Lessons from the coronation

A new monarch, the London Metro’s police faux pas suspects arrests of anti-monarchy-protest-six and probable action, the Prince Har­ry-factor, would or not, the entire nation be reconciled with Queen Camilla, miniscule ceremonial time, yet, the full array of splendour-mix of religion and traditions within limited costs-cuts to balance a tight economy, an exemplary prudence lesson embroidered with majestic presence including our Asantehene, simply resplendent and unquanti­fiable global electronic audience, street entertainments and over­crowded outdoor dining and care-free but behaved what you have. I had learned earliest growing, not to lose mental notes from obser­vations and heard with possibly memorable quotes and attributions at functions. These therefore, are the memories, thoughts with Gha­na-related lessons-impacts-lessons and comments.

The Brits have a new King Charles III after being crowned, a week today. Inside the Westmin­ster Abbey, neither ritz nor pleb show of exquisite 1066 British pu­rity-pomp and pageantry, G.F.Han­dle’s coronation anthem “Zadok, the Priest’’, ornate Anglican liturgical coolness, non-intrusive martial music and soldier precision, in and out, clearly signalling intent to keep but bring the monarchy from a hitherto recluse-image to a with-it today and beyond. It is an admirable continuity, binding culture, religion and its people symbolised in the insignia “mon pays et mon droit’’ (my country and my right, literally). How that turns up depends on the King’s own drive to infect proportional responses as it seems that it might stutter, bearing from the ‘’Prince Harry-factor’’ among his own core family’s unresolved tensions from prior regnum, closed nine months since with him, Charles III the central figure.

I regret to repeat that the new order rests with the King. Perhaps advisedly, our Elders maintain ‘you do what is ought of you first be­fore anything else, essentially befits or necessary;’’ and again, “settle your domestic palaver first’’—– ’woye dza ohia ansaana woaye dza ofata;’ and ‘dzi wofie asem’. The new alchemy for the British mon­archy, relative to the exiting into progression towards a with-it-mod­ernaire – a solid united monarchy, strong country, inspiring others— the commonwealth of former British imperialism’s colonies, the US cousins and the world (the UN) at large. However, it looks like the longer the family aberration widens, acquiring twists, the more difficult it becomes to bridge a moat, including firming that the Brits genuinely love the monarchy, irrespective of occasional erup­tions of its relevance-thunders— dominions and the Windies about its relevance.

Standard dictum compares incongruously with ours generally that there is an older generation stuck with Victoriana, thus validat­ing the case of irrelevance among causes –public money spent on “an unproductive family,’’ peren­nial nationalists protests—Irish, Welsh and Scottish. But a poignant question from a 14-year-old to which the King who answered ‘’I am here to serve,’’ is supportive of a neo-monarch about to unfold.

Comparatively we and others might self-confess that we would wish we have successions as this British, the similarity with chief­taincy looking exclusively only at comparative regard and attitudes to straighten for pondering lesson. The Brits exhibit warmth closer than us to the monarchy; for us not even only our only four real mon­archies, Yabom, Nzima, Winneba and Ashanti with Accra (the only only British political honorarium), let alone institutional chieftaincy. The raison d’etre is both are also, equally our only last bedrock like the British monarchy as our co-strength, character and unity. The Brits explicitly make it veritably true. We shilly-shally.

Of course, separate nationality narrow parochialisms remain with­in the four domains in the Union, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England in shades of political ideologies, nationalism fervours demonstrably divisive– the Ulster Unionists—IRA (defunct), Plaid Cymru, Scottish Nationalists and national political parties prom­inently Lib-Dem, Labour and Conservatives and Independents which occasionally with the Na­tionalists rule in the realms and could upset national political forces from the late 60s, when Labour Party frequently ran itself (Clause 4) to and from in its familiar danse macabre. There are protest-whis­pers in Wales about upcoming investiture of Prince William, the King’s eldest’ son to succeed him. Britain’s kingdoms’ links with us dates officially Bond of 1844. The Asantehene was appropriately there, adding distinct African mo­narchical presence’s colour.

