King Charles and the Counting House
THE COUNTING HOUSE: from The Province Of The Cat by George Gunn
The King is in the Counting House,
counting out his money,
the Queen is in the parlour,
eating bread and honey.
“Sing a song of sixpence” dates back to the time of Henry VIII of England. Shakespeare used a bit of it in Twelfth Night. It’s a nursery rhyme that never goes away. It came back to me as I watched King Charles III of Ukania give his first Christmas Day TV chat to the minions, the majority of whom are struggling with the cost of living crisis and in Scotland we have the added tension of our democracy being attacked by a Ukania government we did not vote for. This is the very same King who last month in “His” King’s Speech in the House of Lords mouthed off a series of pre-election ploys, the most prominent being the Tories plan to introduce legislation which will allow oil and gas companies to bid for new licences to drill for fossil fuels every year. The current round of licensing laws are already predicted by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to send a “wrecking ball” through the UK’s already wobbly climate commitments. This is a King who proclaims to be concerned about climate change, give or take the odd jaunt by helicopter and private jet. Despite all this I sat through the royal ten minutes of deep TV joy with an open mind.
The piece began with the band of the Coldstream Guards perched up on a balcony of Buckingham Palace belching out a version of God Save The King. Then we saw a nervous, awkward, elderly man in a ruffled blue-grey suit holding onto the back of a chair beside a very large and glittering Christmas Tree. “A living tree,” according to the BBC. I was not so sure about the gentleman who began to speak. He talked somewhat nebulously and in a distracted manner as though he was translating from another language and would rather be somewhere else. Mostly what he said referenced the Bible and was about the benefits of volunteering and of service in general but most specifically it was about his own coronation. He only really seemed to come to life when he talked about his coronation.
In Scotland this Toom Tabard affair was not a box office hit. On July 5th at St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh King Charles III was presented with the Honours of Scotland. He did not touch them because if he did he then would have had to take the Scottish Coronation Oath which he would not have liked, incorporating as it does The Claim of Right which is an invitation to the sovereign people to challenge any legislation they thought impinged on their rights. Not the monarch, but the people have the last say. This is what it means to be a ‘Sovereign Scot’. The highest power in Scotland is the people. It is in direct opposition to the English Crown, where the people are subjects. If King Charles III took the Scottish Coronation Oath he would have to swear to protect ‘the rights, rents and privileges’ of the people of Scotland or the law, land and offices of state in modern parlance. This is the Scots claiming sovereignty over these things and making it very clear to the monarch that the people are in charge.
These are the same people who failed to turn up at St Giles and mostly what modest cheering crowds had assembled were chanting “Not My King!” According to Tristan Gray of Our Republic,
“There were railings all the way down the Royal Mile and then when the day happened, there was no one there. We thought we’d have to fight our way up the street and there was no one.” (National 24/12/23)
In his TV address to Ukania the man we were told was the monarch exuded this decided atmosphere of disappointment, as though between the lines he was saying this was not how it was meant to be. The rather lachrymose tone of his voice gave out the impression that he thought all of what had happened to him in his life so far was a dream from which he would, hopefully, awaken from one day soon.
Then there were cutaways to the next in line and his wife and children holding electrical drills and seen to be doing something meaningful to a block of wood. Service. It was the theme of his chat. Then there were shots of his royal self taking control of climate change by planting a tree somewhere faraway from Ukania where everyone had dark skin and the Sun was shining. Then the wandering narrative brought us back to the Bible and doing unto neighbours as one would do unto one’s self. This is indeed a Schrodinger’s Cat of a King as he can hold two entirely different positions simultaneously. When he became King of Ukania last year after the death of Queen Elizabeth Charles III inherited the Duchy of Lancaster and the first payout from that for him was a canny £26 million. That would keep him in his Counting House for a time.
However in November it emerged that the King had directly profited from the deaths of thousands of people whose money, undeclared millions, was being used to upgrade the royal property empire. This is the feudal practise of “bona vacantia” used to appropriate the assets and estates of the people within the geographical bounds of the Duchy who did not leave a will or who had no next of kin when they died. It was not a good look for the new monarch and no matter the amount of public harrumphing and gritted teeth contrition – the Duchy announced it would transfer more than £100 million into “ethical investment funds” – it did not smell any better.
King Charles III obviously thinks he is an exception to the rule. Any rules. In his Christmas message you got the impression that in being the monarch he was, somehow, doing us all a big favour. It is all about “service”, you see. The “service” he is doing us by being King. And we, of course, are expected to serve. The whole surreal and necrotic ten minutes was rounded off by Bexley Music Primary School trilling their way charmingly through some carols inter-scut with shots of the King and Queen cutting a crown shaped cake and watching a sheep being sheared.
