Gone Medieval - Why Do We Have A Coronation?

Episode Date: April 22, 2023

All this month, Gone Medieval is your perfect companion to the forthcoming coronation of King Charles III. In this third special episode, Matt Lewis finds out more about the major ceremonial elements of the coronation with Dr. George Gross. Two components which still remain and are particularly significant are the 'recognition' - where the incoming monarch has to be ‘approved’ by the congregation in Westminster Abbey - and the oath made in turn by the King to his people.  This episode was edited and produced by Rob Weinberg.If you’re enjoying this podcast and are looking for more fascinating Medieval content then subscribe to our Medieval Monday newsletter here.If you'd like to learn even more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe today! To download, go to Android or Apple store. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world,

to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval. I'm Matt Lewis. As the UK's first coronation in 70 years draws closer, we're getting more and more details of what's likely to happen. We've explored an overview of medieval coronations and how much of today's ceremonial can be traced back through the centuries. In this episode, I thought we'd take a closer look at some of the aspects of the coronation, and there's nobody better to get into this with than my guest, Dr George Gross. George is a visiting research fellow at King's College London and is an expert on all things coronation. So I've asked him here to pick his brains today. Thank you very much for joining us,

George. Thanks, Matt. Great to be here. It's a pleasure to have you. I guess to kick off then, what did coronations represent to an audience in the medieval period? If you were maybe in the abbey watching or if you were crowding in the streets outside, why would you? was it an important moment? I think we should split it into perhaps three or four elements. One, something that we can all be familiar with, it's a big celebration. So at first, it's just one big event. And we've got to remember that the medieval calendar was split up into quite a rigorous system of feast days, but also days of fast. And the do's and the don'ts were very strictly adhered to and followed. So this is a day where you can party. You can celebrate, you let your

hair down. And from the records we have, there's a lot of drinking and partying that goes on. So it's a feast day. It's a celebration. Then there's the more serious. And this matter, regardless of where you are in the social pyramid, because there's a change of power and therefore a change of the people handing out the jobs. We see this a little bit in a contemporary way where there's a change of government and you have a new prime minister. And so the prime minister starts handing out cabinet positions and then that filters down to junior ministers and so on. So, So that, of course, has a knock on effect on the civil service. And then there's a pyramid effect.

So for the observer, it's also what's going to happen? How am I going to be affected? Is this going to be from the handing out of a great estate? Is it going to be a job? So that's another element. I think the third element is the showcasing what England was to the rest of the world, or at least to Norman France, and then beyond. So how does this integrate England within Europe?

what are we saying? And each monarch might have a different agenda. Are we about to go on a big crusade? Is that going to be the impact of the coronation? Or is this that they want to build bridges? So there's also an element of what is this for the rest of the world? And again, Charles III's coronation coming up in May is going to be something similar. It's what does it matter to the people of Britain? But what does it also matter? How does this relate to the world? And I think the fourth element is probably something a little bit more mystical. something between the temporal, so how does it affect the monarch and the people legally, but also how does it affect spiritually? What does this do to the monarch? And for a medieval audience, I think that really mattered. What has this person who is now the king or queen, where does that take them to? Are they a priest? Are they a bishop? They are gods anointed? What does that mean? So I think it's those four stages. And I think that combination of the medieval interest in feast days and things and the religious aspect of the coronation is easy for us to forget, but coronations typically took place on Sundays, but big feast days wherever possible as well. So William the Conquerors

on Christmas Day, you know, there was a reason to play into the ecclesiastical calendar as well. Absolutely. Really very targeted. And at the moment, lots of people putting out a fact of the day or coronation fact of the day. And even in a later period after the Reformation, you've got St. George's day. It's an oft-used day for a coronation. So association, matters. This is a day you want to add something extra on top. And the calendar was really important. So it is a very important day. It's also trying to link back because Westminster Abbey holds the shrine of Edward the Confessor, the whole day is important because you're linking it to a saint. We've got a saint in the family, so we're going to have it in the Abbey and we want to connect to that.

