ANCIENT PRECEDENT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1086, 27 March 1911, Page 5

ANCIENT PRECEDENT.

HISTORICAL SKETCH. | In a recent issue of Uio "Church' Times a writer, diguing himself "D.M.," gives a very interesting historical sketch of the rights of the two Archbishops in connection with the Coronation of Enc- ■ lish_ sovereigns. Ho points out that accpwing to tho form and manner for the Lorouation of Edward VII, tho Queem Cansort received tho sacred unction, and.) uer ring, crown, sceptre, and ivory rod at tho hands of tho Archbishop of York.The writer proceeds; Rome- modern ou-i chorities, such ns Mr. Mackenzie Wal-< cott and Sir William Anson—the picturesque inaccuracies of Dean Stanley need not detain us—have laid it dowu that it appertains to tlie Primate of England'. Che Archbishop of York) rather than to the Primnto of All England (the Arch- : ' bi&hop of Canterbury), to crown tho Con-', sort. But Mr. Leopold Wickham-liegg! showed at (he time of King Edward's Coronation, in Volume V of "Transactions of the St. Paul's Ecclesiastical Society,"' ' that tho authority for this statement is of tho slenderest, and, in fnct, is non-exis-tent. Libor Regalis says explicitly thati the coronation and anointing of the Kings and Queens of England belongs to tho Archbishop of Canterbury, by right' of the Church." Nor does there seem to i have been a single .instance of an ArchI bishop of York consecrating a Queen Consort, except in 10G8, in the case of Matilda 1 of Flanders, snouse of the Conqucror.i who had himself also been crowned bri ; Archbishop Aldred, Stigand being out oft favour. Edward II and his Queen were. ' crowned by tho Bishop of Winchester, but it was under Letters Patent from the. Archbishop of Canterbury, who woe at tho time forth of the realm. In the- I vacancy of tho Metropolitan Se.e, ii; is tho right of the Chapter of Canterbury to appoint a Bishop to perform (he Eite.' Tho Oath. It is sometimes said that the right of/ the Archbishop of Canterbury to crown, either King or Queen was taken awav by Statute at the Involution. But I 'William and Mary e. 6 refers only to the Oath, which was to be administered "by* the Archbishop of Canterbury or the' Archbishop of Yorke, or either of them, or any other Bishop of this R*alme whomi tho King's Majesty shall liicrcunto appoint." Tho Oath hod to Ire administered by somebody, find Sanscroft's fealty to his exiled Sovereign would not allow J him to bo the officiant. He was absent) from tho Coronation, but issued an ambiguous commission to his Suffragans,) which may have been taken as empower-, ing them to act. In the event tho double i Coronation was performed by Compton, ] Bishop of London, though the Archbishop. of York was present and had taken tho oaths. At the Coronation of Charles 11, the aged Juxon was too feeble to performthe whole service, but just before the Anointing was brought out of St. Edward's Chapel "vested in an ancient rich; Coape,"and after tho Second Oblation, was led back, "having beyond expectation, performed so great a part." At Charles I's Sacring considerable doubt ' was felt whether Abbott were not disqualified from performing it, ' in-' Consequence of the "irregularity" under whichi he had lain as an involuntary homicide, but from which he hnd been assoiled before James I's death. ' ''Always for . Some Extraordinary Reason." There: have been cases in which the Archbishop of Canterbury did not crowntho Sovereign, but always for some extraordinary reason. Thus Mary Tudor was consecrated by Gardiner of Winchester, Cranmer being held "unworthy. Henry 111, aged ten, received the crown from an earlier Bishop of Winchester, but possibly not anointed, and four years later ho was re-crowned by Archbishop Latlgtou, with full ceremonies, Another Bishop of Winchester crowned Edward 11, but by leavo of Archbishop Winchelsey, who was out of England. Henry 11, to the "derogaciou and harme" of Becket, i then an exile, had his son crowned by Roger of York, but excommunication and' jntcrdict followed, and young Henry was re-crowned two years later at Winchester by French prelates, tho See of Canterbury being vacant. Henry I was crowned' by Thomas of York and Maurice of London three dnys after the tragical death., of Kufiisj but Archbishop Ansclm, whoso rights wcro acknowledged, was in esile, and there was no time to bo lost.. Tho case of Stigand and tho Conqueror has been already mentioned. Langtoft's i»em\ says that "Sir Stigand was don doun,"' and that tho "Archbishop of York gaf William the croun." According to one account Stigand had refused to bless a blood-stained invader, whereas Eldred showed more worldly wisdom. Elnothua of Canterbury had refused in 103G to crown Harold I, so long as any of tho: royal seed lived, and, laying sceptre and crown upon the altnr, had forbidden "by the apostolic authority" any other prelate to toko them up and deliver them to Harold. Without going further into the question, it may be said that it is beyond dispute that the right to consecrate both the Kings of England and their consorts per(ivins indisputably (o the Mctropolitical See and Church of Canterbury.