The ridiculous and distressing coronation of Charles III

; DAY

On May 6, Monsieur III will be officially crowned king. This coronation would not be worth talking about if it were not for the extraordinary monarchist propaganda that is already flooding the media. Yet this coronation is ridiculous and heartbreaking.

Ridiculous because the ceremony, spectacular as it promises to be, will be as tacky and tacky as anyone. dare not denounce too much, because they are royal people who are supposed to be refined.

However, the gleaming gold carriage in which Monsieur III will circulate, is anything but a good one. discreet taste. The riders pulling it look like they came out of an operetta.

The height of ridicule is due to the tunics that the king will wear. He will reduce their number. Buckingham Palace wants to pass off this decision as an environmental gesture and even as a cost-saving measure.

A coronation that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and that will generate monster environmental pollution! Nonsense.

Do not criticize?

The event is global in scope. But should the journalists who will cover it keep their reserve and not criticize the institution? No. On the contrary, they should denounce it or at the very least question the most disturbing aspects of the monarchy.

For example, how come the king and his family don't pay any taxes? Or to put it more accurately, why do they only pay the tax they want to pay? Why do Canadians and Quebecers have to pay out of their own pockets for the visits of these royal billionaires? Wouldn't it be more profitable for the UK to turn Buckingham Palace into a kind of English Louvre Museum? And what about the toxic mix of politics and religion that this coronation promotes?

Great hypocrisy

The greatest hypocrisy of royalty affects democracy. Monarchy is opposed to democracy. All the theoretical contortions of the defenders of the monarchy will not change anything: that citizens have more rights than others by their mere birth is intolerable to any free person. That sovereigns claim to intervene in the decisions of elected officials is odious.

For Canada, the monarchy has an embarrassing symbolic value. Beyond the attachment of some redneck to England, it shows a country which does not quite manage to detach itself from its former tutelage and which refuses in a way to become adult. For Quebec, the British crown remains a symbol of oppression.

Quebec and Canada could change the situation and marginalize the monarchical institution. But it is true that the 1982 constitution has become virtually unchangeable. We are prisoners of political conceptions of 40 years ago. In this sense, in Canada, the dead rule the living.