Monday 15 May 2023

Some thoughts upon the Coronation of King Charles III


       

     It was my original intention to publish this post in two parts.  The first dealing with the event in general terms, the second in specifics.  The second part was never completed, and languished.  I decided that, really, a second part was not justified – it would have been arcane and largely negative in tone. Instead, both have been edited in to a single, and I hope not too arcane post.  I have been unable, though, to exorcise the negativity.

  

 

     "In this way the Imperial power, exerted with order and measure, thus represents the harmony and movement which the Creator has installed in all things."

De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae

 

     It is a week since the Coronation and I have been pondering upon what we witnessed. On Thursday Allan Barton committed his thoughts to video on YouTube here and this has helped clarify my own thoughts. I should add here that those Anglican clergy I follow on Twitter (and they are few - I have found to my cost that there really is nothing worse for my faith than a trawl through Anglican Twitter. It's enough to make you want to throw in the towel.) have, in the aftermath of the Coronation remained conspicuously silent.

    In revising this post nearly a year later, I have come to see the Coronation as an embodiment of the ‘Meaning Crisis’, and its particular manifestation in the ‘Crisis of Ritual’.  I think it is also manifest in a number of recent Royal occasions such as the last three of the Queen’s Jubilees and the Thanksgiving for the Life of the Duke of Edinburgh (Westminster Abbey, 29.03.2022.).  And it was present at the other religious service held to inaugurate the new reign, the 'Service of Thanksgiving and Dedication' held at the High Kirk of St Giles in Edinburgh.

     However, first let me say that there were a number of places in the service that were incredibly moving, most importantly the Anointing, and the investiture that immediately followed.1 It is telling that in both instances the music took precedence over the words of the liturgy, and the effect almost overwhelming, as the service, with its unity of music and ritual, edged towards a sort of spiritual gesamtkunstwerk. A moment of total integration, of axial alignment.  However, as Dr Barton points out that this was an innovation, not really that Anglican or even Protestant, but seemed to hark back to an earlier manner of doing things. The truth is that, even without those fleeting moments of sublimity, the coronation is a glimpse, no matter how much through a glass darkly, of the Pre-Modern.  No wonder the likes of the Guardian have been so snarky, so embittered by it. There has been a lot of elite 'coping' and the efforts of Polly Toynbee and Timothy Garton Ash have been conspicuously desperate.  For the Coronation, at this time, is almost an act of defiance. It represents both an alternative source of authority and a different way of viewing the world, and they, rightly or wrongly, perceive it as a threat.  No wonder all those politicians, huddled together in the choir stalls, looked so sullen and resentful, so uncomprehending.  A conflict between the enchantment and dis-enchantment of the world. Be that all as it may, those rare moments of integration I mentioned above were only possible thanks to some wonderful music and wonderful musicianship.

     That a full-blown coronation should have happened at all is, in itself, something to be extremely thankful for.  There were times a few years ago when it seemed highly unlikely - all the talk was of a 'multifaith installation service'. Prince Charles - as he was then - was rumoured to be in favour. In 2006, and based on an essay in The Spectator, the Daily Mail ran an article to that effect, suggesting that the Prince wanted a second service on Coronation Day in Westminster Hall in which the leaders of the various faith communities would play an active part. Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, was said to be supportive, but Rowan Williams, the then archbishop, against. In some ways the article was merely repeated what the Dean of Westminster, Wesley Carr, had written in 2002. As late as 2014 Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the former Bishop of Oxford, was calling for the Quran to read at the Coronation. However little of this came to pass. In fact as James Walters, of the LSE, points out here there was very little multi-faith content to the coronation at all. Perhaps the King's age put a stop to that idea, or maybe, as Walters suggests, the culture had just simply moved on.

