Not for everyone?
On Saturday 6th May 2023, people celebrated the coronation of King Charles III. These celebrations were quite difficult to avoid: many businesses put up decorations, towns and cities planned events and social media was full of comments and photographs. The British government also gave people an extra day off work for the occasion.
However, not everyone was happy and supportive about the coronation. For example, some people do not agree that there should be a royal family and so do not support the new king.
During the coronation, there were lots of protests along the route that King Charles took to and from the ceremony. One protester made the following video – you can see the King’s procession pass by in the background.
Despite the fact that there were a lot of people protesting against the coronation, the protests were not shown on the television coverage of the event. Police were also seen to be removing protesters’ posters and moving protesters away from the main route.
We want to hear your views about this.
- If people do not support the new king, is it right if they join the celebrations or have the government-given day off?
- Is it right that protesters were not televised during the event?
- Should police have had a say in where or how protesters protested during the coronation?
Let us know in the comments below. Would you have joined the celebrations? Or would you have protested?
Comments (53)
If people do not support the new king, I believe that it is not right for them to join the celebrations or have the government-given day off. These celebrations and breaks are only present due to the new king. If someone does not support the king, this means that they would be enjoying the events that they do not deserve. I believe that it is right that protesters were not televised during the event. If they were televised, it would cause the people who are celebrating to become frustrated with the protesters. This could have resulted in a conflict between the two groups.
It's understandable to feel that way, as a new king represents an important moment in a country's history and culture. However, the decision to give a day off or allow everyone to join the celebration ultimately rests with the government and their policies regarding public holidays.
In general, public holidays are meant to be inclusive and provide a break for everyone regardless of their individual beliefs or opinions. So, it's possible that the government may choose to grant a day off for the new king's celebration to ensure that everyone is able to participate if they wish.
the decision will depend on the specific circumstances and cultural traditions of the country in question, as well as the priorities of its government.
I respect your point of view on everything you said though
I do not quite understand what you mean by the point where you said that not to support the new King meant to be denied attendance at conferences, to be denied leave and all kinds of ceremonies and feasts, all because someone refused to support the King. Don't you feel that this matter has a kind of dictatorship, because according to what I understood from your words, whoever refuses to support the king is deprived of all the privileges offered by the state, and we are finally in the world freedom, and everyone has the right to reject or accept what he wants, and the good king will certainly accept all the opinions of the opponents against supporters.
Interesting points. Do you think there could be any benefits from the protestors being televised?
I think that there could be benefits from the protestors being televised, but this depends on the different perspectives. If you do not support the new king, there could be some benefits from protestors being televised. For one, your opinion would pervade throughout the country, and it could lead to some changes in the government. If you do support the king, I do not see any benefits from the protestors being televised.
Can you name some of the benefits, succinct_peach?
I disagree because... While it is important to consider different perspectives, I believe that televising protests can have significant benefits, regardless of one's stance on the issue. By broadcasting protests, we allow for a more open and inclusive public discourse. This transparency encourages a robust exchange of ideas and fosters a deeper understanding of the concerns and grievances of those who choose to demonstrate. It also provides an opportunity for dialogue and potential reforms, enabling governments to address the needs and aspirations of their citizens more effectively. Even if one supports the king, being exposed to opposing viewpoints can promote empathy, and dialogue, and ultimately lead to a more inclusive and responsive society. Therefore, televising protests can catalyze positive change and be a means of strengthening democratic processes.
Furthermore, televising protests allows marginalized voices to be heard and raises awareness about social issues that may otherwise go unnoticed. It helps to amplify the voices of those who feel their concerns have been overlooked or marginalized by the mainstream narrative. This exposure can generate public discussions, mobilize support, and create momentum for social change. It encourages citizens to think critically, question existing power structures, and actively shape their society.
Even for those who support the king, it is crucial to recognize the importance of a vibrant and inclusive democracy. Allowing the televised coverage of protests fosters an environment of transparency, accountability, and checks and balances. It provides an opportunity for the government to showcase its responsiveness to public concerns and demonstrates a commitment to addressing the needs and aspirations of its citizens. By engaging with dissenting voices and addressing their grievances, the government can build trust and strengthen the foundation of its rule.
Televising protests benefits society, irrespective of personal opinions. It facilitates an open dialogue, empowers marginalized voices, and promotes democratic values. Embracing diverse perspectives and fostering a culture of active engagement will contribute to a more inclusive and progressive society for all.
In conclusion to my opinion, I would like to pose a question succint_peach and I look forward to your response. In a world where differing opinions and social movements shape our societies, Can we truly progress and achieve a harmonious coexistence if we shy away from the televised representation of protests, regardless of our affiliations?
You present a well-argued perspective regarding the benefits of televising protests and the importance of inclusive public discourse. I apologize for any confusion caused by my initial response. I agree that televising protests can have positive impacts and contribute to a more informed and engaged society. Here are some points to consider in response to your question:
Facilitating dialogue: Televising protests allows for the exchange of ideas and perspectives. It provides a platform for different voices to be heard and can lead to meaningful discussions and increased understanding between different groups in society. This dialogue is crucial for progress and finding common ground.
Accountability and transparency: By broadcasting protests, it becomes possible to hold both protesters and authorities accountable for their actions. It promotes transparency in governance and ensures that the actions of all parties involved are subject to public scrutiny. This can help prevent abuse of power and promote a more just society.
Raising awareness: Televised coverage of protests raises awareness about important social issues, particularly those that may be marginalized or overlooked. It helps to bring these issues to the forefront of public consciousness, encouraging broader societal engagement and support for positive change.
Empowering marginalized voices: Televising protests provides a platform for marginalized communities and individuals to share their experiences and grievances. This exposure can challenge existing power structures and contribute to a more inclusive society where everyone's voice is heard and considered.
Social progress and coexistence: In a diverse society, progress and harmonious coexistence require active engagement with differing opinions and social movements. Televising protests allows for the representation of various perspectives and encourages society to confront important issues head-on. Through open dialogue and understanding, we can work towards a more equitable and inclusive future.