We want to take whatever holiness we can from that and imbue it into this new Monogue. So it's all about connections. And then, of course, the feast element, it's not just okay, we want everybody to have a good time. That's also, right, we want to start things off on a good footing. We want the people to be happy. We want them to celebrate with us. So it's both an effort to bring society together, but also say, right, new age, new beginning, and join with us on this journey. And I suppose there's an opportunity as well to play into that idea that you were saying before about using the coronation to make a statement, associating yourself with a particular saint. So if you associate yourself with St George, you're being very English, quite warlike, perhaps,

and maybe that sends a statement. Yeah, absolutely. And throughout that monarchs will bring forward different elements of the things that they want to emphasise. They might pick up something called the Garters, the most important role, really, of knightly order. So it depends what they're going to focus on. And they're regularly doing this. Because England has a slightly unusual nature of a series of saints that has been important. So there's Edward the confessor. There was sort of St Edmund for a period, and there's St George. There are a number of different people that are brought into mind. And then on top of that, you've also got biblical ideas that people try and draw. At a later point, Henry VIII wants to be King David.

In an earlier age, that's not unusual for monarchs to think of Solomon. Sadly, the records of sermons at coronations don't go quite far enough back, so we'd love to know exactly what was being said, but it will be the same themes, King David, King Solomon, that's what a monarch is wanting to replicate. That's what happens in the anointing. That comes from the biblical origins. So it's this trying to draw connection to saints, but also to important people within the Bible. And I guess for a medieval audience in particular, they would be reading all of this in a way that we probably miss today, so they will recognise that Saints Day and the associations that go with it. they will recognise the religious elements and the pageantry will all mean something that perhaps

we've lost a bit today, but it would very much mean something to them watching. There are two parts to it. I think from the history, absolutely they would. When I look at it from a theological, I always slightly wonder, were people perhaps more superstitious? Does that mean they really believed it? But I think they would have understood the order. So today, we'll tune in, we'll watch, and we will be somewhat confused and we'll need the presenter to present, as it were, what's going on, just as they did in 1953 with Dimbleby's famous coverage. So we will be presented with the presentation. The medieval audience didn't need that. They understood that's partly as well, because coronations happen

so much more frequently as well. Even though life expectancy was shorter, it's not unusual to witness one or two or to have heard of one or two coronations, whereas we haven't had one for years, not in most people's lifetime. So that is another of the differences between. So they'd actually recognise every little element would have been spotted. And I think also we've got to see the monarch in a medieval age as the chief knight. They're at the top of that pyramid. So there are different things, just as shields and coats of arms in a medieval era. Audiences, they understood exactly what everything meant, whereas now we're much less focused on that language because it's a different era of language.

And I think one of the interesting things that's probably missing from a coronation today is the fact that in those days in the medieval period, it would have spread over a period of several days, and you would have had part of the performance kind of focusing on the Tower of London, and then a big procession from there to Westminster. And I wonder whether there's anything in that connection of the city to royal power. Are we seeing them being joined together, or do we see anything about the relationship, the nature of that interaction between political power and the money of the city, maybe? Yeah, absolutely. So today, obviously, it's going to be truncated. We have this very small procession

from Buckingham Palace, medieval era going right through into, including many of the Stuarts as well, a coronation brings together the two. We think of London as one big city, and of course it is this huge metropolis, but actually it's got two major cities within it. And they were firmly separated at that time. There's a church called St. Martin in the Fields that separates the two. It's called St. Martin in the Fields. It's in Trafalgar Square. To those familiar with Chfalka Square, it was called in the fields because it was quite literally in the fields. And she were safely grazing there. So there is this separation. And the city of London, that's the financial hub. And of course, you have the Tower of London there. So you've got a royal palace that gradually in time

became less and less used and I think associated more and more in a sinister way and more. Monarchs moved upstream to Westminster. Westminster, because of the connection of an early Parliament and the Abbey, also an important royal location, religiously and legally. So you're bringing together in a coronation these two hugs in the medieval area. This happens by first the monarch spends time at the Tower of London. There was a very peculiar ancient ceremony of night to the bath, And that took place there. And then they would process from the Tower of London, from the city to Westminster Hall. So that was not just to show people them and to say, I'm the new king.

