That headline isn’t mine. Rather, it was the name of a paper written by my father Michael Young and his colleague Edward Shills in 1953 about the Coronation of HRH Elizabeth II and published in an academic journal called Sociological Review. You can download it here – it’s terrific. Drawing on the work of Emile Durkheim, they argue that the Coronation was an affirmation of the moral values by which our society lives – an act of national communion. They summarise their hypothesis as follows:
A society is held together by its internal agreement about the sacredness of certain fundamental moral standards. In an inchoate, dimply perceived, and seldom explicit manner, the central author of an orderly society, whether it be secular or ecclesiastical, is acknowledged to be the avenue of communication with the realm of the sacred values. Within its society, popular constitutional monarchy enjoys almost universal recognition in this capacity, and it is therefore enabled to heighten the moral and civil sensibility of the society and to permeate it with symbols of those values to which the sensitivity responds. Intermittent rituals bring the society or varying sectors of it repeatedly into contact with this vessel of the sacred values. The Coronation provided at one time and for practically the entire society such an intensive contact with the sacred that we believe we are justified in interpreting it as we have done in this essay, as a great act of national communion.
Is that also true of the Coronation we witnessed today? The sacred symbols were all there – the Coronation Chair, commissioned by Edward I; the orb; the imperial state crown that includes a ruby Henry V wore at the Battle of Agincourt. But for the people watching it on television, did it feel as if they were making contact with a realm of sacred values? Did the ceremony embody the fundamental moral standards that characterise British society? Was it an act of national communion?
It is tempting to answer ‘no’ because the whole affair was so deeply rooted in Christianity, from the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the blasts of choral music, and we are a post-Christian society. A lot of the the commentary – I flitted back and forth between the BBC and GB News – focused on the way in which this Coronation ceremony had been updated compared with the last one, with peers representing the different faiths, a female bishop taking part, the address by our Hindu Prime Minister, etc. But the most striking thing about it was how little had changed since 1953. I kept an eye out for the intrusion of ‘woke’ elements, but I was disappointed – or, rather, pleasantly surprised. In essence, Charles’s kingly authority was conferred on him by God, as was explicit in the most mystical part of the ceremony when he was anointed with holy water standing behind a screen in his shirtsleeves. What sacred meaning could that possibly have for people who don’t believe in God?
But I think that’s based on a superficial understanding of the meaning of the ceremony. Shills and Young also describe the Britain of 1953 as a ‘post-Christian’ society and while there were many more church-goers back then, how many of them understood all the Christian elements in the Coronation? Indeed, the fact that much of it was incomprehensible – then, as now, many parts of the ceremony seemed completely bizarre, like the placing of a rod into the hands of the monarch – is part of what makes it so quintessentially British. That dimension of it was captured nicely by the Australian rock star Nick Cave, who was in attendance today. In his blog a few days ago, he included his response to various tetchy emails he’d received asking him why he was bothering to go:
I once met the late Queen at an event at Buckingham Palace for ‘Aspirational Australians living in the U.K.’ (or something like that). It was a mostly awkward affair, but the Queen herself, dressed in a salmon coloured twin-set, seemed almost extraterrestrial and was the most charismatic woman I have ever met. Maybe it was the lighting, but she actually glowed. As I told my mother – who was the same age as the Queen and, like the Queen, died in her nineties – about that day, her old eyes filled with tears. When I watched the Queen’s funeral on the television last year I found, to my bafflement, that I was weeping myself as the coffin was stripped of the crown, orb and sceptre and lowered through the floor of St. George’s Chapel. I guess what I am trying to say is that, beyond the interminable but necessary debates about the abolition of the monarchy, I hold an inexplicable emotional attachment to the Royals – the strangeness of them, the deeply eccentric nature of the whole affair that so perfectly reflects the unique weirdness of Britain itself. I’m just drawn to that kind of thing – the bizarre, the uncanny, the stupefyingly spectacular, the awe-inspiring.
