That headline isn’t mine. Rather, it was the name of a paper written by my father Michael Young and his colleague Edward Shills in 1953 about the Coronation of HRH Elizabeth II and published in an academic journal called Sociological Review. You can download it here – it’s terrific. Drawing on the work of Emile Durkheim, they argue that the Coronation was an affirmation of the moral values by which our society lives – an act of national communion. They summarise their hypothesis as follows:
A society is held together by its internal agreement about the sacredness of certain fundamental moral standards. In an inchoate, dimply perceived, and seldom explicit manner, the central author of an orderly society, whether it be secular or ecclesiastical, is acknowledged to be the avenue of communication with the realm of the sacred values. Within its society, popular constitutional monarchy enjoys almost universal recognition in this capacity, and it is therefore enabled to heighten the moral and civil sensibility of the society and to permeate it with symbols of those values to which the sensitivity responds. Intermittent rituals bring the society or varying sectors of it repeatedly into contact with this vessel of the sacred values. The Coronation provided at one time and for practically the entire society such an intensive contact with the sacred that we believe we are justified in interpreting it as we have done in this essay, as a great act of national communion.
Is that also true of the Coronation we witnessed today? The sacred symbols were all there – the Coronation Chair, commissioned by Edward I; the orb; the imperial state crown that includes a ruby Henry V wore at the Battle of Agincourt. But for the people watching it on television, did it feel as if they were making contact with a realm of sacred values? Did the ceremony embody the fundamental moral standards that characterise British society? Was it an act of national communion?
It is tempting to answer ‘no’ because the whole affair was so deeply rooted in Christianity, from the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the blasts of choral music, and we are a post-Christian society. A lot of the the commentary – I flitted back and forth between the BBC and GB News – focused on the way in which this Coronation ceremony had been updated compared with the last one, with peers representing the different faiths, a female bishop taking part, the address by our Hindu Prime Minister, etc. But the most striking thing about it was how little had changed since 1953. I kept an eye out for the intrusion of ‘woke’ elements, but I was disappointed – or, rather, pleasantly surprised. In essence, Charles’s kingly authority was conferred on him by God, as was explicit in the most mystical part of the ceremony when he was anointed with holy water standing behind a screen in his shirtsleeves. What sacred meaning could that possibly have for people who don’t believe in God?
But I think that’s based on a superficial understanding of the meaning of the ceremony. Shills and Young also describe the Britain of 1953 as a ‘post-Christian’ society and while there were many more church-goers back then, how many of them understood all the Christian elements in the Coronation? Indeed, the fact that much of it was incomprehensible – then, as now, many parts of the ceremony seemed completely bizarre, like the placing of a rod into the hands of the monarch – is part of what makes it so quintessentially British. That dimension of it was captured nicely by the Australian rock star Nick Cave, who was in attendance today. In his blog a few days ago, he included his response to various tetchy emails he’d received asking him why he was bothering to go:
I once met the late Queen at an event at Buckingham Palace for ‘Aspirational Australians living in the U.K.’ (or something like that). It was a mostly awkward affair, but the Queen herself, dressed in a salmon coloured twin-set, seemed almost extraterrestrial and was the most charismatic woman I have ever met. Maybe it was the lighting, but she actually glowed. As I told my mother – who was the same age as the Queen and, like the Queen, died in her nineties – about that day, her old eyes filled with tears. When I watched the Queen’s funeral on the television last year I found, to my bafflement, that I was weeping myself as the coffin was stripped of the crown, orb and sceptre and lowered through the floor of St. George’s Chapel. I guess what I am trying to say is that, beyond the interminable but necessary debates about the abolition of the monarchy, I hold an inexplicable emotional attachment to the Royals – the strangeness of them, the deeply eccentric nature of the whole affair that so perfectly reflects the unique weirdness of Britain itself. I’m just drawn to that kind of thing – the bizarre, the uncanny, the stupefyingly spectacular, the awe-inspiring.
So, that is part of its meaning – for many, the Coronation embodied the uniqueness of our country. Not an affirmation of our sacred values, perhaps, but a celebration of our eccentricity, our oddness. Some people dislike the Royal Family and point to its vast wealth, as well as the cost of staging events like this (£250 million). Couldn’t that money be better spent helping the disadvantaged? But most Britons have a strong attachment to the monarchy and I suspect that’s partly because no other country can put on a show like this. For better or worse, this is what we’re famous for, this is why millions of tourists come to Britain every year to see the Royal Palaces and hope to catch a glimpse of the occupants.
