The United Kingdom is one of the last countries in the world to host lavish coronation ceremonies. Europe’s new kings and queens keep these events low-key, whereas the British monarchy continues to be marked by splendour and mass popular appeal. This time last year, there were 3,874 applications for road closures to mark street parties to celebrate Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee. A coronation is, of course, far more historic. Yet with just three weeks to go, there have only been 274 street party registrations.
In many ways, the disparity is understandable. Elizabeth II had built up huge personal affection over a lifetime’s service. There was also a strong unspoken sense that the Jubilee was our opportunity to bid her a fond farewell – and so it proved, with her balcony appearance on the last day of the celebrations turning out to be her final public appearance. In contrast, the public has not yet had a chance to get to know Charles III as monarch. The same store of collective memories simply does not exist in the shared consciousness.
When Charles acceded, he hinted that he would be retiring from his old campaigns. This was a wise decision
Elizabeth arrived on the throne with little personal baggage. She was intent on being a unifying figure, and she remained unfailingly neutral for 70 years. In contrast, Charles has spent his lifetime’s apprenticeship forging a role as a campaigner. He has been careful not to stray into party politics, but he has found that campaigning can by its very nature be divisive. Many in the environmental movement have lauded him for what he has brought to their cause. The nation’s modernist architects, on the other hand, may feel they have less reason to cheer on 6 May.
The Queen and the Prince took different strategies, and hers was more effective.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in