Corrigé text about the monarchy pp.

10-11

1) What is the nature of the text? Is it a reliable source? Is it an objective source?

> Editorial = article voices the opinion of the editorial board of The Guardian. Reliable
source (broadsheet + figures taken from polls conducted recently) but biased: it clearly
criticises the monarchy and in particular the upcoming coronation.

2) What was the political, economic and social context in which the article was
published?
> Very recent article = in the wake of Queen Elizabeth II’s death last September + Charles
III succeeded her on the throne (not the same popularity as his late mother). The
Queen’s death + recent controversies linked to the monarchy (in particular, Megxit)
raised questions about the monarchy and whether or not it should be reformed.
Upcoming coronation (May 2023).
> Social and economic crisis, prompted by inflation (rising energy costs in particular) +
NHS crisis (last of public investments in social services for a number of years) > people
struggling to make ends meet + important strikes and demonstrations. Conservative
government trying to silence opposition (new anti-strike law has just been presented to
parliament).

3) Based on your knowledge of the course and your understanding of the article,
outline the monarch’s main duties (in your own words).
> Monarch = head of Church (the monarch is “supreme governor of the Church of
England”) + head of the military (ref to the British army, par. 9) + head of the
Commonwealth (= deeply rooted in Britain’s imperial history, ref par. 9).
> Reference to the “hereditary peerage” = as the monarch has the power to grant
honours and titles of nobility.
> The King is a public servant = reference to the oath he has to take to serve the nation >
he can advise the PM, in particular every week during his private audience with him at
Buckingham.

4) Summarise the journalists’ main arguments in a few sentences. In particular,

what is the rhetorical strategy and what are the arguments used to show that the
British monarchy might be outdated?
> The journalists are quite critical of the monarchy, and in particular of the upcoming
coronation. Revealing headline: “all change please” (= direct address to the monarchy,
calling for reform!).
> Start by providing some context (Queen’s death) + the importance of what the Queen’s
death meant for the country = “the end of an era”.
> However, they argue that the “post-Elizabeth” era has not been defined yet, although it
is time to reflect upon the role of the monarch in the contemporary era, especially as
there is rising opposition to the monarchy (ex: only 2/3 of the pop supports having a
hereditary monarch + reference to “republican feeling” + controversies brought about
by Harry and Meghan’s denunciation of the monarchy’s limits).
> To highlight the idea that monarchy is outdated, the journalists keep alternating
between the 1950s, when Elizabeth II was crowned, and the 2020s, to suggest that some
reform is needed (ex: references to the cost-of-living crisis to underline the absurdity of
having a very expensive coronation in a few months; references to the imperial or
military power that the UK used to be). The journalists also suggest that the coronation
might be useless (and should be abolished?), by comparing the British monarchy with
other European monarchies, that do not organise similar coronation ceremonies.
Insistence on the links between the monarchy and the Anglican church = suggesting that
the monarchy might not be fit for the 21 st century, when religion no longer has such an
important place in society. Ref to the “hereditary peerage” > largely abolished by Blair’s
House of Lords Act. The last argument, of course, is the cost of the institution, in
particular of the coronation ceremony (paid by public money = “Treasury”).
> Use of irony = rhetorical questions (ex: “what is the point of if?”) to highlight the
absurdity of having a coronation in 2023.
> However, the journalists do not seem to be advocating for abolishing Britain’s
parliamentary monarchy; they are rather advocating reform.

5) Do you agree with the journalists that the organisation of Charles’ coronation
should “come out of the closet of secrecy and be shared and debated” (last
paragraph)? Justify your answer.
> Yes: coronation paid by public money (taxes!) = citizens should be allowed to debate
over the role of the ceremony and how much it will cost. Cf. last sentence “it’s about us
too” (use of the pronoun “us”).
> Legitimacy / popularity of Charles in comparison with his mother = very old King
(reference to his age in the text) + not the same respect for him > this might call for a
reflection upon the role of a monarch in the contemporary era.