Exactly the same statement from Buckingham Palace announcing the death of Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday declared that her son Charles had succeeded her as king. And exactly like that, this unelected man became the top of state for millions all over the world. The former Prince of Wales, whose life has been riddled with controversy, is currently the strongest argument for ending the archaic institution of the monarchy.
He now assumes not merely the throne but becomes the top of the Church of England another inherited role that needs to be discontinued.
The queens demise ended a reign spanning seven decades and the terms of 14 U.S. presidents and 15 British prime ministers. She was heir to, and subsequently passes on, a chain of rule defined by the brutality of the British Empire since it conquered and exploited people all over the world. As a British-born Iraqi who was raised in London, it still pains me to go to the British Museum and see that which was plundered from the country throughout a ferocious colonial rule.
Charles, too, has benefited out of this self-interested and abusive conduct, plus some of the very most odious royal traditions continue under him. To begin with, in a country experiencing worsening inflation, a collapsing health service and rising poverty, King Charles III and his family will still enjoy an annual payment from the British government referred to as the Sovereign Grant.
The grant cost British taxpayers 86.3 million ($100.12 million) in 2021 and was further increased by 27.3 million ($31.67 million) on the next 2 yrs to greatly help cover a 17% rise in spending by the royals. The grant has been useful for a number of items, from the upkeep of several palaces to 32,000 (a lot more than $37,000) for a chartered flight for Charles to wait a James Bond movie premiere (despite his years of pro-environment advocacy). Playwright Lin-Manuel Mirandas famous line concerning the British monarchy in age Alexander Hamilton remains true: Essentially, they tax us relentlessly. Then King George turns around, runs a spending spree.
Not surprisingly guaranteed income from taxpayers, Charles has reportedly invested millions in offshore tax havens. In accordance with a group of leaked documents referred to as the Paradise Papers, The Guardian reported that Charles had invested private profit a Bermuda-based sustainable forestry firm. Given his environmental stances, the revelation sparked allegations of a conflict of interest. Charles investment team said, however, he didn’t have any direct involvement in the investment decisions.
In June, The Sunday Times reported that Charles had previously accepted 1 million ($1.16 million) in cash for his foundation in a suitcase, section of 3 million ($3.48 million) altogether, from the former Qatari prime minister. The charity was later found to possess accepted millions from Osama Bin Ladens family aswell.
In February, Scotland Yard announced a probe in to the circumstances under which an aide to Charles allegedly accepted donations to a foundation create by Charles from the Saudi national in trade for help obtain British citizenship and a knighthood. Clarence House once more said that Charles had no knowledge of a cash-for-honors scheme.
On political matters, although British monarch is likely to stay strictly neutral, Charles as prince lobbied the British government for various policy shifts through handwritten letters which were dubbed the black spider memos; the letters were obtained by The Guardian following a legal battle. A spokesperson for Charles responded he was only raising issues of public concern, and looking for practical methods to address the problems.
The memos add a letter to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair urging a change in herbal medicine policy from the prince, who later continued to create an alternative medicine company. Charles said at that time that Blair had asked him for his opinion on new EU rules on the merchandise. Other of his lobbying efforts were a lot more sinister, including one letter to Blair expressing concerns that British troops didnt have the required resources while waging the Iraq War, which had already claimed a large number of Iraqi lives.
In today’s world, placing such power within an unelected individual cant be considered a birthright. For a country that claims its Parliament is among the oldest continuous representative assemblies on earth, having an unelected monarch marred with controversies as head of state is in no way democratic.
Charles also offers no claim to moral leadership, negating any argument that the monarchy remains important as a sober ceremonial force in society. Charles famously engaged within an extramarital affair with Camilla Parker Bowles while being married to Peoples Princess Diana. He now assumes not merely the throne but becomes the head of the Church of England another inherited role that needs to be discontinued.
Want more articles such as this? Follow THINK on Instagram to obtain updates on the weeks most significant political analysis
Needless to say, the arrogance of Charles presuming to become a religious figure was passed on for generations within the British monarchy. The Church of England was initially established because in 1534 King Henry VIII, annoyed by Catholicisms prohibition on divorce, established a fresh branch of Christianity, made himself the top and promptly permitted divorce. Without Henrys entitled precedent, Charles wouldn’t normally have been in a position to divorce Diana but still have a claim to the crown.
Once you add in the treating Prince Harrys wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and the behavior of Charles brother Andrew, the standing of the British royal family is further degraded. To anticipate us to instantly make reference to Charles as His Majesty, as though he could be automatically a guy of dignity, is laughable. The monarchy must have ended years back. With Charles at the helm, it most definitely should end now.