In summary, televising protests can contribute to a more informed and engaged society, foster dialogue, hold authorities accountable, raise awareness about social issues, empower marginalized voices, and promote social progress and coexistence. Embracing the representation of diverse perspectives is vital for creating a harmonious and inclusive society.
Yes, broadcasting the demonstrators has many benefits, the most important of which is that it shows the two voices to the people with equal opportunities so that the world can rule in a ruling manner, and also leads to the development of problems between the people and the ruler and leads to revolutions, so the dispute must be resolved early and to respond to their demands, perhaps there is a solution that satisfies them without being removed the king
As we all know, the television is the fastest means passing information worldwide. Protesters should be televised because everyone's voice deserves to be heard which is a fundamental right.
When a protest is going on, violence is also going on and the people they prostesting against may be afraid to go there and help them of give them what they want, but when is televised, people can know what they want and they will help them resulting to the end of the strike.
Yes, I think it has benefits from broadcasting demonstrators, because the monarchy era has become disliked by many, so some demonstrators appear. In my opinion, I think that the democratic system is better, like what is happening in Turkey, where elections are held. On Sunday, May 14, there were elections in Turkey. In the electoral system, the president is chosen according to The people, it is by their will, when they stage demonstrations and do not want the king, so the government's response is that this is their choice.
And when the demonstrators are broadcast on television, the people of the world will see it and can support it from its benefits. The desire of those who accept the system will appear, and those who reject it will appear, which makes the government change the system. The genetic system will have laws and rules that the modern era does not want because they believe that this era is the era of development.
Succinct_peach, if these issues are avoided, how will they eventually settle? Conflict can be violent therefore I completely understand why you would not be allied with a conflict between two parties, but the ending of a conflict can be quite the opposite, in simple terms: peace. I believe those protesters should have been televised to make people aware of the pros and cons of monarchy. People have a right to have an opinion that may be opposed to the majority. Nonetheless, they should have their rights and voice acknowledged by members of the public and monarchy themselves. Strikes are a form of protest yet many people do it so why can't citizens do another form of protest by going on the streets? What I do not agree with however, is another term of conflict that you have stated, which is an act of brutality. I perfectly agree that officers should remove people from the main route to prevent arousing potential violence and injuries. We do not want our country on top of the entire commonwealth and the dozens of countries that come with it to be seen as aggressive, do you? What's more, it can be done in a much more subtle way. So, succinct_peach, I would be really happy if you would answer my questions regarding this topic.
Your words are correct, and this is what I meant, and I liked your comment very much, because it also represents me❤
I agree with you, but I do not agree with you on the point that they do not take a holiday. The holiday is a rest for everyone, regardless of whether they want to go to the party or not.
I say if they prevent them from holding demonstrations by putting police in the place to prevent them from doing so, and if they do not go, they will fine them.
When I mentioned that "they do not take a holiday," I was referring to the fact that public figures or individuals involved in activism and demonstrations often continue their work even during holidays. While holidays may serve as a rest for many people, those who are actively engaged in causes or movements may choose to use that time to further their objectives or raise awareness.
Regarding your point about preventing demonstrations and imposing fines, it's important to note that the ability to hold demonstrations and engage in peaceful protests is a fundamental right in many democratic societies. However, the specific regulations and restrictions on public gatherings, including demonstrations, can vary depending on the country and its laws.
While it's true that authorities may sometimes place restrictions on demonstrations for various reasons, such as concerns over public safety or disruption of daily activities, it's essential to strike a balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining social order. In some cases, permits or notifications may be required to organize a demonstration to ensure proper planning and coordination with authorities.
It's important for governments and law enforcement agencies to respect individuals' right to express their opinions peacefully, even if they disagree with the cause or message. Any measures taken to restrict demonstrations should be fair, reasonable, and in accordance with the laws and principles of the respective country.
If individuals choose not to participate in demonstrations or gatherings due to personal reasons or concerns about fines, that is their prerogative. People have the freedom to decide whether or not to engage in such activities, and it's crucial to respect their choices as long as they comply with the applicable laws and regulations.
I think it all comes down to personal beliefs and values . If you feel strongly about your position on this matter, then it's okay to respectfully decline any invites or skip out on attending celebrations altogether. However, if you're able to set aside any disagreements in the spirit of tradition and unity, then joining in on the fun could be an opportunity to learn more about your country's history and culture.
I agree because...people shouldn't be hypocrites and enjoy the comfort of the people they hate but so also everyone has the right to express themselves the protesters shouldn't have gone out on the main road and cause chaos for the king even if they disapproved of him, They should have shown him some respect rather a peaceful discussion should have stirred up for everyone to air their views and not such drastic measures. The video of the protesters wasn't showed on tv because of the aim of maintaining peace and reducing the spread of assumptions and the dirt on the royals name.
I agree because if they were granted a public holiday they could enjoy it rather than protest that because they would not receive much attention from the king and they can not give attention to the royal ceremony, just as the king did not give them his interest in expressing their opinions, and since the number of protesters is large, their absence will lead to the king’s questions and his feeling of lack of confidence
I agree with you, because if the people do not support the new king, they have the right not to join the celebration or to obtain a day off from the government, because these celebrations and breaks exist only because of the new king and those who support this king, and if there is someone who does not support the king, he has the right not to Participate in these celebrations and restrooms |
Certainly, individuals who do not support the new king have the right to choose whether or not to participate in the celebrations. Public holidays and breaks associated with the new king's accession are typically provided for those who support and acknowledge the significance of the event. However, it's important to note that public holidays are often intended to be inclusive and cater to the general population, regardless of their personal opinions. Ultimately, the decision on granting a day off or allowing participation may depend on government policies and the prevailing cultural norms of the country.
I totally agree with you because it could mean they are just having fun for someone they don't even support. This could also result in one of the two getting hurt by a protester so I believe that protesters were no where there during the event.
I agree with you this
However, I do not think that the idea of not giving those who do not want to celebrate the coronation of the king a holiday. Because everyone has the right to a vacation, so there may be someone who wants to go to celebrate the coronation of the new king of his town, but an circumstance came to him. Is he not entitled to a vacation? We should not judge people because we do not know what their goals or circumstances are
In my country (Gaza), the moment of selecting the new king is a really intense and powerful moment because it will express the strength and culture of this country, but I think that the government's policy is the reason behind the holiday and strike on the day this king is chosen.
