THE CROWNING OF THE QUEEN.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1160, 22 June 1911, Page 10

THE CROWNING OF THE QUEEN.

—- — ■— — Claims of Canterbtify & York On the present occasion it has been decided that, reverting to the custom which ;obtained prior to tlio Coronation of King 'Edivard VII, the Archbishop of Canterbury shall crown both the King and the Queen,, and that tho Archbishop of York shall preach tho sermon. At King Edward's' coronation tho duty of crowning tho Queen was entrusted' to tho Archbishop of York (Dr- Jiaclagan) because it was,thought that tho strain of the double •coronation would be too severe tor the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr.. Temple) . owing to his great age. In a recent issue of tho "Church . Times" a writer, signing himself gives a very interesting historical sketch of the rights of the two Archbishops in connection with tho coronation of English sovereigns. Ho points out that according to the form and manner for the coronation of Edward VII, the Queen Consort received the sacred unction and her ring, crown, sceptre, and ivory rod at •the hands of the Archbishop of York. The writer ■ proceeds: Some modem authorities,' such as Mr. Mackenzie Walcott and .Sir William Alison—the picturesque inac,'curacies of Dean Stanley need not detain "us —havo laid it,down that it appertains . to the Priinato of England (tho Archbishop. of York) rather than to tho Primate of All England (the Archbishop of Canterbury), to crown the Consort. But Mr. Leopold Wickham-Legg showed at the time.of King Edward's coronation, in Vol- ■. Time V of "Transactons of tho St. Paul's . Ecclesiastical Society," that tho authority ior this statement is of tho slenderest, and, in fact, is non-existent. Liber Regalis says explicitly that "the coronation and anointing of the Kings and Queens of England belongs to the Archbishop of Canterbury, by'right of . the Church." Nor.does.t;here seem to have been a single lnstanco 1 ' of an ll Archbishop of York consecrating a Queen Consort, except in 10G8, 3n the casg of Matilda of Flanders, spouse of tho Conqueror, who had himself also .been crowned by Archbishop'Aldred, Stipend being out of favour. Edward II and h i s J9. uc ? n wero crowned by tho Bishop . of Winchester, but it was under letters Patent from the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was at tho time forth of the realm.. In tho vacancy of the Metropolitan See, it is the right of tho Chapter of Canterbury to appoint a bishop to perform the rite. There havo been cases in which the Archbishop of Canterbury did not crown the sovereign, but always for some extraordinary reason. Tims 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 he was re-crownod by Archbishop Langton, with full ceremonies. Another Bishop of Winchester crowned Edward 11,. but by lea'e of Archbishop WinchelBey, who was out of England. Henry 11, to 'the derogacion and harme" of Becket, uien an exile, had his son crowned by Boger of York, but excommunication anil interdict followed, and younff Henry was Te-crowncd 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 LonTV" 100 days after tho tragical' death of Kufus; but Archbishop Anselm, whose Tights wero acknowledged, was in exile, and there was no time to be lost. ' Tho caso of Stigand and the Conqueror has fceen already mentioned. Langtoft's poem says that "Sir Stigand was don doun " ami that the "Archbishop of York gaf .William the croun." According to one account Stigand had refused to b!e=s a blood-stained invader, whereas Eldrcd showed more worldty wisdom. Elnotluis oi Canterbury had refused in 103 li to crown Harold I, so long as any of the xoyal seed lived, and, laying sceptre and crown upon tho altar, had forbidden "by the, apostolic authority" any other prolate to tako them up and deliver them to Harold. Without going further into tho question, it may be said that it is beyond dispute that the right to consecrato both tha Kings of England and their consorts pertains indisputably to tho Metropolitical See and Church of Canterbury.