Highly anticipated by some, shunned by others, the coronation of Charles III has already caused much ink to flow. Celebrations are being held across the Commonwealth, and hundreds of thousands of people are expected in London on Saturday for the occasion. The event will also cost British taxpayers more than £100 million ($170 million). The duty asked himself: what is a coronation really for? And where does this tradition come from?
Experts believe that these grandiose events represent important historical milestones, essentially symbolic, of course, but which nevertheless influence the perception that British subjects have of their sovereign.
Are coronations vectors of social or political change? Laurent Colantonio, professor of history at the University of Quebec in Montreal, specialist in the monarchy, is very clear: “I think that today, they do not change anything. »
Rather, he says, they are part of a set of “monarchical rituals” that “recharge the power of identification with the British crown and identity”.
To better understand why the United Kingdom maintains this millennial practice, it is therefore necessary to go back to its beginnings.
Anglo-Saxon origins
Several books report that it was the coronation of King Edgar “the Pacific” at St. Peter’s Abbey in Bath, in 973, which laid the foundations for the ceremonies as we know them today. Inspired by other rites that took place elsewhere in Europe, such as among the Franks, this one was led by his faithful adviser, Saint Dunstan of Canterbury.
Therefore, the coronation does not concretely mark the beginning of the reign of the sovereign, which corresponds rather to the death of his predecessor. Celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England, the ceremony above all allows the sovereign to present himself to his people and take an oath to Anglican laws.
Since 1066, all British coronations have taken place at Westminster Abbey, where Charles III will also take the oath on Saturday.
The Industrial Revolution and Queen Victoria
For Mr. Colantonio, the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1838 represented a turning point. “Important reforms adopted at the time mean that the Queen has almost no political power. But it remains the keystone of the parliamentary monarchy. The event symbolizes her role as a representative of British unity and identity, Britishness . »
This coronation also marks, according to the professor, a change of tone compared to the previous ones. The sovereign, who was only 25 when she acceded to the throne, enjoyed “unprecedented” popularity compared to the “older and unloved” kings before. Moreover, the opulent ceremony testifies more than ever, he adds, “to the imperial power of England”. “This is the time when patriotism is linked [le plus] to the Empire. »
It is said that 400,000 people gathered in the streets of London for the occasion. A record made possible by trains from the industrial revolution, of which England was one of the main cradles.
Damien-Claude Bélanger, professor of history at the University of Ottawa and specialist in the relationship of Canadians to the monarchy, specifies that the reign of Victoria was marked by various events of the kind which solidified its capital of sympathy with a certain loyalist section of the French-Canadian population. “Leaders like Wilfrid Laurier were invited to his Diamond Jubilee in 1897. Knighted, he then came to the coronation of Edward VII. These people were attached to the monarchy,” and royal processions were widely publicized here too, he says.
Queen Elizabeth II on TV
Those who have followed the series The Crown know it: the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953 also made an impression, because it became the very first to be broadcast on television and radio throughout the world. The ceremony thus portends a wind of renewal for the Empire, which is recovering painfully from the Second World War.
“At the time she is crowned, the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth. Despite the decolonization which has already begun, she remains at the head of a dozen states and must [convaincre] people of the relevance of this strange concept that is the Commonwealth”, says Mr. Colantonio. This is among other things why Elizabeth II then declared: “All my life will be devoted to the service of the great imperial family to which we all belong. »
What future for Charles III?
This is the question that is on everyone’s lips, the king going through a difficult period for the monarchy, marked by the sulphurous public outings of Prince Harry and a general disaffection of the general public.
Mr. Bélanger also notes a notable difference compared to the context in which the mother of Charles III was proclaimed queen, 70 years earlier: at the time, Quebec nationalism and independence did not necessarily inspire antimonarchical. “Maurice Duplessis, who embodied a certain nationalism, celebrated the coronation in 1953, while today the independence movement is implicitly republican. »
Nationalists or not, sovereignists or not, Quebeckers today are mostly indifferent to the king and his coronation, he explains.
Mr. Colantonio recalls that the social role of the event has changed a lot. Rather than personifying the “sacredness” of power, he represented an opportunity for British subjects to approach “the idea of the monarchy, the celebrity of the royal family”. “Is the power of media attraction specific to our time as strong as the symbolic power of Queen Victoria? Probably not. And will the coronation of Charles III really make an impression? That remains to be seen. »