Update Simon Kershaw’s compilation of texts now includes 2023 and its published commentary.
Update On the morning of the coronation Buckingham Palace published its own edition of the Coronation service, with the revised Homage of the People.
The Church of England published The Authorised Liturgy for the Coronation Rite of His Majesty King Charles III late yesterday. The full text is on this webpage. In addition there are these pdf files.
My colleague Simon Kershaw has published the texts of each previous coronation since 1689, which readers may find helpful for comparison with this year’s text. He has also written several articles on coronations here.
The Church Times has published this: Next Saturday’s Coronation rite unveiled by Lambeth Palace.
Update
Francis Young has published a side by side comparison of the 1953 and 2023 coronations: Coronation ordines compared: 1953 and 2023.
Fascinating to compare them all. Haven’t had a chance to go through them all yet, but seems very sad to me that the congregation are unable to receive Communion. Frankly, would we miss a couple of sections to enable this in terms of service priorities? Eg the bracelets?? Swinging the sword about? Emphasis on calling to serve is good though.
It is meaningful the Eucharistic Sacrifice is being offered on the King’s behalf? That is much less sad than the time-consuming 2500 people being able to receive communion.
Dear David,
The snag is that the protestant folk don’t really get Eucharistic Sacrifice because the dread Zwingli got his toe into Anglican theology a good while ago. Many of us may find that a bit tragic but it is the reality of Anglican diversity.
No doubt the congregation at the Coronation could find the Eucharist being celebrated in their parish churches over the Coronation weekend and I also would suspect that not very many of them are in the habit of communicating at a Saturday Mass or even being present at one.
I agree. But in today’s evangelical CofE, communion comes way below listening to amateur guitarists accompanying trite songs at “meetings” where no one is confirmed. It’s all part of the death of the national Church.
Amen
absolutely. Some of these dreadful places now routinely turn away anyone who turns up wearing a tie.
Indeed…. clergy included! I recently viewed a Sunday “meeting” where the reader of the Epistle wore a T-shirt and had his hands in his pockets as he read.
Jesus would find this so awful!
If the epistoler had shown respect for God’s Word and for the gathered assembly, Jesus would not have found it so awful. The vibe of the service I watched was “let’s get this over with.”
It’s time we had an evangelical Coronation. King Charlie could be enrobed in a nice M&S pullover, while a group of nice, smiling young men perform a song by Sir Cliff Richard. Mr Welby’s jeans would add a touch of informality to his sermon, during which younger people could retire to attend Messy Abbey.
grinning, evangelicals grin rather than smile, remember.
The Coronation is superbly evangelical, soaked in scripture from start to finish, and before the King swears any oaths or receives any of the symbols of rule, he is given a Bible ‘the most valuable thing this world affords’, to keep him ‘ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God.’
I don’t the King will grin if he opens “the law and Gospel of God” and reads that remarriage after divorce is not allowed .
Actually, I think it started going downhill when organs were brought in. I’d like to go back to the gallery orchestras, please.
Actually it’s the opposite here. Things have gone rapidly downhill in those places where the organ has been abandoned. “England das Land ohne Musik” was a German jibe: but sadly it is not without some truth.
But in best TA diversionary comment tradition, a small country church where I used to play has three pipe organs, one of them now consigned to posterity, but also displayed in a glass case, the “serpent” from the former west gallery band (à la Thomas Hardy), the serpent being a kind of brass instrument in an exotic S shape.
The serpent is not really a brass instrument, although the means of sound production is like that of a brass instrument. It’s the reverse of the saxophone in a way. One is a brass instrument with a clarinet mouthpiece, and the other is a woodwind instrument with a trumpet mouthpiece.
Wikipedia disagrees with you! “It is made of wood, but has a mouthpiece similar to a trumpet and is classified as a brass instrument.” Brass is accordingly the instrument category as distinct from the main construction material. Wikipedia suggests that its natural successors are the ophicleide and tuba (also the names of organ stops of the reed families). The serpent I know has a brass mouthpiece and body of dark wood. Something of a surprise to find one in an English country church. I believe there are a few others in churches, but they are very rare.
Lighten up, Rowland – I’m attempting to be humorous.
me too, just doesn’t work on here does it?
Thank goodness! I thought you were being serious.
As a former organist and cathedral singer I agree! The Oxford Movement brought choirs and organs to chancels – where they don’t fit – and “sacralised” church music and musicians leading to the sight these days in choral establishments of singers parading around in degree hoods as if shouting “look at me, look at me”. Such individualism was not allowed when I sang in good church choirs. There is some evidence that congregational singing is better encouraged by a wave of sound from behind rather than from in front, but I can’t remember where I read that. Mind you, congregational… Read more »
“Congregational singing is better encouraged by a wave of sound from behind rather than from in front.” Amen, Stanley! When I lived east end with a choir I kidded myself that the people’s singing was good. Now when I sit with them, I find it’s not. Also the choir at the back spares us the distraction of conductors waving their arms around and lets us focus on the eucharistic drama. Oh, and get the choir to receive last, when (once they’ve got over it) they can encourage the people to sing during communion.
