Why the coronation of King Charles III may be the last of its kind

LONDON—King Charles III has been the King since September, after the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.

So why, exactly, do we need a coronation? And what is a coronation?

The coronation, which refers to the placing of a crown on the king’s head, is a ritual that serves two main purposes, says Ed Owens, a royal historian and author of “The Family Firm: Monarchy, Mass Media and the British Public, 1932-1953.”

Its first purpose is secular and intended to be an act of nation building: The coronation recognizes and acknowledges Charles’s role as head of the nation.

“(One) of the symbolic acts that will unfold is literally (called) the Recognition, whereby he is presented to his people on the four sides of the coronation platform, the stage in Westminster Abbey … so that they can acknowledge him as King,” Owens says.

Those in attendance will say “God Save King Charles,” before he moves to the Chair of Estate and swears the Coronation Oath, which commits him to abiding by and upholding the laws of the land — his constitutional responsibilities as the monarch.

The oath now also includes a reference to upholding the laws in members of the Commonwealth, including Canada. This was first included in the coronation of George VI, Elizabeth II’s father, in 1937, reflecting the decline of the British Empire.

The coronation’s other purpose is religious, and that is perhaps even more important.

For the Anointing, Charles will move to another chair, the Coronation Chair, which has been used for coronations since the 13th century. He will be anointed with holy oil, investing him as the head, or supreme governor, of the Church of England (the ancestor of today’s Anglican Church in Canada).

“It’s the most sacred moment in his life,” says Owens, “a moment just between the monarch and God.”

Because of its solemnity, the anointment was not televised when Elizabeth was crowned, and will not be televised for Charles, either.

“Historically … the people believed that the British monarch was divinely appointed by God,” says Owens, “and there are probably a few people in the U.K. today that hold that view, that the monarch is God’s human representative on Earth.”

Aside from these functions, coronations are also important because they serve as marketing for the Royal Family, says Pauline Maclaran, a professor of marketing at Royal Holloway, University of London and one of the authors of “Royal Fever: The British Monarchy in Consumer Culture.”

“The pomp and pageantry is the visual image that surrounds (the brand of King Charles and the royal brand). We know the visual side of branding is very important because we live in a visual culture … It reinforces their heritage.

“That long, long heritage … is, in marketing speak, one of their unique selling points (and) part of the mystique of monarchy. The whole coronation is ritual (and the ritual) adds a special layer of meaning, the idea that it’s been going on for many hundreds of years.”

Edward VII brought back pomp

Although kings and queens have been crowned for almost 1,000 years, the coronation as we know it only dates from the late 1800s.

“Victoria had a patchily managed and run event” in 1838, says Owens. “It wasn’t the professional kind of ritual that we associate with the monarchy today.”

Queen Victoria famously went into mourning when her husband, Prince Albert, died in 1861; she was only 42 at the time. Her popularity fell, and republican sentiment grew, as the public deemed that she was hiding away in her castles, not fulfilling her role as a monarch.

Many royal rituals fell by the wayside during that time, says Joe Little, the managing editor of Majesty Magazine, a U.K.-based monthly publication covering royals around the world. Victoria’s son and successor, Edward VII, brought back the pomp and ceremony to his own coronation in 1902.

“It was meant to have a public resonance,” says Owens. “This was about the creation of a modern, British national identity that had the monarchy at its core … (So) it had to be meaningful, and this is why the spectacle was professionalized.

“It took on a new, public-facing form … There was a special emphasis on religious participation, on the role of the clergy and the aristocracy within the ceremony. All this … wasn’t part of an original ceremony. This was made up, an interpretation (of past coronations) to give meaning to monarchy.”

Who’s going to the coronation?

There won’t be as many members of the aristocracy and the clergy at Charles’s coronation. Roughly 80 MPs and peers (members of the House of Lords, equivalent to the Canadian Senate) received invitations; their spouses did not. “They will be replaced by people who perhaps are more worthy of being in the Abbey: British Empire medal holders (or) charity representatives,” says Little.

But far fewer people, not just aristocrats, will be present at Charles’s coronation: roughly 2,000 people are expected this May, compared to roughly 8,000 who turned up for Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation. “We’re living in a very different world,” says Little. “The concept of health and safety probably didn’t exist in the way it does nowadays. You couldn’t cram 8,000 people into Westminster Abbey these days.”

It is already expected that Charles’s coronation will last up to two hours; Elizabeth’s lasted more than three, says Little.

The ceremonial procession followed a route of more than seven kilometres in 1953, going through major shopping streets such as Oxford Street and Regent Street; it took 45 minutes for the entire parade to pass by any given point, says Little. Security and financial reasons mean that Charles’s procession will be only about a quarter of this length.

There’s also less manpower today to hold a grand coronation, says Little. Hyde Park in central London was turned into a makeshift military camp in 1953, with thousands of troops from the rest of the Commonwealth coming in for the occasion. This time, only representatives of these regiments are invited.

How excited is Britain?

Perhaps less tangible, though, is the difference in the national mood between 1953 and 2023.

At first glance, the two years share acute economic situations: the U.K. was still rationing food in 1953; like much of the rest of the world, it’s currently going through a cost-of-living crisis.

“There was much more immediate poverty in the early ’50s,” says Michael Billig, a professor emeritus of social sciences at Loughborough University in the U.K. and the author of “Talking of the Royal Family.”

“Basic food (sugar and meat) was rationed … but there was a feeling that things were going to get better.

“Here was a young woman being crowned the new monarch. There was a sense that maybe we were entering a new age of optimism and improvement. Things couldn’t get worse. They wouldn’t go back to what it was like during the war.

“At the moment, you’ve got a feeling that things are getting worse.”