It's quite literally saying we are joining these two hubs together. And so a coronation brings together all of the major institutions of the state in one building, but over several days. And of course, what followed involved feasting as well. For us today, we'll simply see the coronation day and then days of celebration afterwards, but it doesn't quite have the same build up beforehand. And I guess there, there's, again, the symbolic, the monarch spanning and transcending both of those elements of London, that the monarch is the connection, the glue that's

bringing all of that together maybe? Yeah, I think the glue is a perfect part because they're the head of all of these different elements. And so it binds the state together. So you would have had the funeral, that's the end, the passing. The coronation is the new beginning. And as it were, there is no break, but the glue carries on. But this is crucial when you have a change of dynasty.

That's perhaps another reason why the coronation matters so much, particularly in medieval era, where dynasties change, there's a lot of fighting going on, the walls of the roses, and so on. It's very important to say, this is the person in charge, and this is where the law flows from. and they are crucial to the makeup of the state. And I wonder as well whether you get a sense throughout the medieval period that although there is dynastic change and there is frequently upheaval,

there's an increasing sense that the crown as an institution exists and continues unchanged kind of thing. Irrespective of whose head it happens to be on at the moment, the crown itself, through the medium of this coronation ceremony which barely changes for centuries, is a constant and the power of the crown is constant. Yes.

And I think perhaps if we think of somebody like Henry I first and the coronation charter, I think that's a very important element that emphasises what you've just said, which is to say regardless of who's in charge, there are certain functions that must happen. So the Crown is here to uphold the law, to try and apply justice with mercy. It's not just any kind of law. It's to be done in a merciful manner. And Henry I first is saying because of the complexities of the time, you've got a lot of Anglo-Saxon people who are still very unhappy with Norman rule.

He wants to try and make the state work in a better manner. You can take William the Conqueror's approach, which is to smash people down. But ultimately, if you want it to really work, you probably need to get them on side. He's also going to say, we're going to honour the customs, the laws of the land. And so this combination is brought to bear in a coronation is very important regardless of who's in charge. Even with Shakespeare's famous line about Richard II, you can't. wash away the barn for an anointed king, but you can, and it happens, and the crown just continues to function quite an impersonal way, even in a coronation. So in an earlier episode, we talked a little

bit about the first coronation service records that we have compared to the first kind of more fully recorded coronation. Is there a difference when you study coronations as you do? Is there a difference in the value of the recorded coronation orders, which I guess are quite impersonal matter of fact, does that differ in value from the chronicle accounts, which will tell us about how people were experiencing it? I guess are they both valuable but in different ways? I think they are both very important because to some degree we want to be able to say, this happened then. So the crowning happened at this stage, the anointing happened then and so on. So I think we want to have something we can rest on and say, this is what happened, and then we can see a development of

it. One of the compilers of records, Victorian, Wickham, leg, he collected all of these, put them together in a book. It's quite stale when it's done like that. So the Chronicles help bring the records to life because whilst it's very important and interesting to know the order, also important to know why it matter to people and what they were doing. And knowing about banquets afterwards, I think tells us a lot about how successful the coronation is, how important it matter to people, and perhaps can allow us to re-evaluate the start of a new reign. Corrination is at the beginning of a reign. It tends to be a more successful beginning, not always, but that in itself tells us about the transition of power. If a

chronicler's writing things went quite smoothly, then that probably tells us that the new person in power is relatively accepted. So it might mean we question a little bit of the narrative we have from history that things were always bad. They might not have been to start with. So chronicle accounts give us a way of building on what is quite a matter-of-fact records, that this is the order of play. It's quite nice to have a bit more detail to it. Obviously, at different moments, we have to take that with a pinch of salt. So the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle might have particular views on Norman. So we have to take it with a pinch of salt, but it does give us that extra detail. And particularly around the coronation, very often you get details where we didn't necessarily

need to know all of the details about the feast. For a writer at the time, it might not have been seen in any kind of biased manner for or against a moment. But for us, that tells us a lot about how the era functioned. And the banquet after Westminster Hall, which doesn't happen now, is also very important. We perhaps don't know enough about Westminster Hall, but Westminster Hall was a real central point of the legal courts. It was a place for a coronation feast. It often had them on at being crowned in advance at Westminster Hall before going into the abbey. So there was a two-part ceremony. And of course, it then became the famous site of great trials like Thomas Moore and Charles I and so on. It really shows how any kind of coronation feast was society coming together, a very important part of the medieval era.

