Battle Royal

by David Johnson

  Following the oath comes the anointing, the most religiously significant part of the coronation. Charles will be led to the throne, King Edward’s Chair, upon which all English and British monarchs have been crowned since the time of Edward I. When he is before the throne, Charles will be stripped to his shirt and will be dressed in the anointing gown, a simple garment of plain white, with his chest laid bare. Once seated on the throne, a canopy will be drawn over the participants, concealing the act of anointing from the congregation and television viewers. This ritual includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, who applies consecrated oils upon the king’s hands, chest, and head. In this sacred act, it is believed that the king is touched by God. Once anointed, the religious part of the service is complete, and the secular act of coronation begins, with many of its symbols rooted in British history. Charles will be dressed in official vestments weighing over thirty pounds, including the Supertunica, a coat of gold silk; the Robe Royal, a mantle lined with crimson silk and decorated with silver coronets, national symbols (including the maple leaf), and imperial eagles; and the Stole Royal, a gold silk scarf embroidered with gold and silver thread, lined with jewels, and fringed in gold. Finally fully dressed, Charles will sit on the throne and will be presented with the symbols of his high office, deriving from the British Crown jewels: two twenty-two carat gold bracelets symbolizing sincerity and wisdom; gold spurs symbolizing chivalry; a white glove to encourage “gentleness in levying taxes;” and the jewelled Sword of Offering, designed to protect good and strike at evil. The Archbishop will also place on the fourth finger of his right hand the ruby and sapphire Coronation Ring, representing the marriage between king and people. Charles will also be given the Golden Orb, set with precious stones and surmounted with a cross, highlighting the rule of Christ over the world; and the Royal Sceptre, representing the power of the Crown. Finally comes the Coronation Crown itself. This crown is the greatest piece in the Crown jewel collection dating from 1661. Composed of solid gold, set with 444 semi-precious stones, and weighing in at five pounds, it is known as St. Edward’s Crown. While Charles holds the Orb and Sceptre, the Archbishop will lower the Crown unto his head, saying “God crown you with a crown of glory and righteousness.” The congregation will again shout “God save the King,” and the guns of the Royal Artillery will boom from Hyde Park and the Tower of London.

  A much simpler and shorter procedure will then play out for Camilla, if she and Charles wish for her to be crowned as Queen Consort. There is nothing in British law to prevent her from being so crowned. However, at the time of their marriage in 2005, spokespersons for Camilla advised the media that she wished only to be known as “Princess Consort” once her husband ascended the throne. In the years since, however, as public opinion has softened toward her and as people in Britain and across the Commonwealth have seen her and Charles as a couple truly in love, Charles has indicated that he wants to see her crowned as Queen Consort, just as his grandmother was following the coronation of George VI.

  King Charles III: The Early Years

  In contemplating the reign of Charles III, it is possible to foresee a number of pressing issues that will occupy attention in Britain and across the Commonwealth in the early years of his kingship. The immediate concern of all fifty-three Commonwealth governments is whether Charles will be accepted as the Commonwealth’s official head. The reigning sovereign has always become the head of the Commonwealth, but this position is not automatically bestowed by right of succession. Rather, the title is confirmed by the unanimous agreement of the Commonwealth heads of government. In 1952, Elizabeth II was not confirmed as head of the organization until December 6, even though her father, George VI, had died ten months earlier.

  While it is possible some Commonwealth heads of government would not want to accept Charles III as the new head of the Commonwealth, a decision against recognizing Charles would present the Commonwealth with what British constitutional scholar Vernon Bogdanor has claimed are “insuperable problems.”[2] If Charles were not to be the head, who would be? The Commonwealth has no formal constitution setting out any rules for the selection of a head; such an agreement has to be reached through unanimous consent of all the heads of government. Selecting the reigning monarch as their head has always been the easiest and least controversial way to accomplish this task. Not to follow suit upon the death of Elizabeth II would thrust the Commonwealth into a prolonged period of leadership indecision. If the heads of government decided to rotate the headship among themselves, this arrangement could mean, with fifty-three member states, that any one country would possess a standard five-year headship once every 265 years. Such a rotational headship could also prove highly embarrassing, if not destructive to the organization, if the position fell to a Commonwealth country with a highly questionable leader, such as an Idi Amin, at its helm. Given the imponderables here, Bogdanor argues that in all likelihood Commonwealth heads will once again opt for the surest and safest way of securing a head for the organ­ization by investing Charles with the title.[3]

