King Charles’ s coronation ‘is first and foremost an act of Christian worship’ says Archbishop of Canterbury

WHEN Charles is crowned king on May 6 at a service at Westminster Abbey, the entire country will be asked to swear a religious oath of allegiance to the monarch.

Those watching the crowning have been asked to say:

I swear that I will pay true allegiance to your majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

Declaring that the coronation was “first and foremost an act of Christian worship,” Archbishop Justin Welby said:

It is my prayer that all who share in this service, whether they are of faith or no faith, will find ancient wisdom and new hope that brings inspiration and joy.

Welby will proclaim “God save the King”, with all asked to respond by saying:

God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.

The exhortation to swear the oath is not going down well well with what the right-wing Daily Mail calls “spoilsports” in the headline below.

The Mail‘s Elizabeth Haigh wrote:

Republicans have been left fuming at the optional part of the service, slamming the request as ‘offensive’ and ‘tone-deaf’.

Image via YouTube

And she named Professor Priyamvada Gopal, above, as one of a “minority” of anti-royalists who are “airing their anger” less than a week before the hugely expensive extravaganza.

Writing on Twitter, Gopal said:

Peasants, you are asked to chant: ‘I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.’

Then she offered an alternative:

I swear to continue paying allegiance to Rule by Wealth, and to all who profiteer and siphon off money from the public weal, according to law or not. So help me keep believing that Money is God, cupiditas forever and ever, amen’. 

The Professor of Postcolonial Studies at Churchill College, Cambridge later added:

Appropriate that the mass oath of fealty to obscene wealth and extractive inequality will be administered by the ex-oilman archbishop.

Although the coronation will be overwhelmingly Christian the entire coronation is being touted as a multi-faith affair.

The Times of Israel reports that it will:

Feature a prominent role for Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Jewish leaders, according to the order of service released by the office of Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.

Image via YouTube

And it pointed out that Rishi Sunak, above, Britain’s first Hindu Prime Minister, will give a reading from the Bible at the service, which will also be attended by Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf, the first Muslim to hold the post and to lead a Western European government.

A majority of Brits don’t care much, if at all, about this royal flapdoodle

Image via YouTube

Norman Baker, above, a former Liberal Democrat MP wrote yesterday (Saturday) that a YouGov poll this month revealed that “64% of us don’t care very much or care at all about the event, while only 9% care a great deal.”

And he questioned the need for a coronation.

Why are we having a coronation, anyway? No other European monarchy bothers. The last one in Spain was in 1555, and the Scandinavian monarchies in Denmark, Sweden and Norway had all deemed the archaic practice unnecessary by 1906.

There is no legal need for a coronation. Charles is king without it. That was sealed in the days after the Queen’s death at the accession council, which I attended as a privy counsellor (though naturally none of us got a vote).

No, the real purpose is to stage a huge candy-floss PR event for the royals. But it will bring in tourists, royal supporters argue. Personally, I don’t think it sensible to base our constitutional arrangements on what tourists want. We are not Disney World. Or perhaps we are, with golden coaches, fake princesses and castles galore.

His article was centred on the £100m cost.

Charles says he wants to modernise the monarchy. If he is serious, he can start by paying tax on the gigantic inheritance from his mother —the racehorses, the paintings and the rest. And he can pay for his own coronation. After all, he can afford it.

You can also support my work via a one-off donation via PayPal, Buy Me a Coffee or GofundMe.

If you spot any typos in this report please notify me at

Latest posts

10 responses to “King Charles’ s coronation ‘is first and foremost an act of Christian worship’ says Archbishop of Canterbury”

  1. His mother should have crowned the village-idiot with the nearest saucepan at birth, would have saved us £250+million next Saturday.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.”
    Does this constitute a serious test of Welby’s god’s powers? Would he consider a side-bet on Charles’s immortality?
    If he goes for the “Thy will be done” loophole does that mean he knows his incantation is meaningless? Does he expect an omniscient deity to change its mind and admit it was wrong to order universal mortality? (I do know about the jellyfish.)
    Or will it be quietly forgotten?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Swearing “true allegiance” to Charles and his heirs! A very dodgy idea. The Duke of Windsor, prior and during WW2 was an admirer of Hitler and met with him. As did other royals. Early in the war it looked as if the UK might be defeated and the Duke was expecting to be made king by Hitler.

    There were many documents revealing friendly exchanges between the Duke and Hitler. Churchill and others went to great lengths to find and block these documents being revealed. Churchill thought their revelation would be damaging to the British Empire. Churchill lost patience with the Duke but couldn’t control him.

    The idea of an inherited monarch is fraught with danger and ensures, sooner or later, that some members of a mediocre family will be disasters as monarch. Suppose Prince Andrew became monarch?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Damnation, I had forgotten that if the village-idiot hadn’t survived to now we would have his brother as king, I’m certain that you know the pathetic individual – the one who “… tends to be too honourable” to have screwed a humble person?


    2. Yes, but if he were first in line rather than fourth I think he would have been on a
      much shorter chain and history would have developed differently. He certainly would not have been allowed to serve in the Falklands. (He was second at the time but William popped out a week after the end.)
      Of course if we had a proper, grown-up republic it would not be such a significant matter for the tabloids and might not have happened at all. “No sweat,” as the saying goes.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. malcolmjdodd Avatar

    Vanity Fair, have you forgotten that the main tenet of xtianity is immortality, initially on earth and then in their imaginary hereafter.
    Welby is desperate to revive the fortunes of a bankrupt (morally, certainly, financially, close) CofE Ltd, what better to get more kids into church than to have them in front of their TVs watching the hysterical crap and chanting slogans at home next Saturday, when I shall be with my grandchildren at Sudbury the National Trust Children’s Country House – anyone fancy joining us?


  5. Vanity Unfair Avatar
    Vanity Unfair

    Multiple choice:
    (a) eternity forced to praise a malevolent deity, or else (b)
    (b) eternal torment for having chosen the wrong, or no, deity
    (c) oblivion


    1. That was supposed to be a reply to malcolmjdodd.


    2. Justin Welby has always seemed to be an irrelevance. With his embarrassing and offensive comments on the swearing allegiance he now seems silly.


    3. a) Non-starter.
      b) Irrelevant, Welby and co stated that the concept of eternal torment was an error as it never existed.
      c) Obvious.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: