The Coronation: Reflections and Ruminations II

I will begin this second part of sharing my reactions to the Coronation by recommending very highly a video from Allan Barton - The Antiquary which follows on from his excellent series over recent months about the details of the ceremony with a digest of his reactions to what we actually witnessed. Watching it I found myself agreeing with virtually everything he says and felt my ideas were thus confirmed - as indeed they have been by talking with friends in the last week. Allan’s video, and the often insightful comments of other viewers, can be seen at The Coronation of Charles III - Some Thoughts and Reflections

Like him I agree the Coronation was splendid, but I too have the feeling it could have been better - and that is not a matter of spending more, nor making it unnecessarily longer, but of making slightly different choices, as I will attempt to set out below.

Viewing the still photographs he uses to accompany his piece I again felt that, unlike in 1953, television failed to adequately convey the spectacle and drama of the occasion, whereas the single photographs do - an odd paradox in the current age.

The setting

Westminster Abbey was built by King Henry III not just as a great monastic church but as a setting for future coronations and royal burials. Like Reims for the French monarchy its central space before the High Altar is designed for their respective coronation liturgies. 

It was therefore wonderful to see the thirteenth century Cosmati pavement on display for the first coronation in a very long time. Allan Barton raises a point about the precise placing of St Edward’s Chair which may well repay further study. The Liber Regalis indicates however that carpets were to be laid down on it in the middle ages, probably for the long-abandoned prostration of the monarch at the beginning of the liturgy, like that of an ordination candidate. Incidentally I believe I am right to say that in 1916 at his coronation Bl. King Charles IV of Hungary, did spontaneously prostrate himself before the altar.

The use of golden yellow carpeting for the Theatre has become usual as was the blue carpeting of the choir. But why was the nave and covered entrance not also carpeted in blue. The tradition up to 1821 was for the new monarch to process on a blue carpeted way all the way from Westminster Hall into the Abbey.  Not carpeting the nave looked miserly, and surely the Dean and Canons do possess such a floor covering? We have seen it often enough at royal occasions there.

I can see that the ‘health and safety’ reasons for not filling much of the church with viewing galleries and reasons of cost did allow the beauty of the interior to be seen in a way that was less obvious at past coronations. However  to have used the silk fronted barriers as in the past to define the processional way to the choir screen would have given visual definition. These are still in existence and used in the Royal Gallery at the State Opening of Parliament each year.

Again I can see the argument of saving money by not building an annexe at the west end of the abbey - and that did necessitate and enable a modest revival of a procession of some participants from Westminster Hall. However the glass roofed canopy at the west door, whilst minimalist, also, frankly, looked a bit cheap and rather lacking in the solemnity due to both the occasion and the setting.

Whilst I fully appreciate that adaptations were made for the ease of movement for a King and Queen in their mid-seventies with a ramped floor rather than steps up to the Theatre it is a pity that their thrones were not raised the traditional five or three steps. It also looked awkward to have the procession of those bearing the regalia walking between them rather than around.

Visually I think hanging the 1911 frontal and dorse of the altar and reredos would have been more appropriate that leaving the not very distinguished reredos mosaic of the Last Supper visible. 

Finally in this section although the traditional display of plate from the Abbey and Chapel Royal was set out on the altar and tomb of Anne of Cleves respectively, in contrast to 1937 and 1953, there appeared to be less on show, which seems a pity. Was this a case of second guessing what might be seen by some as the wrong message?

To be continued