So, that is part of its meaning – for many, the Coronation embodied the uniqueness of our country. Not an affirmation of our sacred values, perhaps, but a celebration of our eccentricity, our oddness. Some people dislike the Royal Family and point to its vast wealth, as well as the cost of staging events like this (£250 million). Couldn’t that money be better spent helping the disadvantaged? But most Britons have a strong attachment to the monarchy and I suspect that’s partly because no other country can put on a show like this. For better or worse, this is what we’re famous for, this is why millions of tourists come to Britain every year to see the Royal Palaces and hope to catch a glimpse of the occupants.
There’s also the fact that the Royals are a family, something that’s central to the institution’s meaning for many people. Shills and Young cite Bagehot’s explanation of how the actions of a retired widow and unemployed youth (Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales) become of such importance: they are members of a family and, as such, they are relatable for the mass of ordinary Britons. To be sure, some members of the Firm in attendance today were conspicuous by their black sheep status, but it was the web of family relationships surrounding Charles that provided some of the most touching moments, such as when his son William helped dress him after he’d been anointed. What Shills and Young say about this aspect of the 1953 Coronation could equally have been said about today’s:
The family, despite the ravages of urban life and despite those who allege that it is in dissolution, remains one of the most sinewy of institutions. The family tie is regarded as sacred, even by those who would, or do, shirk the diffuse obligations it imposes. The Coronation, like any other great occasion which in some manner touches the sense of the sacred, brings vitality into family relationships. The Coronation, much like Christmas, was a time for drawing closer the bonds of the family, for reasserting its solidarity and for reemphasising the values of the family – generosity, loyalty, love – which are at the same time the fundamental values necessary for the well-being of the larger society. When listening to the radio, looking at the television, walking the streets to look at the decorations, the unit was the family, and neither mother nor father were far away when their children sat down for cakes and ice cream at one of the thousands of street and village parties held that week. Prominent in the crowds were parents holding small children on their shoulders and carrying even smaller ones in cradles. In all towns over the country, prams were pushed great distances to bring into contact with the symbols of the great event infants who could see or appreciate little. It was as if people recognised that the most elementary unit for entry into communion with the sacred was the family, not the individual.
So, yes, it was a deeply odd occasion and it probably meant a little less to today’s Britons than the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth did 70 years ago. But the revelation for me today was how meaningful it all was, how much of a connection there still is between the British people and their monarch, how little disenchantment there is with the symbols and rituals of a dying religion, as well as the great outpouring of affection from ordinary people, not just towards this jug-eared 74 year-old and his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law and his grandchildren, but towards each other. Britain did not feel like a country gradually succumbing to strife and division today, but a strong nation, still quietly patriotic, still with a high degree of social solidarity, still capable of renewal.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Some things are worth conserving.
News, apparently, to the “Conservative” fraction of the Uniparty.
The Monarchy is about continuity, and I understood this much better having watched the CBC interview with Princess Anne, Much of the ritual in the Coronation was mystifying to me, and I conclude that is how it should be, mysterious and not easily explained. It is not up to me in my short span on earth to dismiss an accumulation of wisdom over more than a thousand years. Many things are greater than us and some humility and acceptance would not go amiss.
Continuity of what I may ask?
After being brought up in the early 1950s in a Christian working class family, and as a child.. actually stood to attention when the national anthem was played.. I look at this spectacle and the characters taking part in it with disgust.
I’ve read and found out a lot about these wretched leeches over the years, and I for one give them zero respect. Any of them, and that includes your precious Princess Anne.
As for the man who’s just been crowned the King.. I’ll mention just three things that people should remember.. The death of Princess Diana, Jimmy Saville, and the World Economic Forum. Any one of those, if looked into, should give pause for thought at the very least, instead of blind obedience because of tradition.
I for one do not need a King to guide my way, lead me, especially when I become a ‘subject’ under that Monarch.
Fine, carry on. We can disagree, that’s what the forum is for. You sound much more angry than I am.
Yes we do disagree, and I’ve every right to be angry.
Those you hold in high esteem have been responsible for virtually every war ever witnessed and hundreds of millions of deaths over millennia.
Its people like you that keep them in their ivory towers.. sucking off the teat of the rest of us like the parasites they are..
