What George Galloway doesn't get about the Coronation
Gorgeous George, whom I like for his principled support for Parliament, has just issued what I think is a deeply mistaken Youtube opinion on the coming Coronation.
He says Princess Anne would have been a more suitable candidate for the Crown but (had she been born before Charles) would have been barred by the rule of male primogeniture. This is no longer so. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removed the gender qualification; it also allows the throne to a Royal who has married a Roman Catholic, and repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which was framed to ‘guard against marriages that could diminish the status of the royal house.’
He expresses a preference for a titular monarchy over an executive or other political Presidency; chosen not necessarily directly by the people but by Parliament. We have this already: ‘the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament.’ The Monarch is not an autocrat but acts through Parliament and/or the Privy Council - it was via the latter that we declared war on Germany in 1914, leading to the first of the national near-bankruptcies that have devastated our country.
The Monarch could theoretically be replaced, but it would not be a decision of the British Parliament only. Under the Statute of Westminster 1931 it would also need the approval of Canada and Australia, and by convention other realms in the Commonwealth too.
GG may disapprove of King Charles’ personal behaviour in affairs of the heart, though matters might have turned out differently had the future King always had the same liberty to choose his life partner as us commoners. Besides, the mean-spirited people criticising Charles on Twitter may not have considered how many million British they must also condemn in order to be consistent in their priggish and doubtless often hypocritical censures.
As for the quoted bill of £250 million for the ceremony and celebrations, this sets a fine example for the rich and uber-rich among us: money spent is money earned by others, it creates employment and further circulates cash in the economy. We need that economic boost far more than the alternative: investment of surplus wealth in assets, inflating residential property prices beyond the reach of so many of our young. We also need something to cheer us as a counter to the egotistical activists who cause public inconvenience and despoil art and monuments in order to spread their questionable messages of doom and despair.
But yes, George, I won’t be chanting an oath of allegiance, because you may take that as read. I didn’t clap for the NHS on my doorstep either; I suspect both stunts were dreamed up by the Behavioural Insights Team or some similar bunch of the would-be seal-trainers who think they, not Parliament, rule the country. Let Parliament stand up and take on the Deep State!