What science says about the coronation of Charles III
On May 6, a 74-year-old eccentric will be crowned king of the United Kingdom and 14 Commonwealth realms following the longest apprenticeship in history. The Archbishop of Canterbury will anoint Charles with holy oil, and present him with various symbolic objects, including an orb and a scepter. He will then place a heavy gold crown on the king’s head (so heavy in fact that it can only be worn briefly).
Camilla will then be anointed and crowned in the same way as the Queen Consort.
The heart of the ceremony — the unction, or anointing with holy oil — will take place behind a golden cloth. The rest will be as public as possible — a spectacular celebration broadcast to the nation and the world. Charles and Camilla will arrive at Westminster Abbey via a grand procession. People across the country will hold street parties to celebrate the crowning of the new monarch. A few old people will reminisce about Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953.
Many millions of people will watch the ceremony. But what is really going on here? What does the coronation mean behind the anointing and swearing?
The most obvious interpretation — that Britain is creating a new king — is constitutional balderdash. The Prince of Wales became Charles III the moment Queen Elizabeth breathed her last. Historically, the ceremony was used to make it absolutely clear who was the monarch, and marginalize rival claimants. But today there do not seem to be any rival claimants eager to deprive the Windsors of their job.
A cynical interpretation is that the coronation is a distraction from our routine troubles — an excuse for dressing up in elaborate outfits and throwing street parties.
Surprisingly, one of the great defenders of British royalty thought much the same thing. In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot defended the monarchy on the grounds that it legitimized the social order through a cunning combination of mystery and distraction. The royal family enveloped power in mystery. “The English Monarchy strengthens our government with the strength of religion,” he said at one point and warned that “we must not let daylight in on magic.” But it also distracted attention from the real workings of power by keeping people’s attention fixated on ceremonies. These rites had the advantage of being both quotidian and irrelevant.
This argument might have had some force when Bagehot made it in the mid-Victorian age, when deference was in the water and most people didn’t have the benefit of education. But people these days are quite aware that the real business of government is done by politicians rather than kings and dukes. They temper their courtesies to the king with a furious cynicism about the behavior of some members of his family (and indeed his own behavior when he cheated on his previous wife).
A more plausible explanation is based on the notion of “social solidarity.” That concept requires two things: the acceptance of common moral rules and the affirmation of the bonds that bind us together as members of a common community. “There can be no society,” wrote Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of the discipline of sociology, “which does not feel the need of upholding and affirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and the collective ideas which make its unity and its personality. Now this moral remaking cannot be achieved except by the means of reunions, assemblies and meetings where the individuals, being closely united to one another, reaffirm in common their common sentiments.”
The coronation is a Durkheimian ceremony par excellence. The king agrees to observe the canons of a good society — mercy, charity, justice and protective affection. At the same time, the British people reaffirm their social bonds not only by participating in the ceremony as spectators but also by holding all sorts of celebrations. The broader society recommits itself, in Durkheim’s phrase, to its higher collective ideals.
Edmund Burke famously argued that society is a contract between the living and the dead as well as the living and the unborn. The coronation also involves tightening intergenerational bonds. Royalists love to dwell on the historical nature of the ceremony because they feel deeply attached to kings down the ages and traditions that have survived the passage of time.
In their classic account of Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953, Edward Shills and Michael Young wrote that “the central fact is that Britain came into the coronation period with a degree of moral consensus such as few large societies have ever experienced.” The war against Nazism united society. Today’s Britain is much more fractured. Brexit has embittered political arguments. There are fierce culture wars about race, gender and — reaching to the very heart of the monarchy’s concerns — empire and national identity.
So affirming social solidarity is far trickier today than it was in 1953. King Charles’ strategy is both to broaden and narrow the monarchy. He is broadening it by embracing ethnic minorities and different religious traditions: The lineal successor of Henry VIII has made great play of being a defender of faith in general rather than the Church of England.
Charles has thrown himself into causes such as environmentalism and corporate social responsibility. The wonderfully designed (and fully recycled) invitations to the ceremony feature the Green Man, surrounded by ivy, hawthorn and oak leaves, a figure from ancient folklore who symbolizes spring, birth and renewal. The Palace goes out of its way to point out that the secret anointing oil doesn’t contain any ingredients resulting from harm to animals (these reportedly include ambergris — a natural by-product of sperm whales — orange flowers, roses, jasmine and cinnamon).
King Charles’ commitment to slimming down the monarchy (and side-lining excrescences such as his brother Andrew, the Duke of York) is underlined by the ceremony. It is shorter than his mother’s three-hour marathon, and the number of people invited is much smaller. The modernizing King and Consort will be carried to the ceremony in a “relatively modern horse drawn carriage” equipped with electric windows and air conditioning.
Whether Charles can do enough to save the monarchy from the erosion of time remains in doubt: The proportion of the population that supports the institution is once more drifting downward after the outpouring of affection for the Queen on her death on Sept. 8. But Britain arguably needs a force that can reaffirm social bonds today more than ever.
Modernity is plagued by anomie, as Durkheim liked to point out. The institution of the family is more fragile than in the past, particularly among poorer Britons. Levels of civil engagement are declining.
The monarchy is arguably uniquely suited to provide a centripetal force in a centrifugal society, bringing people together rather than spinning them away. It is a public organization that floats above the cut-and-thrust of day-to-day politics. Though it’s rooted in the past, it has succeeded in changing dramatically over the years, surviving the end of the divine right of kings and the arrival of democracy.
Charles III may well be the right man at the right time. He recognized from an early age that the monarchy needs to come to terms with multiculturalism and “political correctness” if it is to survive. That instinct is all-important. The monarchy’s most important function today is not just to embody tradition in a rapidly changing world, but to provide a force for cohesion in a society plagued by atomization and anomie.
Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A former writer at the Economist, he is author, most recently, of “The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World.”