I agree because... if someone is not in support of something then that person shouldn't join any celebration related to it. I also feel that the police should have a say to were the protestors protest during the coronation to prevent violence because those supporting the king might not be Happy with what the protestors say or do which could lead to violence.
I believe even if people do not support the new king they should be able to join the celebration or have the government given day off because they are still citizens of Great Britain. It does not matter if they do not support the new king because it is a part of their tradition of being from Great Britain so they should be able to celebrate this old tradition. I do not think it was right that the protesters were not televised during the event because it may be a time for celebration but the news should represent people and share citizens opinions even if they disagree. Freedom of speech is a right even if it's against the royal family. I know that police do have authority but the protesters should be able to express their opinion towards the monarchy and allow the new king what his citizens think about him. Freedom of speech is important and should not be taken even if people disagree about a topic.
Hello! Here are some simplified answers :
1. If people do not support the new king, it is up to them whether or not they want to join the celebrations or take the government-given day off. However, it's important to remember that sometimes people may have different beliefs and opinions and it's okay to respect those differences.
2. It is important for the media to show both sides of an event including protesters. Not televising protesters may give the impression that there was no opposition to the new king, which is not accurate. It's important for everyone's voice to be heard.
3. The police have a responsibility to ensure safety during protests, but they should not have control over where or how protesters express themselves. Peaceful protesting is a right, and it's important to respect that right while also ensuring safety for everyone involved.
This is a really interesting point. And I agree with you when you say that the protesters or those who reject the monarchy have the right to take a vacation or not, but when I thought about it, it came to my attention that this is a holiday for all the people and that all employees and professionals will be on vacation just like the Golden Week holiday in Japan. Wouldn't all shops and institutions be closed in memory of an occasion like this?! But the question that really puzzled me is what was the king's personal response to these protests?! Was he angry or sad or what? But more importantly, what will be the king's response to these protests?! Will he punish them, for example, and expel them from their jobs, or will he understand their opinion and remain silent, because the king's decision in this matter may pose a threat to his position and lead to the end of the ruling dynasty in Britain? so what do you think?!
It is important to understand that protests are a way for people to express their concerns and opinions on certain issues. They can be peaceful and respectful of others' rights, which is allowed in most societies. Celebration, on the other hand, is a way to show excitement and joy towards a significant event.
it is up to each individual to decide whether they want to join the celebrations or protests. It is always important to respect others' choices and opinions, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.
it's important to remember that everyone has the right to express their thoughts and feelings in a peaceful and respectful manner. If someone disagrees with the new king or any other decision, they can express their disagreement through peaceful protests, petitions, or other forms of activism. It's essential to respect different points of view and work towards finding common ground and solutions that benefit everyone.
After a lavish coronation ceremony, he began talking about the challenges facing King Charles
The coronation ceremony of King Charles III, the new king of Britain, ended with all the splendor and splendor that surrounded it, to start talking about the challenges and tasks that await the new king, in light of a changing world, and the new king will have to take on several tasks, including strengthening ties Among the components of the British nation, at a time when the economic crisis casts a shadow over the living conditions of a large segment of the British.
As for the biggest challenge for Charles III, it is represented in the question that many ask about the extent of the British monarchy’s ability to continue, at a time when a large segment of the British, especially among the youth, believes that the British monarchy does not offer the country much, in exchange for the privileges it receives.
The first attendance of non-Christians
In the context of talking about Charles’ endeavor, among the challenges he faces to strengthen the bonds between the components of the British nation, the new king’s decision came as a surprise, which is to allow non-Christians to attend his coronation ceremony, which was considered a departure from a tradition that dates back decades.
Observers believe that the new king, through his decision, sought to show the diversity of modern Britain, in which different religions and races live side by side, and to highlight the role he has always known, since he was crown prince, as a patron of all sects and religions in the country.
From an opinion, they should join the celebration so that an opinion is given so that everyone can see that there are opponents until the royal family in Britain reconsider its mistakes, and of course the role of the police is necessary because it is in maintaining the security of the roads and so that King Charles is not harmed because in the end King Charles is from the royal family and should not be insulted No matter how wrong.
Firstly I guess it really depends on their perspective. If they don't support the new king but still want to join in on the celebration, that's totally up to them . It's possible that they just want to participate in the festivities and enjoy themselves regardless of who's in charge.As long as they're not causing any harm or disrespecting others, I say go ahead and have a good time 🤷🏼♀️!
2 . The media often covers protests, but not always showcasing every group involved. While protests can be powerful and inspiring, they can also be disruptive and violent. Not televising some protesters may prevent unnecessary backlash and tension from escalating. It is important for the media to balance reporting on important issues while being mindful of potential consequences of their coverage. In my opinion not televising all aspects of a protest could be a smart decision .
I really like your comment trusting_ speech you have said that the media is not showcasing everything to avoid the destruction and violenice spreading due to the protest this is because the media is neutral and it doesn't support anything so it needs to show news which shows both the ones who are supporting the coronation and the ones who are not supporting the coronation but social media is different any person could post their own prospective of thinking and which idea they support so the issues in the coronation not been shown in the television is fine because anyway we are being known about the condition there with the help of social media.
If the people do not support the new king, is it right for them to join in the festivities or for the government to have given them a day off? In my opinion, the government should have given them a day off so that they do not stir up riots and problems and for the coronation ceremony to take place beautifully. As for the role of the police in the celebration in the face of the protest of the demonstrators, the police must not allow them to participate in the ceremony. Anyone who causes any problem should be imprisoned for a day or two only. And they prevent any of the demonstrators from entering the palace so that there will be no problems. As for me, I will join the celebration, because when I see the coronation of kings, I feel happy. I love to see the red carpet and the palaces decorated with mosaics. The view of the palace gives happiness and the coronation ceremony is more beautiful. This is my opinion.
