Britain isn’t the global power it was when it crowned Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. But it still knows how to put on a great show. The ceremony that will anoint Charles III as king on Saturday is one that connects the present with the earlier history of Britain, or England, whose roots date back to before the Norman conquest. King Edgar’s coronation in 973 in Bath was recorded in a poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: “Here Edgar, ruler of the English, was consecrated king . . . There was much joy for everyone on that blessed day.
The 2023 coronation was updated for the time. Westminster Abbey will host just a quarter of the 8,000 guests it did 70 years ago. King Charles He will reportedly eschew silk stockings and breeches for the fleet admiral’s uniform. Fittingly for a monarch who once said he saw his role as “defender of the faith, no THE faith” – and reflecting the much more diverse make-up of Britain – leaders of different faiths will participate. However, the invitation to the public to loudly swear allegiance to the King has aroused controversy.
Such a fusion of heritage and modernity is a sign of the king’s personality. It is also a necessity in a 21st century Britain where the question of whether monarchy is a superfluous anachronism is sure to come up more frequently. A hereditary head of state seems contrary to the principles of modern elected democracy, meritocracy and diversity. Yet in truth, parliamentary democracy topped by a constitutional monarchy has served the UK well, even in recent years when its politics have crunched.
History has shown that those elected to both heads of state and government, even in advanced democracies like the United States, can succumb to the temptation to bend the system to prolong their power. The British monarchy and parliament effectively impose restrictions on each other; the king is under democratic control and yet above politics. The head of state can instead be an elected figurehead. But it is more difficult for a rotating ceremonial leader to embody national identity and continuity, or to project soft power, like Queen Elizabeth so he did successfully.
It falls to King Charles, together with Queen Camilla, to demonstrate the enduring value of the institution through the ways and accomplishments of his reign. The reduced coronation is supposed to presage the reduced monarchy he has proposed, with a reduced core of working members. Minor royals should live more as private citizens, with fewer titles and palaces. The family should learn from breakup with Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and the wasted opportunity to present a more modern and inclusive image. The king should also consider opening the file real finances to greater control; his recent suggestion to redirect a multibillion-dollar windfall from offshore wind energy leases on crown land to the wider public good he was cautious.
The monarch has a part to play, as her mother discreetly did, in binding the frayed ties of British union. His deftly managed first overseas visit to Germany highlighted the potential to mend post-Brexit barriers in Europe. More difficult to navigate will be the growing demands from parts of the 56-nation Commonwealth for an apology and atonement for Britain’s colonial past.
The Prime Minister of Belize has already done it suggested it could be the next of 14 other kingdoms in which the king is still head of state to become a republic. Those countries are free to choose their own path, and moreover such moves do not, in themselves, endanger the Commonwealth or the survival of the crown in Britain. Yet one of the two most populous countries of Australia or Canada could one day abandon the monarch, with inevitable resonance in the United Kingdom. When the refinement of the coronation is suspended, the king’s work resumes to ensure that the thousand-year-old royal traditions survive. His decades of waiting and his shining example as a mother prepared her well for his role.
—————————————————-
Source link