|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume 52 Number 21, September 17, 2022 | ARCHIVE | HOME | JBCENTRE | SUBSCRIBE |
The announcement of the death of Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday, September 8, came at a time of great crisis and political upheaval in Britain and across the world. Her death came just two days after the appointment of the new Prime Minister, Elizabeth Truss, on September 6. In such circumstances, the old constitutional order has been bound to come under question. The whole scenario, with code names used for the death of the monarch and precisely what the procedures and protocols must be to ensure that the succession is seamless, has been precisely planned for many years. Indeed, the cry of, "The Queen Is Dead! Long Live the King!" is said to go back to 1272, when Edward I succeeded Henry III, honouring the "customs of the realm", and about to wage a battle to control Wales.
It is ironic that Charles, "Prince of Wales", should now become King Charles III, inescapably reminding us that Charles I and Charles II came before and after the English Civil Wars of 1640 to 1660, fought over the issue of who holds and defines an indivisible political power.
However, much of the present pomp and circumstance surrounding the succession, the trappings of the monarchy, the lying in state, the rituals of a coronation, and so on, date from more recent times, particularly Victorian and Edwardian times. They are designed to produce a sense of awe, that the person of the monarch is a fictitious person of state, symbolising the "rock" upon which "the nation" is built, a mother-figure, in the person of Elizabeth, who cares for her subjects, her children, who can claim that "we are all in this together", so that all must look up to this fictitious person, who holds in their hands an orb and a sceptre, representing spiritual and temporal authority.
This is the old constitutional order which is coming under question, not least because King Charles has not the authority which had been built up around Queen Elizabeth and the new Elizabethan Age. A new Carolean Age does not convey what is necessary in preserving the old constitutional order. The time and the place are not appropriate.
The future lies with the striving of the people for empowerment and not with these obsolete forces. In these circumstances, there is a concerted attempt to keep the institution of the monarchy and its Westminster system of government in existence and functioning in order to preserve and perpetuate the old constitutional order. In the wake of the Queen's death, there has been non-stop blanket media coverage, which is meant to define the thought material presented to people's brains, so that this is what is processed rather than the reality which is experienced directly. The ceremony has been full of the symbolism that aims to perpetuate the old order. For instance, there is the Queen's oak coffin, which recalls the "Royal Oak" in which the future King Charles II hid following the Battle of Worcester in 1651.
Proclamations have been read as King Charles III tours the "United Kingdom" to ensure that the King is recognised as "our only lawful and rightful Liege Lord Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom we do acknowledge all Faith and Obedience with humble Affection; beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign to bless His Majesty with long and happy Years to reign over us". "Liege Lord" means that his subjects are vassals, swearing allegiance, and "Realms" are territories over which the monarch rules. This is not meant simply to be archaic language but to negate head on the striving of the peoples and the requirement of the times for empowerment, for the people themselves to have political power in their hands. This is the nub of the whole pageantry and paraphernalia which has followed the death of Queen Elizabeth and the accession of King Charles.
This brings out that the issue is not to reduce this historical juncture to one simply of being pro- or anti-monarchy. It is to affirm the right to conscience and indeed, the right of people to be in touch with and express their own emotions. Otherwise the situation encourages everyone to feel overawed and oppressed. Indeed, the whole historical development of the monarchy is being challenged. The monarchy has not been a benign institution in an unchanging world. Far from it.
To redress the crimes committed by the British monarchy itself goes beyond words of apology, if they are forthcoming. It is to reject the old constitutional order itself. These crimes committed across the "Commonwealth of Nations", such as suppressing the national liberation movements and massacring and assassinating the insurgent forces were done in the name of the monarch and this constitutional order, of ensuring "peace" while the people's wealth was stolen, not least by the Royal Family itself.
The constitutional order which the rich and powerful want the peoples of the world to accept is now on display as the official circles try might and main to suppress its significance, which is that it is the rich and powerful themselves who control the levers of power which makes it possible for them to obscenely parade this wealth, privilege and power. They have contempt for the people and their problems, the cost-of-living crisis at home, the famines and devastation abroad, the aggression and threat of war to back up their power and destroy what they cannot control.
The conclusion is that the old constitutional order must be rejected. The facts of social development and of social history show this, and that now is an historical turning point, the significance of which must be and is being grasped by everyone who espouses enlightenment and is opposed to the concerted efforts to deny and stop the wheels of history.
RCPB(ML) calls on everyone to join in turning things around in order to favour the people, not the obsolescent forces who at present hold the reins of power, and who are so desperate to divert the people's striving for empowerment and democratic renewal. Never have the times been so insistent in calling out for this democratic renewal, which attains special significance when its negation is so evidently being thrust down our throats. Sovereignty must lie with the people!