And another side reality is that many of the invitees on the Coronation would be diplomats from the outside, other faith leaders, other Royalties from the outside, and the likes. How many CofE practicing members inside? A minority? That wouldn’t be presentable. They want to keep things simple enough that it could to be televised. Televised is the minimal denominator of all those things these days, sadly!…
Nothing to do with television. There has never been a general communion at the coronation. Not in the mediaeval rite, not in the English-language rite. But one feature has always been: that the sovereign and spouse, though lay people, have always received in both kinds. The chalice was not withdrawn, I believe.
This has a lot more to do with Gabriel Hebert and the parish communion movement than Zwingli. Back in the old days even in very middle of the road Anglican churches, very few people received at a choral communion.
I was referring to the lack of empathy evangelicals have with ‘Eucharistic Sacrifice’.
Zwingli would have balked at that. Fr Hebert would have not.
Non communicating High Masses are another issue. In fact in those days the expectation ws that people would communicate at an early Low Mass and attend the High Mass later in the day.
Perhaps I did not express the point clearly.
Not only time-consuming, but a nightmare of organisation, and much more so of political implications and PR. It wouldn’t be communion for 2500 people, because a substantial number of the congregation wouldn’t be entitled to receive communion or might prefer not to. So you’d have a very obvious distinction being drawn between those who do/can/will and don’t/can’t/won’t in a televised service that is being presented with a narrative of unity that would absolutely explode that narrative. Starting with prominent UK political guests, there would be no PM (Hindu), no Leader of the Opposition (atheist), no Scottish First Minister (Muslim). I… Read more »
Indeed: a probable majority (perhaps even a large majority) of the congregation would need to remain in their seats, and how revealing of the Church’s pretensions that would be. I believe that Mr Drakeford is a declared atheist and republican.
If the king and queen (and possibly other members of the royal family) receive Holy Communion and no one else is offered it, that certainly explodes the ‘narrative of unity’. It also negates Charles’ statement that he comes to serve, not to be served. Much better for the royals and entourage to have Holy Communion in one of the royal chapels, at another time during the day.
Or for the other attendees to receive Holy Communion on Sunday. No one is being “denied” communion.
There is — or was, anyway — a political point. Since 1689 the monarch has shown that they are in communion with the Church of England by law established.
I just read/saw online. in a YouTube excerpt of a BBC (I believe) newscast, that King Charles III is inviting British subjects around the globe to swear loyalty to him. People commenting on the website I read this on asked “Isn’t that supposed to be the other way around?” Didn’t Queen Elizabeth II in a famous address to her subjects promise to serve them? Even God Save The King (I still catch myself using the 5-letter “Q” word, the one that ends in “n”), admittedly not a legal document but nonetheless a statement of national values, asks that the monarch… Read more »
I think that you are confusing service and loyalty. In his first remarks in the liturgy, the King says that he comes ‘not to be served but to serve’. Loyalty is a different matter, and almost always upwards, from subject to sovereign.
And loyalty was sworn to Queen Elizabeth back then of course – by the mighty and nobles – so not without some ambiguity of motive. I think the intention this time is to be more including and not simply confined to the privileged and powerful.
A letter in the Times from the author of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s 2009 Lent Book, Why go to Church? “Sir, The King admirably intends the coronation to be a moment in which our wonderfully diverse country gathers in unity. I fear that the proposed ‘homage of the people’, in which we are invited to declare our support for the King is, alas, likely to have the opposite effect and be a cause of tension and division. A vague declaration of allegiance by ‘the people’ could also feed into a mindless populism which is raising its ugly head in many… Read more »
“Catholics and others will also inevitably be reminded of an earlier call for allegiance to the monarch during the Reformation when failure to conform led to torture and execution.”
I very much doubt that most Catholics in the 21st Century are even knowledgeable about the religio-political circumstances of 600 years ago….or really afraid of such persecution today.
I am sorry to say that memories of the divisions of the reformation have been very real in two parishes that I have served in, and remain an issue in my current context. And whilst there are obvious conflicts between those who are obviously Reformed and those who are definitely Roman Catholic, there are even more acute divisions between those who remained within the Established Church and those who recused. These can be painful divisions within families as well as within communities – and can be particularly strong in localities of the country (such as some parts of Somerset, Lancashire… Read more »
Yes, but that is all among the small (and ever-diminishing) number for whom religion of any kind is relevant. I think for the majority of people born after 1970 or so, the difference between Roman and Anglican is. as a lawyer would put it, “distinction without a difference.” For those people, the real controversy is between religion and not-religion.
American culture does not translate automatically throughout the world.
I would agree in terms of the general population, but I was responding to the comment that very few Catholics would know of the divisions of 600 years ago. Responding to that context, my point is there is a widespread perception of the past – and indeed a defensiveness regarding the present when it comes to positions in civil society for (Roman) Catholics.
