Days after the late monarch’s cosseted funeral, pipes and drums fade in distance; as now, it is time for the orchestral trumpets to galvanise.
Queen Elizabeth II’s rule was one of splendour, and certainly, there is no doubt that now her son, Charles, is destined to rule with almost the same combination of pomp and splendour.
But would his rule also accompany the same ideals as were of his mother’s – intimidation, exploitation and deprivation? Perhaps, only time will settle this question – as it always does.
Having been in London, or to put it more precisely, in the Green Park while the queen embarked on her final journey from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey, I rather found myself poised in a unique position to witness an extraordinary encounter. This was perhaps the biggest security operation that London has ever seen, and understandably, the state machinery was forced to outsource security to various private agencies.
While this may seem like a daunting job, it is ironic that it was mainly students who were the ones doing it - and a fair majority, South-Asian students.
A white gentleman approached one of the stewards and went on to say, “I happen to see too many of you [South Asians] at this gate, is this some sort of colonial tribute?” And following that question, his eyes beamed as if he was expecting an affirmative answer.
These fervent supporters of the Queen – purveyors of her monarchy – seem to conflate two distinct ideas: mourning Elizabeth’s death is not in any way mourning her colonial past, and this does not absolve her of her past crimes – which happen to be too many in this case.
And perhaps, in the broader arena of things, this is just how an average Englishman functions: re-inventing already existing things a few decades down the lane, and then pretending and addressing the issue as if it never was talked about before. Well, in our case, let’s hope to get to that Day of Reckoning where they might begin to reckon colonial reparations not too far from now.
However, Prince Charles, now King Charles, is not an ‘average Englishman’. He inherited fourteen royal titles on his accession to the throne. But with those, he also inherited an enormous emotional baggage (owing to their centuries’ long monarchy) and what he decides to do with it would go a long way.
Many claim that Charles might be the change that the British Monarchy hasn’t gone through for the longest time. He’s been the longest-serving heir apparent, received direct training under his mother (who most considered to be a successful monarch) and has shown at various instances that he is more receptive to change. For instance, he claims to be a multi-faith king. Though it is not officially documented, having a monarch who can consider the slim possibility of being one, speaks volume. As a matter of fact, during his visit to Pakistan, he was shown to be very keen about interfaith dialogues.
However, in retrospect, in many ways it seems to be an effort to retrofit where the British Monarchy is losing out. The ‘divine right to rule’, inherently a political and religious doctrine that instruments and vests power in monarchs might not be as effective in today’s Britain. In a hyper-rational modern world, it is no wonder that religion is no longer as important as it used to be. This direct correlation between religion and monarchy had to be accounted for in some way or the other, and King Charles aims on doing so by becoming the King for all.
On the same wavelength, where Charles might want to experiment with unconventional norms with the advent of his kingship, he will have to consider – pretty seriously – the old-fangled norms firmly entrenched in the dignified institution of monarchy. Many are keen to see the new monarch’s place and approach towards the constitution, and the degree to which he is involved and in what capacity. Simultaneously, even though there are only seven senior acting royals, Charles will have to decide how he styles the extended royals while trying to slim down the royal expense paid from the taxpayer’s money.
According to the convention of the British system of governance, monarchy’s role is one that is passive and in the hindsight. Perhaps, Charles might do things that the ones before him could only dream of, but the truth stands tall that his approval ratings are far lower than his mother’s. As John Oliver deigns to say, “… Britain is still mourning the shocking loss of a ninety-six-year-old woman who died of natural causes.”
Queen Elizabeth II’s rule was one of splendour, and certainly, there is no doubt that now her son, Charles, is destined to rule with almost the same combination of pomp and splendour.
But would his rule also accompany the same ideals as were of his mother’s – intimidation, exploitation and deprivation? Perhaps, only time will settle this question – as it always does.
Having been in London, or to put it more precisely, in the Green Park while the queen embarked on her final journey from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey, I rather found myself poised in a unique position to witness an extraordinary encounter. This was perhaps the biggest security operation that London has ever seen, and understandably, the state machinery was forced to outsource security to various private agencies.
While this may seem like a daunting job, it is ironic that it was mainly students who were the ones doing it - and a fair majority, South-Asian students.
A white gentleman approached one of the stewards and went on to say, “I happen to see too many of you [South Asians] at this gate, is this some sort of colonial tribute?” And following that question, his eyes beamed as if he was expecting an affirmative answer.
These fervent supporters of the Queen – purveyors of her monarchy – seem to conflate two distinct ideas: mourning Elizabeth’s death is not in any way mourning her colonial past, and this does not absolve her of her past crimes – which happen to be too many in this case.
…this is just how an average Englishman functions: re-inventing already existing things a few decades down the lane, and then pretending and addressing the issue as if it never was talked about before. Well, in our case, let’s hope to get to that Day of Reckoning where they might begin to reckon colonial reparations not too far from now.
And perhaps, in the broader arena of things, this is just how an average Englishman functions: re-inventing already existing things a few decades down the lane, and then pretending and addressing the issue as if it never was talked about before. Well, in our case, let’s hope to get to that Day of Reckoning where they might begin to reckon colonial reparations not too far from now.
However, Prince Charles, now King Charles, is not an ‘average Englishman’. He inherited fourteen royal titles on his accession to the throne. But with those, he also inherited an enormous emotional baggage (owing to their centuries’ long monarchy) and what he decides to do with it would go a long way.
Many claim that Charles might be the change that the British Monarchy hasn’t gone through for the longest time. He’s been the longest-serving heir apparent, received direct training under his mother (who most considered to be a successful monarch) and has shown at various instances that he is more receptive to change. For instance, he claims to be a multi-faith king. Though it is not officially documented, having a monarch who can consider the slim possibility of being one, speaks volume. As a matter of fact, during his visit to Pakistan, he was shown to be very keen about interfaith dialogues.
However, in retrospect, in many ways it seems to be an effort to retrofit where the British Monarchy is losing out. The ‘divine right to rule’, inherently a political and religious doctrine that instruments and vests power in monarchs might not be as effective in today’s Britain. In a hyper-rational modern world, it is no wonder that religion is no longer as important as it used to be. This direct correlation between religion and monarchy had to be accounted for in some way or the other, and King Charles aims on doing so by becoming the King for all.
On the same wavelength, where Charles might want to experiment with unconventional norms with the advent of his kingship, he will have to consider – pretty seriously – the old-fangled norms firmly entrenched in the dignified institution of monarchy. Many are keen to see the new monarch’s place and approach towards the constitution, and the degree to which he is involved and in what capacity. Simultaneously, even though there are only seven senior acting royals, Charles will have to decide how he styles the extended royals while trying to slim down the royal expense paid from the taxpayer’s money.
According to the convention of the British system of governance, monarchy’s role is one that is passive and in the hindsight. Perhaps, Charles might do things that the ones before him could only dream of, but the truth stands tall that his approval ratings are far lower than his mother’s. As John Oliver deigns to say, “… Britain is still mourning the shocking loss of a ninety-six-year-old woman who died of natural causes.”