“May the King live forever,” it says in the Coronation Anthem, Zadok the Priest. But he won’t. Even she won’t. “London Bridge” is the codename. The “demise” is the official term. It has not happened for 66 years, but it will.
Then we shall have a new monarch. He does not have to be crowned to be the legitimate king — no other European monarchies have coronations — but he almost certainly will be. Obviously it is delicate to work out the arrangements for the next monarch, but informal discussions about the accession and coronation do take place between Church and State. Recently, the Constitution Unit, a think-tank at University College, London, published papers on what is involved and whether there should be reforms.
These learnt documents contain many interesting facts. Did you know that the new monarch must immediately swear the “Scottish Oath”, promising to uphold the Church of Scotland? Or that he is perfectly free to take a new “regnal” name, so that the man we expect to be Charles III could decide to be, for instance, George VII? Or that the King’s wife automatically becomes the Queen, so we shall have Queen Camilla?
The authors, Robert Hazell and Bob Morris, also make, cautiously but definitely, an argument. They are rationalistic social democrats, so they are uneasy about aspects of the Coronation that do not match our “new and exacting equality standards”. They see it as defining “not just royalty but British identity”, so they worry how that identity can be “best represented in all its 21st-century diversity”. They claim that the coronation of the present Queen in 1953 was “the last imperial hurrah”.
The Unit’s solutions include — instead of the traditional “homage” — a civil “non-feudal ceremony of recognition” in Westminster Hall. Uncomfortable with the existing oaths the monarch swears, they propose supplementary words for them. Thus the Accession Oath, in which the king swears to uphold the Protestant religion, would now end: “I wish also to make it clear that I will do everything within my power to support everyone’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.”
To the Coronation Oath itself, the authors add a “commitment to democratic government”. They edge towards Coronation-lite.
For years, I have argued that these questions need to be thought about, if only to prevent false assumptions filling the vacuum. These are welcome efforts. But these sensible, decent people are missing the key points.The first, which they do partly recognise, is the danger of tinkering. Once you start inventing new forms of words, you invite disagreement. If there’s something in it for, say, Muslims, what about Sikhs or Hindus? Everyone chips in. It becomes like those initials that started as LGBT and have now become (I promise you) LGBTQQIPS2AA. As a Roman Catholic, I am not offended that my sovereign swears to govern and uphold a Church different from my own, but if he widens his oaths to defend faith more generally, I might become more demanding. Don’t let’s go there.
The second is that the reformers feel uncomfortable about recognising what the coronation, at heart, is. It is not a civic or governmental ceremony. It is religious, and not in a vague way. It is the Old Testament expression of kingship — a special form of service to God, like priesthood, and therefore a ceremony in which God’s grace is sought. As well as being crowned, the monarch is clothed in priestly garb, anointed with oil and takes communion. The model of service he must follow is found in the New Testament — that of Jesus.
Humbling show
This is a deep and difficult commitment, and therefore moving to witness, even for a non-believer. Who can doubt that it is the depth and constancy of that promise that has sustained Elizabeth II for nearly 70 years, to the great benefit of her peoples? None of this is anti-democratic, but it reaches the parts that mere politics cannot reach. This immensely grand show is also humbling. It should stay that way.
The third key point is that it is wrong to think that because it is ancient, it is out of date. Contrary to the Constitution Unit’s view, the coronation of the present queen in 1953 was not fusty. It was declaredly post-imperial, the first big parade of the Commonwealth, and the assertion of a new age for a country, with a young woman at its head, rebuilding out of war.
The fact that it was televised — adding more than 50 per cent to the number of TV licences in the country in a year — was the first really big lesson in how monarchy can succeed in a mass-media world. Never before in history had these things literally come home (via the screen) to millions. When they saw them, they liked them.
Since then, this phenomenon has grown and grown. The wedding of Charles and Diana, the funeral of the latter, the wedding of William and Kate, and last week, that of Harry and Meghan, are all astonishing examples of the ability of monarchy — specifically the British monarchy — to become the talk of the global village. Now social media multiply this even further. To constitutional experts, the coronation may seem an over-familiar ceremony that needs modernising. They forget that you have to be over 70 to remember it.
To our new world, the next one will seem fresh. One of the most successful television series ever shown globally is The Crown. Its title shows that its makers understand something about how modern people think and feel: if they had made something called The Republic, it would have bombed.
In all these services, ancient words, curious costumes, obscure ceremonies and an exclusively Christian liturgy seem to have caused remarkably little controversy. Instead they have inspired respect, amusement, delight and sometimes deep feeling. They are like the “something old” that a bridal dress must always have to go with “something new”.
The likely next head to wear the crown will be grey-haired. Prince Charles will be our oldest monarch ever to come to the throne. This will present problems that did not face the present queen in 1953. The ceremonies should probably be pared back, the dignity of quite an old man taking on such a burden be emphasised. To reflect numerous changes in society, there will rightly be changes to the guest list. Whenever he accedes, however, the traditional need for the monarchy to unite the nation will be undiminished. Devolution has made kingship a more important glue in the cracks than it was in 1953. Brexit will focus greater attention on it. Because of global media, and because of the Commonwealth (seven strong then, 53 today), the British monarchy is even more international and its audience even more diverse than when it was imperial. The crown should be allowed to work its magic.
Our greatest diarist, Samuel Pepys, attended the coronation of Charles II in 1661. Because he “had so great a list to pisse”, he left the service early, but he declared he need never again worry about chasing after “things of state and shewe”, because he was “sure never to see the like again in this world” of what he had seen that day.
It will be good if the eventual coronation of Charles III can give equally wholehearted pleasure.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London 2018
Charles Moore has been editor of The Spectator, the Sunday Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph. He is the authorised biographer of Margaret Thatcher.
