On Saturday, King Charles the Third, the hereditary king of this and many other realms, will be crowned. The descendant of Norman warlords, he will be anointed with holy oil away from profane stares, have a crown made of solid gold placed upon his head, and receive the acclamation of his liege subjects.
Amid the ubiquitous and mundane media coverage, it is easy to lose sight of how extraordinary it is that such a thing can still occur. The United Kingdom is the last European monarchy to practice the coronation rite, now only shared in its Christian form with the Kingdom of Tonga in the South Pacific. Even before the French Revolution, enlightened opinion in Europe made light of the idea that sovereigns received their temporal power through supernatural ceremonials. To hold a coronation in the 21st century is an open affront to modernity, a public rejection of the spirit of our age.
The last coronation took place in the twilight of the imperial age, when the mirage of neo-Elizabethan splendour still held. Much has happened since, so the task of this iteration’s organisers has been correspondingly harder; but they have not always succeeded in walking the fine line between modernisation and tweeness.
Much of the service’s language, which reached its stable form in the Stuart era, has been rewritten in contemporary churchofenglandese. The statutory oath to “maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law” will be prefaced by an apologetic declaration that the Church of England “will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely”.
Perhaps most jarring of all is the replacement of the homage and swearing of fealty by representative peers, itself a compromise measure to cope with the massive growth of the size of the Victorian aristocracy, with the “Homage of the People”. A measure clearly intended to emphasise the democratic nature of modern monarchy, it instead manages to be both embarrassing and vaguely authoritarian. This was an unforced error: no one would have minded the Marquess of Winchester kneeling before the throne on behalf of his rank, but even many soft monarchists baulk at the idea of mumbling an oath in front of the television.
The service will end with “the Leaders and Representatives of the Faith Communities”— a telling bit of public sector jargon — shouting in unison that “as neighbours in faith, we acknowledge the value of public service.”
And somewhere in between all of this, Charles Philip Arthur George the man will be clothed in a linen tunic and a robe of gold; he will be presented with a Bible and spurs and a sword and another robe and a spectre and an orb and a crown, and he will be anointed with vegan holy oil from the Holy Land. He will be crowned to the sound Sir Hubert Parry’s orchestration for I Was Glad and to a fanfare composed by a German for the anniversary of an Austrian orchestra and of another anthem by the composer of Cats.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMr Yuan says that “The ceremony is an open affront to the spirit of modernity”. Modernity does not have a spirit. That’s why people like this kind of ceremony.
Mr Yuan says that “The ceremony is an open affront to the spirit of modernity”. Modernity does not have a spirit. That’s why people like this kind of ceremony.
I love all the contradictions and peculiarities, it makes the whole thing uniquely authentic – is there anything more English?
British.
.
Well actually, I could have said the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms, but it didn’t have the same ring to it.
I think actually more English is more on the mark. That means no disrespect to your nation, which along with Scotland looks more to wider European models if only to counteract supposed English dominance
.
Well actually, I could have said the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms, but it didn’t have the same ring to it.
I think actually more English is more on the mark. That means no disrespect to your nation, which along with Scotland looks more to wider European models if only to counteract supposed English dominance
British.
I love all the contradictions and peculiarities, it makes the whole thing uniquely authentic – is there anything more English?
“To hold a coronation in the 21st century is an open affront to modernity, a public rejection of the spirit of our age.”
And I say good, well done!
“To hold a coronation in the 21st century is an open affront to modernity, a public rejection of the spirit of our age.”
And I say good, well done!
Call me a pedant, but what’s a “yet-to-be-lived future” other than just “the future”?
Actually, for today, just call me a peasant and i won’t be revolting.
Call me a pedant, but what’s a “yet-to-be-lived future” other than just “the future”?
Actually, for today, just call me a peasant and i won’t be revolting.
The worst thing Charles could do would be to try to ‘modernise’ the monarchy – but that’s probably what he’ll do.
The worst thing Charles could do would be to try to ‘modernise’ the monarchy – but that’s probably what he’ll do.
The problem is that “modernity” overtly or covertly seeks to sever all links with the past. Indeed, Jackson Pollock, in his work, deliberately excluded anything that resembled a living thing. He was seeking abstractions that had never been seen before.
But, as both the Soviets and Maoists discovered, severing all ties with the past simply leads to nothingness…
An excellent comment. You highlight the implicit connection between modernism and Marxism – and bring out the bleak inhumanity of both.
An excellent comment. You highlight the implicit connection between modernism and Marxism – and bring out the bleak inhumanity of both.
The problem is that “modernity” overtly or covertly seeks to sever all links with the past. Indeed, Jackson Pollock, in his work, deliberately excluded anything that resembled a living thing. He was seeking abstractions that had never been seen before.
But, as both the Soviets and Maoists discovered, severing all ties with the past simply leads to nothingness…
Your article missed the bit about Penny Mordaunt would manage to steal the show. Not sure anybody was expecting that.
No kidding, I’ve got a bit of a girl crush on her now! Not as big as the one I’ve got on the Princess of Wales…but I didn’t see it coming, that’s for sure. She must have killer biceps to have been holding that sword up for so long.
No kidding, I’ve got a bit of a girl crush on her now! Not as big as the one I’ve got on the Princess of Wales…but I didn’t see it coming, that’s for sure. She must have killer biceps to have been holding that sword up for so long.
Your article missed the bit about Penny Mordaunt would manage to steal the show. Not sure anybody was expecting that.
What an amazing brilliant day!
What an amazing brilliant day!
Unless my history fails me, Oliver Cromwell interrupted the lineage and it is stretching ancestry a bit to make the Hanoverians ancestors of the Normans.
*descendants
It’s stretching it a long way to include William of Orange, as well.
William of Orange was the son of Charles I’s daughter, the Princess Royal, which takes us back to William the Conqueror.
George I is a grandson of Elizabeth Stuart (Queen of Bohemia, wife of the Elector Palatine), herself the daughter of James VI and I, giving lineage back to Kenneth MacAlpin(!) and through the Tudors back to the Conquest and then back to Cerdic. Henry I married Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar and daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, son of Aethelred.
So Charles’s ancestry go back to the founding of England!
George I is a grandson of Elizabeth Stuart (Queen of Bohemia, wife of the Elector Palatine), herself the daughter of James VI and I, giving lineage back to Kenneth MacAlpin(!) and through the Tudors back to the Conquest and then back to Cerdic. Henry I married Matilda of Scotland, the daughter of St Margaret of Scotland, sister of Edgar and daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, son of Aethelred.
So Charles’s ancestry go back to the founding of England!
William of Orange was the son of Charles I’s daughter, the Princess Royal, which takes us back to William the Conqueror.
But they nonetheless were descendents. The Norman Kings had a LOT of descendents!
*descendants
It’s stretching it a long way to include William of Orange, as well.
But they nonetheless were descendents. The Norman Kings had a LOT of descendents!
Unless my history fails me, Oliver Cromwell interrupted the lineage and it is stretching ancestry a bit to make the Hanoverians ancestors of the Normans.
A descendant of Cerdic, of Alfred, of Edgar! Cerdic (a British name) landed in Wessex in 494 (or 514). That’s over 1500 years of history.
A descendant of Cerdic, of Alfred, of Edgar! Cerdic (a British name) landed in Wessex in 494 (or 514). That’s over 1500 years of history.
Utter nonsense, but still interesting and done exceptionally well.
Utter nonsense, but still interesting and done exceptionally well.