Citizen Writes
The coronation of King Charles III
The Coronation: The US view
2023-05-03
By Dr Tim Neff, Lecturer in Journalism, School of Media, Communication and Sociology at the University of Leicester.
As a recent arrival in the U.K. I have been asked on a number of occasions by people back in the States about the status of the Royals in U.K. life. When they’re not trying to figure out what the monarchy is, my U.S. friends and family seem most curious to know what people in the U.K. are saying and thinking about it.
Certainly, the attention to King Charles III’s coronation is stronger in the U.K, which is evident in differences in media coverage. If you searched the New York Times website this week for “Charles coronation,” you would find only five or six articles focussed on the new king or the coronation. Intrigue around Prince Harry’s attendance merits a New York Times story, as does the phenomenon of King Charles impersonators. Meanwhile, BBC News has published more than 30 items this month, ranging from the constantly updating “essential guide to the coronation” to a raft of stories about who has an invitation.
But now that I’m living here, puzzlement over the place of the monarchy in U.K. life has gelled into visions of commemorative plates and coronation crisps (which would be called “coronation potato chips” in the U.S.). Even the New York Times has published a story about commemorative coronation kitsch under the headline “Merch fit for a king.” It’s all about cereal boxes and tea cosies, and a Royal souvenir tradition that’s so embedded in British culture that it rates its own museum exhibit.
If a presidential inauguration is the closest thing we have in the States to a Royal coronation, we have a long way to go to catch up with the U.K.’s appetite for commemorative plates. Indeed, I don’t ever remember growing up among inaugural cereal boxes and tea cosies. I do think you can buy medals or oversized coins in honor of each president, and certainly Trump support has been commodified to the Nth degree. But none of this seems to capture the U.K.’s commemorative zeitgeist.
I say “closest thing,” but of course a presidential inauguration is miles away from a coronation. For starters, inaugural cycles are measured in years (four of them), not decades (seven since Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation).
More significantly, an inauguration is the political outcome of a winner-takes-all competition for votes and executive power, and it starts the clock ticking for the president’s time in office. Presidents traditionally are given the benefit of the doubt for the first 100 days after Inauguration Day as they attempt to prove that they are up to the task, but in today’s environment of rapid news cycles and social media snark, that honeymoon phase is far shorter, perhaps 100 seconds.
All of which means that in the States, something like “Coronation Chicken,” or the more modern “Coronation Quiche” likely would be an object of political, not gastronomical controversy. I would imagine that “Inauguration Quiche” would be a profoundly unappetising pie in the face for supporters of the presidential candidate from the opposition party. The bitter taste of defeat served cold, rather than a culinary curiosity.
From an American expat’s perspective, the coronation of a king seems to be as much, if not more about the coronation as it is about the king, who remains a somewhat baffling figure as a head of state who generally remains outside the political fray. Perhaps this hazy position outside – maybe above, considering the “divine right” argument – makes the official commencement of a monarch’s “time in office” more amenable to tea cosies and cereal boxes. But it appears to suppress the market for “King Charles III” bumper stickers.