And I guess it's easy to forget, if you look at some of those chronicle accounts and things it kind of brings it home, that people are hoping this is going to be a great rain. And quite often you find medieval rains were ending quite badly. So kings get more unpopular the longer they're on their throne. So it's the end of the bad times. We can be hoping for some good times here. Absolutely. Sometimes it's hard to read it from the page, but they're writing it down because it's a new age.

This is exciting. There is definite hope. And part of that is that the monarch is the founder, patronage, able to hand out jobs and money, estates, power and so on. So maybe things will change. You might get something different. And I think society, even now where there are changes of government, there is always a slight element. You talk about that honeymoon period of 100 days or whatever that politicians are given. Well, the same applied then to monarchs. They're always expectations because it might be different. The previous person might have been terrible. Or in the cases where you have a monarch who actually lived a very long time, gradually not their power, but perhaps their energy starts to decline. So this is a chance of a new age, new era, and there is hope and excitement, definitely.

I'm a spy doing whatever spies do. But what am I going to whip out of my pocket next? Careful. In this special month of patented, we're celebrating the 70th anniversary of James Bond by having a look at some of the inventions that have changed espionage. From gadgets and their creators, to the cars and cocktails that make Bond look oh so effortlessly cool. Join me, Campbell, Dallas Campbell,

unpatented, a history of inventions, where I will have my can on a string up against the walls of some of the best historians in this field. Look forward to your company. And I wondered if I could pick your brains about a few of the specific moments in the coronation that might seem a bit odd, particularly if we watch them during Charles's coronation, we might wonder what on earth is going on there.

So the first is the recognition. So this is essentially where the Archbishop of Canterbury will present the monarch to be approved by the people in the abbey. Where does the recognition come from? And why is it still a thing? We don't choose a king that hasn't been a thing for a long time. So why is it still part of the coronation today? So Anglo-Saxon monarchs were elected. They did not inherit by either primogeniture or any kind of hereditary rule. The leading nobles of the land, the Wittam, you might see them as a sort of former Privy Council of today, but they would come together, normally pick the leading noble, the most powerful, but they would elect the noble to be the monarch. Then there would be some kind of crowning ceremony, but the monarch had clearly been chosen by the representatives of the people. In a

of the Coronation of Westminster Derby, you have this fusion of Norman tradition. I don't think William the Conqueror was at all keen on the idea of election. So you've got this fusion between an Anglo-Saxon tradition of election and a Norman tradition that wants to hand power down through the family. And partly, I think, because of Henry I first and the coronation charter, but partly as well because our constitution was never written down. And the coronation, many ways, is almost seeing our constitution dramatized. the coronation combined these two elements and retained this element of recognition.

So the archbishop presents the monarch to the people and the people acclaim if they approve of the monarch. And they say, yes, this is the monarch, God save the king, queen. A number of historians have said, A, this isn't necessary or needed because we have the concept of the king is dead long with the king. So that's one part. So you don't even need it. Two, at no point has the audience ever gone, no, we don't want this one. Bring us another one. I think it's very important that it's asked because the Coronation Service is an evolving service.

There are medieval elements, which is extraordinary, a thousand years of history being repeated again in May. It is amazing. But it's evolved. And yet in England and later Britain, we retain this element of election. And that to me is remarkable because in other jurisdictions and other places like Tsarist, Russia, There is no election. The service has never asked to consent. So it's retained. And I think it's that although it's a hereditary monarchy that we have, although it functions on a sort of rule of prima genitor, nevertheless, we've retained this election bit. I think that's really special

that in some ways, even in May, within this service, there is this check that people can say, no, if they wanted to. They won't, but they can. So I think that's very important. I think in the medieval era that really mattered, but particularly to get the Anglo-Saxon people to buy into this system, to accept. So that's key. And the fusion of these two systems is in many ways our constitution. And every time there's been an element of disruption or a monarch has been opposed because they're going against people, you come back to the coronation, and you go, you're breaking the rules. You're not upholding. And of course, connected to the recognition, acclamation is the oath. That's the next bit that follows. So the monarch cannot take the

coronation oath without the people recognising them as the sovereign. They can't be crowned or anointed without the people recognising. So it's combined. And do you think there's some odd idea retained in there that this is a two-way relationship? We tend to think of kings as being invested with unlimited ultimate power and authority. But what this actually does is, even if it's a little bit of a fallacy, is just reinforce the idea that it's a two-way relationship. There's a contract being formed, but you're getting all of this stuff, but we actually expect something back in return. Yes, it's a contract. And the monarch can't have these things without the people saying, yes, you are our monarch.

