- 200 years
- Study
- International
- Business and employers
- Research
- About us
Dr Jonathan Spangler looks ahead to King Charles III's coronation, and what it will mean for the UK and overseas
Dr Jonathan Spangler looks ahead to King Charles III's coronation
By Dr Jonathan Spangler, Senior Lecturer in History whose research spans the history of the monarchy.
This weekend media attention the world over will once again turn to London for the coronation of a British monarch. For many, it will be a tremendous occasion, and a celebration of British traditions and history. Yet it won’t be universally popular and it certainly won’t enjoy the almost unanimous respect of the last great media spectacle, the State Funeral of Elizabeth II.
As a historian of the institution of monarchy, it is difficult not to feel like this is a bonanza -my subject area brought to life before my eyes in real time. But it’s also important to maintain a critical eye as an observer, to reflect on the place of a hereditary system of government in 21st Century Britain.
It’s also important to consider that British coronations are physical manifestations of different interest groups in society. To some they represent the connection between the monarchy and religious faith groups; to others they’re an expression of the monarch’s formal relationship with the two houses of Parliament; and for still others they retain its widest, and perhaps oldest, core meaning - as a solemn presentation of a sovereign.
Some viewers will tune in simply for the showcase of British choral music. To many, absolutely none of these things will be of interest or value - or worse, an affirmation of old-style values that are no longer relevant.
As a historian of the institution of monarchy, it is difficult not to feel like this is a bonanza -my subject area brought to life before my eyes in real time. But it’s also important to maintain a critical eye as an observer, to reflect on the place of a hereditary system of government in 21st Century Britain.
Full disclosure: I’m an American living in the UK, so I feel in some ways I have a privileged position as an outside observer. For a lot of my compatriots, the British coronation will be something simply to marvel at and enjoy for its glitter. Some will be disappointed that there won’t be a media circus surrounding the presence of the Duchess of Sussex. Many Americans passionately enjoy reading about the British monarchy for the simple reason that at the end of the day, they can switch off the television and return to their lives in a republic.
It’s useful to look at other European monarchies to see how the British coronation compares. England has its own rituals and traditions, some reaching back to the Anglo-Saxon kings of the 10th century and has also borrowed heavily from continental models. Certain elements were shared in most ceremonies, from a formal recognition of the new monarch by the people and noble peers, to an anointing with holy oil symbolising the church’s ratification of the choice of monarch, to an enthronement and investment with symbolic regalia: a crown, a sceptre, an orb.
This was usually followed by some form of homage given by leading members of the three estates: the clergy, the nobles and the commons. Variations on these themes are seen all across Europe well into the 20th century.
With the fall of many of the ancient monarchies in Europe following the First World War (Germany, Austria, Russia), many of the grandest of these ceremonies were slimmed down by European royal dynasties who wanted to modernise, cut costs, and play up their symbolic value as unifiers of the nation rather than as autocratic rulers divinely appointed.
It's interesting to see which elements of a traditional British coronation are retained and which are not. To me, it’s a day for much more than just one person, the King, but also includes the roles of the extended royal family as well as the members of what remains of the royal household.
Whatever your opinion about the rightness or wrongness of any hereditary privileges, it’s fascinating to see the continuity of the Duke of Norfolk still acting as Earl Marshal, formally in charge of the proceedings of the day, a role his family (the Howards) have performed since the 15th century.
His counterpart in organising the ritual elements of the coronation is the Lord Great Chamberlain, also hereditary. In a very British fair-play manner, rather than squabble over a contested inheritance dating from the late 18th Century, the heirs of the dukes of Ancaster have politely shared the duty, rotating their roles with each monarch.
It's interesting to see which elements of a traditional British coronation are retained and which are not. To me, it’s a day for much more than just one person, the King, but also includes the roles of the extended royal family as well as the members of what remains of the royal household.
Let’s not forget that the coronation is a religious ceremony. A balance must be struck between how much or how little this element dominates in 2023 when, for the first time the census shows less than 50% of the population identify as Christian. What attention will be paid to other faith groups and countries of the United Kingdom besides England? And how much of a representative expression will there be for ordinary people?
We know there will be a limited number of MPs invited to take part, as well as nearly a thousand representatives of British charities and healthcare services. As we saw in views of the congregation at the funeral in September, the British public will be much more broadly represented in Westminster Abbey than in coronations of the past.
The coronation of Charles III has been planned to reflect a diverse British population, but it will also be meaningful to those overseas, whether in Commonwealth Realms or republics. For those who find it interesting, whether scholars or passionate fans, this most central day for the monarchy will certainly be a living link to Britain’s colourful history.