With regard to all the questions, you are discussing one issue. If I do not support the royal family, I will not offend him, or go out to demonstrate, because I feel that the king will not care. Whenever he finds success, he finds opponents, and what the opponents did is inappropriate. I understand their hatred of the monarchy, but what they did was a waste of time, as long as nothing was issued. Something negative from the king, so there is no need for that matter, and this is what the media saw, but the failure to show it indicates that the king controls the media and that it is no longer a human right.
Police are responsible for keeping people safe during protests, but they should not have a say in where or how protesters protest. That is because everyone has the right to express their opinions and beliefs peacefully, as long as they do not hurt others or damage property. The police can provide guidance and ensure that laws are followed, but they cannot tell people what to think or say. It's important to respect everyone's rights and work together to create a peaceful and just society.
Although the protesters did not support the new king, I feel they should still be given the government-given day off to them. No matter their disagreements, that day off was meant for the subjects of his country. Whether they celebrated the coronation or not, the day off work was given for the celebration of King Charles III's coronation, not the people that celebrated.
I feel it is extremely right that the protesters were not televised. If they were, the ceremony wouldn't be thought more of a celebration as it should be, instead it would have been thought of as one-sided. It's like a birthday when the birthday boy gets embarrassed.
There are 67 million people approximately in the UK and only about 300 people were found protesting. This is very little compared to the over 67 million people that didn't. What reasons do they have to end a long-lasting tradition?
The Police are citizens too so their opinions should be heard especially on an occasion like this.
I would have joined in the celebration. The British coronation last took place in 1953, which was 70 years ago, this should tell you that a coronation is a very unique event. Many people lived a life without coming across such a historical moment and I am glad I was able to witness it take place.
This is an interesting point of view thank you for sharing. Although a small number of individuals were protesting it is a trend in the UK that support for the Monarchy is at an all time low with a study by National Centre for Social Research showing only 3 in 10 believing the Monarchy is "Very Important". These people may argue hereditary Monarchy is unfair and is not fit for a modern democracy, especially where such large amounts of money are spent on a ceremony during a global cost of living crisis where many struggle to heat their homes.
I agree that a ceremony is impressive and unique but is it fit for a modern democracy to have a hereditary royal family?
From my point of view, the rulers should not be from the same family (ruling is hereditary). It is possible that the first king of the state is unfair, unjust, ruthless, and does not care about the interest of his people only thinking about his own interest. It is certain that the son resembles his father because he used to see what his father was doing, and therefore this matter will be repeated with Son of son and the state will be in weaknessand collapse
breakdown
fall
avalanche
slump
plunge
ruin
smash
shower
split-up
But on the one hand, I agree that the rule should be hereditary. If the king is just and merciful, he thinks of the interest of his people first. I am sure that his son will resemble and the state will be in a state of strength and prosperity. Examples of him are Queen Elizabeth and her son, King Charles.
Great points, thanks for discussing!
having a royal family can provide a sense of continuity and stability to a country's culture and traditions. They can also serve as cultural ambassadors and promote tourism, which can have economic benefits for the country.
some argue that a hereditary royal family goes against the principles of a democratic society, where individuals are supposed to be treated equally regardless of birthright. The cost of maintaining a royal family and their associated ceremonial events can be significant and may not be justifiable in a time when resources are needed elsewhere.
Great points thank you for sharing!
If people do not support the King I believe they should not attend any carnations or be given a day off because if you don't support your king how do you expect your king to get the motivation to fix your country and promote peace in your country. Does not if someone does not support the King and they're enjoying the coronation they don't deserve sounds like backbiting to me I believe in every country in every situation you should always believe in your king, Queen, President or even governor to show appreciation for their work. Not supporting your king or queen means somehow you don't appreciate all the things they have done and it's really unfair I think we should all support each other no matter what stage we are in no matter what condition we are in we should always stand by each other believe in each other and support each other for a better living.
I am not from the United kingdom so I don't know much about king Charles but after watching his coordination I have learned the he is a nice person but if people would support him then he will bring lots of changes . But it people don't support the new king then it may result to conflict. I don't know much about royalty because they aren't any royal family in my country but maybe there might be some I don't know .
Thanks for commenting! How are you sure he is a nice person, what characteristics do you believe he has that will make him a good King?
I said this because how people gathered at his coronation and if he wasn't a nice person I don't think they would have attended his coronation and wouldn't celebrate the new king's coronation. As an addition to my write up king Charles is a good linguist and sensitive man of refined tastes.
1. It's up to each person to decide if they want to join in the celebrations or take the day off, even if they don't support the new king.
2. Everyone should have their voice heard, so it's not fair if protesters weren't shown on TV during the event.
3. The police have a duty to keep everyone safe, so they may need to make sure protesters are in a safe location and following the law.
I would have protested because the citizens of the country shows a lot of love for him which means that some might not obey the now king
Looking into the protesters not being televised during the event of the coronation and procession to the Buckingham Palace personally speaking it was wrong, they deserve to be heard world wide just like the whole event was televised. There perspectives and points of view deserved to be considered and not ignored. It is so sad that for expressing themselves some of them were arrested, doing my research I found out that at least 64 people were arrested and this is just disturbing because they should try and understand that people look at things from different perspectives and now not all the people are crazy about the royal family or the system of monarchy still practiced anymore and don't you think that instead of forcing them to accept everything that is happening you should try to persuade them and make them see reason with you instead? And seriously speaking I would have protested because I really do not see the relevancy of having royalty anymore . The question is what do they really do , do they just hold the titles or do they really have an impact in the administration of their country? Right now an estimated percentage of 44% say that the royal family isn't a good source of governance and guidance to people like them, while 41% say they are, with another 16% unsure. So in conclusion what happened in the course of everything was wrong.
