More Coronation musings
In spite of the Guardian’s intensified sniping over the past month I think the Coronation can be rated as a success. Here are a few plaudits and criticisms which I offer “ with my humble duty” for consideration at the next one, should the powers that be choose to take any notice. Plaudits:
1. The use of seventeenth century “Prayer Book language.” There were plenty of Thees and Thous and Thines about. Use of a more nuanced form of the language when addressing the Almighty* than that when ordering a pint and an packet of pork scratchings down at the pub adds dignity and solemnity to the occasion.
2. The music was magnificent and elevating.
3. For me the first “lump in the throat” moment was the wonderful Bryn Terfel singing the Kyries – in Welsh, a stroke of imaginative genius.
4. There was great emphasis on service: the first words the King was required to say after he was greeted by a child, through to the Archbishop’s sermon, and before a congregation a third of which was made up of people chosen for their voluntary service.
5. The vulnerability of the great and good, as illustrated by the sight of the King stripped of his robes and dressed only in a flimsy shimmy for his anointing.
6. A greater emphasis on equality. As far as I could see there were no blocks (which I remember from the 1953 ceremony) of Peers rigged in ermine and ready to put on the coronets after the crowning, and the “Vivats” in Parry’s “I was glad” were sung by the choirs rather than the boys of Eton College (ditto 1953).
7. The sermon was short and to the point, (probably no more than five minutes) an example which could be followed with advantage by the clergy in the multitude of less prestigious services
8. It was good to see an acknowledgement of other faiths.
Criticisms.
1.But not enough. A prayer or blessing from representatives of a limited number of other faiths would have been appropriate.
2. And a humanist.
3.There was too much flaunting of Christianity. The Service didn’t need to begin with the declaration “Alleluia ,Christ is risen,” and the response “He is risen indeed.” Although we are still technically in the Easter season, it’s now a few weeks back, so there’s no need to remind “other faiths” that in orthodox Christian theology they are substandard (even if they have any validly at all.) It was unnecessary for Rishi Sunak, who is a Hindu, to recite “This is the word of the Lord” after reading from the Bible, since for him it presumably isn’t.** Better still, he could have read from the Hindu scriptures.
4. There were too many references to Jesus. Again it is possible to talk about virtuous living and rule without emphasising theological claims in which the majority of the country no longer believe. 3. The retention of the oath to defend Protestantism is offensive. and now redundant. It may once have had a purpose to emphasise our independence from the Pope (the Brexit-type obsession of its day) and defence against the great Roman Catholica powers of France and Spain. They are our allies now; fellow travellers.
5. The Archbishop of Canterbury played too prominent a role. For example the little speeches made when presenting the historic regalia to the King could have been made by the people chosen to have the honour of bringing them.
6. In the parades before and after it would be nice to see less emphasis no the military. I suppose that goes back to the days when the monarch was active head of the armed forces and needed to show the recalcitrant both at home and abroad that s/he was in charge. Another concept that is redundant.
• This is true whether you think of the almighty as an old man in the sky who makes magical interventions ; spirit, without body parts or passions, (the 39 articles); the light within (Quakers); or the ground of our being (John Robinson).
** I have always preferred the concluding sentence “Here endeth the lesson” – something to think about - rather than the present arrogant assertion, which has a threatening “take it or leave it” implication
"I should like balls infinitely better," she replied, "if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting. It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing were made the order of the day."
ReplyDelete"Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball."
The genius, if such it be, of the British Constitution is claimed to be that it has evolved rather than been changed by violent disruption (if you ignore 1640-49, that is). So it is for coronations. As is pointed out in the post, there were minor but important changes in this one compared with 1953. I have suggested some more for the next one. For the one after that we may not feel the need for a coronation, and HM might go to work on a bike
ReplyDeleteI have suggested some more for the next one.
Delete‘You know what this Christian service of worship needs? Less Bible, more Hindu scripture. Oh and prayers to other gods, God famously likes it when people pray to other gods.’ Perhaps while you’re at it you could put up a cross in the Kaaba or ask the National Secular Society to open their AGM with a rousing chorus of ‘When I Survey’, it would make just as much sense.
Pity the poor anti-monarchists, they have been telling themselves for years that their chance would come with the death of Her late Majesty, and now all their hopes are dashed and their dreams are farther away than ever.
• Referring to Mrs thatcher, David Steel once said : “ I wish I were as certain of just one thing as she is of everything.” Your comment promotes a similar response. Yes, it is right that the coronation should be in this abbey, site of coronations since 1066; yes it should be predominantly Christian; yes, the liturgy should be in the Anglican tradition. These are our heritage. But society and its politics are constantly changing. Surely there is room to acknowledge the presence of peoples with different heritages in our present society. I find your absolute certainty that yours is the only way frightening. Relax. In matters such as these we each have our own truth. Who knows what ultimate truth is? As with liberty, liberals respect the liberty that doesn’t restrict the liberty of others. So it surely should be with religion.
Deleteyes it should be predominantly Christian
DeleteThere’s nothing ‘predominantly’ about it; it’s a Christian service. It has absolutely no legal effect. The legalities were all taken care of in the Accession Council, last September. His Majesty is no more and no less King today than he was a week ago. That was the secular bit. Last Saturday wasn’t ‘predominantly Christian’, it was entirely a Christian service. Make it less Christian and you remove the entire point of it. That, in case you missed it, was what the Austen was about.
It’s a concept that would hardly have been strange to our King; after all it’s exactly the same as the beginning of his current marriage, where the legal niceties were accomplished in Windsor guildhall and then followed by a totally separate, and legally entirely unnecessary, religious service.
As with liberty, liberals respect the liberty that doesn’t restrict the liberty of others. So it surely should be with religion.
DeleteYes, and such has been the case in this country since 1871.