As I recall, Tony Blair is Roman Catholic…can your last sentence be true if a recent PM was Catholic? If anything, the situation here in the US is worse…only two RC presidents in over 200 years, in a government that, by constitution, has no religious test for office.
Tony Blair only became a Roman Catholic after leaving office.
OK…wasn’t aware of that.
There is a mutuality about it. The King is owed his people’s allegiance. In turn he promises to govern them well and is strengthened to bear this heavy burden by the anointing.
Such at least is the theory which predates the advent of democratic government. Nowadays all he needs do is give the royal assent to bills and delegated legislation, dissolve Parliament when the Prime Minister asks him, send the Writs of Summons to Peers for the new Parliament to assemble and keep his mouth shut in public on issues of controversy. I think he should manage that.
Re: Your “Nowadays” comment: My interpretation of what little British history I know that I learned in high school and from random reading of books since is that, from 1600 onwards, especially after the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, Parliament has become ascendant, and any time the monarch tried to exercise real power, Parliament took that power away. Or there was a quid pro quo, such as under George III, where Parliament paid off royal debt, and in return established a budget for the royal family to live on. So, King Charles III gives royal assent to bills,… Read more »
Not just British subjects, the subjects of the King in all his realms and territories.
Won’t be joining in with that bit, thanks…
You are referencing the ‘homage of the people’ bit which Archbishop Welby will be inviting folks to join in. I was just reading some reaction to that on an Australian news blog. First thing I thought of was the Billy Graham crusades from days of yore, when Billy would encourage ‘those of you at home’ to come to Jesus while watching on TV. This is one Canadian who is saying, not doing that, eh! Not really our show. The one here will be much more subdued unless you belong to the Monarchist League of Canada. . However, I do wish… Read more »
Republicans in the UK are calling for a President as our Head of State. Seeing Presidents Trump and Putin as examples of that Office, I shall be shouting my allegiance to His Majesty very loudly .
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, so I guess that gains me entry into the conversation. Positive additions to the coronation ceremony aside, I am indifferent to the whole thing myself. As far as oaths go, I tend to side with the members of the Quebec legislature who demand an alternative to swearing allegiance to The King. (link). I usually stay silent during those rare occasions when God Save The Queen/King has been/ is sung. On the other hand, I value Canada’s modified Westminster style parliament and legislatures. A majority of Canadians do not support the monarchy ( 60 % favour… Read more »
I’m far from being a Republican, but I find it interesting that you would pick Trump and Putin as your examples, and not, say, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, or François Mitterand, or Alexander Van der Bellen.
And I would note that the annual cost of the British monarch (2021-22) was £86m via the sovereign grant, whilst the annual cost of the Irish president is €4.8m (yes, I know the cost to the UK is perhaps offset by receipts from tourists attracted by the monarchy). Although Ireland did have to suffer Patrick Hillery and might have wound up with Brian Lenihan, at least six of its nine presidents have been outstanding, whilst Michael Higgins has been an exemplary head of state and an advertisement for republics everywhere.
The population of Ireland is about 5 million, whereas the population of the UK is pushing 70 million. The per capita cost is not very different, even without taking into account the revenue from the Crown Estate that goes to the Exchequer.
Many thanks (and thank you also, and most especially, for your superlative researches). I suppose it could also be argued that the cost, say, of the king of Spain is proportionately lower (c. €15-20m; WaPo stated that it was c. $12m in 2012) for a population of 47m. As to the Crown Estate, can it really be asserted that, after 263 years, it is anything other than the de facto property of the Treasury? The argument I am making is not that the British crown is necessarily poor value for money (I am not one with Willie Hamilton in that… Read more »
Re the Crown Estate — I largely agree, which is why I wrote “without taking into acount” (though I realize those are ambiguous words). But it’s still the case that the Crown surrendered the income. The Estate was, I think, originally intended to fund the government rather than the monarch’s personal expenses.
Many thanks. Indeed, because there was no meaningful difference between the king and his government, and he (and, by extension, his clerks – who were simply an extension of his household) were expected to live off his property. That, then was one of the reasons why clergy still worked as officials long after literacy had spread throughout the landed elite (as such clergy would live off the income from their benefices), and why almost all officials depended on fees rather more than salaries: it was so that the burden on the profits from crown lands would be minimised. Taxes were… Read more »
I could have cited Bolsonaro of Brazil, Lukashenko of Belarus or Xi Jinping of China as Presidents whose rule over me I wouldn’t like. I’ll still stick with King Charles.
Those quibbling about joining in the loyalty bit shoul remember that all clergy of the Church of England, and LLMs and some others already take an oath to the reigning monarch and rtheir successors. So for many readers of this site that will be nothing new. Additionally, I rather think that those born elsewhere and seeking to become British citizens must swear a similar oath of allegiance. Anyway this should, like much of the rest of the monarchy be understood in a constitutional sense. One is swearing to uphold the legalities and conventions of the British constitution, epitomized in the… Read more »
The inclusion of the loyalty bit does suggest a tin ear when 52% of respondents to a Daily Express poll (yes, Daily Express!) say they will not be accepting the gracious invitation. C of E clergy of course have no option other than taking the loyalty bit. When I expressed my discomfort over what I saw as Erastianism to the archdeacon, he smiled and said, “But we all bow down in the House of Rimmon.”