And then throughout their reign, I think where we really see this is where a monarch drifts off, do people come back to the coronation, to the oath? So Magna Carta, for instance, it's a reminder of the rule. So when a monarch veers away, it is back to the coronation oath. It's back to those things that people come to. So Richard II, Charles I, wherever monarchs have broken or seem to broken the rules, people go, hang on a minute, you signed up to something at the coronation. We've done our bit and now breaking the rules.

So I think it is very important to have this element of the service, not just because it's important in terms of the people witnessing it at the time, but it's also part of this is a contract before God, before all the people who are representing the state, and then if things go wrong later, you've got something to come back to. And that's crucial in a medieval era. Obviously these days, the monarch has much less real power. But then it really mattered. It just strikes me how close it is to the idea of contract law that both parties have to enter it willingly. There has to be consent on both sides and that something has to be given in return for something else. There is that two-way element that I think we probably would.

necessarily think of when we think of medieval kings? Absolutely. And sometimes people go, well, who is the witness? Well, medieval era, the most powerful witness of all. God. It's very much a two-witting, and I think you see that. I think my response to historians is say it doesn't really matter. They never really had a choice would be, yeah, but whenever a moment fears away, it's to the coronation and the coronation oath that the legal figures at the time and leading magnets would say, would bring them on and say, hang on, you've broken your oath. You've broken the coronation contract. So I think that's why it is really important. It's not something we necessarily think of, but whenever somebody veered away, that's the element that's brought up. Does the oath serve in some way to kind of reinforce that element of the recognition that the people have accepted the monarch and now the monarch is going to promise to be a good ruler to them?

Yes, this is, I think, a very important part of the service and it will be important in May as well, because this is the one bit where we've got praxis, we've got actually the monarch doing something. A lot of things in the coronation happens to the monarch. They get lots of things put on them, their anoint, their crown, and so on. This is a bit where they actually have to say something. So the oath is very important, the doing bit. And yes, it's come out of that era of knights and shining armor of presentations of swords, of signing up to oaths and bows and so on. So these things mattered, obviously in the bi tapestry, famously Harold's swears,

and then breaks possibly an oath. And William the Conquer uses that. So it's come out of an era in which these things really mattered. But even in the present, those joining the army, police officers, judges and so on, there are oaths even in a 21st century context. People when they give evidence in court and so on must swear on a Bible or something else that they're content to swear. We still have some of that context.

But it is absolutely the continuation of the recognition. So the recognition is the people's bit going right, yes, you're the right person. the oath is the bit where the monarch says, okay, this is what I'm signing up to. So that's a really important part of the coronation, even now, but crucially in a medieval era. And another element I didn't perhaps mention before why it's so important to have this two-way relationship, a monarch would lead their people into battle. So if you're expecting the people to come and fight for you, it's got to be more than just order. It's got to be a two-way for it to be really effective.

And does the charter come to kind of supplement and strength, and that oath and perhaps make it a more public thing, because I guess the oath is taken in Westminster Abbey in front of a small audience. The Charter is something that you can share theoretically, at least with the entire nation afterwards. Yeah, and the Charter was quite well reproduced and sent out. It was a real effort by Henry I was to get the Angersaxon people on board. So absolutely, there's that element. What is the message in the oath is about a monarch up holding law with justice and mercy. I think that's still crucial even in the 21st century, plenty of states where we only wish they would have a system like that. So that's a crucial element. And gradually with the Henry