There is no doubt that when you watch the coronation seasons for four hours, it is as if you are watching a historical series on Netflix. The traditions, the dress, the atmosphere, the charming orchestral music are all from the Middle Ages, but this luxury and grandeur in the absence of Princess Diana of the masses does not mean anything, just as the cost of these traditions if they were put in the pockets of disadvantaged citizens It would have been better, as I feel it is the treasures and jewels of wars, colonialism and plundering of peoples. With regard to the first question, I believe that they have the right to express their opinion, but away from the atmosphere of celebration so as not to impede the movement of their march and that there is no chaos, but I believe that the government has the right to give a day off and everyone must adhere to respect for their government and whoever does not agree can express his opinion in peaceful ways. For the second question, I see that the media should be transparent and impartial, and not be under the authority of the king, so they must report the events, whether they agree or reject the situation, and also when they cover up the event, thus they robbed the right to express an opinion, which is considered one of the important rights in our daily lives, and which we must show. In order to understand and know the opinions of others, as for the third question, the police must be present in the place to maintain security and protect people, and if they are not present, chaos and problems will prevail. In the end As for the last question, I was going to protest because this is a waste of money and reminding people of the era of wars and colonization.
Yes, I think that it is not necessary for people to celebrate the coronation ceremony, because some people do not want this king, so people do not want this governmental holiday, because there is a worker who wants to finish his work, and there are those who are looking for food for their children who do not like forcing people to come to the coronation ceremony and celebrate it. Regardless, some people are ready to go to this party, they want to have fun, but some people don't. I know that they made this holiday to allow all people to participate in this ceremony, but this is all up to people and people's opinion.
In my opinion, I believe that the people who don't believe in the King should relax at their homes, enjoying the government's given day off. But it was wrong that they weren't televised which violated their freedom of expression and speech because the monarchy should know the feelings and the opinions that the citizens of their country have for them. News channels not telecast the protestors could have turned it violent but the press may be saved the day. It could have lost the trust of the citizens and rumors could have been spread of the Monarchy and the Government controlling the press and the media. This case could have also affected the workers striking in the UK due to losing trust in the Government and the working conditions further destabilizing the economy and the working conditions. Not only in the citizens of the UK could have lost trust in the Monarchy, but the commonwealth and the territories of the UK too. The police should have had a say in these matters if it could have turned violent but in this case, it was unnecessary as it infringes on the protestor's rights. But the police's deployment on the scene was safe as it ensured the life of the King. I would have joined the celebrations but not protested even though I would have disagreed because I wouldn't have wasted other people's time who would have liked to enjoy the Coronation.
Hello! I understand your concern about the recent events surrounding the King's holiday and the lack of televised coverage for those who don't believe in the monarchy. I am happy to provide an explanation.
Firstly, every individual has the right to express their opinions and beliefs freely. This freedom is guaranteed by the law, and nobody has the right to interfere or prevent it from happening. Therefore, those who don't believe in the monarchy should be allowed to express their views without any fears or intimidation.
However, when it comes to the King's holiday, it is a public holiday that is recognized and celebrated by most citizens. Regardless of personal beliefs or opinions, it's essential to respect the national culture and traditions of our country. Therefore, it is understandable that people who don't believe in the monarchy may not want to participate actively in the celebrations. They may choose to stay at home and enjoy the day off as they wish.
Nevertheless, the lack of televised coverage for these individuals' opinions regarding the monarchy can indeed feel like a violation of freedom of expression. The monarchy needs to know how its citizens feel about them to improve governance and serve them better. It's crucial to listen to different voices, including those who may not agree with the established system.
it's essential to respect everyone's right to express their beliefs and opinions freely, even if they differ from ours. At the same time, we need to appreciate and celebrate our national culture and tradition while ensuring that everyone's voice is heard. This way, we can promote diversity and inclusivity in our society and build a better future for all.
Hello there! It's important to understand that in every country, there is a leader who holds the highest position. In some countries, the leader is called a president, while in others, they are called a king or queen.
Now, imagine you live in a country where there is a king. Some people might not agree with the king or believe in him. That's okay because everyone has the right to their own opinion.
But what happened recently is that those people who don't believe in the king were not shown on TV during a special day off that the government gave to celebrate the king. This is not fair because everyone should be able to express themselves and share their opinions without fear of punishment.
In other words, the government should show the feelings and opinions of all citizens, including those who don't support the king. Everyone has the right to speak out and be heard.
So, let's remember that it's okay to have different opinions, but we should treat everyone with respect and listen to what they have to say.
I agree with you @ poetic_theory, because all has the right to freedom of speech and opinion and everyone’s opinions should be considered , yes we all know that protest is not always the right manner of taking care of things but even still the people should have being televised, to also show that what they all say is important and they are considered. Those who didn’t want King Charles III as their leader they have their reasons, because he is going to rule them if they don’t speak up about what they want now they might never be able to after his coronation, because then he is their king and his say and order is final . So I feel like everyone’s opinions are important and are meant to be considered.
Charles III was officially declared king in Britain during a historic ceremony at St James's Palace in London.🤴
There are some people who refused to crown Charles their king. If they rejected Charles as their king then why did they go to his coronation?
And if they don't want him to belong to them, then how do they go to his parties?
In fact, for me, whoever refuses to support the new king should not attend his celebrations, his coronation ceremony, or any occasion he creates.
As for me, they must support the king and keep up with him, because he will be the king of their state, and if they need any help or financial support, then of course they will resort to the king
And choosing the king is not one of their decisions, it is one of the decisions of the royal family. Also, the people of the kingdom must show their opinions about the king, but they may have made a mistake in rejecting Charles as their king.
I disagree with you.
To answer your question about why the people went to the coronation despite rejecting the king, it's because most people in the UK have never seen a coronation.He is the first king after the 2nd longest reigning monarch,THAT IS A HUGE THING!
Also the Royal Family does not have that much power in the UK at the moment,the government has more power.The King only signs laws out of formality,they can't make any without the government debating about whether it is good for the country or not first.
Thank you for reading!
I believe the protesters shouldn't have done that, and I don't support them. But I personally, do not care about the Royal Family because they do absolutely nothing for the country. All they do is represent it. I think the Royal Family should ultimately stop.
Do you think there is another way for people's voices to be heard about the King other than protesting?
Yes I think there is another way for their voices to be heard about the king other than protesting:
1. Talk to your leaders:
One approach is telling government officials what you think about public policies and services. Ordinary people can do this many different ways.
