In the context of medieval Europe, let's say a pretender to a throne deposes a sitting monarch. Not only does he have the backing of sizeable number of nobles but is also acceptable to the burghers of the major cities. The top clerical authority of the realm, however, refuses to crown the pretender as king. What happens now? Does the pretender and everyone else simply ignore the fact that there was no coronation? Can this de facto king appeal to the Pope to overrule the opposition of the local clerical authority?
Kings without coronations?
- Thread starter cincpac overboard
- Start date
Unless the king's been excommunicated, there's nothing to stop another another cleric crowning him; there are plenty of OTL examples of kings being crowned by, for example, bishops instead of archbishops. And, depending on when and where this is, the 'top clerical authority' might not remain in post (or alive, in some cases) for very long.
I know nothing about this subject. I only know that currently the Dutch monarch is not crowned. So I checked wikipedia and the wikipedia article about coronations actualy sais some interesting things:
Both of which suggest that a coronation is not that common or necessary for the recognition of a king. I could easily see a king that is not recognised by the clergy* to say something like: Ok, in that case we skip the coronation, also btw taxes for the church are up.
*which I doubt will ever happen. The clergy in the Middle Ages were far from collective paragons of virtue. It would be relatively easy to find someone high enough who would be willing to crown a king for a nice some of money, land, titles or power.
Both of which suggest that a coronation is not that common or necessary for the recognition of a king. I could easily see a king that is not recognised by the clergy* to say something like: Ok, in that case we skip the coronation, also btw taxes for the church are up.
*which I doubt will ever happen. The clergy in the Middle Ages were far from collective paragons of virtue. It would be relatively easy to find someone high enough who would be willing to crown a king for a nice some of money, land, titles or power.
Coronation wasn't indeed process what was widely practised even in Middle Ages. And if monarch has strong claim for his kingship and there is coronation around clergy hardly has much reason to refuse. And if one bishop decide to refuse someone else probably will do that. Of course king could kill relucant bishop (bad idea but that has happened), change bishop (most likely) or even do same what Napoleon did and crown himself but not really sure if such idea was even possible before days of Napoleon.
Something like that did actually (almost) happen with Elizabeth I of England; to quote Wikipedia:
It was not obvious which bishop should conduct the coronation service. That role traditionally fell to the archbishop of Canterbury, but the incumbent Reginald Pole had died of influenza on 17 November, only 12 hours after Queen Mary, and in the uncertainty of the new regime, a successor had yet to be appointed. The archbishop of York, Nicholas Heath, was a committed but moderate Catholic who had not participated in the burnings of Mary's reign. Although willing to attend the coronation, he declined to officiate because of the new queen's reforms at the Chapel Royal.[11] The next in seniority, the bishop of London, Edmund Bonner, was unacceptable to Elizabeth because of his role in prosecuting heretics, earning him the epithet of "Bloody Bonner". The bishop of Winchester, John White, was under house arrest for the anti-Protestant sermon he had preached at Queen Mary's funeral,[12] while the bishop of Chichester, John Christopherson, had died in prison on 28 December after preaching a similar sermon at St Paul's Cross.[13] Several other leading bishops also declined; others were suffering the effects of the same epidemic which had claimed the life of Archbishop Pole. Finally, the low-ranking bishop of Carlisle, Owen Oglethorpe, was coerced into accepting the role.[12] Oglethorpe had already displeased Elizabeth at the Christmas mass at the Chapel Royal, when he performed the Elevation of the Host, despite instructions to the contrary since Protestant reformers connected this ritual with transubstantiation; the Queen therefore walked out of the service before its conclusion.
Ironically enough, Ogelthorpe would later be arrested and deposed for refusing to accept the Royal Supremacy. (And incidentally, Elizabeth's reaction to Ogelthorpe's Christmas Mass disproves the claim that Elizabeth wasn't really Protestant, but was forced to support Protestant ideas for political reasons.)
It's worth pointing out that the coronation isn't actually necessary for someone to become king; the succession takes place immediately upon the death of the previous monarch ("The King is dead; long live the King!"), whereas (at least in England) the coronation usually takes place some months later, both to allow time for preparations and because it's felt inappropriate to have such a joyous occasion whilst everybody's still in mourning for the old king. Postponing a coronation indefinitely because nobody's willing to officiate wouldn't change the king's legal situation, although obviously it would be a big embarrassment for him.
Depends on the period, and the political situation. Today (and going back to at least Edward I), sure. If there was likely to be an argument, a coronation was an extra argument in support of the individual in question's claim. Henry I certainly didn't hang around.