Taking the first of lessons is how it survives and united, and in spite of un-paralleled continuity, legitimacy and reciprocal loyalty, respect of subjects, is a sequitur. There is no hiding the current Brit­ish suffers family challenges. But the centre holds. Between them and us the force de frappe of the rules about succession strikes the difference discounting our ramified traditions. That, not withstand­ing something in political games’ encroachments some allegedly, with collaboration of chiefs in situ; others, ‘‘orders from above.’’ In the course, some regimes imposed parallel stools or indeed dismissed both perceived and known as live regime party-supporters, started by the CPP introduced and followed through by subsequent civilian governments and the military interregna in our history, where the Brits did similarly exiling resis­tance-chiefs and influential leaders including Nana Yaa Asantewa— Seychelles, Cape Coast and Elmina Castles detention or exile transits.

We have a unique constitution which vests them with certain limited authoritative functions. The original proposal in that give-over at the crafting Assemblies, 1979 and 1991/2, was to have a Fijian restoration or indeed restore ultimately de jure powers as the colonialists met, usurped, removed and abrogated to themselves in the central courts here. The Palaces here adjudicate but cannot jail—it used to before ‘Colo’. Bucking­ham Palace does not. But it had historically: examples: the execu­tion of Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector and King Henry VIII’s CABAL and Star Chamber plus the historic sentence to behead his wife, Anne Boleyn at the Tower of London, where the most valued British royal jewelleries, are kept. The Tower also holds precious gold and metals, stones, relics and ornaments which were pilfered and or looted from both armouries, royalty and private collections from the former colonies and territo­ries’ treasure-troves in the colonial era. The Indian Kohinoor being prominent in the crown among the several British Royal jewellery, displayed.

The Palace though has powers of attorney, more advisory. Its orders are upheld at Westminster. Prince Harry withdrew pursuit of a hacking writ only recently because the Palace advised—rumour is it probably scuttled a potential damaging the Palace—adds to un-tabled domestic causes to settle. These overarch, just as our courts are congested with chieftaincy litigations, dislocating cohesion and respect, though some chiefs might require another comportment than alleged reported involvement with Galamsey, illegal mining.

To learn anything at all, it com­pels inclusion in the agenda to con­front the present constitution— chieftaincy’s underpinning role in governance for stability and growth which compels for a written con­stitution, unlike the unwritten-Brit­ish, but succinctly demarcates the roles-boundaries of the monarch, dating Runnymede, Magna Carta June 15, 1215. Did any hear of British politicians during hustings going to pay “courtesy call’’ at the Palace London or Balmoral?

Having queried, I should re­spond my thoughts suggest gritted teeth with reference to ‘who bells the cat,’ in our circumstantial predicament. Without giving up, I believe that at the least, the next parliament should be gutsy enough to re-think reconstruction. You see, it is not for party—let alone self; but it is for country and the judgment of posterity to speak some good for us. King Charles III in response to little Lad’s: “I am here to serve.’’ Everyone has latched on to that wishing him long well, rule, for long, logging remarkable achievements and remembered to be characterised equal to “the sun King’’ like in French history, testifies glowingly of “Le Roi Soleil’’—the ‘sun King, Louis XIV’ 1638-1715. That oblit­erates the unspeakable foreboding references to 17th century prede­cessors, Charles I (infamous for “divine right of Kingship, behead­ed) and his son Charles II, 1600-49 and 1660-1685 respectively. The lapse of years is accounted for by the seizure of power by Oliver Cromwell’s 1653-1658.

Charles immediately succeeded his mother nine months ago like she in 1952 crowned 1953 at the West Minster Abbey and for gen­erations before and would be after as the only theatre for the succes­sions. There had been hiccups like Charles’ grandfather George VI hauled in, when his elder brother Edward VIII abdicated, earlier noted. I am merely emphasising the lesson of smoothness and firm awe-wrought which has been the constant pre-emptor of raucous to remodel ours as we endeavour towards efforts to change from steely moderation to abolition of succession disputes.

I confess speculatively, that to be long-off unless gigantic penitent determination to get there, or, by mistaken dishonesty-turned fluke and use it to cue it for posterity. But then, I am acutely mindful that the longest journey starts with the first step from the front door. The British re-done is bottom-lined by will, cohesiveness, respect, biggest concerns for cost-cuts to arrive at “CHANGE’’ with grand hope. That finally should open the how to, answering the ‘who bells the cat’’.? And that lies in the bosom of if we will, not would. Both Dr Emmanuel Kwegyir Aggrey and Gold Coast Methodists’contro­versial liberation theologist, the Rev S.R.B. Attoh Ahumah spoke and wrote respectively that “we can; we ought and we will,’’ to leap forward. That is taking it from ad­mission of our definitive collective morass, as sine qua non.

By Prof nana essilfie-conduah.

Show More
Back to top button