There’s also the fact that the Royals are a family, something that’s central to the institution’s meaning for many people. Shills and Young cite Bagehot’s explanation of how the actions of a retired widow and unemployed youth (Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales) become of such importance: they are members of a family and, as such, they are relatable for the mass of ordinary Britons. To be sure, some members of the Firm in attendance today were conspicuous by their black sheep status, but it was the web of family relationships surrounding Charles that provided some of the most touching moments, such as when his son William helped dress him after he’d been anointed. What Shills and Young say about this aspect of the 1953 Coronation could equally have been said about today’s:
The family, despite the ravages of urban life and despite those who allege that it is in dissolution, remains one of the most sinewy of institutions. The family tie is regarded as sacred, even by those who would, or do, shirk the diffuse obligations it imposes. The Coronation, like any other great occasion which in some manner touches the sense of the sacred, brings vitality into family relationships. The Coronation, much like Christmas, was a time for drawing closer the bonds of the family, for reasserting its solidarity and for reemphasising the values of the family – generosity, loyalty, love – which are at the same time the fundamental values necessary for the well-being of the larger society. When listening to the radio, looking at the television, walking the streets to look at the decorations, the unit was the family, and neither mother nor father were far away when their children sat down for cakes and ice cream at one of the thousands of street and village parties held that week. Prominent in the crowds were parents holding small children on their shoulders and carrying even smaller ones in cradles. In all towns over the country, prams were pushed great distances to bring into contact with the symbols of the great event infants who could see or appreciate little. It was as if people recognised that the most elementary unit for entry into communion with the sacred was the family, not the individual.
So, yes, it was a deeply odd occasion and it probably meant a little less to today’s Britons than the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth did 70 years ago. But the revelation for me today was how meaningful it all was, how much of a connection there still is between the British people and their monarch, how little disenchantment there is with the symbols and rituals of a dying religion, as well as the great outpouring of affection from ordinary people, not just towards this jug-eared 74 year-old and his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren, but towards each other. Britain did not feel like a country gradually succumbing to strife and division today, but a strong nation, still quietly patriotic, still with a high degree of social solidarity, still capable of renewal.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I like very much the Covid madness ratings and can add Thailand and Vietnam to this game of Top Trumps.
Both score very highly if we’re talking about immigration, I’d say 8 for Thailand and 9 for Vietnam. The shadow of Covid tyranny hangs over their respective points of entry, but masks and so-called vaccine so-called passports are not required for either. Oh, the same is true for Malaysia where I was quite briefly a few weeks ago. So SE Asia gets a collective score of 8.5 on the Watson Tyranny Scale.
But it’s out in the countries themselves where things get murky. I work in a school in Saigon where perhaps 1/3 of the children remain masked at all times. I regularly see children as young as 3 or 4 wearing masks. I visited a medical centre to arrange a mandatory medical check last week and was the only maskless person in the whole place. Still, no one said anything.
So masking here has become normalised for many people (helped I think by the fact that people already wore them because of smog). Yes, the shadow of Covid Tyranny looms large, but it’s a complex picture that, even after a month of being here, I can’t quite fathom.
I should also add, this experience has emphasised for me just how dehumanising masks actually are. Some of the kids I teach have started to come to school without them for the first time and it’s like I’m seeing them for the first time. With a mask on I had no idea what they actually looked like and I’m surprised when I see their whole face. ‘Oh so that’s what you look like’, I think to myself.
The next question for me is, when in two weeks I get my Vietnamese driving licence and start riding a scooter (overwhelmingly the most popular mode of transport here), do I go maskless and breathe in pollution, just to prove a point? Does that count as cutting of my nose to spite my face? Either way, I’m not putting one of those bloody stupid things on my face!
Oh, and to answer the question posed in the headline:
As the good doctor should by now be aware, Covid-19 never was about public health and the US still insists on vaccination because it’s agencies spearheaded the project and don’t want to let go, even while the whole charade has become untenable for ‘normal’ countries which still have some semblance of independence and whose policies are their own. ‘Vaccination’ is a proxy for compliance, surveillance and control, all of which have for a long time been the modus operandi of the US regime.
… and the US government played along with its agencies projects because they were all part of a routine Mencken Imaginary Hobgoblin.
Luciferase which is in all the injections fluoresces under blue lights which seem to have become very fashionable recently, is this how the injected can be identified? As per the now removed page from the WEF site boasted.
I thought the luciferase theory had been debunked.
Not as far as I’m aware of.
Ah! but, by whom was it debunked?
Indeed. I’ve always believed the mask was absolutely key to the control agenda. It signals a change to the default thinking; instead of assuming most people are friendly, the mask signals that most people are a threat. It is not only an indicator of compliance, but enforces dark beliefs of what risk others impose. Distrust, fear, and dislike is silently nurtured. It reminds everyone that there is a crisis that can only be dealt with by following the guidance given by authority. The mask is a much more powerful tool that most understand.
I absolutely agree and have always seen them the same way. They also promote collectivist thinking and discourage individuality. Rather like the population of a certain superpower just to the North of me.
Masks are today’s equivalent of Gessler’s Hat. And I never bowed before it.
Well, whoever Gessler is these days, he/they/she/it can eff off!
Great to read your news, crisis.
My view on masks was extremely simplified:
I’m not firkin wearing one. Anybody wearing a mask is a dozy, ignorant pillock.