  Another pressing issue will be the sovereign’s relationship to the Church of England. The discussion will likely centre around the Church’s potential desire to be “disestablished” — dissolved from its duties as the official state-sanctioned Church. A significant minority of clerics within the Church of England have long viewed its official relationship with the state as “corrupting.” They perceive this relationship to be one that has given the Church a supposed mandate to represent the faithfulness of all people in England, regardless of their beliefs. This status, they feel, has led the Church to lay claim to the title of being the national church when it really isn’t. As the established church, however, these critics argue, the Church of England has become bland, more secular than spiritual, and less willing and able to present a robust promotion of Anglicanism to an increasingly secularist English society. By trying to present an established version of a generalized faith to the English people, the Church of England has failed to uphold its core spiritual purpose of preaching the virtues of Anglicanism, Christian charity, and the Social Gospels. A “disestablished” church might be a stronger church, one more focused on its core spiritual goals and more activist in living out the true message of its creed.[4]

  As Prince of Wales, Charles has stated he is opposed to such dis­establishment. He has also famously said he will wish to be seen more as “Defender of Faith” rather than as “Defender of the Faith.” “I’ve always felt,” he said as early as 1994, “that the Catholic subjects of the sovereign are equally as important as the Anglican ones, as the Protestant ones. Likewise, I think that the Islamic subjects or the Hindu subjects or the Zoroastrian subjects of the sovereign are of equal and vital importance.”[5] Charles knows, at the same time, that the coronation oath will require him to swear to be “Defender of the Faith,” and two of his biographers, Jonathan Dimbleby, writing in 1994, and Catherine Mayer, writing in 2015, have stressed that he will have no problem taking such an oath. How do these seemingly contradictory positions become mutually inclusive? To Mayer, Charles is a devout if somewhat mystical Anglican who sees the important interconnections of faith, spiritualism, and the divine in all the world’s great religions, and wishes to build harmony and respect between these pillars of devotion. “In Charles,” writes Mayer, “the Church of England stands to gain a Supreme Governor who takes his duties, and his religion, exceptionally seriously.”[6] These duties will be seen by King Charles III as advancing the spiritual life and applied “good works” of the Church of England. As much as this, or even more, he will perceive his duty to be one of promoting understanding and respect, especially among Christians, Jews, and Muslims. His religious duties will be defined both by interfaith connection building and ecumenism, a movement toward the universality of Christian churches.

  Apart from these Commonwealth and Church matters, what would the reign of Charles III look like? How will he use his position, particularly as he will be the
head of state of the United Kingdom, Canada, and fifteen other Commonwealth realms, and what causes will he champion? Given the important hold of tradition on the nature and working of the monarchy, and based as well on our knowledge of Charles’s interests as Prince of Wales, it is not hard to offer some reasoned hypotheses of how Charles will likely approach his role as king.

  Just as did his mother, he will take his likely role as head of the Commonwealth very seriously. He will travel extensively throughout the Commonwealth — especially in the early years of his reign — and promote its various programs of democratic development and good governance, socio-economic progress, education, health care, environmental protection, advocacy for the rights of women and girls, and youth empowerment. As supreme governor of the Church of England, he will advance the cause of ecumenism, using various speaking opportunities, including his annual Christmas message, to broadcast the importance of faith, the role of faith communities in building social cohesion in increasingly divided communities, and the importance of reaching across religious divisions as a means to achieve peace and understanding. Deep down, what we share in common is greater than what divides us, and the core tenets of faith and secular humanism all point to the need for people to respect, care for, and love one another.

  Other causes Charles will champion, in his own royal way, will be related to his personal and long-lasting interests. He will continue to promote his ideas and ideals of harmony in life. When occasions merit, he will speak about the importance of humanity being one with the earth and our environment; he will exhort us to become better caretakers of nature and the ecology that supports all life on earth. He will also use his public appearances and speeches to discuss the dangers of poverty and social exclusion; he will remark on the loss to societies when substantial numbers of people — especially youth — feel disconnected because they live on the margins of those societies. He will talk about the significance of reaching out to and supporting young people at the dawn of their adult lives, just as he will stress the need for societies to care for the elderly in the twilight of their days. And he will continue to speak in favour of social cohesion and the need for sound urban planning that respects the people, the environment, and the community; he will advocate for the cultural significance of architecture that is in harmony with its natural and built surroundings.

  His biographers confirm that Charles is a passionate man, and these passions will not be eradicated once he assumes the throne. As king, however, he will not be as free to pursue his passions and his interests as when he was Prince of Wales. As king, he will be more circumscribed in his ability to act as an advocate for his causes. Nevertheless, as king, he will also have access to certain levers of influence that only the sovereign possesses.