Oh look out.. the phantom down-ticker’s about.. haha
For what it’s worth, I intended to make a point about the institutions rather than the individuals. I too grew up un the 1950s but fortunately for my health and sanity am not carrying an enormous chip on my shoulder. I didn’t say I hold the Royal Family in high esteem, my point is that I don’t know of a better regime than a constitutional monarchy, where two institutions work together. Give yourself a break.
No chip on my shoulder whatsoever Bloss.. just stating how I feel, and it appears we are in disagreement. So be it. I don’t have a problem with that as such.
Re the institutions, be they a monarchy or some sort of presidency.. its been well proved that neither serve their people really, and we don’t need them. They serve the wishes of the so called elites/aristocracies, and just like so called ‘Democracy’ its just a veneer for us plebs.
As for (giving myself a break) tah.. I’ll take it. Will put a brew on right now..
Talking of the much-loved DJ Jimmy Savile…
Monarchy is indeed about continuity – Charles isn’t.
Royalty to me seems now to be a mute point, it’s just pomp and circumstance!
The shine of Royalty dimmed with the death of the queen and don’t think it will ever return to that glory, a bit like religion is being shunned generationally
‘Deeply odd’
Which is important. A President, Presidential inauguration, would, always is elsewhere, deeply odd but for the wrong reasons; uninteresting.
The monarchy, monarch, is a bit like that eccentric young officer whose confidential report read:
‘Men will follow this individual, if only out of idle curiosity’
In support of the galvanising effect of a monarchy, I give you the legend that is Paul ‘Harry’ Embery, above, being told to return to California!
By the way, as an exemplar of a reasoned and rational debater, few can better the articulacy and sangfroid of Mr Embery, very few of whose views I share but whose right to express them I defend absolutely.
Well Chuckles has got an awful lot to live up to and if he doesn’t publicly proclaim his commitment to this country and at the same time announce his divorce from Schwab and the WEF then we will know that the so-called Coronation and Oath of Allegiance were nothing but pantomime.
Is that a piece of bacon winging it’s way across the London skyline?
As you were.
Oh I’m sure all the muppets will still be belting out ”God save the King” from their ’15-minute ghettos’ and dutifully eating their bug burgers while Charles is tucking into his organic, non-lab meat sirloin steak whilst flying wherever he chooses on his private, non-electric plane. ”Britons never, never, never shall be slaves”, eh? We’ve seen how this pans out with ‘the great brainwashed’..
Good post Mogwai..
Absolutely Mogs.
Good post Huxley..
Thanks George.
And it’s thanks from me! Great posts all of you
Thanks Dinger
Bang on. One of the few in the congregation who seemed not to get what was going on was the lovely Humza Yousaf, who firmly refused to sing along to the jolly old National Anthem. Not terribly surprising but sooo depressing. Why bother to show your face?? Otherwise, yes I found myself reflecting in much the same way as Toby; these funny little Brits, despite the nuttiness that many of them have displayed over the last few years, seem to want to retain most of the good bits of being a Brit really means, on perhaps the vague understanding that they’ve done alright from the arrangement, whether born here or having come to live here. Family is all, quite so – and that too was brought home to us by the gleaming faces and figures of those beautiful royals (well, quite a few of them anyway). But also somewhat important are our history and culture, as we’re reminded by the sublime architecture and transcendent music every time a royal is married or commemorated in this way. It all felt surprisingly…good, didn’t it. Just need Charles to emulate his mother’s laudable habit of Not Getting Involved – which he’ll find difficult, having pressed the clammy flesh of the likes of Gates and Schwab. Here’s hoping. (And Penny Mordaunt would be welcome to hold my sword any time – if only she hadn’t been so gushing about all that LGBT codswallop a little while ago. Oh well, can’t have it all.)
Penny Mordaunt???? Play up Pompey.. haha
Bob Moran’s cartoon summed it up for me.
bobmoran.co.uk
Me too..
Same. If art is a form of expression then I think no words are needed to convey how our Bob feels about Charlie boy.
Bob has been in fire with his ‘toons lately. The last two like laser-guided art missiles!
