He’s All Ears
Yesterday, along with millions of Americans, I watched a portion of the elaborate ceremony attendant to the coronation of King Charles III. Although in my case about 15 minutes of this anachronistic celebration was all I could handle. Indeed, when I received a mass email from the BBC soliciting comments on their coverage of the coronation, I was moved to respond with the following:
To the BBC:
I write as an American deeply proud of our Constitutional Democracy, having just now observed a portion of the enactment of the ancient British ritual of a royal coronation. Watching the elevation of these two very ordinary human beings into objects of veneration by the masses of British "subjects" makes me proud that my American founding fathers made me a "citizen" and not a subject.
Indeed, I am amazed by the clear fascination a large percentage of my fellow countrymen (and particularly countrywomen) have for the British royal family. I realize the Kardashians and Brad Pitt are an imperfect substitute for Charles and Camilla, but at least they attained their position by the presentation of some version of "talent" demonstrated over many years--not effortlessly acquired at the moment of birth or marriage.
I further realize that the British unwritten Constitution has evolved over centuries and that your new King has very carefully circumscribed powers. But that he has ANY power at all, due to the mere accident of his birth, is a reality I find frightening. Does he realize that he is one of the few remaining people on earth who owes his lofty position to the luck of their birth? As for Camilla, I am not sure precisely what skills account for her elevation from ordinary country gentry to Queen of the realm--but Charles's famous tapped phone call gives me a fairly good clue.
I fully realize that America's recent brush with disaster due to the election of one Donald J. Trump in 2016 gives America little room to talk. But at least we were able to eject Trump from office four years later, and he now faces a multiplicity of legal actions. It is hard to imagine the circumstances under which Charles might be forced from office. Regicide, as his ancestor Charles I suffered nearly 400 years ago, is today inconceivable. However a vote by the British people to adopt a republican form of government, while unlikely, is I believe nonetheless possible at some future date.
Besides a group of relatively small island nations, the only remaining countries of significance that retain King Charles as their Head of State include Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Jamaica. I suspect the reign of the new British monarch will over time see some--and perhaps all--of these countries abjure King Charles as their nominal head of state.
Australia conducted a vote to become a republic about 20 years ago and it lost only narrowly. Now that the much-loved Queen Elizabeth II is gone, I am fairly certain such a vote today would remove King Charles as the Head of State Down Under.
My much-loved British cousins (by marriage) and my several good British friends wonder why an American would get so exercised about such a purely British topic. I am also well aware that a clear majority of members of the British public wants to retain its current form of government. But I suspect that this may not be true twenty years from now, when fond memories of Elizabeth have faded and after two decades under a now 94-yr. old Charles have removed much of the penumbra of mystery and admiration surrounding this anachronistic institution.
- Roger Smith, Proud US CITIZEN
