camilla’s blended family reflects modern Britain” and speculation about whether Kate Middleton will wear a tiara or flowers to the event.
We have not fared much better in Oz, some commentary from the Republican movement aside (and even some of that anoints Charles a worthy king). Honestly, we’re just a little too jazzed about the fact that a lot of the ceremonial paraphernalia has its origins over here.
Are we far too quick to take a knee and tug our forelock to the royals? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Why are we so obsequious to a bloke who will only be in his hereditary position because his ancestors about 1000 years ago were more effective in eliminating their opponents than their rivals. That doesn’t sound like a sane method to anoint a head of state.
maybe not, I read some bloke in the outback reckons he was next in succession and that Chuck is a usurper!
And that bloke will be there, presenting the King his spurs, so I reckon his claim is a bit tarnished. Unless he sticks the point of the spur in the King’s eye, and grabs the crown. That’d be worth watching it for!
Later than that. He.s only getting to wear the big hat because his 6 times Great Grandfather and his 7 times Great Uncle (mostly the latter) managed to see off his 3rd Cousin 8 times removed (who would have also been Charles III if he’d been successful). Last land battle fought on British soil, and had the Stuart side won this Charles would not be there.
Actually, it’s worse than fighting for the position. His Hanoverian forebears were gifted the gig 300 years ago because of their religion; not thier skill with a broadsword. The job description called for a Protestant due to a then recent unpleasantness with the former Catholic model.
(The “may the king live forever” bit was amusing and optimistic given his age. Certainly shows a belief in the eternal life concept – which may go with his other role. Namely, leader of the Anglican church.)
What odds are Sportsbet giving on Charles living forever?
It’s a shame that Andrew didn’t get crowned King. He could have outdone George lV, and possibly Caligula for lust, idiocy, and self-gratification, and by doing so, usher in a republic through sheer contempt of the monarchy.
Photos of King Charles in military uniform covered in braid and medals makes him look like El Presidente of some third rate banana republic.
good lord why is the gov’t buying submarines from the U.K., we will end up with some sort of British Leyland like crap.
On second thoughts Charles is head of a third rate banana KINGDOM.
Dont bother yourself. We will never recieve a sub from this deal.
While I’m not a fan of Royalty anywhere – Europe seems infested with Royals and the British are natural serfs whilst the the Scots are not. Despite all that we have the best system in the world. We have our own head of State we appoint but the titular head head of State – doesn’t have a say and we don’t have to financially support we have the best value for our rubber Stamp, because the elected government makes all the decisions. Just imagine if we had a Presidential system and the massive entourage that entails.
I’m not so sure. The GG and former PM got up to some shenanigans that none of us knew about. I reckon our system needs work.
There was a lot of heat on GG Hurley about those secret ministries then the Queen died at the same time, so Hurley was off the hook.