Perhaps it’s because I’m an atheist, but so much of this coronation performance stood out for its pythonesque absurdities: my husband and I laughed but despaired. This god fest was clearly about Welsby’s determined promotion of the Church Of England. I think the National Secular Society argues the case very well. I hope it’s a debate we have ahead of William’s succession. https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2023/05/coronation-should-trigger-debate-on-church-and-state-says-nss I was once a royalist but am pushed to ambivalence, not least because of the ceremonial farce, much of which I suspect made the world laugh too.
Many the world over admire the dottiness and humour of Britain……and, of course, the monarchy never fails to attract attention, some unfavourable, much the other way.
And the coronation was delightfully dotty. I didn’t enjoy much of the music. But, if we gave the world a good smile, even at our expense, then we did them a favour. Have we lost the ability to laugh at ourselves? Maybe……
Why we don’t make more of the monarchy, whether royalist or not, as a country, is completely beyond me.
A new Royal Yacht would promote British Companies in a way that few of our competitors could match.
I didn’t watch it all but caught a few musical moments and one was a sublime choral piece but much of it was indeed dire.
Didn’t they have a Ukrainian flag floor covering? I only saw a brief video clip so I may be mistaken..
I did think that bright yellow and blue floor covering was quite garish – reminded me of the Covid signs!
Clearly you don’t understand the nature of the link between the Monarch and the C of E (however much Welby has done to damage said C of E; I’d be a member were it not for the likes of he, happy to stigmatize those of us who spurned the death jab), or indeed why Constitutional Monarchy is such an excellent thing.
Maybe you’d prefer President Blair, dividing the country against itself?
This ceremony dates back a good 1000 years. That it has lasted is because it has meaning for our island nation.
Maybe read some history? To be ignorant about one’s country is not somthing I;d be proud to shout abroad.
I’m well aware of the history, thanks. (Your assumptions are not something to be proud of.) I think you miss my fundamental point: this is about empowering the CoE, which has far too much influence in our supposed democracy. Maybe read some law? There’s no need for this crowning ceremony at all. One can expect (and I don’t completely reject) some pomp and circumstance, but what took place was excessively religious and out of place. Not sure why you assume I want a new Head Of State, although it shouldn’t be excluded from future debate.
What influence does the CofE have? How is it exercise me and what is its effect?
Bishops are still an atavistic part of our legislature. This coronation service demands the sovereign recognises the authority of the bible and “to accept that constitutionally there should not be any attempt by human authorities to overrule it.” Not sure what people of other faiths think of that but as an atheist I reject it. The church fought against Sunday trading opening hours for years and is the reason we have restricted hours now, including Easter Sunday closures. Here are some of the campaigns against religious influence in society:https://www.secularism.org.uk/campaigns/
Thanks. I don’t think in practical terms that bishops being part of the legislature or the nominally Christian identity of the head of state make much difference to our lives. I suppose I am an “atheist” but I don’t find the influence of the CofE or religion in general overly intrusive. The CofE and Christianity are part of our history, but have adapted themselves to how we live now. There’s still an appetite for religion among some – I have mixed feelings about some of those religions and their beliefs and behaviours – especially those that seem to run against our traditions, but the need to join groups and believe things is strong.
Sorry.. but what an ignorant post.. you need to get your head out of your ar$e instead of looking back a thousand years. Maybe its you that ought to read some history.. real history, not the tripe you’ve obviously been spoon fed since birth..
I see Welby like Charles, as far from the ideal person you’d want in the role. But the institution, ie the church, can survive him undamaged ultimately. Christianity is beyond “woke”. If you wait for everything about the conduct of your faith to suit you before you will commit to it, you will be waiting forever. Find a church that works for you. Even that church won’t work entirely. There are things about mine – the lack of pastoral community work – I don’t like. But is enough, when I sit there, to lift me above the bits I disagree with. Nothing will ever be perfect
Archetypally the King is the intermediary between the divine and the people so even if the ceremony was secular, one would still expect it to have a nod to the King/Queen as connected to something greater, however you understand that. I’m not sure you can just strip out the mystical/religious element without it losing all meaning as a ceremony.
There is no ‘divine’, which is why it’s so ridiculous and so outrageous that there are still Bishops in the HOL and the likes of the ghastly Welsby have the King’s ear.