By this time my will to live had weakened a little so I switched off the platitudes and adventures of the King and his courtiers and went to the window and looked at the hurricane which was blowing across Caithness. It seemed an apt metaphor for what the future holds for King Charles III, the spaniel of history. How pointless, self-obsessed and outlandish it all appeared to me and unsettling – as if you were being addressed by a lost member of a necro-clerisy come to play the court jester or the holy fool, or it was like listening to a revenant speaking to the rain, seeking either exorcism or dust.
Despite his professed concern for ecology, animal welfare, homelessness and poverty, the Counting House is where King Charles has his focus. His estates are exempt from animal protection legislation, his multiple palaces for most of the time remain empty and the monarch has a very opaque relationship with the concept of tax. On this issue Freedom of Information does not apply. His constant campaign through his famous black spider letters to have The Civil List altered and something better (for him) put in its place was eventually successful in 2011 when just before Christmas, so that no-one would notice, the then Chancellor George Osborne abolished The Civil List under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. The new Sovereign Grant is worth £86.3m annually. Plus as we have seen there is the Duchy of Lancaster – worth £260 million – and the on-going ten year re-furbishment plan for Buckingham Palace worth £369 million. There are other perks and cash sources but, unlike the King, I gave up counting.
Ukania is a very powerful and heavily centralised state with sovereignty resting with the Crown in Parliament. In this it is alien to Scotland and the issue of sovereignty sits at the heart of the independence cause. In Westminster sovereignty may rest at the centre of power but it is in no way a popular sovereignty, as it would be if the Claim of Right were enacted in an independent Scotland. In Ukania “the people” are “represented” at “the Seat of Majesty”, but there is never any chance that they will ever occupy that seat. The existence of the monarchy makes this very clear. In Ukania there is no constitution and no meaningful democracy. The King will always be in his Counting House.
There are those of a conservative nature who would say that this is a good thing. That Ukania is unique and that is something we should be proud of. More sober observers think this is hogwash. As Brexit has proven this illusion of Ukanian uniqueness only exacerbates the crisis of identity in Ukania because with the constitution being an illusion no-one can honestly or actually believe in anything. This crisis is evident when yet another Tory talks about “our values and way of life”. It is also evident in the Tory pre-occupation, bordering on madness, with immigration. None of it bears close examination and none of it makes any sense.
When you watch and listen to what King Charles III says and does you realise that he is the embodiment of the permanent immaturity that keeps the monarchy at arms-length from the modern world. The media perpetrated myth is that the monarch is “above” everything, especially politics, and encompasses the four corners of the realm – i.e. Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. In reality the Ukanian monarchy is quintessentially political. It is also the talisman of English nationalism. As Ukania is falling apart this English identity crisis increases. The adoption of the monarchy as a definition of identity makes for an structurally awkward manifestation of nationalism, because it is a nationalism which is constructed from the top down. This, ironically, renders it headless, inarticulate and incoherent. The elderly gentleman in the crumpled blue-grey suit, holding onto the side of a chair while standing beside a Christmas tree and talking about “service” is never going to make it articulate or coherent. No matter how many cans of lager you throw at it. One of the saving graces of Scottish nationalism is that it is created from below – those at the top are hostile to it in the extreme – so it is resilient and no matter how many times the BBC tells us it is dead it continues to live. The exact opposite of the King, having watched him sympathetically deliver his message on Christmas Day, fresh out of The Counting House.
The reality is that Ukania is being torn apart by a very English deference and a persistent Scottish challenge. This is far from the Hobbesian extreme nightmare of the perpetual “civil war of every man against every other man” which is embraced by the ever anguine Michael Gove and his Orwellian “Levelling Up Department”, which has proposed a new definition of extremism which is
“the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.”
In other words – stop thinking. Do you share Michael Grove’ values? Was that someone walking over your grave? A poll this year found that as a result of what the government of Ukania does, only 6% of voters in Ukania trust the Ukanian political system in any shape of form. This raises a definition problem as it means, under Gove’s proclamation, that 94% of us are now extremists. Merry Christmas. We are all bound for the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) where everyone is a prisoner.
On the other hand imagine if we lived a country where the people were treated with respect and not as the social and political equivalent of “bona vacantia”, a country where the people have the right to decide when we can and can’t have a referendum or plebiscite? When watching King Charles III shuffling through his Christmas script like a moustache in search of a lip I realised more than ever that we are living in a fiction, in a feudal construct created by Westminster. It’s called Ukania and it is one big Counting House.
