This week-end’s coronation has not only started a debate among people I know, about the relative benefits of monarchy and democracy, but it has also set me thinking about the nature and importance of tradition. I have had the feeling that I’ve rediscovered (perhaps in the cellar or the bottom of the wardrobe) my long-neglected regalia as a social scientist.* I can’t help returning to the conclusion that the elaqbgorate deference to “tradition” which framed the construction of the coronation ceremony, betrayed some radical misunderstandings of the nature of tradition and how it works.
Traditions don’t just involve references to past practice. It is important that these references are able to stimulate some kind of appropriate response on the part of those who witness them, or are caught up in their performance. The coronation ceremony was absolutely awash with references to the past, but I was struck by the obscurity of these references on the part of most people. The regalia deployed in the ceremony really summed up this lack of correspondence. The members of the public who could give an y coherent account of the majority of the regalia must be very few and far between. What on earthy was the Staff of St. Edmund (apart from the fact that we were told it is not the original)? Why only one glove? Why three swords? I, for one, had no idea previously that the ceremony involved bangles. The event screamed at us “TRADITION!” but without every connecting us emotionally or intellectually to the past which it was intended to evoke. Very few off those viewing the event can have been in a position to reach any coherent notion of what it all meant.
If the central theme was supposed to be the historical continuity of the institution of the monarchy, then some explaining remains to be done. Apart from anything else, we beheaded one of Charles’ predecessors. That seems to me to be pretty discontinuous.
*It is a curious fact that my response to the Jubilee was very much visual, although I was never able to bring myself to realise the intimations I had about possible pictures there. In the case of the coronation, however, my head has headed off in the direction of theory and cultural analysis. I wonder why.
I hope you don’t mind if I share my views on this monarchy. It was brought home to me how well we know our new king, his history/ ancestry and the fact that he is the head of all the armed forces (all of this on display at the coronation). Compare this to the military display from Russia. Without a monarchy we too could be at the mercy of someone we elect who could turn out to be a crackpot at the head of the armed forces.
My very best wishes to you.
Heather
Thanks for your comment, Heather. I’m not as hostile to the Monarchy as you might think. In fact, when I look at the USA and its election of Donald Trump as its former president I do realise that things could be a good deal worse under an elected head of state! It does seem to be widely recognised, however, that as an institution the Monarchy does need to change in some respects (as it has doing in the past) in order to continue to enjoy respect. Actually, if pressed to say in more detail what I have in mind, I would begin with changes to the court which surrounds the royal family. It might interest you to know that on coronation day I went to a community viewing of the ceremony on TV. The average age of the participants was noteworthy! If the crown is to retain in following generations the respect it now enjoys it has to think about these things. Best wishes. John