7th May 2023
We will start with a very British thing, a red post box.
This is is one of about 171 post boxes which, if you look carefully, have the insignia and cipher of Edward VIII.
The point, of course, is that there was never a coronation for Edward VIII.
But this fact did not stop him being king – or from exercising any of his prerogative or other powers, including signing his own instrument of abdication and giving royal assent to the Act to which the instrument was scheduled:
He was R.I. (king and emperor) all the same.
This reminds us that, from one perspective, a coronation has almost no legal or even constitutional significance.
The monarch rules from the moment the last monarch dies.
There is no need for a coronation for a monarch to rule.
*
But.
From other perspectives, a coronation has immense constitutional significance – even if it makes little legal(istic) difference.
For a coronation provides the point where a new monarch enters into a number of oaths, covenants, promises, undertakings, contracts, and so on, that exist to remind the new monarch and everyone else of – in effect – the transactional and consensual nature of modern kingship.
And, in a far less secular way, a coronation reminds us of the supposed relationship between the new monarch and the Christian god and the established church in England – for this is also a basis of modern kingship.
Indeed, without an understanding of the relationship of the monarch with the established Church of England one would not grasp how kingship, and thereby the constitution, developed after the Reformation.
No Church of England, no political crisis of 1688-89 and no Hanoverian succession in 1714; and with no political crisis of 1688-89 and no Hanoverian succession in 1714, our political development would probably have been very different.
So a coronation has immense significance – in that it signifies various things about our constitutional arrangements, even if new letter boxes would get the new royal signage anyway.
*
A coronation is also a reminder of who does not have ultimate political power.
There is an old line – an untrue and grossly unfair line – about Ringo Star not even being the greatest drummer in the Beatles.
(In fact, he was and is a great drummer.)
Yet it was a line that came to mind during the ceremony yesterday.
The prime minister was not even the most prominent member of his own cabinet.
Indeed, during his reading he seemed like as much an onlooker as the rest of us.
His more junior cabinet colleague – who happened to be the Lord President of the (Privy) Council – had a far more conspicuous role.
"See that strange woman distributing a sword? She's the basis of our system of government" pic.twitter.com/XFBI5Yqqwn
— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) May 6, 2023
(And we are perhaps fortunate that it was Mordaunt in place and not other recent Lords President of the Council.)
*
One way of thinking critically about constitutional matters is to not focus on who has what power, but on what powers various actors do not have.
And, as this blog has averred many times, the one key feature about the crown in our constitutional arrangements is not so much about the power it has, but about the power it deprives others from having.
So, in contrast with say the inauguration of a president in a republic, our head of government is a but a bit-player at the coronation of the new head of state.
Yes, this is largely symbolism – but it also put the democratic (and demagogic) element of our polity in its place.
Some may say this is a good thing, some may say it a bad thing: but yesterday the head of government was just another commoner, albeit one with a brief speaking part.
*
Of course, as this blog contended a couple of days ago, a confident monarchy should be unafraid of challenges, even on coronation day.
As such the reported heavy-handed police treatment of some protesters was wrong and inappropriate.
Yet, even if the protesters had been left free, they would never have had any effect.
For this country is not going to be a republic.
Never.
So those of us who are not monarchists have got to accept this, and work with the constitutional arrangements we have to make those constitutional arrangements better than they are.
That perhaps is the greatest constitutional significance of the coronation: we are still a monarchy, and that ain’t ever going to change.
And the monarchy will still be there, when even red post boxes will be gone and forgotten.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
One question: If the King hadn’t sworn the oaths he swore yesterday, would he have to have done so at some other point given that, as pointed out by the Archbishop (in, I think, the new preamble putting them in context especially in a multi-faith society) they are ‘enshrined in law’ (!) ?
Good question
As far as I can work out (and I may be wrong) I don’t think there would have been any legal repercussions if the oaths not been either administered or taken. The wording of the key oath has varied from the legal wording, and it has not mattered.
Thank you!