Believe it or not, despite Michael Gove, we do have rights but people can’t assert their rights if they don’t know what they are. We need to be educated as to what they are and encouraged to use them. Otherwise the King will always be in The Counting House and an increasing majority of us will be in The Poor Hoose.
©George Gunn 2023
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
It must have taken a lot of time crafting this to get the right tone. The trouble is that the sneering overwhelmed anything useful you had to say.
This is the danger of echo chambers. Sympathisers will applaud, feel enthused by such a piece, but the undecided who happen to read it are as likely to be repelled by it.
I got from this an overpowering sense of negative emotion, rather than something positive to seek out and make real. I felt the hatred not the hope.
The Indy movement fails to realise this. Strangely enough, it’s a mistake being made by the “rejoin-the-EU” movement throughout the UK. The sneering is loudest from the arrogant graduate elite, who talk at compatriots not with them.
An intelligent, well articulated reply.
Whilst the rage the author has is understandable, the piece is childish.
Praising SteveH ? Hope you are not one of those beastly ” graduate elite ”or it negates your support !
Eh?
No idea who SteveH is but his opinion is much the same as mine on the article.
Elite yes. Graduate no. Hard work and skill.
In what way ‘childish’? I don’t see that at all
Diddums not pleased at bad man not being deferential?
Stevie H – for you to accuse someone else of sneering shows a staggering lack of self awareness on your part.
Your posts mainly consist of sneering at anyone who does not agree with your myopic, hateful viewpoint which is not only vast majority of people that read this site but vast majority of people in Scotland.
Are you sure? Please explain what you mean
Just to add, ‘Are you sure?’ is addressed to SteveH. I don’t understand the comment at all, but maybe that’s the fault of over-education
George appears to have struck a nerve.
“By this time my will to live had weakened a little..” made me laugh out loud, which was good because the rest made me alternately grind my teeth with rage and weep for my grandchildren.
Bravo, Mr Gunn. And thank you.
Well said, Jennie. I agree and detected no sneering on the part of George Gunn and share his view of the monarchy and the present incumbent. We Scots need to demonstrate that we are soveriegn, even if our current government refuses to do so.
Bona vacantia also applies in Scotland where the “Crown” is the Ultimus Haeres.
LOL. Gotta love the way Latin is used to make stuff sound “historic”, posh and legal.
“It’s A’w Fukin’ Minez! Awright !” doesn’t have the same veneer of respectability, but is in fact the truth.
Great article George.
A wonderful article.,succinct.
My heart told me not to even consider watching the Kings speech…this article confirmed my decision.
The pot is beginning to boil over…diamond crowns and beautiful dresses overspill…I seem to hear an echo of ..let them eat cake…
The death of the Queen has exposed the monarchy to a very difficult time.
The Queen had been on throne as long as most people could recall, was rarely criticised except during 1990’s and had developed a wide patronage through most sections of society. When she was older it almost became impolite to be critical of her personally as it was a bit like slagging off your granny.
This all changed upon her death last year as most people know Charles from the last 40 years and his faults and personal weaknesses are well know and ridiculed over the years. Not withstanding this it has to be said that the way the establishment are rallying round King Charles is not surprising but has been something to behold. What is has clearly displayed is that monarchy is all about subservience to a position regardless of person in the position.
I suspect that this establishment sycophancy will prove to be of little value in medium term and decline in support for monarchy will continue especially in Scotland.
Well said. Charles did swear (sort of) to
Uphold the Claim of Right in his accession speech, though the BBC edited that bit out. Have a look at this: https://youtu.be/dEmn-ql7GpY?feature=shared
But as an English Scot, born in London with almost all my ancestors being English, I’d like to comment on ‘English’ identity. While many (not all) native Scots have been able to assert their identity as ‘not British’, this has not been possible for the English. Because Englishness has been co-opted by ‘Britishness’. Henry VII was Welsh but brought Wales into a union with England, but adopted a particular version of Englishness that suited his centralising agenda. The Scottish kings were imposing their idea of ‘Scottishness’ on the Lordship of the Isles at much the same time. Britishness, ‘Great Britain’ was actually invented by James VI when he moved to London in 1603 and never came back. It was supposed to erase and replace both English and Scottish (and presumably Welsh and Irish) identities but failed. Later, ‘British’ identity was reinforced by the Dutch William III and the Hanoverian monarchs, Charles has a German father and a Scottish grandmother. And of course the City of London has been a cosmopolitan state within a state for a thousand years.
