Concerning your comments, Bryce, I think the latest television contribution has quite cleverly played up what is central to a coronation and, consequently, what isn't.
The Liber Regalis of 1382 consolidated what had been going on for centuries into one book and this has remained the touchstone in the centuries following. (It's a stunning work of art in its own right and featured at the British Library's manuscript exhibition a few years ago.)
While most of us are personally unfamiliar with a British Coronation, we are very familiar with it because of the joys of social media. Never before has it been possible to take a look at 1953, let alone 1937, at the flick of a button. Of course, the so-called 'haters' can do the same, but these are the sorts of people who dislike the whole Institution for one reason or another (perhaps better to describe them as anti-Establishment), smile at them and move on.
No two coronations have been the same - there were some striking differences between 1953 and its immediate predecessor, often with an eye to television cameras and, far more importantly, to the Commonwealth - and the biggest single development to date remains the fundamental adaptation to post-Reformation usage and wholesale translation into English. I would even dare say there were a couple of things in 1953 that were very odd, as though someone were attempting to crowbar the irreconcilable into contemporary circumstances.
The next Coronation, like those before it, is the moment to marry together history with the present. I think that was at the core of the documentary to which The Queen contributed very skilfully. It will be a pageant to celebrate continuity and innovation, reflecting the Sovereign of the United Kingdom and wider Commonwealth.
« Back to index