How refreshing to see the words “And with thy spirit” included in the Coronation Lirurgy instead of the pedestrian “And also with you”. It is also good and an indication of the king’s own personal preference to see that the Rite chosen for the consecration prayer for Holy Communion is based upon the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
But mercifully (and I hope also in accordance with the King’s preference) everything is in the correct order, and not in the monstrous bouleverser imposed by Cranmer, with the Gloria at the end!
Why is that monstrous? It makes perfect sense at the end.
Not to me, it doesn’t. Although I claim no liturgical expertise, it is my understanding that the order of the elements making up the Ordinary of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus, Agnus Dei) was firmly established centuries before the reformation. Then Cranmer rurned it all upside down more in an effort to show that the new CofE was not Rome than for any coherent theological reasoning. That order persisted for centuries, with concurrent incomprehension, misunderstanding and distrust between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. . So I counted it a blessing when, not long after the previous Coronation, liturgical reform came… Read more »
I agree, Matthew – a splendid conclusion, not to be omitted in Advent or Lent, and adding some words from the Agnus Dei, an anthem that the BCP rite does not include. Check out an excellent article in the journal Theology by Georgina Battiscombe and her defence of that unique positioning. Admittedly in the Coronation service, having both the Gloria and the Te Deum at the end would be a bit much. Cranmer’s rite (which I have used for over 60 years) has its own rationale and expressed his theology, often not understood, and his service remains with some modification… Read more »
The mass is more or less the Interim Rite. A shame that the Gloria is before the collect though rather than before the blessing.
It is Common Worship. Order One in Traditional Language with Eucharistic Prayer C.
Why does the Anointing take place secretly behind a screen? All other anointings with Chrism oil in the Church: baptism, confirmation, consecration are visible to all.
It may be that anointing on the breast entails an element of disrobing. I assume the oil we be applied just under the throat but that is just a guess.
Traditionally the monarch was disrobed for the anointing, and wore outer and under-garments that provided easy access. The rubrics for the coronations of early Hanoverian queens consort note that the chief lady attendant opens the queen’s dress (presumably from behind) so that she may be anointed on the breast. Since Victoria queens (whether regnant or consort) have not been anointed on the breast.
Privately, not secretly.
The notion that giving Communion to the congregation would be too time-consuming is nonsense. At the Papal Mass in Bucharest yesterday over 50,000 people were communicated in about 10 minutes.
We’d need to get all the busses out as I doubt their are enough CofE priests in London to get round that fast!
It might be easier in an outdoor setting than in the cramped conditions of the Abbey. My mother once attended the Ascension Day communion at St Martin’s in the Fields which was broadcast on Radio 4 and was subject to strict timing. The congregation received communion after the broadcast had ended. I suppose they could have a similar arrangement at the Coronation.
I guess it comes down to whether Jesus or TV scheduling is the priority.
It’s neither. It’s sacred tradition (which some seem intent on trivialising) in largely the same form and in the same place for almost 1,000 years.
Second reply: I expressed that badly. Of course Jesus is the priority – in the context I stated.
I don’t think the ceremony gives that impression.
It’s very difficult for a TV director to show viewers clear pictures of Jesus who seems reluctant to appear in person .
The same was suggested when my Sunday Eucharist was broadcast live on ITV the Sunday after Princess Diana died. I think we had 56mins and 20secs for the whole thing. I said no, we would administer communion to everyone (in a packed church), have no sense of delay and complete the service within the required time limit. We did it and included at least part of the closing organ piece as the credits rolled.
I once attended an episcopal consecration at Westminster Abbey, perhaps 20 years ago (the one at which Jeffrey John should have been consecrated, as it happens). The distribution of the communion took a good 30 minutes, thanks to the dire organization.
Could it be that Anglicans, humble crumble and all that, display an anxious paralysis over receiving the gift, meaning Communion takes an age? Also, was Communion offered in both kinds at the Papal Mass?
I thought the liturgy was well thought through, although HM promising to uphold the Protestant Reformed faith sounds a jarring note, other than to the wilder reaches of Ulster Unionism.
Those papal masses also have hundreds, if not thousands, of priests concelebrating. I find it very odd that a priest can feel he (always a he) has taken part in consecrating elements which he has not touched and cannot see.
As pointed out to Tim Chesterton below, not optional unless and until Parliament amends the Coronation Oaths Act 1688. Those of us close to, or approaching, the AC tradition should surely be able to take these things in our stride!
Thank you, I shall try to take these things in my stride, comforted by the knowledge that I’m no longer required to pray for deliverance “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities,” (1549 Litany).
In the Roman Catholic tradition, I’m not sure if the laity ever receives communion in both kinds. Administering just the wafer does tend to speed things along, especially if there are satellite priests whose wafers are consecrated through osmosis or by remote control.