The final oath taken on Saturday, the “Accession Declaration Oath” (not to be confused with the oath required “at” Accession, which concerns the Presbyterian settlement of the church in Scotland) has to be taken at the earlier of coronation or first state opening of parliament. The (historical) implication being ‘no oath, no taxes voted’- much tax still requires annual authorisation.
Thanks John!
Never is a long time. One of the
most persuasive arguments for retaining the monarchy is wondering what sort of chancer we might end up with from time to time as an elected head of state. (President Boris Johnson anyone?)
But yesterday we were one youthful polo accident away from crowning King Andrew. It would be relatively easy to get rid of a bad president, and formal and informal constitutional mechanisms would exist to achieve it (just as you’ve described mechanisms by which the body politic spat out Prime Minister Boris Johnson).
But to get rid of a bad king, we would be in constitutional crisis territory because the whole idea of a monarchy is that it is utterly unconcerned with the quality of the person who happens to be the monarch.
Elizabeth II remained popular (and therefore secure on her throne) in large part because she exercised a lifelong iron control over herself never publicly and visibly meddling in political affairs (though I don’t doubt she wielded influence in private, to ends that we are not permitted to know). That control cannot be guaranteed in her successors.
It would be wise to put sounder constitutional arrangements in place at leisure to forestall such a constitutional emergency. But I suspect that won’t happen. We will broadly retain our existing arrangements unless and until we get such a bad monarch that we have to have a crisis.
“But to get rid of a bad king, we would be in constitutional crisis territory because the whole idea of a monarchy is that it is utterly unconcerned with the quality of the person who happens to be the monarch.”
1936.
Not the modern era, but it’s striking that since the conquest an additional 7 monarchs have been ‘got rid of’ one way or another (usually horribly) – Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V, Richard III, Charles I and James II & VII not to mention Lady Jane Grey (was she really Queen?) and William Rufus (suspicious hunting accident). That’s around 20-25% of the total.
1) 1936 was a constitutional crisis.
2) It was resolved because Edward VIII in the end chose to go quietly. (And remember that Charles is on the throne despite having done what Edward abdicated for.)
3) It would have got very messy had Edward VIII chosen to marry Wallis Simpson and then (in the style of Boris Johnson) hang on in defiance of the political establishment. It’s unclear how that would have been resolved, but it takes little imagination to regard that as an even greater constitutional crisis than actually occurred.
He was only got rid of because he fell in love with a divorcee. Had he not done so he would have reigned until the 1970s.
Perhaps not.
There were persistent rumours – at the time and subsequently – that Edward’s connections with Hitler’s government were too close; his friendship groups included Oswald Mosely and the supporters of Mosely (eg Harold Nicholson, him of the “Diaries”).
At the time many people in the UK didn’t regard Hitler as a threat. Some thought he had the right idea. Fascism is very attractive to some people, then and now. Edward’s sympathies in that direction were and are well known but that wasn’t why he abdicated.
Anyway, abdication was his decision, under pressure from the government not to marry a divorcee. The government can only apply pressure on the monarch, it can’t remove them.
“President Boris Johnson anyone?”
If President of the UK were to be an executive president, that would certainly be a horror of Trumpian proportions. But surely in the UK tradition a president would be non-executive like Ireland’s?
For all his many faults, I can’t help wondering whether Boris might even have been a success in the Michael D Higgins role. A lovable rogue, boosterish and essentially British, not to mention a pain in the backside for any government to have to deal with. What’s not to like?
Johnson wouldn’t want the non-executive president position. No real power, only limited ceremonial privilege. Too much like hard work for someone like him.
I’m not convinced. Given he hadn’t a clue what to do with power when he got it, I think it was the fame rather than the power that attracted Boris.
As for being PM in this British republic in a parallel universe, STV PR should ensure that the adulation of the Tory party would count for little and no lazy Tory toff could ever become PM.
Do you mean Johnson is essentially British because of his values (and the controversies surrounding them) or his family history?
