The Coronation Pulled A Screen Across A Nation Divided - As Intended

The biggest illusion - and utility - of royal events such as the coronation is that we are somehow a part of them

- Nesrine Malik

We are, of course, in a way; we need to be for the institution of monarchy to have any meaning at all. But not as equals: the royal family gives us nothing, and we in turn legitimise it, give it meaning and audience and pay, through subsidies and tax exemptions, for its ability to wow us. The monarchy does provide a service, but not to us. It is to an entire system of political decline and economic inequality that cannot withstand closer scrutiny, and so it must be embellished and cloaked in ceremony.

And it was ever thus. The historian David Cannadine, in an essay on the "invented traditions" of royal ceremonies, wrote: "in a period of change, conflict or crisis", unchanging ritual "might be deliberately unaltered so as to give an impression of continuity, community and comfort, despite overwhelming contextual evidence to the contrary". That evidence to the contrary cannot be more overwhelming than reports that money for food banks has been diverted to pay for coronation events. What those funds bought was a coronation, much like the screens assembled to hide King Charles as he derobed, that for a moment erected an ornate cover that hid the nation's hunger.