I attended a Roman Catholic funeral a few years ago. Both kinds were offered to the congregation. In fact, I was the first at the rail (everyone was invited, a rarity for an RC mass), and when the priest administered the chalice to me, he asked if I would act as chalice bearer. I was taken completely off guard and declined.
In BUDAPEST (!), Hungary. Not in Bucharest, Romania…
Francis Young’s comparison is very helpful. But item III A Moment of Silent Prayer isn’t an innovation – surely this is a rewording of the “Humble Adoration” of prior generations expressed in language that might be understood today?
Answers to most of the points being raised above will be found in the detailed commentary helpfully provided in the longer of the two PDF documents alongside the text of the official liturgy. The King is anointed on the breast, i.e., chest, and partly divests for that to be done. The Queen is to be anointed only on the head. They receive Communion in both kinds and the laity do not. It’s fair to assume that the large congregation in Budapest yesterday, as mentioned by Vic Spencer, consisted 100% of the Roman Catholic faithful. A different context, physically in the… Read more »
I am most grateful to Mr Kershaw for his detailed analyses, which must have taken a very considerable amount of time to prepare. Writing as someone who made an abortive attempt as a schoolboy in 1993 to establish a Commonwealth schools’ association (but whose views about the Commonwealth have since changed), I note that: (i) there will be no specific reference in the oath section (part IV), as in 1953, to individual Commonwealth realms, but instead there will be the vague reference to ‘realms and territories’ taken from the royal style and titles); and (ii) the governors general will form… Read more »
The moment when the pages came swarming into the Abbey with the coronets and the peers donned them as the Crown was placed on the Queen’s head added a certain theatricality to the 1953 Service. I understand that the peeresses would put their coronets on as the Queen Consort was crowned when that happened.
One notable difference between the Coronations of 1953 and 2023 is the proposed presence in the liturgy of a sermon on May 6th. This is altogether good as the omission of an address would mean that a great evangelistic opportunity would have been missed when the eyes of the world will be focused upon Westminster Abbey. I thought that the eulogy that Justin Welby gave at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral was first rate let us hope that the sermon he will deliver this coming Saturday will be of an equally high, inspirational standard.
Good too see that there will be aboriginal representation in the delegations from Canada and elsewhere plus the effort at multi-faith representation at the coronation. The addition of Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic is a nice touch. ” King Charles III will not be using this title [ Defender of the Faith] in all of his realms and territories as Canada makes a change.” (see link).
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/king/king-charles-no-longer-defender-of-the-faith-in-canada-188433/
I have two observations. First, I think the oath to ‘uphold the protestant reformed religion’ is an anachronism and should have been omitted. Surely the king’s role is to draw people together, not to ‘uphold’ one religious system which now commands the allegiance of only a small minority of the people he leads (and not even all of them; I suspect there are many Anglican contributors to TA who would have problems with being asked to ‘declare that I am a Protestant’). And it doesn’t sit well with the ecumenical character of the rest of the service. Second, yesterday in… Read more »
The Coronation oath is ‘fixed’ by statute (the Coronation Oath Act 1688) and cannot be changed without an Act of the UK Parliament, but King Charles has given the clearest indications of his recognition of other faiths, many of them represented for the first time as participants in this Coronation liturgy.
The oath cannot just be omitted as it is a statutory requirement. And the service is ecumenical only in a loose sense. It is Anglican, because (for good or ill) we have an established church. That is why the oath is not ecumenical. As for the description of the religion of the established church as the “Protestant reformed religion “, to which more than one contributor has taken exception, that is the historic understanding of the religion of the Church of England. Only recently has it become fashionable to cavil at the description of the church as Protestant. And the… Read more »
Wouldn’t changes in the Oath require Motions in Synod and Acts of Parliament? If so, certain Sir Humphreys may see it as far too warm of a hot potato. How much so? Given that the Anglican confessional state collapsed in the *18*20s with Catholic emancipation and repeal of the Test Acts, it could be argued reform is two centuries overdue!
But then, there’s the fine old tradition of leaving the outward structures intact while the inside is changed utterly, like (to paraphrase John le Carré) a knight expiring in his armor.
“Render unto Caesar the things thar are Caesar’s….”
“My kingdom is not of this world…”
I can find nothing in Jesus’s words that precludes obedience to earthly authority.
Sorry, Pat, but allegiance is not the same as obedience. I promised canonical obedience to my bishop at my ordinations and inductions. I did not swear an oath of allegiance to them.
Indeed.
Anglican originators never ‘protested, (proper meaning), the Confessions of Augsburg.
Ergo Anglicans are not Protestant. Laus Deo!!!
Here in the U.S., we pledge allegiance to a couple yards of striped fabric.
Disappointing that the Scottish Episcopal Church’s Primus has been included in the Congregation. As far as I can see the only reason is becaue he is an Anglican. The Moderator of the Church of Scotland plays the same role as his predecessor did in 1953, which is right.
