Don’t dismiss Charles III’s coronation as a trivial spectacle

Next month throngs of people will line the Mall in London, the avenue that approaches Buckingham Palace, to watch the Coronation procession of King Charles III. As Britain formally enters its third Carolean era we can expect horses, gilded carriages, pristine military uniforms, and all the pomp and circumstance customary to the royal tradition.

We can also expect the usual criticisms – they come round every time, whether that be a royal funeral or wedding or jubilee celebration. The whole affair is too expensive, not least in a cost of living crisis; it is out of touch with reality, certainly no longer befitting of the liberal West and its values; the institution of the monarchy is at odds with contemporary democracy, and this garish display just drives that point home.

Yawn. When Queen Elizabeth II died last Summer an estimated 250,000 people queued for about 10 hours to see her body lying in state. It was a seismic national moment that not even the greatest cynics could avoid. There is no reason the coronation weekend – replete with all the pageantry, an extra Bank Holiday, even extended licensing hours for pubs – will not culminate in a similar togetherness, a point of national cohesion.

Like all traditions, the theatre of monarchy incurs its own domestic critics. But it is vulnerable to external critics too: those (fairly) angry about the legacy of empire; those who (less fairly) are still happy to indulge their reflexive antagonism towards modern Britain.

Treatment of Liz Truss shows there is still a bias against middle-aged women

---

Nothing is new under the sun: the solar eclipse is the latest shiny object in the culture wars

---

Why do the Irish love chicken fillet rolls so much? It’s not all about taste

---

Britain’s narrow stereotype of the Irish could not make sense of Leo Varadkar

---

[ Pomp meets humility as the first portrait of Charles as king is unveiled ]

Of course there are plenty of reasons not to be a monarchist – most British people are passively interested in the institution at the best of times. But there is equally no need to bear hostility towards something central to Britain’s psych. Rather, we should adopt a principle of charity when it comes to interpreting our neighbour.

The second World War, D-Day, The Blitz and the folklore of King Arthur help Britain maintain a shared sense of nationhood, crucial to stability and social cohesion

As Ireland looks at the coronation it should not dismiss it as an archaic oddity, but instead accept it as a facet of British public life that we do not share but can appreciate nonetheless. It is particularly poignant that it comes the week after Joe Biden’s visit to Ireland and nearly two weeks after the anniversary of the Belfast Agreement. This has been a time where we have been reminded that celebrating the differences between us is as important to reconciliation as acknowledging our similarities.

Every nation needs its mythology to survive – stories of the place and its people that converge to forge a national identity. In Britain that comes from many places, but the monarchy is one of them. So too is the centrality of the second World War – D-Day, The Blitz. Even the folklore of King Arthur. These are the things that help a country maintain a shared sense of nationhood, crucial to stability and social cohesion. As the world modernises and Britain diversifies, new stories are added and nationhood adapts to reflect a new reality.

[ ‘Queen Camilla’ title officially used for the first time on King Charles’ coronation invites ]

Ireland has its mythology too – rooted in folklore, epic poems like the Táin Bó Cúailnge, emigration, the subsequent diaspora, the 1916 Rising. And just as Ireland has the Táin forming part of its story, Britain has Beowulf, Ancient Rome had the Aeneid. Any concept of national identity is inescapably tied to these things. The United States derives its story from the founding fathers, from the tales of its immigrants.

Charles is taking to the throne in a world radically changed

Because as public religion wanes people still need something outside of themselves to believe in. This, in many senses, is a direct counterbalance to rampant individualism. And it is all commemorated in museums, books, national galleries, language, and yes – rituals, just like coronations.

The coronation will be a symbolic religious ceremony – formalising the King’s position as head of the Church of England. It is also the act of placing the crown on King Charles III’s head. It would be wrong to say the whole affair will not be an esoteric one: the tradition has not changed much in hundreds of years and it is the only remaining event of its kind in Europe.

But because something is old tradition does not mean that it should not be liable to change. Charles is taking to the throne in a world radically changed. When his mother Queen Elizabeth II became queen seventy years ago Britain still had a large empire; she presided over its last dying breaths. She was 19 on V-E Day in 1945.

Now the commonwealth is diminished. Britain has just been through years of political turbulence. The climate crisis has revealed its full extent. Charles may be the head of the Church of England but Britain is now an unarguably multi-faith nation. The world is more open than it has ever been. With AI we are in the midst of perhaps one of the most consequential technological advances in memory. The coronation ought to reflect these changed mores, not attempt to defy them.

This coronation is part of Britain’s national story – it should hark back to the past, and acknowledge that everything will change.