Coronation Oath Research Articles

The Coronation, the Commonwealth and government integrity

ABSTRACT The Coronation of King Charles III is not just a British pageant. In his Coronation oath, King Charles will swear to govern the peoples of each Commonwealth Realm, including Australia, according to their laws and customs. Amidst the glitter of the Coronation regalia we find the Sword of Mercy, the Sword of Temporal Justice, the Sceptre with the Cross, which symbolises legal power and justice, and the Sceptre with the Dove, which represents equity and mercy. Fundamental to the ceremony is the notion that executive power must be exercised with justice, mercy, equity and in accordance with the rule of law. In times when governments often act with stark disregard to these fundamental principles, what action can be taken to restore government integrity within Australia and across the Commonwealth?

Legacy of the Crown for the NHS?

The sixth of May 2023 marked the first Coronation in the United Kingdom after seventy years since Queen Elizabeth was coronated on 2 June 1953. King Charles III took oath for service and perfect justice. During his crowning ceremony, the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 required the King to declare that he would maintain the established Anglican Protestant Church, rule according to laws agreed upon in Parliament, and case law, with justice and mercy to be executed in his judgment. However, for the first time, a preface was added to the coronation oath in which the Archbishop said the Church of England “will seek to foster an environment where people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely”. King Charles III has enormous responsibilities as Head of State for the United Kingdom of 19 countries and the Commonwealth of Nations. What does his legacy mean for the diversity of people of the UK and the Commonwealth? What can the National Health Service expect from his legacy and vision?

The Coronation Oath

Over the past thirty years questions have been raised, and still remain, as to the proper scope of the sovereign's title, Defender of the Faith, in a multi-faith society. Such questions are not only politically important but are legally important, especially as they raise questions affecting the Church of England. Those questions need to be addressed before any suggested changes are actually implemented. These questions are different from those that arise in relation to the Coronation Oath Act 1688, but nonetheless are important. In spite of the uncompromising wording of that Act, changes to the oath taken by new sovereigns have historically taken place at subsequent coronations. This has led to both denials and affirmations of the legality of such changes. As similar changes are likely to take place in the future, it is important to consider whether the courts (civil or ecclesiastical) have jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the legality of the coronation itself, to the oath and to the actions of the relevant participants.

Covenanting in Sixteenth-century Scotland

In 1638 the National Covenant deliberately looked backwards, as well as forwards, by incorporating the text of the Negative Confession (1581). Its authors utilised the patchwork of sixteenth-century covenant ideas by drawing upon religious bonding, confessions of faith and the coronation oath. Deeply familiar actions and gestures were used alongside the words, and especially the emotional ritual of taking a vow with hands upraised. This resonated with the broader identity and culture of protestants as a godly people, who, like the Old Testament Israelites, upheld their covenantal relationship with God by the ‘purity'of their reformed worship and discipline.

Samson’s Cords: Imposing Oaths in Milton, Marvell, and Butler. Alex Garganigo. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2018. Pp. ix+332.

<i>Samson’s Cords: Imposing Oaths in Milton, Marvell, and Butler</i>. Alex Garganigo. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2018. Pp. ix+332.

Preparing for the Next Coronation

This comment is based on two recently published reports from the Constitution Unit, University College London, prepared by Professor Robert Hazell and the writer. This work followed a 2016 study ‘The Queen at ninety: the changing role of the monarchy, and future challenges’, which charted the further decline of the sovereign's personal constitutional powers and analysed the remaining functions. While the subsequent exercise was principally directed at examining the royal accession and coronation oaths, work was also undertaken to research the context of the oaths. The outcome was the two reports published in May 2018: ‘Swearing in the new king’, on the oaths, and ‘Inaugurating a new reign’, an account of past coronations and an analysis of the factors that might influence the shape of the next coronation. This article is in two parts: the first concentrates on the next coronation; the second examines the three statutory oaths that a new sovereign must swear, taking in also the traditional non-statutory personal declaration made at the sovereign's first Privy Council meeting. The first part concludes that the next coronation cannot be on the scale of the last and that the rite, although remaining Anglican-led, must find ways to reflect Britain's greater religious diversity. On the oaths, the second part points out that their imposition of personal duties was predicated on a constitutional situation where the sovereign was still head of the executive, rather than now, at most, speaking on its behalf. Granted the present, utterly changed position of the sovereign, alternative reformulations are offered for discussion and, absent amending legislation, suggestions are examined for how announcement clarifying their current meaning might be undertaken.

