Usually, raising an opinionated sign in Britain wouldn't get you into any type of legal woe unless it was deemed an unlawful hate crime.
This is a privilege most Britons are incredibly grateful for and undoubtedly a positive aspect of the democracy we live in, one that not all nations are afforded. Unfortunately, this liberty has been thrown into question recently as anti-royalist protesters have seen harsh consequences for demonstrating their views during royal proceedings.
This month we have seen a monumental shift in the makeup of Britain as we have known it for seven decades.
The death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II led to the ascension of King Charles III. For most, this is the first change of the monarch in their lifetime and thus is a memorable occasion in which many Brits have decided to mark and honour accordingly.
Britain has held a weeklong proceeding to honour Her Majesty in which queues upon queues of people have come to show their adorations and to pay their respects.
However, a few amongst the crowds decided to take these events as opportunities to make their feelings about the monarchical institution, and King Charles III specifically, known.
Many republican activists had hoped that the death of Queen Elizabeth II would result in the collapse of the monarchy and see the start of a democratic head of state, yet there seems to be no sign of the dissembling of the system. However, that hasn’t prevented passionate republicans from reaffirming their desires to abolish the monarchy.
On Monday 12 September 2022, a woman was led away from the Palace of Westminster by Police after holding up a ‘not my King’ sign in response to the new King’s ascension. Her actions were deemed to be ‘in breach of the peace’ and she was later charged by the Metropolitan Police which many anti-royalists have counter-argued is, in fact, a breach of freedom of speech.
If isolated, this incident could be explained away as a grave misjudgement, but hours after this event a local Barrister held a blank piece of paper in Parliament Square and was threatened with an arrest when he enquired what would happen if he too wrote this anti-monarchist ‘not my King’ slogan onto it.
Consequently, Edinburgh Activists have sat along the Royal Mile holding blank pieces of paper in both solidarity for the Barrister and in protest of this breach of free speech.
But is this an impairment of our human rights? If so, should we be worried about the state of our democracy? Or is the funeral of a recently departed Monarch, mother, and grandmother truly the place to declare these politically aggravating opinions?
Although Royal life means incessant public view and opinions infiltrating your every move, some royalist mourners have declared such protests to be ‘disrespectful’ as nobody would do such things at a ‘funeral for the lady down the road’.
The fact that this funeral is that of a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother, as well as a dutiful leader, is one that everyone can accept, regardless of their opinion towards the royal family.
However, certain journalists such as former BBC broadcaster Andrew Marr have coined these arrests as ‘outrageous’ in a democratic society such as ours. Subsequently, many people have begun to question the lawfulness of these arrests and charges.
Some liberal activists have implied that the government’s ‘Police, Crime and Sentencing’ bill along with the ‘Public Order’ bill are factors that have allowed these cases to happen.
Both bills have given more power to authorities when dealing with protests as it is now at the individual officer’s discretion whether a protest can be deemed in breach of the peace. Whereas before, such officers had to determine if the demonstration could result in public disorder or damage before proceeding with such arrests.
Though King Charles III has been at the receiving end of most of these anti-royalist demonstrations, other members of the family are not exempt from such public hounding and their critics have not been spared the consequences either.
“You’re a sick old man” a 22-year-old protester hollered at Prince Andrew as he passed by during Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral proceedings along the Royal Mile to St Giles' Cathedral. Moments later, fellow bystanders tackled him to the ground, and he was arrested by nearby police ‘in connection with a breach of the peace’.
After accusations of paedophilia were made against Prince Andrew in 2019, he withdrew from public life and retired his title. Since then, he has made a limited number of public appearances and it is assumed that after the Queen’s funeral has concluded, he will withdraw completely and not be seen publicly again.
The inflammatory remark by the activist can be determined as a disruption of the peace, however, the anger has been directed at the lack of consequence for those who took it upon themselves to assault the protestor by dragging him to the floor despite the police being present.
People have taken to Social Media platforms such as Twitter to declare their outrage for the police neglecting the assaulters and focusing solely on the activist himself. Many believe this is an example that the arrest was not intended to keep the peace, but rather to stifle a person’s right to free speech and expression.
Conclusively, this time has been capsizing for not only the nation but the world. The transition of a figurehead for the first time in 70 years has led to uncertainty for all. However, the right to express a person’s opinions, whether positive or negative, is instrumental to our society as we know it.
Whilst we face the bumpy ride that is the transition of the monarchy, we must be able to feel confident that our personal liberties and rights do not hang in uncertainty too.
Equally, it can be said that everybody deserves the right to mourn their family member peacefully and in a dignified manner. Though Royal protocol removes their ability to have a private goodbye, it is not an invitation for them to be hounded at a time of personal tragedy.
Edited by Nadia Lincoln.