I don’t believe there’s a “divine” and it seems you don’t either, but others do. Both views are simply beliefs and shall forever remain so. It cannot be proved one way or the other.
I am sorry you are unable to admit the transcendent into your life. There is a great deal of nonsense about Welby, I agree – not sure why you keep inserting an “s” into his name – but about the faith he is supposed to represent, there is none. Christianity was never meant to be understood literally. The Bible is a book of wisdom not of history. And there are many ways of coming at what it teaches us, ie there is much in common between religions. But without a longing to understand what more there is beyond ourselves, we are nothing. Yesterday connected us to our past and our faith. It reminded us of who we are and where we have come from. As I caught a train back to Surrey, I was surrounded by happy, excited families with flags and small children wearing crowns, all chattering about the history they had witnessed. Give me that over some dull elected head of state, sworn in via some form of words that today’s ghastly bureaucrats have put together. It can never have the mystery, the power, the majesty of what we saw yesterday, whatever we think of the very imperfect man who is now our King. Give me a thousand years of our history, every one of them better than what we have become since.
I’m glad so many people enjoyed the occasion as a national celebration; I wonder how many of them ever set foot inside a church. A thousand years of history is not all positive, unless you don’t mind the witch burning, beheadings, dungeons and other punishments for treason or for denying the existence of a god?
Personally I find it sad but I lump the royals in with friends, families, institutions, that have so disappointed me over the past 3 years. I suppose I think they’re all guilty of treason. They’ve betrayed their country, not something I can easily forgive.
Quite agree and as hux mentions above, where does Charles and his fam stand in relation to the WEF, the WHO Treaty, CBDC etc etc?? For or against? We’re talking about the future of the UK and a supposed democracy here. Because this is surely imperative to ascertain in order for the population to support the monarchy or not.
I find it quite idiotic for people to proclaim they’re pro-monarchy but then be totally against the globalist agenda, because you know your new clown King is going to sit back and watch British people become enslaved, imprisoned, impoverished and starved, all in the name of ‘saving the planet’, the ‘greater good’, or some such codswallop, don’t you? Yes I know royalty don’t get involved in politics etc but I think we can all see which way the wind’s blowing here given Charles’ views. Why would anyone be supportive of them when it’s just a matter of time before you get shafted by your own head of state? It’s just some nostalgic, fairytale nonsense now. I think the WEF have penetrated more than just the cabinets..
My thoughts entirely.. well expressed..
True & William is following in his footsteps !
I think the big change made by those who should have behaved more honestly (especially from Blair onwards) has been the outsourcing of sovereign authority to global agencies such as the UN, WEF and WHO. This has been done without democratic consultation, effectively behind our backs, in the hope that we wouldn’t notice. The narrative these agencies put out is deceptively harmless, but as we have seen the implications of their policies are authoritarian if not totalitarian. In this political environment it was probably judged that Prince Charles’ involvement in the Great Reset would be uncontroversial and beneficial, even if it was a political act. He would have been prevented from taking part if we had not outsourced authority in this way and his environmental and anti-growth views would have been seen as just one side of a valid debate.
I do not think that it is the fault of the Monarchy that this has happened, although the dimwits surrounding it have been duped. I look in vain for the principled constitutional experts who should have stood up and spoken out.
On the money Mogs
Reading Nick Caves Queen experience i actually welled up ! My wife once met Princess Anne who she said had the same extraterrestrial glow , Chas hasn’t got it so much so we boycotted the Coronation coverage ,then as Toby describes the still loyal public who turned out on masse I felt such empathy for my countrymen in that heaving mass who have been betrayed beyond measure the past 3 years . To sum up ,we as a nation don’t deserve what’s happened to us & Charlie Boy isn’t going to make things any better I’m afraid
I just see a lot of cognitive dissonance and double standards. After all, you’ve now got Mr Great Reset himself as King.
Exactly..
Yes a WEF founding father I think I’m right in saying !
Correct.
The only thing that’s uniquely British about the British monarchy is that – due to it being British – England never allied with the USA to replace it with a communist dictatorship. Hence, it still exists.