The Evolution and Contemporary Relevance of the Accession and Coronation Oaths of the United Kingdom

The accession and coronation oaths legitimate the monarchy and the UK political system but perpetuate a religious settlement originally legislated over 300 years ago. Some elements have been subsequently adjusted to reflect the changing composition of the union and in the 20th century influences from the ‘dominions’ have led to changes in the religious elements which have a questionable legal basis in the UK and significant domestic consequences. A major public review of them is necessary if they are to be adapted suitably for the changed circumstances of the contemporary era.

Neo-Harringtonianism and A Letter Sent to General Monk (1660) revisited

In a back issue of The Seventeenth Century, Nicholas von Maltzahn suggested that a pamphlet entitled A Letter Sent to General Monk, to St. Albons the 29 of January (1660), published shortly before the Restoration of the Stuart monarchy, might have been written by the Civil War republican Henry Neville.1 Von Maltzahn argues that the Letter, which is signed 'H. N.', contains the 'essence' of Neville's so-called 'neo-Harringtonian' position and antedates 'to the eve of the Restoration Neville's combination of republican thought with the language of the ancient constitution' as outlined in his 1681 philosophical dialogue Plato Redivivus.2 The pamphlet calls on the commander-in-chief of the armed forces General George Monck to reconcile the nation by restoring the MPs secluded from the Long Parliament by the Army at Pride's Purge in December 1648, and so help the transition towards an ordered monarchical government after the failure of successive Interregnum regimes.The Letter was published in the crucial weeks between the breakdown of the government by the restored Rump of the Long Parliament and the establishment of Charles II on the English throne. In it, its author defends the 'Ancient [monarchical] Government of England' as based on the principle of popular sovereignty and secured by Magna Charta and the Petition of Right.3 These 'two excellent Laws' were the 'pillars of the peoples liberty' because they preserved 'the property and liberty of all sorts and ranks of men'. The 'single person could not legally encroach upon the Nobility and Gentry [in Parliament], nor they upon the Commonalty' because 'each had such a check upon other, that they were a ballance each to other'. The 'single person' was then 'limited and bounded' by the coronation oath to govern according to the law, and neither the royal veto nor the King's prerogative power in the intervals of Parliament would diminish the freedom of the people as Parliament's tight hold on the purse strings would always ensure the monarch's dependence on his subjects' favour. The militia meanwhile could not be manipulated into serving 'the Lust and Ambition of any single person' because it 'was placed in mens hands of Estates and Interest', who would never act 'against Law and Reason'.4Like Neville's Plato Redivivus, the Letter thus praises England's ancient government as founded on Magna Charta and promotes popular sovereignty. It is interested in 'the balance [of power] of the one, the few and the many' in government and emphasises 'the role of the gentry in controlling the militia'.5 Besides that, it also proposes 'an Expedient for admitting the Members excluded [from the Long Parliament] in [16]48' to settle the nation 'upon a sure Basis of Peace'.6 The Letter was one of many similar pamphlets calling on Monck early in 1660 to readmit the secluded members to help establish a peaceful settlement after nearly two decades of civil war and changing unstable governments.7 If we believe von Maltzahn, Neville took part in this campaign to bring back into Parliament the moderates that had been barred access to the House at Pride's Purge for fear they would prevent the King's trial. Despite having been an active member of the Rump, so von Maltzahn suggests, Neville was now bent on reconciliation. According to von Maltzahn, the Letter reveals Neville's 'political pragmatism' and is 'consistent with Neville's position' on the eve of the Restoration, while Neville himself 'seems much the likeliest candidate' for its authorship out of 'the known H. N.s of the day'.8Since von Maltzahn's article was published in 1992, both eminent historians and political scientists have come to accept Neville's authorship of the Letter. Although finding the pamphlet somewhat 'improvised and confused', Blair Worden takes it as part of Neville's 'tactic' to further 'modify' and 'dilute' Harringtonian doctrine in order to be able to accept the inevitable, while Vickie Sullivan tacitly adopts von Maltzahn's argument. …

His Word Was His Bond: The Role of the Oath in Thomas More’s Trial

More refused to take the oath in support of the Act of Succession because the oath included a repudiation of papal supremacy. While the purpose of that oath and More’s refusal to take it were central to his trial, that oath was not the only oath that determined his fate. The oaths taken by the lawyers, witnesses, jurors, judges, and the King’s coronation oath were all involved in More’s trial. Were these oaths kept? More believed his oath was an affirmation of his faith and a means of establishing objective facts, while the other participants in his trial used their oaths to express their solidarity with Henry VIII and to ensure the Crown’s cause prevailed by obtaining More’s conviction. After a review of the objective role of the oath and the specific oaths implicated in More’s trial, the manner in which these oaths were employed, and the manner and degree to which those oaths were observed are examined.

De l’inaliénabilité des forêts domaniales (En droit

Introduced in his coronation oath by Charles the 5th, and formalised in the Moulins edict in 1566, taken into the Water and Forestry Order of 1669, and confirmed by the law of 11 September 1790, incorporated into the Public Estate Code established in 1957, article 104 later to become article L. 62 in 1962, and finally transcribed in 2006 into the new General Code on the Property of Public Entities, article L. 3211-5, the rule of inalienability is and remains a basic principle for the status of the state-owned forests. This principle has been laid out for six centuries and reaffirmed practically word for word since 1790. It confirms, beyond day-to-day administration, what the public service assignments are in the area of State forest management. It has been reinforced by article 6 of the Environmental Charter: Public policies must promote sustainable development. For this purpose they reconcile protection and development of the environment with economic development and social progress.

Jesuit Political Thought: The Society of Jesus and the State, c.1540-1630

THIS is a meticulously researched, scholarly work, written with suavity and flair, dealing carefully with much of the huge amount of material which awaits the researcher in this field: the Jesuits were, of course, prolific writers and justly feared in their own day for the level at which they wrote. The book divides into three. Chapters 1–4 set the ideas discussed later in the book in their institutional context, telling the story of the foundation, structure, rules and ethos of the Society of Jesus. Although Höpfl's previous work has largely been in the history of Calvinism, he is generally balanced in his judgements on the Society, and if he dwells on blind obedience, the spectacular growth of the order, its obsession with education, its addiction to controversy, its tendency to get involved with ‘princes’, and its denunciation of heresy, perhaps this is inevitable. What might be emphasised a little more is the Jesuits' pastoral and missionary work, both in Europe and beyond, the problem of the ‘Indies’ providing a vein of material which is not mined here. The second section of the book (Chs. 5–8) is perhaps the most important, and consists of a carefully argued discussion of Jesuit attitudes to ‘reason of state’. Starting with an analysis of the work of Giovanni Botero, Höpfl shows that attacks on Machiavelli were often combined with arguments which demonstrated a sympathy with the Renaissance concern to show what in practice was in the best interests of the state and its rulers. The key practical issue at stake in the context of the Wars of Religion was religious toleration, and Jesuits were forced to argue both for and against the politique case in favour of toleration, depending on the historical and geographic context in which they wrote. Höpfl concludes: ‘Jesuits, then, were capable of the most extensive asset-stripping of “reason of state”….’ (p. 140), in using at different times rhetoric which justified both persecution and toleration. Chapter 7 contains a subtle dissection of the relationship of casuistry to political theory in the matters of keeping faith with heretics and especially—and very usefully—on the sanctity of treaties like the Peace of Augsburg. The conclusion drawn is: ‘Jesuits, then, were willing and able to show flexibility in accommodating moral rules to the demands of the prince's role, and the more orthodox the prince, the more sympathetic he was likely to find them’ (p. 164). The final section of the book (Chs. 9–13) moves in historiographical terms away from what has recently become popular, cases of conscience and reason of state, and back to the standard fare of the historian of political thought in the age of J. Neville Figgis. Chapter 9 analyses Jesuit views on political authority, its origins and sanctions. This is followed by an exposition of the favourite themes of classical early-modern political thought in Chapter 10: the contract and state of nature. The notion of a pre-social state of nature did not feature strongly in Jesuit theory, nor did ideas of a social contract, until Suarez developed his views towards the end of the period under review. Nevertheless, although they wrote in the age of developing absolutism (especially among their strongest supporters), ‘in Jesuit political theory, then, legitimate government was limited government’ (p. 263). Good use is made here of A Conference about the next succession, by the English Jesuit, Robert Persons, who pointed to the royal coronation oath and the oaths of allegiance from subjects to their rulers as forms of ‘agreement and convention’ which constituted a sort of contract.

Manuscripts, Texts, and Enigmas of Medieval French Coronation Ordines

"Manuscripts, Texts, and Enigmas of Medieval French Coronation Ordines." The study surveys the texts and ordines for the coronation of the Frankish and French kings from the late eighth century to the end of the fifteenth century. It briefly describes the manuscripts and content of many of the texts, some of which have not yet been published, and it assigns new dating to several of them. It elaborates upon a few of the changes in the coronation oaths and upon the introduction of the Holy Ampulla into the French coronation ritual. Demonstrating that there was no specifically French ceremony before the early thirteenth century, this study concludes that, despite limitations, the ordines do have a contribution to make to our knowledge of medieval French kingship.

Northumberland, Queen Jane and the Financing of the 1553 Coup

Northumberland, Queen Jane and the Financin of the 1553 Coup In some of the lists of national characteristics compiled in the early sixteenth century the EngUsh were dubbed perfidious kingslayers. The tag was not undeserved; between 1327 and 1485 five kings lost their thrones1 and four usurpers2 obtained it in their stead. This succession of changes, each of them necessarily sanctioned by some form of apologia, affected the ideas commonly accepted in the kingdom about the nature of the right to rule. Deceit, deviousness, distrust and 'uselcssness', irresponsibility, bad faith and a breach of coronation oath were amongst the justifications offered for a deviation from the ordinary rules.3 It has been argued by Dunham and W o o d that they ultimately legitimated arightto depose.4 If w e accept their argument dynasticrightwas less important than other elements in establishing a legitimate monarch in the fifteenth century. The use of parliament to sanction such a change has been a matter of debate.5 In 1460 parliament repealed an act of 1406 setding the throne, implying that it was able to reverse earlier parliament's decisions and moved the succession to the Yorkist line. The role of God's law and the assent of the people, and the divine imprimatur of military victory were also involved. If the fourth continuator of the Croyland Chronicle is to be believed, Henry VII's first partiament confirmed Henry's right to rule 'as being his due, not by one but by many tides: so that w e are to believe that he rules mostrightfullyover the English people, and that, not so much by right of blood as of conquest and victory in warfare'.6 The notion of being 'born within the land' was asserted more than once, and of the dying monarch'srightto indicate a choice. None of these things had been called into play since 1485 although it may be noted that in 1503 there had been some debate about who might foUow Henry VII which had not automatically assumed that Henry VIII was a certainty. They did, however, remain as evidence of the sort ofjustifications that might be caUed into play in an emergency, such as the currently ruling faction perhaps viewed Mary's potential succession to a dying Edward VI in 1553. Had Northumberland succeeded in putting Lady Jane Grey firmly on the ^ w a r d II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V and Richard III. 2 Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard IU and Henry VII. 3 W.Huse Dunham, Jnr, and Charles T. Wood, The right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom's Authority 1327-1485, American Historical Review 81, no.l, February 1976, 738. *Ibid, 739. S J.W.McKenna, The myth of parliamentary sovereignty in late-medieval England, English Historical Review 372, July 1979, 481 ff. 6 Quoted in McKenna, 502. 138 S.M. Jack throne, there would, therefore, have been no shortage of convenient, even timehallowed arguments to support her claim. Apart from anything else, if the descent of the throne followed the ordinary descent of land, then Jane and her sisters as heirs of the whole blood had a better claim than Mary. Nevertheless, to succeed, there had to be as wide a consensus as could be achieved amongst those holding public office and those magnates who represented a power in the land. Support from the commons would also be not unwelcome. No-one seems to have contemplated secret, ruthless, and unexpected action. There may have been a plot there is no evidence that there was any intention for it to be a coup. There has been a recent revival of interest in the events surrounding Mary's accession. Diarmaid MacCuUoch in a number of works has re-examined the role of East Anglia and popular support for Mary there.7 H e argues that 'the first reaction of the county leadership was to obey Westminster's orders . . . and proclaim queen Jane'. Robert Tittler and Susan Batdey have similarly recendy argued that a number of the boroughs in East Anglia including Kings Lynn had originally 'backed the wrong horse' and that even parts of the countryside had been against her.8 Jennifer...

“For a King not to be bountiful were a fault”: Perspectives on Court Patronage in Early Stuart England

In an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery of the work of William Dobson entitled “The Royalists at War,” one portrait among the Cavalier soldiers and commanders was that of Sir Thomas Aylesbury. Aylesbury holds in his hand a document that begins, “To the King's most Excellent Majesty The Humble Petition.” By posing in his official black robes that evoke the solemnity of the law and by giving the petition prominence, Aylesbury celebrates his position as a master of requests. As a master of requests even at Oxford in the 1640s, it was his role to present petitions to the king asking for redress of grievances or for personal advancement, in short, asking for royal bounty. As Dobson's portrait signifies, such petitions were not merely the seedy clamorings of early Stuart courtiers but an open and important link between the monarch and the subject, one suitable for commemoration in portraiture. The painting makes concrete, even in the midst of civil war, the king's traditional role as guarantor of justice and giver of favor. While the king's promise of justice goes back to early Anglo-Saxon dooms and tenth-century coronation oaths, his giving of largesse had expanded with the Renaissance monarchy of the Tudors.Historians of early modern Europe have become interested in court patronage as they have analyzed politics and political elites. From the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, from the work of MacFarlane to Namier, the study of relationships between patrons and clients has been at the forefront of modern historiography.

The Right to Rule in England: Depositions and the Kingdom's Authority, 1327-1485

A SERIES OF FIVE DEPOSITIONS between 1327 and 1485 drove the English to conjure up arguments and principles justifying a change in kings. Five sovereigns-Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V, and Richard III-lost the throne permanently; and four usurpers-Henry IV, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII-claimed to be lawfully seised and possessed of the said in their stead. To sanction the removal of an unsatisfactory sovereign and his successor's usurpation, men of law-both common and canondevised apologias. These justificatory declarations, taken seriatim, created a doctrine of restraint upon the regal power that eventually became a part of England's constitutional, or public, law. On each of these occasions, God and His Englishmen had the chance to choose a new king. As they did so, their spokesmen defined further the right to rule and the authority to govern, thereby limiting the English monarchy, for to define is to curb. The deposers, to justify their deeds, alleged deceit, deviousness, distrust, and uselessness in those they removed; and sometimes irresponsibility, bad faith, and a breach of the coronation oath. The deposed kings had governed, they said, without good counsel and consent, or against England's laws and customs. Positively, the usurpers claimed the crown through inheritance or by God's will, conquest, or election. Thereby they brought into play and into public law God's authority, the people's, and the kingdom's-authority that was expressed through the three estates of the realm and, finally, through parliament. These indictments of beaten kings and the vindications of their conquerors contained much bad history. In due season they made good law. Again and again the official apologias raised basic questions about public law and governance. To whom was, or ought, the good king to be responsible? And for what and how much was he himself to be answerable, and to whom? To God alone? Yet that position was hardly satisfactory. To medieval men, the kingdom possessed authority of its own that in several ways complemented God's, thus suggesting that the king was, in some measure, also

The Coronation Oath and the Church of England

The first part of the Oath ‘ministered’ by the archbishop of Canterbury at the coronation of king George V in 1910, as at previous coronations, was the question:‘Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the People of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Dominions belonging thereto, according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed upon, and the respective Laws and Customs of the same ?’

The Coronation Oath of 1308: The Background of ‘Les leys et les custumes’

Few problems in medieval constitutional history, and perhaps none in English constitutional history, have occasioned more irreconcilably different interpretations than the problem of the meaning and significance of the coronation oath of 1308. Divergent interpretations began in the seventeenth century, and they have continued to provide the substance of an interesting historiographical problem ever since. It is doubtful whether complete agreement on all of the specific questions raised by the oath will ever be reached, but at the present stage of debate there are still questions which have neither been raised nor answered. The purpose of this paper is to raise one of these questions and, by providing an answer, to narrow further the limits within which there is still disagreement concerning the oath which Edward II swore at his coronation.

John Gower, Mentor for Royalty: Richard II

In all of Gower's work we witness the poet "repeatedly going through the same cycle: a ruler is responsible for the welfare of England and for its morality in civic, religious, and political life as exemplified in the individual citizen" (964). Gower's "most significant role" (953) is therefore to act as mentor for royalty, in particular for Richard II. To illustrate this point, Coffman examines three aspects of Gower's work: the 1381 Peasants Revolt; Gower's views of Lollardy; and Gower's final assessment of Richard's reign. The first of these, the 1381 Revolt, is treated in the VC, where Gower demonstrates that the wise king is responsible for the welfare of his land. The subject of Lollardy further suggests that Gower looked to the king to quell heresy. In "Carmen super multiplici viciorum pestilencia" he admonishes Richard in the final couplet to be like the husbandman ("Cultor") who watches and acts "lest the weeds of heresy stifle the harvest" (957-58). The third and longest section of Coffman's essay is a close reading of "O Deus Immense." Its value, Coffman argues, consists in "its quality as a mirror reflecting the mind of a middle-class conservative and through it interpreting in a comprehensive manner Gower's class in society and the Lancastrian attitude as found in contemporary records" (959). Gower's revision of the heading of the poem reveals that Gower increasingly saw himself in the role of "a judge rendering a decision [on Richard's reign] rather than that of an advisor telling a young ruler what to do" (960). Coffman shows that in "O Deus Immense," "practically every maxim, precept, or injunction applies with direct clarity to King Richard's reign" (962). Also noted are Gower's use of the second person to address his reader and make note of important precepts, as well as the reference to the Coronation Oath which signals the obligation of kings to rule justly. Coffman points out that the Coronation Oath was used by the Lancastrians in the 1399 deposition charges to indict Richard for ruling badly, and the essay ends with a comparison between the language of the poem and the phrasing of these thirty-three charges. [CvD]

Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation Oath in the Thirteenth Century

Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation Oath in the Thirteenth Century

The English Coronation Oath

To the early history of the coronation oath it would be difficult to add, unless, which seems unlikely, some altogether fresh documents are discovered. In any case, the course of history is plain. The king bound himself by a threefold promise to preserve peace and protect the church, to maintain good laws and abolish bad, to dispense justice to all. This oath had been taken by English kings from the tenth century: it was taken by William the Conqueror and by his successors. But more than this, Henry I, Stephen, and Henry II all issued coronation charters. Neither Richard I nor John did so, but Henry III went back to the practice that had been followed by his grandfather, and the great charter as it was reissued in 1216 was, in effect, a coronation charter.