You can write letters to your local paper, serve on task forces, email elected representatives or provide input on proposed new policies.
You can also speak up at public events like school board and county board meetings. In some cases, this feedback can make a real difference be heard other than protesting .
2. Partner with the authorities:
Another approach is to get involved at the grassroots level by helping local governments and nonprofits solve problems.
3. DIY nonprofit:
A third alternative is to join a nonprofit board or even start your own organization.
This is what I think can be done other than protesting for people's voices to be heard about the king.
In m opinion, I would actually say yes although for the protestors, that was the only way their voice could be heard.
So, according to my recent researches, there are actually other things/means that could be used to protest or in place to a protest. For examples;
1.Social Environment Considered the most influential factor in determining public opinion is the person’s social environment: family, friends, workplace, church, or school.
2.Media The media—newspapers, television and radio, news and opinion websites, and social media—tend to affirm already established public attitudes and opinions.
3.Interest Groups
4.Opinion Leaders
5.Other Influences and so on and so fort
Thank You.
Although I understand where/the aspect in which you are coming from but don't you think you are being a little bit harsh. Okay right, I understand that what you are saying is actually the truth and how you feel about the situation but yet that isn't so nice considering you come from the United Kingdom.
In my own opinion, I would actually also say that the protestors did what they did to express themselves since at least, they had the right to do so as long as they didn't violate individuals' property or break the country's rule/constitution.
"Several anti-monarchy protestors have been arrested in central London due to their violent manner in which they protested" So now, my question really is..... Was their protest really worth it though? If yes, What was really done after their protest because either ways, the king was still crowned and the coronation still carried on effectively.
I disagree because I believe that the protesters should be able to state their opinion,as long as they don't participate in any violent actions that may be harmful to themselves or other people it should be okay.However I do agree with your point about the Royal Family,they mostly do charity work and yet they still live in lavish houses.
I believe the way people protested was understandable and it is a human right to say your opinion as long as their is no violence involved and that they do it in an organised and right manner.These people might feel this way as they haven't had a new monarch in along time and that they may feel worried.It will also take a long to adjust and get used to the new king.They also may not trust him because King Charles has a history of not being loyal to important people in his life.For example,when he betrayed the love he had for Camilla to marry Diana and he then betrayed Diana to carry on an affair with Camilla.
Exactly as you say...
Sometimes personal life can give an impression of public behaviour
I see that no human being can change his attributes in a place and in a nother place he do not .
And here we always say that a person who is good in his home is good on the outside, which means that it is impossible for you to be one face on the outside and another on the inside.
Every person has a specific personality, and the king's doing this, of course, will give a very bad impression.
Also, we are now in the year 2023, in which our slogans have always said freedom, equality, social justice, and also democracy
Isn't democracy part of equality?
I am of the opinion that the system of government must be changed, since the United Kingdom has never known the democratic system, so it must start a new era based on democracy and equality, where all people can participate and consider themselves part of this country and they choose a good president who manages the rule of this country well and takes care of its affairs.
The protesters can be having so many reasons of the protest that occured during the king 's coronation changes should be made in the country, another point is that it will be hard for the citizens to accept the new king after they lost the Queen, this may cause conflicts among those who love the king and those who hate him. It wouldn't be good for the protesters not to be televised ,everyone should be there to express their opinions all citizens should be should because it may cause more harm to the royals for another protest. Yes, they have a duty to perform to secure security during a big event for the king but treating all people equally
I believe that it mostly relies on their thoughts and beliefs. It is up to the individual whether they choose to participate in the celebration or government holiday if they do not support the king. It is important to appreciate their beliefs because they are not harming anyone or causing any negativity. In addition, failing to broadcast protests can create the idea that the monarch is not facing opposition from anyone. Whether there is agreement or disagreement, both sides of the story should be covered by the media. Finally, police involvement during a protest should solely be limited to guaranteeing everyone's safety and preventing any harm. The protestors themselves should decide where and how the protest is held.
I like these ideas, you have clearly thought about the importance of protest whilst considering the potential safety implications. Some other people on this thread disagree with the right to protest, what would you say to convince them of its importance!
First: It is good that the day off given to the whole of the British Kingdom be used to express refusal to crown the new king, although I am not in favor of those who object to joining these celebrations in absolute terms because of their negative effects as a result of their presence next to the celebrants on the one hand.
On the other hand, it is a contradiction to act with the real convictions of the objectors in this situation.
Second: I believe that British television and official channels did not broadcast the protests of the protesters, and this is a kind of bias and does not give opportunities to everyone with justice.
Third: Of course, British law guarantees freedom of expression and protest, but in a way that guarantees the preservation of public security, smooth traffic in the streets, non-disruption, and non-friction between supporters and opponents, and here comes the role of the British police in controlling these issues.
Putting and defining a place for the protest without using violence and its methods.
Fourth: As for whether I was given the opportunity to participate in the celebrations, or to participate with those who oppose them? I would certainly take advantage of the historical opportunity and this important historical meeting and event that will not happen again except in many years.
I think that this differs from one point of view to another. For example, if they do not support Charles being their king, but they wish to be present at the ceremony, something is up to them. But if I reject the king, I will not be present at his party to prove my refusal and protest against the coronation of the king.
If I were a citizen of their country and supported the king, I would participate in the celebrations and have the government day off. this will be my right.
Regarding the presence of protesters and their not appearing on television, this shows me two things: One of them is that the King did not prevent them from expressing their opinion, but rather allowed peaceful protests. The other is that the king is wise so that their disunity does not appear in front of everyone and so that the majority feels safe and comfortable. It is natural that not everyone agrees on one leader or one king. There is always an opposition group..
But my question is, what if I were the king, what would be my next step?
I think I will meet with the leader of the opposition and understand the reason for their protest and try to reach a point of understanding between us in order to unite my people and work for the advancement of my country.
Hi, I see that if they want to participate, they should show respect to the king or whoever he is. They are not entitled to demonstrate in this way, but they can express their opinion and demonstrate in a peaceful, informed and safe manner.