the first charter, you've also got this sense of upholding the customs of the land. And that's also an important part. So yes, the charter is basically, right, there is this important message that I'm signing up to and I want to spread it out. So you really know that I'm doing this. It's the first real, you can call it a public broadcast in many ways. So that that that's what the Charter is doing, is to get that message out. And then Magna Carta is basically reissuing this at a later point. So it's a critical part of the British constitution, the English constitution later British one, evolving, creating something that the people can buy into with the monarch of the top. And I think again, it's quite an interesting thing from the

idea of that two-way relationship that this is something the monarch is saying, here are the things that you can hold me to account on. They're not saying, I now have no responsibility to you, I'm the king and you're stuffed and you're stuck with me. They're saying, this is an oath that I'm giving before God. You can hold me to account on this. They're pledging to rule in a certain way. Absolutely. It's not unlimited power. I think that's the crucial bit. Even in a spiritual sense, it's not unlimited, got God at the top. And the question of how divine or how important a monarch is, really, that takes long to a world. That really comes to a head in the Stewart era. But in a temporal sense, in the legal sense, it really is them saying,

these are the things I need to follow. And I'm signing up to it. It's a pledge. And if I break them, I've actually published something. So it's in writing. It's not just said in the Abbey, but it's in writing as well. I think that's crucial. And perhaps something that people are not aware of, how much that's evolved. And when we think today, people rightly get very worked up about rights and their right to do so. Well, this is where our rights start to evolve. This is the beginning of the state and the people beginning to get hold of something that they can say, you side up to this, this matters. That's why I like to see the coronation is a way of basically our constitution being reenacted in a day and all of those different elements are brought in.

So it's very important and shows how rights were important from a very early stage. If we think about the ceremony as a whole, what would you think to you is the single most important part or moment in a coronation? So I'd split it into two, if I'm allowed to, if we split it by temporal and spiritual. So I think temporal being the sort of the legalistic side, I think even though people wouldn't pick it as the first one, they perhaps didn't even know about it, I think the recognition is so crucial. Recognition, acclamation, oath, those elements linked together. For me, that's the most important part because that's the bit where the head of the period, amid the head of state is swearing to uphold certain key values for us that they're going to abide by and everything channels down from that. So I think that's the key element. More important

than sticking the crown on their head because in some ways we know that anyway. When the king is deadlocked with the king, we know they're the king or queen. But this oath comes at this point, and I think that's crucial. From a spiritual side, the anointing is the most important element within the service, the Holy of Holies, and for medieval area, you're creating somebody akin to a priest, akin to a bishop, a demi-god, if you want, a quasi-sacadotal, and they gradually acquire even this concept of healing powers. So the famous touching of the king's evil, where a monarch would heal somebody of scrofula, a sort of tuberculosis. This comes from the anointing, from the fact that they're a semi-spiritual, semi-deity. So I think,

the anointing is crucial in that bit. And the two combined, very special. I think even for the late Queen, this was a really important moment within the service, both the oath and the anointing. I guess the one is the legal element and the other brings in the spiritual element of it. The putting in the crown on the head doesn't really do anything without the other parts, does it? I've said before it, it's something so weird about humans across time and across place disconnected from everything that the way we demonstrate authority is by putting something shining on our heads. It's just a constant, isn't it? It's an odd thing. And part of that is a religious connection to buildings and covering your head.

There's something about that. Also in it obviously in an earlier era where it didn't have central heating. So you had to keep warm. And the head is an important part of the body that you need to protect. So there's part of that. But it is extraordinary, whether it's Romans, Laurel Reef. Again, part of it's biblical, the Crown of Thorns or Crown of Roses of Christ. So there is that element. It is remarkable. This isn't a thousand year history of something. This is thousands of years of history. So there is something very special about that.