The Coronation happens in England and so the Church of England naturally conducts it, but to involve an Anglican from Scotland seems an abuse of privilege. Or is there some special reason?
The Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbishop of Wales are also involved with the Primus in delivering the orb with cross and sceptres (arguably the most important of the regalia apart from the crown) handed to them by the Dean of Westminster from the altar and delivered by them to the Archbishop of Canterbury for investiture of the King.
So all three of the other Anglican provinces of the UK are represented here. Some other participants are lay non-Anglicans.
The Primate of Australia H.W.K. Mowll was at the 1953 Coronation.
Do you feel the same about the Archbishop of Armagh, who presents the Orb?
No, because tthe Archbishop of Armagh is a plausible representative of Northern Ireland. Scotland has an official church and that is not Anglican.
The Primus of SEC is surely a “plausible representative” of Scotland, no? The Moderator of the Church of Scotland is not excluded, as you know. He has a prominent role in presenting the Bible.
Scotland officially rejected episcopacy so a bishop maybe isn’t a suitable representative. Then also, of the episcopal denominations in Scotland, the RCC is much larger so if there must be a bishop from Scotland why not an RC one? It just seems like an attempt to give some official recognition to the Anglican church, which in Scotland it doesn’t have. Queen Victoria would not have approved.
*Moderator of the General Assembly
Important point indeed. He or she is only moderator of the General Assembly. Moderator isn’t simply the Scottish word for Archbishop as someone I met in Glasgow seemed to think, it is a very much lesser role. The Scots reject all idea of episcopacy and, indeed, bishop is a dirty word in Scotland.
This seems a slightly uncharitable comment regarding the Primus. Why should they have been excluded from the ecumenical representatives purely on the basis that he is neither Roman Catholic, Free Church, nor ‘established’. Each nation was represented by Anglican, RC and Free Church representatives – with the addition of the Moderator (who had been accorded a role in 1953). Would it not have been more unfair to leave Scotland as the only nation without representation from its Episcopal/Anglican church body?
Good to see that Archbishop Welby makes an appearance on one of the First Class Coronation commemorative postage stamps in the act of placing the crown upon King Charles III head but who is the other clergyman looking on?
I note with interest the various comments made about the proposed ‘act of allegiance’. The whole purpose of the coronation is that the monarch enters into a de facto contract with the Church and his/her people; the notion that the monarch be held to this contract was fundamental to the claims made during uprisings against kings during, especially, the 1210s, 1260s and 1640s. The analogy often made was with the various covenants made between God and His people in Gen. 9: 1-17, Gen. 15, Gen. 17, Ex. 19-24 and 2 Sam. 7: ‘I will be your God, and you will… Read more »
Further to Mr Kershaw’s work on ordines, I note this new publication (which I have looked over): https://www.cambridge.org/is/academic/subjects/music/music-performance/music-and-ceremonial-british-coronations-james-i-elizabeth-ii?format=PB (but which is about rather more than the ordo per se), and this (which I have not seen, as yet): https://boydellandbrewer.com/9781907497377/english-coronation-iordinesi-in-the-ninth-and-early-tenth-centuries/. The author of the latter has also provided his own views about plausible developments to the rite: https://www.historyandpolicy.org/opinion-articles/articles/the-deep-past-provides-a-context-for-king-charless-coronation.
It is great to see four native languages used in the four verses of the Veni Creator. But isn’t this a bit nativist, given that the second most widely spoken language in all four nations is Urdu?
I don’t think that’s actually the case, Matthew. Language, England and Wales – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) Urdu comes fourth, after Polish, Romanian and Panjabi. Of course the Census doesn’t distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, if that makes a difference. While I’m on, three other points: Firstly, while, laudably, the Service does well to include those of other faiths and denominations, there’s very little if any for the growing percentage of those who identify as “no religion”, likely to become a majority before much longer. How long can that can be kicked down the road? Secondly, the mass act… Read more »
Re the Sermon. The Service falls within the rules of Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language. The Notes to that service say that “The sermon is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word. A sermon should normally be preached at all celebrations on Sundays and Principal Holy Days.” Granted that that is a bit less than “mandatory”, I think it is the right decision to say something. I expect it will be about “service”.
We can infer the bargain.
HM: Your Grace, may I be welcomed by a chorister, be presented symbolic items by non-Anglicans, and huddle with representatives of other faiths?
Cantuar: Of course, Your Majesty. May I give a brief sermon?
The proposed oath of allegiance has not gone down well (here, for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/02/king-charles-apathy-coronation; though the Guardian has, with its customary disingenuity, been running a thinly disguised republican campaign against the king). However, it must be understood that the monarch’s oaths have no meaningful legal standing, even if the formula is as per the 1688 Act; rather, they are merely a catalogue of promises not so much between himself and his people, as between himself and God. This is why George III refused to accept RC emancipation in 1800-01 (despite Cornwallis and Pitt having promised it as a quid pro… Read more »
Purely as a simple general question, if the monarch’s oath has no real legal standing, why do some church groups make such an issue about it? Does anyone else recall the book ‘The Trumpet Sounds For Britain’, back in the 1970s (with a forward by Douglas Bader, no less) and similar publications, generally of a hell fire judgement theology, which saw it’s keeping as being very important indeed? (They’d probably see our present social problems as fulfilment of their ignored warnings.)
