The embarrassingly obsequious coverage of King Charles’ coronation

If you were to compare the coverage of the British monarchy in the early 1800s to that which it receives now, which era do you think would be more fearfully deferential, more credulously accepting of the institution?

Upon the death of King George IV in 1830, The Times of London wrote the following obituary:

There never was an individual less regretted by his fellow-creatures than this deceased king. What eye has wept for him? What heart has heaved one throb of unmercenary sorrow?

Putting aside whether that’s a fair assessment, compare it to the coverage in British newspapers of the news that, during King Charles III’s coronation this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury will call upon:

[…] all persons of goodwill in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the other Realms and the Territories, to make their homage, in heart and voice, to their undoubted King, defender of all.

Yep, all that guff requiring dukes to pay homage to the new monarch is totally archaic and played out. Instead, we’re going to ask civilians to say, out loud, on their couches: 

I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God. 

The bishop then says “God save the King”, to which all are asked to reply “God save King Charles, long live King Charles, may the King live for ever.” 

But, you know, only if you want! It’s not weird! Tim Smith will be pleased, at the very least.

If you’re expecting the same paper that eviscerated George IV for his preference for “a girl and a bottle to politics and a sermon” to raise any eyebrows about any of this, you’ll be disappointed:

Below the details on how the ceremony will unfold — you can subscribe to a whole newsletter about it! — you’ll find commentary on how “Charles and Camilla’s blended family reflects modern Britain” and speculation about whether Kate Middleton will wear a tiara or flowers to the event.

We have not fared much better in Oz, some commentary from the Republican movement aside (and even some of that anoints Charles a worthy king). Honestly, we’re just a little too jazzed about the fact that a lot of the ceremonial paraphernalia has its origins over here.

Are we far too quick to take a knee and tug our forelock to the royals? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.