Indeed, the chief economist of the Bank of England, Huw Pill, said earlier this week on a U.S. podcast that some Brits must “accept that they’re worse off and stop trying to maintain their real spending power.”

Elizabeth’s coronation was also something of a fairy tale, says Maclaran. “Let’s face it. The Queen was a very young, beautiful woman, suddenly taking the throne unexpectedly (when her father died young), so there was all that romantic side of it.

“Charles and Camilla are elderly and (are) taking the throne after, in Charles’s case, waiting many, many years for it. There’s no romance in that aspect. Of course, it’s still romantic that he’s found his queen, and that she’s by his side, and that they have weathered all these storms … but nobody seems to pick up on that.”

Is it worth all the fuss?

The extravagance of a coronation, and of the monarchy itself, places the monarchy in a difficult situation. Can they really justify the expense when millions are having trouble making ends meet?

There have been enormous changes in British society since he did the research for his book in the late 1980s, says Billig. “You have a very different culture. Young people are growing up with a very strong celebrity culture, and a culture of the internet and (of) communication between people of like-minded views.

Society is more divided into small groups, Billig says.

“While the Queen was alive and on the throne, there was quite a lot of respect for her. … With her death, suddenly, there’s a release of feelings that were held in check. Young people are not embarrassed to say now that they’re not interested in the monarchy, that it doesn’t seem to affect their lives.”

He points to a recent opinion poll that showed that while 58 per cent of Brits as a whole supported the monarchy, only 32 per cent of those between 18 and 24 felt likewise, while 38 per cent of the young believed that Britain should have an elected head of state instead.

Almost 60 per cent of young people felt that King Charles was out of touch with the British public. Another survey showed that 64 per cent of Brits, and 75 per cent of young Brits, cared “not very much” or “not at all” about Charles’s coronation.

While Elizabeth’s coronation deliberately drew heavily from the traditions of the past, “I don’t think young people now have that sense of a necessity for history,” says Billig. “Having a rickety carriage and a hugely valuable crown on the head is just going to look silly.”

Billig says that many of his interviewees in the 1980s, even those who were in favour of the monarchy, said that the monarchy didn’t really affect them but that it made the U.K. unique and brought tourists in. Effectively, the monarchy paid for itself; without the pomp and ceremony, the tourists wouldn’t come.

This economic argument doesn’t convince Billig as much today. “People get their entertainment in different ways,” he says. “They don’t have to travel to see an old building or an old crown to be entertained, particularly young people.”

There is still a lot of interest in royal memorabilia, though, says Maclaran. Official collectors’ items include, on the low end, crown hairpins, pin badges of the Crown of India (worn by King George V when he was proclaimed Emperor of India in 1911) and the Union Jack, and pencils topped with the Crown of India, all for less than £4.00 (roughly $7.00). At the high end, one will spend at least £130.00 (roughly $220.00) for a royal crown-shaped ring set with white topaz and adorned with Welsh rose gold, a pair of hand-cut crystal champagne flutes, or a hand-cut crystal decanter.

“All the different price points (ensures) that a very wide range of people can actually get this memorabilia,” says Maclaran. “The memorabilia market has long been a flourishing one, really since Victorian times when they had the ability to mass-produce after the Industrial Revolution.

“The British Royal Family has always let that memorabilia market thrive and never tried to intervene. Yes, the (Royal) Houses produce official memorabilia and official souvenirs, but so many other people do, as well. They’ve never attempted to control it.”

So satirical items abound, and people buy them not just for themselves but for friends and to bring to street parties, giving them something to talk about and bond over, says Maclaran. She says her favourite items are slippers with grotesque faces of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, collected by a superfan with more than 10,000 items in her home.

Will this coronation be the last of its kind?

The future of the monarchy is difficult to predict. Owens would not be surprised, however, if this were the last coronation that includes a religious aspect.

“The disestablishment of the Church of England (i.e., removing its status as the official church of the U.K.), though unlikely to take place in the next decade, is something that (constitutional experts) have been saying for the best part of two decades. It would be in recognition of the religious reality of the United Kingdom, that less than 50 per cent of the population is Christian.

“It’s also the case that Prince William has shown no real commitment to religion (and his role in the Anglican Church). If this changes, the next coronation could be a more secular affair. It could be the case that we don’t have another more formal coronation. Other northern European monarchies have a far more secular form of service.”

The pomp and ceremony is unlikely to completely disappear, though. Maclaran believes that the future of the monarchy depends on both the extravagance and the relatability of the Royal Family. “They need the elements of the pomp and pageantry to make a statement about their mystique or their specialness.

“But, of course, in the contemporary world, they need to be seen as having contemporary relevance as well and not just sitting in gilded coaches or castles. They need to make themselves much more accessible. All the time, they’re trying to balance these opposing tensions.”

The palace’s marketing department is doing a clever job with the coronation weekend, says Maclaran. “They’re trying to (give) it a very experiential aspect around the Royal Family … Sunday is around street parties, the kind of activities that are more likely to embed them in our everyday lives: talking to friends and having a laugh, getting drunk — the pubs are staying open late on special licences.”

Sunday will also see the Coronation Concert at Windsor Castle, featuring, among others, Lionel Richie and Katy Perry. “That’s much more of a fun day.”

Monday has been announced as an extra bank holiday. The Big Help Out, where Brits are encouraged to volunteer in their community, has been organized for this day.

But Saturday is when all the pageantry and the solemnity of the coronation will take place. “The ordinary person standing viewing it, myself as well, they don’t need” to understand all of the elements,” says Maclaran. “There’s plenty written in the press, plenty available for the curious person as to what different elements mean.

“It’s just the magnificence that awes.”

SHARE: