Legal Significance of Coronation

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22725, 11 May 1937, Page 14 (Supplement)

Legal Significance of Coronation

By Frank Lon&worth, L.L.B.

CONSTITUTIONAL lawyers have been at great pains during the last hundred years to discover whether the Coronation has in fact any legal significance. They have come to the conclusion that while eight hundred years ago the King had no rights and no powers untj} Ee Ka3 been crowned, to-day the ceremony is little more than a public confirmation of the hereditary right of the Crown. i) It i'S, however, rather more than that. The Coronation emphasises the elective nature of > the Crown, signifies that the sovereign has the approval of the people, and is not merely King by right of inheritance. The very essence of the Coronation ceremony is the Recognition by the people. The Archbishop at an early 'stage in the Service proclaims "I here present unto you King George. Wherefore all of you who are come this day to do your homage, are you willing to do the samel" These simple words typify at once that the King is King by the choice and of the people. Consent of the People It is open to Parliament, as the representaJves of the people, to alter the right of succession to the Throne, but the Coronation signifies to the world that no change is contemplated, that the new King has the approval and support of the people, and that it is with their ;consent he assumes the Crown. Although William the Conqueror obtained the Crown by force of arms, his successors were careful to sefcure the consent of the people before undertaking any regal action. Until they had actually been crowned, they considered that they were not sovereigns, for which reason no time was lost in arranging the ceremony. Four days after his brother's in the New Forsest, Henry I. was in Westminster Abbey, demanding that the Archbishop should place the Crown on his head, and that the noblemen of the day should voice their approval. His son Stephen was actually crowned while Henry was lying in state. To such belief in the power of the Crown must be attributed the fact that Henry 11. in 1170 insisted that his son should be crowned touring the father's lifetime in order that there might be no delay in the assumption of full power. There is little doubt that in those early times, it was considered impossible for the King to rule before his Coronation. The office of Lord High Steward had been created under which this gentleman was to act as Viceroy between the death of one King and the Coronation of his successor. For a week, occasionally a little longer, there was no actual occupant of the throne. It vr'as known who was to be the next King, but until he had actually been crowned he was powerless. The country would have been lawless but , for the power of the Lord High Steward.

There was a great change in 1272 at the time of Edward I. When he succeeded to the throne, the King was absent in Palestine, fighting in the Crusades. Communications were slow, and months must have elapsed before the King could be brought home for his Coronation. Parliament rose to the occasion. They declared that if the members were to swear allegiance to the absent King, and authorise the handing of the Great Seal to three of their members, the difficulty would be overcome. The Coronation, they decided, was but an outward demonstration of their loyalty, which could be shown in exactly the same way by the passing of an Act of Parliament. Two years elapsed before the King returned from his campaigns and was crowned in the Abbey. The incident had marked the first change in the old belief that a King could not rule before his Coronation. Subsequent Kings still maintained considerable belief in the old idea that the wearing of the crown conferred on them greater power. Consequently for the next three hundred years only a few days were allowed to elapse between the accession and the Coronation. The real reason was that the King depended on Parliament for -such money as he required to conduct foreign wars, and until he had been crowned it was regarded as impossible for him to summon Parliament. On the death of the sovereign Parliament was automatically dissolved and could not meet again until it was summoned by the new King. To over-ride this difficulty it was in the Middle Ages agreed that in the event of the death of the King parliament should continue in existence for a further six months. Hereditary Or By Choice About this time, too, there arose the great conflict between the two great principles, as to whether the kingship was hereditary or by choice of Parliament. The latter view ultimately prevailed, Parliament'exerting its authority as regards the children oi: Henry VIII., and subsequently in 1688 on the abdication of James 11. On that event, Parliament finally resolved that the choice of a King rested with the people when they invited William of Orange to accept the throne. Ever since that date it has been acknowledged, without any dissension, that the King is elected by the people, and that the Coronation is public approval of their choice.

Until 1688 it had been regarded as impossible for the King to undertake any of the real duties of a sovereign. He could not summon Parliament: he could not appoint Judges, who changed with every reign: no taxes could be levied: the Great Seal could not be affixed to any document; and it was impossible to maintain an Army or Navy. The Great Seal was delivered into the King's hands after he had taken the oath at his Coronation, which was therefore of necessity arranged with the utmost expedition. The events of the last few months have destroyed the last legal significance of the

THE ELECTIVE NATURE OF 'CROWN

Coronation, though the lawyers are even now not satisfied that some of them will be strictly in order unless they are confirmed by the King and Parliament after hi's Coronation. Not only did King Edward VIII. open Parliament before his Coronation, which, of course, never took place, but he also assented to an Act of Parliament approving of his abdication a:«d altering the order of succession. These things could not have happened in earlier days, and mi <:h discussion has ensued and much doubt has been thrown on the legality of the actionß of last December. Time has, however, wrought many changes. Gone are the days when the wearing of the Crown carried authority. The British constitution depends so much more on custom and precedent than it does on Acts of Parliament that the King is King the moment his predecessor dies. His actions are those of his Parliament rather than of his own initiation. The King may die, but the Crown never dies. Immediately after his accession, and the taking of the Oath before the Privy Council, the King is invested with full authority. The Coronation itself has to-day no legal significance. It is merely the public manifestation of their approval of the King, which has already been shown by their elected representatives in the House of Commons.