I also think that the police should not deal with them to stop the protest, as this will lead to the people's hatred of the king and will also lead to their protest at a later time.
The more unequal a society becomes, the more oppressive its laws must be. This, I think, explains new acts that would not be out of place in a police state. I feel like the police has authority over us and they can use their military authority with the use of coercion on how or where protesters protest during coronations.
For me If I was there I would have joined the celebration because it is a monarchy system of government and nobody has a say about it so all we need to do is to support them and celebrate because even if you don't protest it wouldn't have changed anything because when King Charles the III is no more his child will be the one to rule so are we going to continue like that? No we just have to embrace it and support them.
Hi Tenacious_Drum - there's been a lot of attention on police action during the coronation. Can you give an example of where people thought that they overstepped their authority?
I believe that the people are protesting that he is not my king aren't suppose to say that because he may be a good
king he doesn't deserve this type of treatment this may even lead to conflict or violence which may take some to
jail for the conflict but they don't deserve to be in jail. what if now you are king Charles and people are saying
that you are not my king how would you feel like you should leave the country or treat them badly right
now how would you feel.
I believe that it is right for people who do not support the new king to join the celebrations and have the government given day off because despite them not liking the new king,it is still an important moment in British history.King Charles III is the first king after the second longest reigning monarch in the world.It is a momentary event.On top of that many in England have not seen a coronation in their life time and it is very special.
I think it was wrong that the protesters were not televised during the event because then the royal family and the news stations are just ignoring the problem and when you ignore a problem it just gets bigger.Televising the protesters or not televising them would not really change anything.If the royal family and government address the protests then that will make many protesters think that they were heard.
I believe that the police should have a say in where and how protesters protested during the coronation because it's the police forces' job to keep us safe and if they don't have any control over situations people could get hurt.For example if many big and unorganised crowds gather to protest the king there are going to be people in the midst of the crowd that can fall and get stepped on.
Some great points here, I like that you feel the King should address the protestors. I would also like to see this!
It is interesting that you feel police forces should have a say in where and how protestors protested. The issue I would have with this is how do they chose when to intervene, especially as the Police are supposed to remain politically neutral. Do you have some ideas on how they can balance protecting people whilst defending the right to protest/express opinions?
Thank you!
I think that police should intervene if there is damage done to the city,to people or to the new king.Police would not be shutting down the protest straight away and they would have a fair reason as to why they did it without any back-lash from the public.Like I have said before in the comment above people understand that it is the police forces' jobs to keep us safe,I doubt many people would criticise the police if they knew that the police only intervened to make sure we were okay.
Police can ward off areas where the protestors will protest so that they will have a space specific to them so that no civilian will get caught up in the big crowd.
Thanks some good ideas! Some people on this thread believe people should not protest, can you reply to another individual and debate your opinion!
If people do not support the new king I believe it is right for them to join celebrations, because one form of this support can be financially. Many people cannot afford financial support and any celebrations should be inclusive for all the people. I believe protesters should not be televised during the event because the coronation was something special for the new king and queen and the spotlight should not be taken off of them. But I will say that police should have a say about the whereabouts and means of protesting that protesters do if they are violently protesting. If they are peacefully protesting and not causing a big scene, then police should have no say in the matter.
In my opinion the people who were protesting they shouldn't be allowed to join in the celebrations as they were going against the newly crowned king, but it is not right form the media to not have them shown on the television as many people wouldn't even know that people were protesting. To answer the 3rd part of the question I think it really depends where they are protesting, if they are protesting near the king then the police should have a say in it, but if they are protesting after the coronation then the police shouldn't have a say in it. Personally I think that it is great that we have a royal family as it shows us how are traditions have passed from one to another and the royal family also earns a lot of money through tourism as many, many people came to watch the kings journey.
Well whether or not they support the new king or not, they are still citizens of the United States and they are still entitled to certain rights and liberties which includes the right to freedom of expression. They have the right to have their own opinions about a matter and i do not think it is quite fair that they were not televised and their posters were taken down. Not everyone will always agree with what happens, but they still have the right to be heard. I do not think the police had the right to direct the protestors. They have their own freedom of speech. The only time when police intervention would be alright was if the protests got violent. But if people do not support the new king then they might as well not participate in any of the celebrations. If they do not accept the new king then they should show it by not participating in any of the celebrations. People always have different opinions, that does not mean that people with contrasting opinions should be cut off or ignored.
I say If all the people do not like or support the new king, I think it is not necessary for them to join parties or have one day off. As for parties and restrooms, there are only because of the new king. Also, when there is no one to support the new king, this indicates that the events he enjoys are never worth it. Also, I think it is not necessary to show some of the demonstrators on social media, because that too will make the people celebrating very frustrated. Also, this could lead to severe conflict between the two groups. 💗💗
It seems that the coronation of King Charles III was a major event in the United Kingdom. However, individuals differ in their opinions on the matter of the royal family's existence.King Charles III is the current monarch of the United Kingdom. Born November 14, 1948, he is the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
I see that most here agree that the objectors are not entitled to take a vacation from the government, but I see that in a completely different way...
I think they should take a vacation if they are so that they can protest and sit-in during the coronation.
For example:
People who support King Charles III took an extra day off work to celebrate
(Do opponents have the right to protest?...)
Therefore, the demonstrators must take a vacation to protest so that they can express their opinions and prove their presence.
If there is no one protesting the existence of a king, then how will we know that there are those who do not agree on the existence of a royal family, and that there are those who do not support the king, and how will they prove their existence?
I am sure that there should be a leave for both parties, and that just as some people have the right to celebrate, others also have the right to protest.
you know what When I thought about this question, whether those who do not want the monarchy should attend the coronation ceremony, I felt that if this point was implemented, Britain would become similar to North Korea because the people there are forced to attend these events, meaning that if this situation had happened in North Korea, it would not have happened. Nobody could do anything. But I still believe that the protesters should have respected this occasion and respected the opinion of the royal family and respected their cultures, and that if we imagine that the monarchy in Britain has been ended, what will happen to the royal family?! Wouldn't it be humiliating for someone who has been accustomed throughout his life to royal and luxurious life to be in a semi-destroyed house or to be in extreme poverty?!! what do you think? And what do you think?!
