Dear Reader(s):

At the time of writing, an historical event is about to take place in London this coming Saturday. I am writing, of course, about the coronation of our current monarch, King Charles III at Westminster Abbey on Saturday, May 6, 2023.

I read somewhere that less than a quarter of the population of the United Kingdom can remember the last coronation, which took place in June 1953, also at Westminster Abbey. Indeed, according to the BBC, Charles III will be the fortieth monarch to be crowned there since 1066.

Actually, when you think about it, less than fifty monarchs covering a period of just under a thousand years is not a lot. Of course, we have one or two lengthy reigns to thank for that – our dear late Queen Elizabeth II, Victoria, George III, Elizabeth I and Edward III, all of whom reigned for 45 years or more. Indeed, the five I’ve just mentioned racked up a total of 264 years between them, roughly.

Nerdy, historical interest is about all I have in our monarchy. I am neither religious nor a monarchist, and therefore I could care less about the coronation. I will not be watching it, and I certainly won’t be swearing any form allegiance to King Charles or his descendants.

One of the weirder aspects of having a monarchy, especially a constitutional (i.e., pointless) one, is that one day you are calling Charles “Your Royal Highness,” yet the very next day it’s “Your Majesty.”

I’m sorry to argue with one of His Majesty’s earlier namesakes, King Charles II, but there is no divine right of Kings. How is it, for example, that one family says that God has chosen them to rule over a certain part of land, then another family comes along and says, no, actually God chose us to rule over this particular piece of land, and we’re going to either banish you from these lands or we’re going to kill you. They can’t both be right, can they? And, to complicate matters further, we never seem to hear from The Big G himself on this matter.

Religion is, of course, a big deciding factor in these situations. All of that was complicated further by Henry VIII, who set up his own church so that he could divorce his first wife and marry Ann Boleyn. I don’t know what religious justification he used to chop her head off, though, or to marry a further four times.

But even Henry VIII didn’t do what Charles III is doing, and neither did Edward VIII, for that matter, the monarch who had to give up his throne rather than go ahead and marry a divorcee – and an American, at that. Charles has ascended the throne, and is being crowned, having already divorced and remarried. It wasn’t so long ago that the Church of England – Henry VIII’s church, remember – refused to marry divorcees in their churches, the hypocrites. If Charles’ grandmother, the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, were alive today, she’d be spinning in her grave. All that time she spent ruining the lives of her brother-in-law, her sister-in-law, not to mention her husband, would have come to nothing. But, looking on the bright side, if she hadn’t have done all those things, Colin Firth would never have won the Oscar®.

In February of 2022, Queen Elizabeth II issued a rare statement, in which she said that it was her fervent wish that Charles’ wife Camilla be known as Queen Consort. This was in recognition of the fact that she could not be queen in the traditional sense, owing to her being a) a commoner and b) a divorcee. Now, it makes no difference to me what they call her, but Charles is expressly going against that by slowly drip-feeding it into the media that she will be known as Queen Camilla. Her ex-husband, and her five children by that marriage, are all going to be at the Coronation on Saturday! Imagine if that were Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne Boleyn! Bloody war would have broken out during the ceremony. I don’t suppose if anyone knows whether the Earl Spencer has been invited, by any chance?

In another ‘break from tradition,’ the service is going to include elements from other faiths. Apparently, this is Charles’ attempt at recognising Britain as a multi-cultural nation. Indeed it is, but the traditionalists are having kittens over the idea that Charles is, on the one hand, swearing to defend the Church of England as the one true faith, and then saying, well, actually it isn’t, in the same ceremony.

Many saw the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II, just weeks after having celebrated 70 years as queen, as an opportunity to say, look, you had a good run, let’s ditch this whole ridiculous monarchy business and get ourselves an elected Head of State. No, kids, the Prime Minister is not a head of state. France, for example, manages quite well thank you very much with a President and a prime minister. Now, I’m not suggesting we lop anybody’s head off, but we could give them one of their palaces, such as Sandringham for example, and let them live out their wealthy, spoiled lives in peace and out of the public gaze. All except Prince Harry, of course, who’s clearly made a new life for himself out in Beverly Hills with his American commoner divorcee wife.

All of this and more are some of the key reasons why I will not be watching the coronation on Saturday, or swearing allegiance to anyone, because it seems they want to have their cake and eat it, as usual. They want the tradition of a ceremony in which they are crowned as monarchs, thereafter they will serve no political or social purpose, and furthermore they want to change the bits that suit them and expect us all merely to accept it. God hasn’t chosen them to ‘rule’ over us, he/she/they has/have simply elected a family to enjoy and pass on to their kids incredible wealth and privilege, and chosen us all to watch them while they do it.

Personally, I’d like a place in the ceremony where Charles rolls up the Order of Service into a tight ball, covers it in ketchup, and eats it with a bread roll and some tartar sauce. x