Many thanks, I think that they make an issue about it because they are clinging to the tattered rags of what had been the comfort blanket of the confessional state, in which everyone knew their place, rank and degree. To a certain type of person the notion of sacral kingship, even its residuum, has great appeal, and not just antiquarian appeal (indeed, kingship was arguably sacral in origin; think of Marc Bloch’s classic ‘Les rois thaumaturges’ (1924), on touching for scrofula at coronations, abandoned in England as recently as 1714). Yes, there was a period in the mid-1970s when many… Read more »
“the Guardian has, with its customary disingenuity, been running a thinly disguised republican campaign against the king”.
Not thinly disguised, and with all due respect, not disingenuous.
Surely it is entirely acceptable for a newspaper or any other institution to publish information about the often questionable and often hidden processes of the Royal Court, and to make an argument for republicanism. It is an argument supported by a significant percentage of the country.
I am not sure that I see why the Guardian’s actions are a problem.
I am afraid that I do find it disingenuous. For the last couple of weeks they have been running a battery of stories about royal finances, the association of the crown with slavery, the decline of monarchist sentiment, etc., mostly repeating things which are either well known already, which are obviously slanted (the omission of Beilby Porteus’s standing as a leading abolitionist in a story about slavery not even being mentioned a few days ago being a striking example) or which are laden with innuendo. The Times is doing much the same, albeit only a little less crassly. Yet neither… Read more »
Thanks for taking time to give a full response. I think my attitude would be to agree that the Guardian certainly makes mistakes, but it is a lot closer to the side of the angels than many (most?) other UK national publications, and deserves support.
Best wishes
Oh, I agree, and I have to say that the British press (and media more generally) is mostly pretty awful. I am just pining for the days of the Hetherington editorship where there was less of a tendency to succumb to the sort of tactics mentioned. Of course, I should add that the current Guardian is effectively an amalgam of the Observer and the old Guardian, and after David Astor sold out to Tiny Rowland, the Observer under the late Donald Trelford was quite happy to make compromises with the truth if that is what Rowland (or the dictators who… Read more »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65458470 There’s now BBC coverage. Quote: ‘The public will be given an active role in the ceremony for the first time as they are invited to swear allegiance to the King in a “great cry around the nation and around the world”.’ Therein lies the problem of not including a full communal communion: the emphasis in the service has become allegiance to The King and not to Jesus or The Lord. Clearly that might suit the Crown, but it’s disappointing that the Archbishop of Canterbury whose job should be to champion service to Jesus has become an apologist for the… Read more »
The focuses of the coronation service are the anointing and crowning. What has been changed this year is that the subsequent homage of the peers has been replaced with a very much shorter commitment from the people. There is no change in the eucharistic context which is pretty much the same as it has been for over a thousand years.
For sale here in the US are “ready-to-bless pre-filled communion cups”: small plastic containers with a peel-off foil lid, filled with grape juice, plus a separate stay-fresh compartment for a single wafer. Grab one on the way in, hold it up during the Words of Institution, open and partake. 2,000 can be communicated in no time! I don’t recommend this at all, but it’s not much different than having a cup of wine and a slice of bread in front of your laptop during an online communion service.
When I first read through the Coronation Liturgy, the thing which caught my eye was not any liturgical innovation but the fact that the fanfare chosen to celebrate the crowning of the King is that written by the Bavarian Richard Strauss in 1924 and dedicated to his ‘beloved, magnificent’ Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, who have played it ever since to start their annual Philharmonic Ball during Fasching (shrovetide). A very different occasion from a Coronation, but it is a magnificent piece, well suited, I think, to the crowning of a music-loving King. I read somewhere in the supporting text that all… Read more »
On the “homage of the people” — it’s likely that both the King and the Archbishop were desperate to delete the homage of the peers, and all its aristocratic trappings. To justify that deletion, they have replaced it with a less aristocratic homage.
Query, however, whether it was a good idea to make every subject decide whether to swear this homage? Someone should poll the British public to see how many intend to, or did, take part in this way.
The full King’s Printer Order of Service has now been published by Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey. It contains considerable additional detail to the previously published Authorised Liturgy which was a C of E publication.
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05/The%20Coronation%20Order%20of%20Service.pdf
Having watched the service this morning, I don’t think it was particularly a bad piece of establishment liturgy. However it could have been better. The traditional Collect, Epistle and Gospel which remind us of our duty to both God and Sovereign, were replaced by modern alternatives. The Creed was omitted ans a sermon was allowed to intrude. Our majestic Prayer Book Communion rite, used at every Coronation fir three hundred years, was ousted in favour of Common Worship Order One, albeit in traditional language. There has never been a general Communion of the people, although that would have been possible… Read more »
A sermon would have been ‘allowed to intrude’ if the BCP rite had been followed – indeed, it is mandated; the only service in the Prayer Book to include such provision.