Britain controls the USA through the Crown / City of London. The Sun never did set on the Empire.. it just dipped below the horizon for a while. Plenty of evidence out there to back up what I’m saying too.
I read about the claim you make many years ago and
thought provoking as it may be it didn’t appear to provide conclusive evidence.
For my education, can you provide reliable references? I keep hearing this story but behind it there just seems to be a misty veil.
You obviously have the internet Richard, just don’t use Google, but be warned, it’ll take time, and you’ll meet lots of FACT CHECKERS.. always a good sign you’re on the right track..
I’ve never really gone out of my way to find this information. My conclusions have come together over many years, with many sources involved. I’ve also made many accidental finds, purely by chance, snippets here and there that all add up to a bigger picture.
I
Oh look.. that’s upset a few.. keep it up George..
I don’t quite understand the point of this.
Sweden is a monarchy. Denmark is a monarchy. The Netherlands are monarchy. Belgium is a monarchy. All monarchies which existed eastwards of this arc have been dismantled and replaced with democratic republics a larger part of which ended up under Stalinist rule about 30 years later at the end of the first world war
(oversimplification — in some countries in this area, de-monarchification happened when the Russians conquered … ehhh … freed them and the installation of a representative democracy only took place after the successors of Britain’s most cherished genocidal mass murderer – Stalin – had driven their panislavist empire of terror against a wall).
An extremely nice example here would be Russia: In 1917, the Tsar wanted to sue for peace in the hope to get his empire out of the first world war before it was too late. By very mysterious circumstances, he was then toppled by a ‘democratic’ revolution which replaced the monarchy with a parliamentary democracy whose leaders where willing to continue fighting on the side of Britain and France. Some hundredthousands of dead Russians later, genuinely Russian revolutionaries (the Bolshevists) pulled the emergency brake in order to finally get Russia out of the war.
There’s nothing uniquely British about the notion of a monarchy and the associated pomp and cerermony, it’s just that Windsor … eh … Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is the only German royal house whose throne no British government ever sought to pulverize.
Indeed. But it wasn’t an “address” by our Hindu Prime Minister. It was a reading from the Bible. Our Hindu Prime Minister stood in a Christian church and read from the Bible. And if he wanted to be part of this great ceremony, he actually had to step into its Christian framework.
Yes, Britain is still a Christian country – no matter how much clever people may try to pretend that we have “moved beyond all that nonsense”. That may not always be the case – but it is for now at least.
I watched the processions on GB News because I enjoy the pageantry, but I scrolled through a lot of the Coronation Service.
I only watched the bits I did so I could enjoy David Starkey explaining the evolution of the ceremony and the historical references which were “hat tipped” during the proceedings.
As far as I’m concerned, since he has not renounced his support for the WEF and the imposition of The Great Reset by a Globalist Cartel, Charles blatantly LIED to God and the British people when he made his Coronation Oath.
Some have never forgiven his mother giving Royal assent to the European Communties Act 1972 which broke her Coranation Oath.
“The meaning of the coronation”
Less of a flying f*×K I couldn’t give!
The lovely Anna de Buisseret paid close attention to the oaths made yesterday & noted that the correct lawful form of the oath was not sworn. Will hopefully be able to ask her this evening how this effects the lawfulness of the coronation yesterday.
https://twitter.com/AnnadeBuisseret/status/1654795131269128194
All I can see is her assertion, not the specifics. Would like to see those.
That is why I’m going to ask her for the specifics this evening at the MD4CE meeting. I’ve contacted the host of the meetings to request that this question is raised, very important that we understand the implications.
You’ll have to wait until I have heard Anna’s response.
I’ve had a reply from the MD4CE meeting host who has promised to raise the question.
He too is a lawyer. He said that the key argument is that the Oath cannot be changed. The implications of this will be discussed this evening as they are interesting but unclear.
I look forward to your posting Anna’s views.
Anna hasn’t joined us tonight so will not be able to post anything yet.
Ok. Thanks.
