King Charles III's coronation, if done properly, will be a "benefit rather than a hindrance" to Britain, according to acclaimed British author Jeffrey Archer.
A friend of Princess Diana's and other members of the royal family, Archer is also a member of the House of Lords, inhabited by peers who, by tradition, would expect an invitation to a new monarch's coronation.
However, this may not be so in the case of King Charles' ceremony.
"As I understand it, 8,200 people attended the coronation in 1953 of Queen Elizabeth II because they put in special seating on scaffolds," Archer told Newsweek. "In those days, every member of the House of Commons and every member of the House of Lords attended the coronations. Nowadays, that is just not going to happen."
Recent reports state that Charles' coronation will take a much simpler form than that which was staged for his mother. The 1953 coronation followed closely the example set in 1937 by the queen's parents, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
The ceremony lasted almost three hours with peers dressed in ermine-lined robes and coronets.
The Daily Mail recently reported that Operation Golden Orb, the codename for Charles' coronation, intends to scale down the ceremony to just over an hour in length and with attendants potentially allowed to wear lounge suits instead of ceremonial garb.
These concessions, when sensitively done, show the new king's understanding of the need for practicality and sensibility, according to Archer.
"The queen's ceremony in 1953 lasted between three and four hours," he said. "She must have been exhausted after it. I understand this will last for about an hour."
On Charles, as a modernizer in his new reign, the author says: "We've seen it already. When he left Windsor Castle the other day he walked up to the crowds like a politician and shook hands and so did the Queen Consort.
They both walked straight up to the crowd. You'd have thought they were searching for votes! The queen never did that, she kept her distance and her father did far more than keep his distance. Within days of the queen's death [the new king] opened up the privy council signing their allegiance to the crown. We've never seen that before. So I think he's for being much more open."
The traditional coronation service has been altered in small ways for monarchs over the centuries but follows, in its general form, that which was used by Britain's latter Anglo-Saxon kings.
When asked if a major change to this form would detract from the level of symbolism attached to the coronation in order to cut the timing down from three hours, Archer said:
"The answer is yes but also, one's got to be practical and sensible about these things, and frankly a three hour ceremony with all the accoutrements from all the days of the past, that's not on any longer and [the king] has worked that out. I think an hour and a half then pop off in the carriage so that everyone can see him will be great and be quite enough."
One subject which is being discussed in Britain is how appropriate a largescale coronation would be considering that the nation is experiencing a cost of living crisis and record inflation.
This is not the first time a coronation has taken place in a poor economic time for the country.
"In 1953 we were in far more austere circumstances than we are now and the coronation lifted the nation, unquestionably," Archer explained, as Britain was still rationing meat following World War II at the time Elizabeth II was crowned.
"If it's done properly it will be a benefit rather than a hindrance," he said. "Not only done properly but done in a way that other people watching think; 'Only the British could do that.'"
He continued: "And we must remember that it was King Farouk who said, 'there will come a time when there are only five kings; the king of hearts, the king of diamonds, the king of clubs, the king of spades and the king of England' and we mustn't forget that. It's a wonderful export. and it's better than President Beckham or President Corbyn or President Cameron."
Despite support for the monarchy getting a boost since Charles' accession, a large number of voices are questioning the purpose of the monarchy and its value to the country.
In a statement released after the queen's death on September 8, the anti-monarchy group Republic called Charles' accession an "affront to democracy" and said: "We believe Britain needs to move to a democratic alternative to the hereditary monarchy. We believe that debate must start now."
Newsweek reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment.
Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
James Crawford-Smith is a Newsweek Royal Reporter, based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on the British royal family ... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