The English like the rest were told they were all ‘British’ now. Unlike the rest they were told that the reverse was also true: the ‘British’, throughout the Empire were to be either ‘English’ or mere savages. It gave some English a sense of superiority and entitlement, an identification with the ruling ‘elite’ , although the Empire was actually run by all sorts of people. It kept the native English quiet and smoothed over the enormous cultural and linguistic differences between England’s different regions. But the reality was and still is that London regards itself and its immediate, Home Counties hinterland as England proper, and holds the rest of the country in almost as much contempt as it does the other nations of the ‘British’ isles. The king’s English is the language of the London establishment. Speak with a Yorkshire, a West Country, Liverpool, or Birmingham accent and see how you are received. The English have lost that sense of identity with Empire and found a gaping hole. (There were plenty of Scots of course who also identified with the Empire too). There is in fact nothing left of English identity apart from a sense of grievance and loss. Englishness has disappeared into Britishness and so has no way of expressing itself in a positive way, or of being recognised for any achievements. All over the world, English identity is going down with the ship of the British Empire. It carries the burden of the Empire created in their name and the contempt of the metropolitan, cosmopolitan ‘elite’.
sidelined and treated with contempt, a prime target for fascists and racists.
There is a need I think to recognise that Englishness is not Britishness. But any identity is really an artificial construct. We are already starting to see the emergence of regional identities. The issue with regional assemblies is that they don’t acknowledge ‘Englishness’ perhaps Westminster should have created a devolved English parliament. But that would mean a federal Britain which the establishment have fought since the days of Gladstone.
Of course Scotland is another over-centralised, country of regions too … we would do well to recognise that.
You had me until you said Charle’s father was German.
He was either Greek or Danish depending on your preference.
With such a claim its difficult to believe anything else youve said.
Yes but what interests me is the way we are so ready to say he was anything but English. To me, whatever his parent’s ancestry, he was a typical upper class Englishman due to his cultural life experience, which is what really matters. This is one of the issues I have with nationalism as a concept – it always comes back to national origins, if not out-and-out ethnicity. Critics of the monarchy (in England and Scotland) nearly always at some point say they are ‘Germans’ as if that is a legitimate critique or even insult. I find that pathetic.
The monarch is the head of state and many of its greatest would openly admit to being British nationalists. The opponents of monarchy do not point out the nationality of royal family to make an ethic nationalist point but to show up the hypocrisy of institution and its supporters.
Recent events would indicate that while monarchists might tirn a blind eye to country of origin the colour of skin might be a different matter!
Even if one were to accept the British ‘nationalist’ tag, I still see no hypocrisy in someone having different national roots to espouse that as by logic that would mean all Scottish nationalists must be Scottish by birth or they are hypocrites.
There is nothing wrong with wondering what a baby’s skin colour might be and until this is shown to have racist intent, is not meaningful.
I completely concur with your first paragraph- the current Tory cabinet are living evidence of this. The Windsor family are originally German a fact which I and the majority of republicans couldn’t give a toss about. However some monarchists go on about the royal family as thought they are the embodiment of all things historically British so the ‘they are German’ comment is merely to show up the hypocrisy of these royalists.
As for Megan and Harry, I personally couldn’t care although I do admire Harry for taking on the red tops whatever his motives. However if you think the demonisation of Megan in the media is purely about comments about babies skin tone you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
“the UK’s already wobbly climate commitments. ”
The UK just became the first country to halve its Carbon output.
Context?
What’s the starting point? Does it cover deindustrialisation and the offshoring of production? How much, for example, does Scottish wind energy production flatter the UK figure? Where’s the detail, what’s your source?
Yup – it destroyed much of its carbon burning industry & jacked up (high carbon) imports from China (which don’t count in terms of emissions. The Brit gov tries to do great PR – but the facts show that they are (& always have been) a pack of liars & fantasists.
I believe the author is mistaken and Charlie did swear to the claim of right. Although it seemed like he had actually read the anacronistic anti-Catholic screed that it is, and look pretty dubious about it. The people who wrote it certainly didn’t categorise Catholics as people, and probably discluded anyone below landed gentry and high-up sky-pilots of the correct brand. Anyway, they got their wish when Billy of Orange invaded and took the throne, the whole point of the claim of right being the overthow of a Catholic monarch.
One is amused! 🙂 Merry Merry quite contrerry.
Yes he has it spot on
Very fine article. I have a question – the first pic of Charlie is so wierd – are you sure it was not photoshopped – his head on to summat the late-great Freddie might have worn? Just asking.