I guess just to end on, why would you say a coronation is still important or relevant in the 21st century? I'm sure there'll be lots of people saying this is outdated, nonsense and rubbish. It's a waste of money. It's all ancient pageantry that points to empire and a military past and all of that sort of stuff. why would you say a coronation still matters in 2023? I think it's crucial because we have to come back to that oath element. If we expect people in society, and I think we should view this in the light of other events, like inaugurations of US presidents or so on, this is our head of state. If we are to expect people to follow on from the top of the pyramid

for judges to uphold the law, for military officers to sign up to the army with an oath, If we still expect those things to happen, then to have the apex of the pyramid, the person at the top, swear an oath, I think is crucial. Otherwise, how else do we find the head of the state? This is their oath to the state. So I think that's one part. And I think the second bit of why it matters is the very things that coronation showcases. So, yes, there's a lot of ancient pageantry that no longer matters in this age. Homage will almost certainly be much reduced. And we've not really talked about that, but that's a medieval custom from knights and shining armour and chivalry and so on. But this moment where a monarch chooses to uphold

or say and justice with mercy matter, it's quite extraordinary. You think of the last coronation in 1953, Europe coming out of war, post-second war. And yet now we have war on the doorstep of Europe. In Ukraine, we have that where states are not upholding those values, those laws. I think for our monarch to be putting that at the centre of this big event in something they have to swear to uphold, I think that's really crucial. And I think for me, that's a reason to have this. And also, it takes years to build up tradition, takes years to build up something that would be of value,

that a service would matter. You can get rid of it immediately. But this is a thousand years of rights being built up. There was a time where a coronation only had the House of Lords being present. Now, we wonder whether there'll be just a small handful of the peerage present in this service. but in time gradually the House of Commons turned up as well. That was for 1689 for William and Mary's coronation. So what you have is this buildup of our rights being showcased in a coronation.

So I think it's still very important to remind us of that. And also for a fresh start, a new beginning. This is a new reign, new era. But I come back to that, the law and justice. I think that's the reason to have this. I was really struck by what you said about for a nation that doesn't have a written constitution. We don't have a document we can go to and read and say,

here are our rights. I think from that perspective, the way you described the coronation as being able to watch our constitution being played out in front of us, that really struck me because at the highest level, it's the people saying we accept you as our ruler. You make us these promises that you will rule with justice and mercy and fairness,

and we allow you to go ahead, but we will hold you to account if you don't do that. I mean, at its basic level, that's surely what we expect. And I love that idea that for a country with an unwritten constitution, here's our chance to watch it being played out in front of us. I think your summary there's perfect. That's exactly what it is. And I think just so important to have that.

And people go, why do you need it? I think rights are things that we always need to be reminded of. It's not something you can take granted. And you need to be reminded of rights. You need to be reminded of duties. And the monarchs at the top of that. So whilst we have a monarchy, I think it's important we have this. So if they're not going to sign up to it, why should anybody else?

So I think that's critical. And of course it's symbolic. Of course, Charles is no longer chief judge, as it were, in a way that a medieval era would have had. But the symbolism matters because eventually you will do reach a judge who is the monarchs representative in the court. I think they need to feel that sense that there is somebody higher, at least symbolically. and it's important you have this. And so I think perhaps maybe this terrible war is a reminder of why rights and duties and laws really matter and that we shouldn't take them for granted.

And I think it's a great opportunity for Britain to showcase that to the world. What are we about, the rule of law? And at the heart of this ceremony is the rule of law. I think that's something that A shouldn't be taken for granted, but B is something that we can be very proud of and actually say, yes, this is what Britain is about. There may be many other things. It will be an expensive event that you could do this in a much more expensive way if you wanted to, but at the heart is an oath that goes back centuries.

And at the heart of that oath is something that way back to William the Conqueror and before, monarchs have been swearing to our hold. I think for anyone who is perhaps doubting the relevance of this today, I think that sums it up perfectly, that this is about what kind of nation we are, what we expect from our rulers, governors and our rights and duty to hold them to account, it never goes out of relevance. And as you say, is always important to be reminded of too. So thank you so much for joining us, George. It's been a fascinating chat about coronations. I've really enjoyed that. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. It's been great

to be here. I'll be back with more on coronations on Tuesday when we'll be talking all about the regalia and the coronation banquet. Don't forget to also subscribe and follow us wherever you get your podcast from and tell your friends and family that you've gone medieval. If you do get a moment, please do drop us a review or rate us anywhere that you listen to your podcasts. It really helps new listeners to find us. If you're enjoying this and looking for a bit more medieval goodness in your life, you can subscribe to our Medieval Monday's newsletter by following the links in the show notes below. Anyway, I'd better let you go.

I've been Matt Lewis and we've just gone medieval with history hits.