I think that we should not judge things from what they seem, as we all saw the coronation ceremony of King Charles, but we overlooked an important point, which is the tasks that await the new king, such as: strengthening the ties between the components of the British nation. But the biggest challenge for King Charles remains: How long will the British monarchy last? Also, as mentioned above, young people in Britain see that the British monarchy does not give much to the country as it takes a lot, and this is the reason for the protests, but I believe that everyone has a reason for their existence and that this world needs everyone, and I also learned that there will be people who need you in their lives and the same applies On the royal family, as these young men said, the royal family is not important in society, but I believe that there is importance to the existence of all people. And who knows?!
I think if they don't want him to be the king then they should not have the day off as that is for him and if they don't want him to be king they should not have the day off.
If some people do not support the king I don't think that they should attend the events of his coronation even if it is tradition. I feel that is was right for the protesters to not be televised because I feel they should be kept unnamed since they don't agree with the new coronation of the king. I think the police should have had a say how the protesters protested against the coronation so they could say "Hey stop that, that's not good for our new king" Or something around that so they could stop the protesting against King Charles.
The question of whether people who do not support the new king should join the celebrations or have a government-given day off is subjective and depends on the specific circumstances and cultural norms of a country. In some cases, it may be seen as a unifying gesture to include all citizens in national celebrations, regardless of their personal views. In other cases, it may be considered more appropriate to offer alternative activities or options for those who do not wish to participate.
Regarding the decision not to televise the protesters during the event, media coverage decisions are typically made by media outlets based on their editorial policies and considerations. Different media organizations may have varying approaches to coverage, aiming to present a balanced view, capture the overall atmosphere of the event, or focus on specific aspects. It is ultimately the responsibility of journalists and media professionals to determine how events are reported and what content is shared with the public. As for the involvement of the police in determining the location or manner of protests during the coronation, this would depend on the laws and regulations of the specific country. In some cases, police may work with protesters to ensure peaceful demonstrations and the safety of all involved. However, it is also important to respect the rights of individuals to express their opinions and assemble peacefully within the boundaries of the law.
It's worth noting that the specifics of these questions can vary significantly depending on the country, its traditions, laws, and the particular circumstances surrounding the event.
i bishan hadha almawdue
People who do not agree with the new king, from my point of view, should not be present at the coronation, because they should respect others and not sabotage the ceremony, but they have the right to the holiday like others, because in the end they are ordinary people with their own wicked opinions and they should not be punished because their opinion is different and also so that the state is not biased to a party Another party complained, and for the existence of equality and justice, and of course, the condition must be the main organizer of the coronation, and for those who differ in opinion not to enter, so as not to sabotage the ceremony. What is happening in terms of demonstrations and activities during the coronation ..... This is my point of view on this subject
As it is a government mandated holiday, everyone should have access to it whether you support the king or not. It isn't right that the protestors weren't televised, as they have a right to having their voice being heard, as well as their opinions. Police should've had a say where or how they demonstrated, because without them, it may have devolved into chaos and instability.
To me , I hate monarchies . I won't share in the celebrations of the coronation. Police and TV want to show the world that everyone agrees to have the new king . It is not fair . Britain is a modern country and the stereotype idea is that the leaders can deal in a good way with those who protest against the monarchy . But, the video I saw above really astonishes me . It's my right to say " no" .
If there are demonstrators who do not want the king to be crowned, they should not be stopped. They must listen to their opinions, why do they not want to, especially the king. He must show himself to them from the beginning and show them that he is able to provide all their needs and not leave their opinions without listening to them, and this basically makes them love the king.
And they had to do that before the party so as not to spoil the party, as we saw in the attached video above, and it is only natural that the police, after allowing this to be published, because this leads to disrupting the party and disturbing other people’s opinions
I personally think that the protests should not be televised during the coronation. The coronation of King Charles III is an important event for the entirety of England. By televising the protests against King Charles III to the public, it may ruin the experience and ultimately cause conflict to arise between supporters and protesters which can pose a problem. However, I do understand that everyone should have the right to voice out their opinions, so perhaps protesters can take alternative ways for them to express their opinions.
Personally, I like the idea of looking up to a King or Queen that shows power. Also, it can mean something for example Queen Elizabeths jubilee meant lots to the UK as a whole.
On the other hand, they don't really do much now as they just accept most things the government say. After seeing the coronation I think it is a bit disguisting as they have spent lots of taxpayers money on it when it could go to the country.
Well, as the press, you are to be transparent in all your dealings because what ever you pass across in your coverage or report is what people around the world will believe so therefore, the fact that they only covered the supporters of the coronation simply passes a message all over the world that everyone that came out on that day was in full support of the coronation and that is a lie. England practices a democratic system of government and in democracy majority have the rule but the minority must have a "SAY". Those people may have been the minority but they deserve to be heard and the press not covering their protest violates their right. If not for that fellow that took coverage of the protest that went viral, the world would have been believing a lie. The thing is, I personally don't feel it was fair to have neglected those protesters.
I believe that if you don't support the new king, then you should not take part in the celebrations. However, the government-given days off cannot really be changed by those who are against the king.If they work in an organisation where the boss calls a day off because of the coronation, would you expect them to not listen? No. These people can't help having the government-given day off. I also believe that protesters should be able to express their views and beliefs of the new King and monarchy system. Every human being should be able to speak out and have their say. Of course, as long as there are no violent or harmful acts involved and no profanities or rude things are mentioned in the process. The royals are human beings, after all. Human beings who just happen to be born into an insanely wealthy family tree.
* I believe that the best way to combat nepotism is to allow only one person from the family to work in industry, and the rest of the people to work in other fields such as trade, sales, etc... Thus, we strike with an iron hand on corruption and the corrupt. If we do not eliminate nepotism over a short period of time, it will spread And we remain in the last ranks, walking behind the people in every field, so if a person loses the sincerity of his conscience and his religion, then he is not a human being. I see nothing in this time and in this country except the implementation of nepotism and the weakness of religious scruples.