I think, that like a lot of people I felt, and feel, very ambivalent about yesterday. I watched very little of the actual ceremony itself, and watched a ‘catch-up’ later in the day…
I hate the fact that the Monarchy is now so irrelevant to me..it feels like another piece of history and what it means to be English has gone from my life…that the conserving of the Monarchy is now something I don’t care about anymore…
I felt some attachment to it while ever Queen Elizabeth was alive..but no, not Charles…It never seemed to be as anachronistic to me as it does now..and that does sadden me somewhat…
Maybe, also because I have changed about what I see and believe anymore…I was annoyed at the subtle brainwashing of the blue and yellow colour revolution…the giant Ukrainian carpet was repugnant in that setting….far too politicised…and I’m sure done with a purpose, these things are never just by chance anymore…
The brilliant Simon Elmer from Architects for Social Housing has written an interesting article, which I’m not sure I agree with entirely, but which I now am open to in a way I wasn’t before….
https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2023/05/06/coronation-day-the-functions-of-the-monarchy/
He thinks Italy was on the losing side in WW1.
I didn’t watch ANY of the nonsense.
I don’t support the institution of monarchy (ditto presidency etc, it’s too long a story for this posting!) but did enjoy the spectacle, complexity, historical continuity and ritual weirdness of the coronation.
I also thought that overall the music was wonderful and expertly performed – I would normally go for the greater melodic beauty and simplicity of hymns over the relatively atonal and sombre choral pieces performed here, but found them to lend an ethereal and profound element to the proceedings.
I was also pleasantly surprised by the extent to which Christianity dominated the ceremony. Like the monarchical institution itself I don’t support any organised religions, including Christianity (I believe in a non-institutionalised spirituality), but at the same time accept that it at least carries forward a belief in the existence of an eternal soul, focus on individual moral responsibility etc.
It has to be said in this area that there is a huge problem with King Charles making various oaths to uphold the Christian faith, whilst presumably still maintaining his absolute commitment to the environmentalist creed. In effect these are two diametrically opposed and incompatible religions. In its most basic form you simply cannot worship both ‘The Planet’ (ie temporal materialism) and ‘God’ (eternal and non-material spirituality).
In more straightforwardly religious terms the Green creed is heavily associated with Paganism, indeed the Coronation invitation card was entirely dominated by that sort of imagery – flowers, fruits, animals, plants, mythical beasts, and a central ‘Green Man’ (a representation found in a few churches but overwhelmingly associated with paganism / nature-worship) – with not even a nod to Christianity eg cross etc
https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-04-04/the-coronation-invitation
And just to give a flavour of other contemporary manifestations of the paganistic creed which the new King seems to believe is compatible with Christianity, here are some images from the Beltane Fire Festival held annually in Edinburgh:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Beltane+Fire+Festival+2023&sxsrf=APwXEderBRsQ9f3oO7Fja8d_z8_I7O6vaA:1683453936171&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_sPHO-uL-AhVLVqQEHS1zDf8Q_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1588&bih=857&dpr=1
Indeed it is at a moral rather then theological level that all this is overwhelmingly most important.
Nature worship necessarily leads on to a full acceptance, indeed glorification, of predation / strong dominating the weak / endless and endemic violence as opposed to the self-sacrificially compassionate and anti-violence ideal maintained by Christianity (and to greater or lesser extents other religions, and certainly non-denominational spirituality).
Which is why environmentalism was absolutely central to the Nazi ideology and agenda (eg the regime maintained a very powerful Ministry for Organic Agriculture), which set out to systematically undermine Christianity (a ‘slave-like creed’) and replace its rituals and holidays with paganistic versions – including changing the name of Christmas to Julfest designed to celebrate the ‘winter solstice’ (Beltane mentioned above celebrates the ‘spring solstice’) rather than birth of Christ.
To put all this in a more immediate and concrete way, alongside Christianity there will be a complete incompatibility between King Charles III continuing to vigorously push the wildly illiberal and impoverishing Net Zero agenda at the same time as claiming to uphold the other oaths he made yesterday to serve and protect the interests of the UK public (which I accept itself widely buys into the green / Climate Change agenda, these are ideological and practical rather than personalised points).
‘… the Coronation was an affirmation of the moral values by which our society lives…’
We now have no moral values just ‘my lived experience’ and ‘my feelings’.