     At this point I should speak here, I suppose, of my own response to events in the build-up to the Coronation. To be honest they were decidedly ambiguous. The Coronation has held a particular place in my imagination for years. A rather exalted position. And so perhaps, I have to admit, the reality was never going to come close to the ideal of my imaginings.  The return of my depression also did much to dampen my enthusiasm. But those considerations aside, I had a deep unease over the nature of the forthcoming event, re-assured though I was that we would not be getting an 'installation service'.  The time allowed to prepare for the Coronation seemed inadequate, after all the Queen’s Coronation had taken over a year to organise.  The incessant drip-drip-drip of information by the authorities involved did little to reassure. Information that was sometimes later to be completely countermanded. And what material was available through official channels such as websites seemed trivial - inadequate for the nature of the event, as though the authorities, like the politicians in the abbey, either didn't understand or were just simply embarrassed by such an anachronism.  There seemed to be no concerted effort to explain what was about to happen.  It was, one should remember, the first PR Coronation.  And then there were the repeated delays; the official, definitive order of service did not appear until late on the eve of the coronation. None of this was particularly re-assuring, or edifying. There was talk in the press (viz: Private Eye & the Daily Mail) of serious disagreements between the two palaces - Buckingham and Lambeth. It was said that the church dug its heels in, thereby ensuring a service along traditional lines. For that alone we can and should indeed be thankful.

     So, on the day I was, in a way, unprepared for what I saw; Oh, all the right music was played, and all the rituals were conducted and as I have said I was at times deeply moved, but there was a sort of unreality to it all that I find difficult to define.  In truth, compared to the Coronations of the 20th century, in particular those of 1937 & 1953, it was, this time around, pretty much a milk-and-water affair.  There was simply something lacking.  A sense of narrative? And with it a sense of liturgical and aesthetic clarity? And, far more importantly, a sense of the numinous? Sadly, all were conspicuous by their absence. 2

      And while some of the changes to the order of service stemmed from the relatively short time in which to organise the event, the majority were no doubt undertaken with an eye to the age of the King and Queen, just as it should be. However, a lot of decisions just seemed arbitrary, and rather pointless, such as the use of the presence of the 6th century ‘St Augustine Gospels’ at the Proclamation of the Gospel.  I think a lot of these can be ascribed not only to the King's dilettantism but to his rather patrician-inflected Perennialism.  Whatever the reason, result was an oddly parochial affair, as though it was a society wedding, rather than an event of national and international significance. It wasn't helped by the decision to use Common Worship rather than the Book of Common Prayer.3  These sorts of decisions tended to exert a centrifugal force on the liturgy fragmenting its narrative clarity.4

      I realise that circumstances have changed and an ‘Imperial’ coronation was never going to be enacted, however I believe it was still possible to create something that is cogent and compelling, even at a time of ‘Meaning Crisis’.  To illustrate by point I think a useful comparison can be drawn at this point between the Coronation and the funerals of both the Duke of Edinburgh & the Queen.  Both retained a sense of clarity and narrative and were profoundly moving having a reach that was both national and international.  Perhaps importantly, they were the work of a previous generation (and one that had been through WWII).  They were personal, but that element of the ego was subsumed to function of the service which, as a sort of ‘Rite of passage’, a ‘Life-cycle Ritual’, is concerned with the passage of the deceased from the seen to the unseen, and the passage of the bereaved from one set of relationships to another.  Sadly, I don’t believe this can be said of the Coronation.  The opportunity for proper catechesis,5 both before and during the service (i.e. the sermon), to explain what is a complex and rarely seen ritual, was not taken.  Neither was there any attempt to make manifest the transcendental, let alone begin the task of re-enchantment.  The choices made in the ‘lead-up’ to the event worked for the opposite.

     That such a service occurred at all was almost miraculous, but it was achieved by the skin of our teeth.  God alone knows what we'll get with the next king.  I am not at all hopeful.

 

 

1 Even watching these two rituals back now a fortnight later they move me profoundly. There is a moment in particular just after the anointing when the screens are removed to reveal the King kneeling and prayed over by the archbishops and assistant bishops that each time just catches my breath.

 2 The lighting required for the broadcast probably did for the latter.

3 And there was that bizarre comment made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, during his sermon about 'Jesus laying down his privilege' - so God has 'privilege'?  It was just ill considered, a stupid thing to say.

4 The same applies to the music at the Coronation.  There were a lot of new commissions - in itself a good thing - but the diversity of music styles/approaches tended to dislocate the service.  The relatively short ‘lead-up time’ to the Coronation may have contributed to this – it being easier to commission five composers to each work on a section of the ‘ordinary’ than one composer work on the whole thing.  However, this slightly scatter gun approach reflects a facet of the new King's character. 

5 In preparation for the Late Queen’s Coronation the then Archbishop of Canterbury prepared a booklet of devotions for the Queen’s use during the month leading to the event.  It was entitled: ‘To the Queen: A little book of private Devotions in Preparation for Her Majesty’s Coronation.’

No comments:

Post a Comment