Coronation day arrests transform the profile of UK republicans

Before the coronation of King Charles III, the leader of the UK’s republican campaign group, Graham Smith, had rarely featured beyond the fringes of the media.

But as is often the way when free speech comes under threat, his arrest ahead of Saturday’s ceremony and detention during festivities — along with seven other members of Republic — has propelled Smith into the headlines. The incident has also led to him being invited to speak to MPs in parliament next week about his experience at the hands of police.

“We have gone from being a campaign group that was hardly known about to a household name,” said Smith, adding that paid membership had grown by thousands in a week and crowdfunding had surged.

He argued that a softer approach to the demonstration Republic had organised with initial consent from London’s Metropolitan Police might have been more successful in blunting their effect.

“If, for example, [the King] had sent his own staff down with coffee and biscuits, we would have found that very difficult,” said Smith.

Support for abolishing the monarchy remains a minority cause in Britain, with the most recent polls suggesting one-quarter of people identify as republican, up from one-fifth a year ago.

But the near taboo that existed around the cause during much of the 70-year reign of Queen Elizabeth has eroded, and the number of people who believe preserving the monarchy “is very important” has slipped to a 40-year low of 29 per cent, according to the National Centre for Social Research.

Political analysts attribute the decline partly to timing: the backdrop of scandal and enmity within the royal family, and the succession of a King who has yet to win the same degree of public affection as his mother.

But controversy over the cost and pomp of the coronation and a ham-fisted effort to get the public to swear allegiance to King Charles have further opened up the debate. The arrests, for which the Met has since apologised, have meanwhile given the republican movement an unintended boost.

“It has opened up a space for discussion that probably wasn’t there before — whether that’s to do with Republic or the high-camp ridiculousness of the ceremony,” said Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary university of London.

Speaking about the grounds on which the police detained him, using a new public order law rushed into effect last week, Smith said: “There is a whole new side to the campaign now that we have had this injustice meted on us. We are not just this group of people campaigning on a niche issue. We are central to much wider debates about the constitution and our rights.”

While no one is predicting the imminent demise of the monarchy, recent polling shows its most ardent supporters are ageing. Meanwhile, Bale said, the fact that a plurality of young people are now opposed, gives pause for thought on how long the institution can command consent.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

“The age gradient is incredibly steep when you look at those surveys. If you were a member of the royal family, you would be worried if your most loyal subjects shuffled off this mortal coil and were replaced by a load of young people who either don’t give a damn or are actively hostile,” he said.

This is particularly the case according to Sir John Curtice, a respected polling expert, because while in the past people have tended to change their minds as they aged, today’s younger people are markedly more against the monarchy than 20 years ago. “The baseline has shifted,” he said.

Royalists now face a challenge, Curtice added, if they want to stop the debate moving from the relative margins to a place where the BBC as national broadcaster feels the need to represent republican voices regularly to be fair.

“The monarchy is going to have to continue to demonstrate its value and relevance,” he said.

All eyes are now on King Charles, and whether his purported desire to modernise the institution translates into tangible change.

“If he reforms it in a careful and sophisticated way, the monarchy could survive a long time,” said Norman Baker, the former Liberal Democrat minister who has written extensively on royal finances. “If he sticks to not paying taxes, taking helicopters and private jets, and holds on to [outdated] ceremony, it will be dangerous.”

Nick Barber, professor of constitutional law at Oxford university, said there should at least be some agreement now on the need for more open conversation about what might come next, underscored by last week’s events.

He said he did not foresee any near-term change but that when change did come, it might do so in a hurry “during a constitutional crisis or scandal”.

“In one sense that will be very difficult,” he said, pointing to likely disagreement over what kind of head of state might replace the King.

“It could also be simple. We are always told the monarch doesn’t play a big and active role in the constitution, and to the extent that is true, it isn’t a role you have to rush to fill,” he added, noting that the Speaker of the House of Commons could fulfil some functions, such as dissolving parliament.

Barber also regretted the way Saturday’s demonstration was handled.

“Obviously none of us knows what the King thinks,” he said. “But I suspect he would have gone for the tea and biscuits line. It’s something we should be proud of that during a coronation there is scope for protest.”