Experts play down Coronation crisis fears after royal author Anthony Holden suggested King Charles’s ceremony could be invalidated because of his 1994 affair confession
- Anthony Holden argued any coronation was likely to be invalid
- The Church of England has never crowned a divorced man as King, let alone one who has publicly confessed to adultery, he said
- It would require a revision of the coronation oath
A sensational claim that King Charles’s coronation could spark a constitutional crisis because of his confession of adultery has been dismissed by leading experts.
On Friday, Anthony Holden, who wrote a biography of the King, sent a letter to The Guardian newspaper arguing that any coronation was likely to be invalid.
Holden wrote: ‘The Church of England has never crowned a divorced man as King, let alone one who has publicly confessed to adultery – with the relevant woman expecting to be crowned Queen Consort.
The late Robert Runcie [the former Archbishop of Canterbury] told me this would require a revision of the coronation oath, which would require a new statute of Parliament.
Claims that King Charles’s coronation could spark a constitutional crisis because of his confession of adultery has been dismissed by leading experts
‘Given the convention that Parliament does not debate the monarchy without the monarch’s consent, this would require the Prime Minister to seek King Charles’s permission. This, Runcie told me, would amount to a constitutional crisis.’
Holden’s views on the monarchy have altered with time. In 2002 he wrote a Guardian article titled ‘From flag-waver to republican’, stating: ‘The more I studied the House of Windsor, the more of a republican I became.’
But Sir Vernon Bogdanor, a research professor at King’s College London’s Centre for British Politics and Government, dismissed Holden’s argument.
He said: ‘Charles and Camilla’s wedding was followed by a Service of Prayer and Dedication, led by Archbishop Rowan Williams. This surely overrides anything Robert Runcie may or may not have said. It is clear that the King has obeyed the rules of the Church. Rowan Williams is, I think, in a better position to interpret the rules of the Church than Anthony Holden.’
Royal biographer Hugo Vickers said: ‘I can’t see what the problem is. For many years Holden has held a grudge against the King. To him I would say, times move on.’
Barrister Geoffrey Robertson KC said: ‘The coronation is a legal irrelevance, just a silly and superstitious Church of England ritual. Charles has no need at all to be crowned by a minority church.’
A Lambeth Palace spokesman said: ‘We can’t comment on accounts of a private conversation that Robert Runcie may have had while he was Archbishop from 1980 to 1991. But clearly much has changed since that time – both in society and in the Church of England. The current Archbishop, Justin Welby, is looking forward to crowning King Charles III and the Queen Consort in May.’
Advertisement