Peter, it’s true that Holy Communion is the only Prayer Book Service at which a sermon or homily is mandated. However I’ve been to countless early morning celebrations on Sundays and midweek ones too, when no sermon has been preached. A sermon was omitted, I believe, at every Coronation between 1902 and 1953, because the rite was judged long enough without.
This isn’t so. The rubric indicates the place at which the sermon if there is one is to be preached, it does not require it at every celebration.
‘Then [i.e. after the Nicene Creed] shall follow the Sermon, or one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by authority.’ No mention of ‘if there is one to be preached’.
The rubric in Common Worship, or indeed the BCP, isn’t strictly relevant. The liturgy for the Coronation is separate and when it was published it stated prominently on the cover that it had been commissioned and authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Accordingly it stands alone on that basis.
Bishop Anna Greenwood-Lee (Diocese of British Columbia, also known as the Diocese of Islands and Inlets.) has written an excellent newspaper column (ironically, in a newspaper called the ‘Times Colonist’) about how this day of coronation is an excellent day for us to reflect on our colonial past. The examples she gives are striking. Here it is.
Thanks, Tim. The the Bishop’s column is poignant, thought provoking.
No penitential rite, essential for a communion service.
What do you think the kyries were?
No absolution therefore not a proper penitential rite. I dislike using the kyries in place of a confession anyway.
That is just your dislike?
No absolution, so not a proper penitential rite. In any case, the kyries should not be used as a substitute for the confession.
For the benefit of the non-experts, perhaps you could point to an authoritative statement of what is “essential” for a “proper” communion service in the Church of England?
The Coronation service was Common Worship Order One in Traditional Language, with Eucharistic Prayer C. So the place to look for definitions is the main Common Worship book, pages 207–227, together with the notes on pages 156–159 and 330–334. My reading of these is that a Confession and Absolution are mandatory, as is the Peace. A Kyrie confession requires extra penitential sentences between the “have mercy” petitions. Prayers of intercession are also perhaps mandatory. Words at the Fraction (“We break this bread …”) are mandatory, as is an invitation to communion (“Draw near with faith” or an alternative). A dismissal… Read more »
Don’t many of these comments miss the point that this was not a ‘general’ or congregational service of Holy Communion. It was prominently announced as the “Authorised Liturgy for the Coronation Rite of His Majesty King Charles III” as “commissioned and authorised” by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Accordingly it stands as just that, authorised and wholly legal in form. That it partially draws on the language of Common Worship does not alter that fact (it seems to me that Canon B4.2 covers the situation, if any justification is needed). Rather sad, I feel that people have felt it necessary to… Read more »
No, I don’t think that is right Rowland. The Archbishop is subject to canon law like all other clergy and lay ministers, and promised to use only the forms authorized or allowed by canon. And what is canonical is laid down in the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974: the forms of service found in the 1662 BCP, together with forms alternative to the BCP and approved by the General Synod by 2/3 majorities in each house; and then services which are not alternative to anything in the BCP as determined by the ordinary. In the case of a service of… Read more »
For the benefit of other readers, this is the text of Canon B 4.2: “The archbishops may approve forms of service for use in any cathedral or church or elsewhere in the provinces of Canterbury and York on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocations under this Canon, being forms of service which in both words and order are in their opinion reverent and seemly and are neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England… Read more »
I did feel the Eucharistic Prayer on wards did seem an “add on” and over pbrief. I think there should have been a fraction and an invitation to communion. And the Kyrie introduced as a confession with a short period of silence.
Personally I think there was too much special music. Why not Merbecke for the Gloria and Sanctus. After all it was commissioned for Elizabeth 1st.And why not the Mechlin version of the Veni Creator with the English verses congregational?
And if it’s to be servant kingship the chivalric regalia could be dropped.
1 Corinthians 11 27-29 gives a scriptural basis for confession before communion.
Presumably the preparation, confession and absolution of the small number actually receiving Communion took place in private before the service itself.
Verse 7 of the same chapter warns that a man ought not to cover his head. Does the ban on headwear apply to crowns?
It’s a coronation, Simon, why take back into Egypt?
The Common Worship Ordinal does not make the Prayers of Penitence compulsory, even though ordinations always take place within the Eucharist. The rubrics merely say that these are “normally” used. Most ordinations in my experience omit them. And when marriage takes place within the Eucharist, CW’s rubrics are still more permissive: “may be used.”
Having watched most of the service, focusing on the coronation not the communion, I found it an interesting meditation on power and service. There was quite a lot of law in the liturgy, and an insistence on good governance. I had thought that the regalia would seem a bit silly, but in context each item was used to make points about what a people should expect from a monarch–and by extension, from government generally. The theme seemed to be faithful leadership. And the subtext seemed to suggest that too many leaders are not faithful to law, to national interest (as… Read more »