I sat, watched and enjoyed. Interesting that for all the high flummery the legal significance was – not much.
Maybe just me but I had a slight frisson when the Archbishop read Charles the rulebook emphasising his duty and indeed contractual obligations to keep the Archbish in the style to which he had become accustomed. As a sinner I could almost feel that finger boring into Charles’s chest ‘yes I mean you’.
I got the distinct impression that the AofC’s sermon was aimed firmly and squarely at the likes of Johnson, Truss and Sunak wanting power for their own privilege and advancement (not to mention wealth). Charles already has privilege and isn’t really getting any more power.
As a non-militant Republican I would say never say never. The polarity of the monarchy has already reduced since Charles took over and it could slide further. His mother worked hard to boost her polarity, but I doubt Charles has the capability to emulate her. Age is not on his side.
At some point Republicanism will become a popular and respected view and then anything could happen.
I thought yesterday’s spectacle in the Abbey was weirder than any Monty Python spoof. We even had Penny Mordaunt as the moistened bint distributing swords. Some of the symbolism is bizarre in the extreme. Now we’ve all seen it for ourselves and the pointlessness of it all is even clearer.
Worth drawing attention to this other commentary on the Coronation, which makes a similar argument at greater length – chiefly that the importance of the Coronation ceremony is that it makes clear to everyone that the Prime Minister is not top dog.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pwnallthethings/p/long-live-the-king
That blog assumes a Republic must have an executive president such as the POTUS. Germany, Italy and Ireland are all democracies but have non-executive Presidents as Head of State.
In the UK the Monarch may wear the Crown but the PM is by far the most powerful person in the land, more powerful than the POTUS as long as they have a Commons majority. Their time is limited only because the electorate (and their fellow MPs) get fed up with them and they are ejected in one way or another.
Like you I am an a non militant republican and you are unerringly correct in saying that it is the power the monarchy denies to others that is its significance, (politics 101) or it it?
The executive seem to have so many ways of doing whatever they want to do without oversight from Parliament or indeed involvement by the Crown that perhaps it is time we had a Republic with an elected executive with proper checks and balances.
I once wrote to the late Queen to urge her to bestow the title of Royal on Wootton Bassett. I received a reply from one of her functionaries, reminding me that we live in a constitutional Monarchy and the correct person to address the request to was the PM Gordon Brown. I never wrote to Brown but still like to think it was my letter that nudged Her Majesty into telling Gordon what to do and lo and behold – result. I sometimes underestimate my power.
But if the Monarchy cannot bestow the title Royal on a Borough – then they really have no power whatsoever and the case for a properly constituted Republic is made the stronger.
But, as you are aware, any such move to create a Republic, as attractive as it may seem at first sight, would be akin to turkeys voting for christmas – and that is not going to happen – perhaps that – rather that the unalloyed popular devotion to a monarchy is the real reason we will never be a Republic .
It seems to me that it is also the case that this bizarre arrangement seems to suit both the Monarchy and the Executive, it gives the Monarchy a seeming purpose but no power or responsibility and no accountability either and it suits the Executive since they have so many ways to make Parliament redundant, (as many of your excellent blogs have explained) that it suits them as well – very cosy.
One is reminded of Cromwell:
” You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … In the name of God, go!”
I don’t understand your “turkeys voting for Christmas” idea. A republic does not mean we must have an executive President (thus taking power from Parliament). Far from it. The ideal British Republic would have a non-executive president, as is common in Europe. Parliament would still be supreme, we would have a Head of State easily removeable when they come to be re-elected and no expensive Royal Family to go along with the Monarch.
Those seeking power wouldn’t want the job. The likes of Blair and Johnson wouldn’t want such a limited role.
It was emphatically a worship service of the Church of England by law established, but that isn’t the only national Church in the UK by law established.
Not great viewing for Scots, seeing the Church of Scotland’s sole representative reduced to a token presence (indeed, compared with previous coronations, given an unusually prominent, if nevertheless trivial role).
Not a great message for rUK.
As a non belligerent republican, it seems to me that the power that the late Queen exercised and her son can continue to exercise (ensuring employment law did not affect her estates and other first looks and exemptions for the royal family) have only recently been exposed I believe and seem to have been used for her own and her family’s enrichment and benefit. On the other hand, she said and did nothing to prevent the illegal prorogation of Parliament, one area in which she surely had a right and the duty to prevent? It was left to a brave commoner (one of her loyal subjects) to defend the people’s’ rights against an overweening executive.
As to the coronation oaths and failure to take them, at what point does ensuring the monarch will abide by the “Protestant succession” on which this constitutional (and religious) monarchy is based, require substantiating? What if Charles were to convert to Roman Catholicism or any other faith for that matter secretly? Surely his right to the throne would be immediately invalid?
« The executive seem to have so many ways of doing whatever they want to do without oversight from Parliament or indeed involvement by the Crown that perhaps it is time we had a Republic with an elected executive with proper checks and balances. »
Surely that is an argument for a written constitution regulating the separation of powers, rights and obligations of each part of the government apparatus etc…
Such a document can easily include a monarch (or not) if such is desired. Look up (say) the Belgian constitution for an example.
Never, ever say ‘never’.
Hope springs eternal and nations come and go … as do empires.
My issue with the monarchy is that as it has been stripped of all of its power this has been subsumed into the executive power of the prime minister. We shouldn’t fear an elected president as we in effect have already have someone with more power that role would have.
“My issue with the monarchy is that as it has been stripped of all of its power this has been subsumed into the executive power of the prime minister.”
And yet: Johnson could not prorogue Parliament by royal prerogative alone, and May could not send an A50 notification by royal prerogative alone.
How many times does it have to be said? The choice is not monarchy or an executive president. It is monarchy or an elected head of state. The King is head of state but has no executive powers. That can equally be applied to a non executive president.
The idea it must be an executive is what scares people about a Republic. They argue we wouldn’t want a President Blair or Johnson. Too right, but that isn’t the only option.
Switching to an elected executive would totally change our constitution and manner of government. A non-executive president would be much less disruptive but very welcome change democratic change.
Charles undoubtedly became king on the death of his mother, automatically, by operation of law. All the following ceremonial – accession council, proclamations, coronation, etc. – are just confirming and reconfirming and recapitulating and underlining that basic fact.
The repetition suggests a residual concern that someone might gainsay, although there has been no need for any successor to see off an alternative challenger for the crown for a long time – not since (arguably) the Young Pretender, or perhaps James II was deposed. The hypothetical Stuart claim is currently held by the 89 year old Duke of Bavaria (great grandson of the last King of Bavaria, Ludwig III) and he has no interest in reviving the claim.
It seems to me that coronation as practised in England today is essentially a transactional matter between church and monarch, dressed up in fine robes and so-called “ancient” ceremony, much of which is reinvented by each generation. The monarch publicly asserts their claim to be the lawful sovereign, and promises to protect and defend the church. In return, the church gives its imprimatur to the monarch. The secular power protects the sacred power, and gets its “divine right” or “mandate of heaven” confirmed. Disloyalty to the monarch becomes a matter of blasphemy as well as treason.
As Handel puts it: God save the king. Long live the king. May the king live forever. Amen, amen, alleluia, alleluia, amen, amen.
Interesting counterfactual thoughts about 1688 “and all that” and 1714.
You could probably chuck in the Jacobite rebellions (which are strangely ignored these days) and 1789 (or 1792 and the Terror) as turning points in our political history. Both motivated the forces of reaction in England and may well have set back the universal franchise by 50 years.
As a non-Catholic, it is remarkable that the Coronation continues to define England by its opposition to the Catholic Church. (And there are overtones of this Freemasonry type position towards mainland Europe in attitudes towards the EU).
There is an Edward VIII hospital in Durban, South Africa. At the time the province of Natal was administered by white English-speaking South Africans who were very pro-empire.