  When he becomes king, Charles will have to scrupulously adhere to the constitutional principle that the monarch may not become involved in partisan matters of political debate, either in the United Kingdom or anywhere throughout the Commonwealth — or in any other country, for that matter. In accordance with constitutional convention, the Crown is to be above politics. Charles knows this rule, as did his mother and grand­father before him. But being non-partisan does not mean the sovereign is prohibited from speaking about the importance of broad moral and social principles. These principles address what it is to be good, to do good, and to promote goodness in society. As long as he speaks to these matters in general terms, dealing with values rather than specific governmental policies and programs, and refrains from discussing certain principles when they are the subject matter of current partisan debates, Charles is free to encourage people to think more deeply about the societies in which we live, and how we can work together — in harmony with our fellow human beings and our environment — to make these societies better.

  Once Charles is king, he will likely transfer the Prince’s Trust to his sons William and Harry, giving them the responsibility of overseeing these charitable organizations while also providing them the opportunity to reorient the existing trust, or to create new ones that will address issues and concerns of interest to them. As king, Charles will lose the ability to be directly involved in the management and direction of these institutions, thus losing these venues for advancing his charitable ideas. But as one door closes, others open. As king, Charles will inherit the right to give the monarch’s annual Christmas and Commonwealth Day messages. These addresses, written by the sovereign himself without being subject to the advice of any British or Commonwealth first minister, will give Charles the chance to present his ideas to an international audience on the importance of these festive occasions and what lessons we should draw from them. Like his mother’s addresses, his will no doubt speak to general matters such as the importance of family and tradition, being generous and charitable, reaching out to others, and respecting the ideals for which the Commonwealth stands. Critics of these messages tend to dismiss them as mere “feel-good” platitudes; supporters will see them as expressions of “profound simplicities.”

  Perhaps most important for Charles, the kingship will place him in the position of hosting the weekly audience with the British prime minister when the British Parliament is in session. During these regular meetings, Charles will be able to discuss, in strictest confidence, any and all affairs of state and matters of public policy that he may want to raise with the prime minister. Likewise, prime ministers will have the ability to sound out the king on policy and program ideas, gaining his advice, encouragement, or warnings on the course of public policies. Given Charles’s extensive international travels and his close connection to the Commonwealth, prime ministers will also likely speak to him about international affairs, seeking his guidance and input on various matters. Any advice proffered by the king to his prime minister, however, is just that — advice — which a prime minister may accept or ignore, according to his or her discretion.

  Charles will have the formalized opportunity to present his ideas and concerns to the British head of government; but, as with all his royal predecessors dating back to the eighteenth century, he will be subject to the rules of responsible government whereby the democratically elected prime minister and government will be solely responsible for the development and administration of policies and programs subject to the oversight of Parliament. As king and head of the Commonwealth, Charles will also be in a position, during his travels, to meet with Commonwealth heads of government and their ministers, and to discuss with them matters of public policy within their countries. Again, such discussions would be purely advisory, but they will present the king with the opportunity to raise matters of concern with these officials, confidentially encouraging and warning as he sees fit.

  One element of such “soft power” that Charles already possesses as Prince of Wales, which will be amplified when he becomes king, is his “convening power.” This term refers to his ability to bring select people together by royal invitation for a dinner, an informal meeting, a more formal conference, or a weekend retreat. Once assembled, these invited guests are at liberty to discuss issues and concerns shared by all attendees as well as to explore the viability of various practical solutions to identified problems. His biographer, Catherine Mayer, notes that Charles has already developed a reputation for convening meetings on a wide variety of topics, inviting a diverse range of guests running from the Dalai Lama to Kylie Minogue.[7] At one such meeting, a self-billed summit in 2009 on the Prince’s Rainforest Project (an initiative designed to combat rainforest deforestation), the invited guests included eight heads of government representing Australia, France, Germany, Guyana, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Norway; U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton; four British cabinet ministers; the president of the European Commission; Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations; Gabon’s minister of defence; Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister; the president of the World Bank; and Canada’s then minister of finance, Jim Flaherty. This meeting resulted in an agreement between these leaders to promote r
ainforest preservation through the mechanism of buying and selling carbon credits tied to rainforest protection initiatives. The meeting packed a hefty punch: in 2010, thirty-five donor countries agreed to invest over $4 billion U.S. in projects to reduce carbon emissions in this manner.[8]