That’s it.
Have the farmers had any success?
No, not to my knowledge. I haven’t heard anything meaningful in a while, not since the government declared they’d forcibly buy out up to 600 livestock farmers.
I like the look of this documentary which is currently being made about it all and the director talks with Del Bigtree here;
https://www.sgtreport.com/2022/11/documenting-the-dutch-farmer-saga/
So true. It is extremely antisocial, and has been referred to as a “tax on socialization”. All cleverly disguised as a virtue signal of altruism to “protect others”, of course.
Facemasks: the control agenda
Yellow Freedom Boards – next event
Monday 14th November 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A332 Kings Ride &
Swinley Rd, Winkfield Row,
Ascot SL5 8BP
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
I always wonder about that when passing the local Apple store: They have a really big Face Masks Are Recommended sign at the door despite nobody inside the store is wearing any.
Oh, that reminds me. I think you’re probably referring to the one in the Oracle. I stomped angrily away from that store during June 2020 when the staff insisted on face masks to gain entry before they were made mandatory. Good that nobody is wearing them now.
Yep. I’ve occasionally seen a doorman wearing a mask, but that’s it.
Spain and Portugal have now both dispensed with all covid restrictions, and South Africa, which is great, but I gather from travel.gov.uk webpages that sadly Eswatini ( previously Swaziland ), and India, Bangladesh and Pakistan all still want either a proof of vaccination or a negative pcr test less than 72 hours old.
Why are India et al still persisting with this rubbish? 
I have a feeling that Turkey and Morocco are too, but can’t remember what the travel.gov. uk pages said about them.
Spain still require masks on public transport
Not going there until they drop that
True. Yes, I second that.
I’m now wondering why Dr Watson says/seems to think that “every other country” has dropped restrictions. Does he mean that the US is one of the very very few remaining or just “every other” as in every 1 in 2 countries? ie about half of them? In which case the US isn’t such an outlier for keeping them.
For the unvaxxed (or the vaxxed who are unwilling to use a vaxx passport):
Open for travel. COVID-19 testing or quarantine is not required.
129
countries
Test & Travel
Open for travel with required
COVID-19 testing.
51
countries
Test & Quarantine
Open for travel with required testing and quarantine upon arrival.
13
countries
Closed
Only returning citizens or people in special circumstances may enter.
34
countries
As per Where can I travel to? Travel Restrictions by Country | KAYAK
Plenty of the 129 countries that have no covid travel restrictions still have mask mandates.
I wouldn’t be running around so much and I’d be avoiding pressurised environments if I was able to show a valid vaccine passport. Although, with the levels of excess death currently, I wouldn’t risk running for a bus with my compliance card..
The reason the USA is keeping vaccine passports is because it is a part of the Emergency Declaration that allows for extended mail-in voting, to which the Democrats are particularly attached.
Great detailed posts to this good detailed sceptic traveller story.
In 2021 friends of nearly 20 years responded negatively to my refusal to give consent to the jabs (not anti vax) asked me quote “ aren’t you going to be upset if you can’t go on holiday?” And that “ it is our duty to take it” I was told that what I said had made them feel uncomfortable. I know they were frightened!
I do feel bitter and angry about all of this.
What to respond too when the response now is “well we are not masking now and may not need more jabs because the vaccines have helped produce the milder version and herd immunity” I feel it’s a loss for people who put the head above the parapet because the virtue signalling smug compliant believe they made it safe and we are still the conspiracy disinformation crew. Me.
How to reply politely without keeping my cool and calm so that I don’t lose the discussion. 5:1 the battle will commence at lunch next week. May be my last. Sad.
I have been going around my local town ripping off those stupid mask signs for sometime (estate agents, newsagents, banks, etcetera) however there is still one very stubborn pharmacy that has all the original fear mongering signs and still insists on only one customer at a time enter their shop. I and a colleague of mine from my local SITP have challenged them on separate occasions but to no avail. What is going through these people’s heads? Extraordinary.
Well done
we have still got those visual dictatorship signs stuck on our playground but there are the state control cameras watching so I am not brave enough! to rip of those left. I started to dig one off as they are stuck with super puritanical glue, the worst kind of glue ;)but my daughter was worried so I stopped.
I hilariously thought I would go in the dark and rip them off. Granny in a hoodie. No doubt a prison sentence given. During the authoritarian time, I took my grandchildren there and they had taken off the swings and taped things off and no water running on the play water machine and only 3 allowed , made my blood boil because it had no basis in science.
We need reparations the ‘IN’ word at the minute! But I call it justice.
You can add launderettes to my business mask vendetta. Just ripped a couple down as I was delivering The Light thought I’d leave a couple there for anyone interested! There are CCTV cameras there but I thought sod it come and get me I really don’t care anymore there’s no justification for these fear inducing notices and never was. RESIST DEFY DO NOT COMPLY!!!
Joe Biden, cdc, fda, all bought and paid for.