Charles now at odds with church leaders over his plans for a ‘diverse’ Coronation
KING CHARLES has been at loggerheads with Church leaders over the role other faiths should play in his Coronation, The Mail on Sunday understands.
Church sources say the monarch’s desire for a ‘diverse’ ceremony risks clashing with centuries-old canon law, which bars Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and other faith leaders from reading out prayers at the service.
It has been claimed that the wrangle has delayed the release of the Coronation’s Order of Service with barely four weeks to go. However, last night, identically worded statements issued by Lambeth Palace, on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Buckingham Palace, said: ‘Details about the Coronation service will be released in due course.’
The tensions have arisen nearly 30 years after Charles famously declared his wish to be ‘Defender of Faith’, not simply ‘Defender of the Faith’ – a title all English sovereigns since Henry VIII have held.
But Church leaders are resisting a more active role for other faith leaders, given that it is an Anglican ceremony, as well as a constitutional event. In a joint message last month, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who will officiate, and Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell said the Coronation ‘at its centre is a Christian service… rooted in longstanding tradition and Christian symbolism’.
The King, as Supreme Governor
‘Would be entirely wrong and misguided’
of the Church of England, is required by the Bill of Rights Act 1688, modified by the Accession Declaration Act of 1910, to declare at either his Coronation or at the first State Opening of Parliament that he is a ‘faithful Protestant’ and will ‘secure the Protestant succession’.
One source said Church laws meant that the participation of non-Christian faith leaders should be restricted to them just being present in Westminster Abbey and taking part in the procession.
Religious affairs commentator Catherine Pepinster, writing in today’s Mail on Sunday, says the King is still wrestling with how to ensure that his new role accords with his realm’s many non-Christian faiths. She adds: ‘Is it wise for the Christianity of the Coronation to be diluted so that, in the name of diversity, other faiths are included?
‘These grave tensions between modernisation and tradition explain why the Coronation order of service has still not been made public.’
Gavin Ashenden, a former Chaplain to the Queen, last night warned the King against seeking any fundamental changes to the Christian Coronation. Dr Ashenden, who has become a Roman Catholic, said: ‘This is a crisis long in the making but entirely predictable given the King’s previous declarations.
‘Charles’s desire to reach out to other faiths is commendable and understandable, and it is only right that they are able to attend the Coronation. But any attempt to alter fundamentally the nature of the Coronation would be entirely wrong and misguided.’
Last night other faith leaders were relaxed about the Christian nature of the ceremony.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former founding Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: ‘It is appropriate the formal ritualistic prayers of the Coronation ought to be Anglican as the King is from the Anglican faith. But the presence of other faith leaders will signify the importance that he represents all faith communities in the Kingdom.’
Pradip Gajjar, a Hindu leader, said: ‘This is a Christian ceremony for a Christian King. I don’t see a problem with that.’
The May 6 ceremony is expected to last just over an hour compared with more than three hours for his mother’s crowning.
Only about 2,000 guests and dignitaries are set to be invited – including more than 850 community and charity heroes – compared with the 8,000-plus peers and commoners who witnessed the 1953 ceremony.
IT WAS probably inevitable that the King would eventually disagree with the bishops about his laudable desire to be a broad ‘Defender of Faith’. And the Coronation was always likely to be the issue over which the difficulties would arise.
In general, Christians and non-Christians wish to welcome and honour the other religions that have grown so greatly in this country. We have much to learn from them, and we have much in common with them. That is why their followers have prospered and risen to high office there.
There is no point in strife and antagonism, and every point in tolerance and generosity. So far, so good. But, despite a growing number of non-believers, and the collapse of many church congregations, this remains a Christian country in several important respects. Our law is founded on
Christian precepts. A stone figure of Christ stands on top of the Law Courts in London. Our music, education, literature and architecture are rooted in Christian ideas. Perhaps above all these things, the thousand-year-old rite by which the King will be crowned is steeped in the Christian religion. It would be foolish and crabby to refuse any change in this mighty ritual, and the inclusion in the congregation of a much wider cross-section of the population is obviously right and good.
The representatives of non-Christian faiths, likewise, should most certainly be welcomed prominently among the congregation and in the procession.
But their participation in the actual prayers, apparently the subject of a dispute between Church and King, is a much larger issue.
Different faiths exist among us because their adherents wish them to be different.
It could be argued that the successful tolerance of this country – rightly encouraged by the King – is a direct consequence of its continuing Christian nature. If we cease to be Christian, for whatever reason, will that tolerance survive?