For many, the coronation of King Charles III was another great British occasion in a seamless tradition. That was the way the ever respectful broadcasters mostly saw it. For others, though, the coronation was either an affront to the way we live now or, perhaps in most cases, just an irrelevance. Most people had other things to do with their time than watch the events in Westminster Abbey and the streets of London.
True, the crowds in the Mall on Saturday represent something real about modern Britain. But they are only one part of the weekend story. Other parts matter too. In Glasgow and Cardiff there were demonstrations under Not My King banners. At Anfield, Liverpool football supporters drowned out the national anthem that was being played to mark the occasion.
Demonstrations against the coronation were held in London as well – and had been officially approved – but police then erected temporary walls to block them from view and pre-emptively arrested at least 52 people, including the head of the anti-monarchy campaign Republic. This is a human rights abuse. Things like that happen in Moscow and Hong Kong. These arrests should go no further.
Britain’s relationship, if any, with its monarchy in the era of King Charles III is a work in progress. There is majority support for the monarchy, but the coronation is not the end of the matter. Before the coronation, the majority said they cared little or nothing about it. In the event, and perhaps due to the weather, about 20 million watched on TV. That is two-thirds of the total who watched the late Queen’s funeral. Neither King Charles nor Queen Camilla enjoys Elizabeth II’s level of popularity.
It bears repeating that there was no constitutional need for the coronation, let alone for the elaborate affair that took place at the abbey. Saturday’s event was a choice, not an obligation – and it was a choice that may cost the state as much as £250m. That would be a dubious use of resources at any time, but doubly so when so many are struggling to get by.
The coronation was a grand and colourful ritual designed to reinforce the monarchy’s allure. But it was not an important event in a deeper historical or political sense. The coronation has made nothing happen. At its heart were rituals that are umbilically connected to the past – like the medieval divinity of kings and Britain’s hard-won Protestant independence – not to the present or the future.
The coronation was not insignificant, however. There was much of interest on a number of levels: personal, public and cultural. These ranged from the marginalisation of Prince Harry, through the first Roman Catholic involvement in a coronation since the Reformation, to the monarch’s unmistakably deliberate showcasing of British music at a time when the arts are under assault. For King Charles, a central purpose may have been to have his once controversial wife, Camilla, finally proclaimed as queen.
In the end, though, Britain needs to come to terms with the fact that much of what happened on Saturday was simply absurd. The consecration and anointing of the head of state, the continued embedding of a state religion, and the crowds rushing to cheer crowned monarchs on a palace balcony are events that set Britain apart, and not in good ways. All are ultimately infantilising to our country.
Big debates about the monarchy and its future have become unavoidable and necessary, not least about the crown’s wealth, where its riches came and come from, and any connections with Britain’s enslaving and imperial past. Several Commonwealth countries seem likely to rethink the relationship with the crown soon. Britain needs to debate these issues too. There should be no taboos. The monarchy cannot hide behind its elaborately woven coronation screens.