We are not a post-Christian society. We may be a post-religious society but we have a Judeo-Christian heritage. It was Christianity which united the Five Kingdoms, formerly Pagan, against the incoming Pagan Danes, eventually converted to Christianity too, to establish the proto-nation of the Angelcynn and Englaland.
‘Then came the Normans, almost fanatically Christian. Then the religious conflict and warfare of Protestant v Catholic.
Our Common Law, our institutions, morals, values, customs, tradition, manners and tolerance are rooted in this.
It is this culture that the Woking Class is smashing into fragments.
Charles is aiding and abetting that, instead of being the restoration.
100% correct
Hear, hear.
I believe in God, but not in Charles or his right to claim appointment by God. His job is to support all the British people, not the rich globalists that he does support and is part of the clan of. He has opinions expressed widely about things he has no scientific education or knowledge about. Particularly about climate and net-zero, which will cripple our country and make the poor poorer and put restrictions on their freedom, which he is supposed to support.
The Coronation in 1953 which I attended a street party for aged 6 was a much different affair, and we believed the queen was for the people of Britain so soon after the war people believed it then and the queen had a lot of respect, something missing from Charles. He is in a situation above the law, with a number of laws and taxes he has immunity from which the rest of us have to accept. Why, when we call ourselves a democracy, is that acceptable? Why, when you look into the activities of Charles in his personal and business life, is he a suitable candidate for king? If people knew the truth about him and his character, I don’t think the majority would vote for him. If we must have a king it should be by a general vote and there should be no possibility of claiming that right by inheritance.
Did I watch jug ears (friend and acolyte of Jimmy Saville, and the World Economic Forum) and “convenient” widower of Princess Diana blowing £100 million of OUR money on a soap opera for the benefit of gullible American and Japanese tourists….hell no
I’m afraid you did.. still.. its only OUR money not his.. alls well in England’s green and pleasant land..
It was a very globalist cast of characters; from Charlie the WEF, Welby the WEF, Penny Mordaunt the WEF through to the grim line-up of guests which I appreciate HAVE to be asked (Ursula VDL FGS!)
I was happy to watch it and know I didn’t have to be there. (Might have had to pass within a mile of Justin Trudeau…)
If I hear just once more the words “we do this sort of ceremonial better than anyone else in the world….” I will swear.
Maybe it’s because there have been so many big royal events this last year or so but I’ve had enough now. Time to give it a rest. I’m not offended by the Christianity in the coronation, but I flinch when I hear anyone use the word “coronated”; is there even such a word? What’s wrong with “crowned”?
It is meant to be a Christian service so I didn’t mind that but I wish I could believe that Chucky meant a single word that he said in all the oaths. Never mind, it’s done now – so kindly b****r off back to Highgrove, Chas, and don’t be spouting all your Net Zero nonsense after causing all this international travel, mobilisation of Forces personnel- not to mention Red Arrows fly-pasts.
The biggest surprise to me was seeing a Sikh all robed up in the choir; it’s probably a job to him – perhaps a lay clerk or something but I can’t imagine why he would want to sing that kind of repertoire. Very incongruous.
Watching the coronation there seemed to be an extraordinary amalgam of deep past and present, of stirring of emotions that came suddenly, at a particular instant, from we know not where, as when the boy chorister welcomed the King to Westminster Abbey, and asked him his purpose in a bold, man-to-man way. The king gravely replied that he had come to serve. It was like something out of a fairy tale. Equally moving was the moment when Justin Welby, after long complex rituals, roared out “God save the King.” For a man normally of a somewhat reedy tone of voice, where did such power and conviction come from?
The fairy tale aspect of these national occasions deserve to be taken seriously. JRR Tolkien described Fairy story as a ‘soup of story’ brewed age-long down the centuries, and observed that the many elements that have been put in the soup by the ‘cooks’, over the centuries, from time to time re-emerge into a new incarnation. This is what I believe happens on occasions like the coronation, or the Queen’s funeral. We recognise, without being able to put into words, ancient, archetypal elements or symbols, that are central to our historic sense of who we are. We feel rejuvenated, as if we have drunk from a fountain of youth.