On Wednesday morning, a crowd of protesters gathered at a corner of Parliament Square, raising their yellow banners, as well as their voices, when the King arrived with the rest of the royal procession for the State Opening of Parliament.
No-one was objecting to the opening of a new session of parliament, and most would have accepted it was an event of sufficient significance to merit a bit of ceremony. The problem, however, is the monarch.
Our MPs are chosen by us in order to represent us – the electoral system that converts our votes into our collective choices may be badly in need of reform, but elections are nevertheless a central feature of our democracy. However, before MPs can start the jobs we’ve sent them to do, they must swear an oath of allegiance, not to us or the country or the constitution, but to the King (whom no-one has elected) and his heirs and successors.
READ MORE: What bills were in the King's Speech? See full list of Labour pledges
(Image: PA)
The Government that has been determined by our votes is not our government – it is His Majesty’s Government, and even the runners-up become His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. The speech prepared by Keir Starmer and his team, setting out Labour’s programme for government, becomes the King’s Speech, and the Commons debate that will follow it will lead to an "Address in Reply to His Majesty's Gracious Speech".
Our monarchs, of course, are no longer involved in running the country (although they frequently intervene to ensure that legislation does not threaten their interests) and some will dismiss the archaic language of parliamentary rituals as being just words. Words are nevertheless important – they influence the way we view our society and help shape its culture. References to the monarchy reinforce the notion that it is a powerful, and also benevolent, institution which is needed for the good of society.
READ MORE: 'Bitterly disappointing': SNP blast Labour's 'timid' King's Speech
In reality, what the monarchy personifies is a social structure in which rank, class and titles are important. It tries to persuade us that there is nothing wrong with hereditary influence and huge amounts of unearned wealth. While it claims to be a symbol of national unity, it distracts attention from a society fractured by growing poverty and obscene inequalities. It expects us to show deference to people who, even if not be as bad as a few of us, are no better than most of us.
Polling tells us that, in Scotland and in London, a majority of people would prefer an elected head of state over a monarch, and across the UK a majority of young people want the monarchy abolished. Increasingly people are coming to realise that we don’t need a king to open our parliamentary sessions – it’s the King who needs a part in the ceremonies to continue the pretence that the monarchy serves any useful purpose in the 21st century.
I was therefore with the crowd in Parliament Square on Wednesday. I did not wave a flag and cheer when the royal procession passes – I regarded it as my patriotic duty to protest and call for a society in which all are equally respected, regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel