King Charles III and Prince Harry arrive for the Committal Service for Queen Elizabeth II held at St George's Chapel in Windsor. Photo / AP
King Charles III and Prince Harry arrive for the Committal Service for Queen Elizabeth II held at St George's Chapel in Windsor. Photo / AP
OPINION:
If we are going to talk about particularly fraught dates in British history, then May 6 is a corker.
On that day in 1683, Louis XIV decided to move his court to Versailles, a decision that a century later would have the revolutionary bourgeoisie out for blood; in 1910, the gluttonous, heavy-smoking King Edward VII (he of the infamous sex chair) met his maker after only nine years on the throne; and in 1960 good time gal Princess Margeret wed snapper Antony Armstrong-Jones, a tempestuous and messy union riddled with infidelity on both sides.
In 2019, in some happy news, that very date saw the arrival of the royal family's first bi-racial baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
But his birth proved controversial. The decision of his parents, Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex to announce to the world that the Duchess was in labour hours after he had already been born left seriously ruffled feathers and gave the impression of some fancy, transparency-dodging footwork.
While the timing of the FA Cup Final and the Epsom Derby were taken into account by Buckingham Palace, according to the Times, it's pretty surprising that the sixth in line to the throne's birthday was not. That, or the King did not seem to mind co-opting the tot's day for his own ends.
It is nigh on impossible not to read Charles' choice of day for his big crown-a-thon as something of a burn or, at the very least, just the sort of callous disregarding that the Sussexes reportedly have long chafed against.
The thing to understand here is that this is not a one-off situation. Sure, next year Archie might have to open his presents (My First Tibetan Singing Bowl? Tesla stock options?) while his parents are dashing about their British home Frogmore Cottage trying to find where they put Meghan's loaner tiara last, but the consequences are bigger.
Rather, the day that marks the addition of the first mixed-race member of the royal family is about to be superseded and overshadowed in the history books by the crowning of Grandpa Charles.
For his parents, this coronation news out of London comes after a September they would probably rather forget.
Early in the month, Harry and Meghan jetted into the UK for what was meant to be a quickie round of charity events at which they could dazzle and recharge some of their royal-adjacent mojo.
King Charles III, Camilla, the Queen Consort, Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex watch as the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II is placed into the hearse following state funeral service. Photo / AP
That plan, of course, came to a crashing halt when, on September 8, Queen Elizabeth II passed away. What followed were a series of embarrassments and indignities for the couple, with them being all too publicly put in their places by the palace. It will be a long time before anyone forgets the Sussexes being disinvited from a State reception or them being relegated to second row status for the Westminster Abbey funeral.
And now, Wednesday's coronation announcement is the maraschino cherry on top of this stale cake of a situation. (It's probably not even an organic cherry either.)
Whether intended or not, Charles' choice of when to hold his coronation carries with it something of a sting in the tail for Harry and Meghan. (Who, it should be pointed out, acquitted themselves with complete obeisance and manners during the Queen's funeral.)
All of this comes at a highwire moment for Sussex/Windsor relations.
In the coming months, the Duke and Duchess' documentary is reported to be hitting screens courtesy of Netflix, you know, the same streaming giant that is about to put out a fresh series of The Crown largely focused on Charles' wandering zipper. (Talk about hellish timing.)
Then, of course, there is also Harry's memoir, which some reports have suggested he might be adding to or rejigging in light of recent events.
Still, it would seem that, based on Charles' coronation decision, the King is not that fussed about potentially provoking or upsetting the California-based couple, even though they will have a surfeit of opportunities to, should they fancy, put the boot into the royal family in the coming months (Is a Netflix executive in an office somewhere rubbing their hands with glee? Very possibly.)
The King stands to not only potentially upset his son and daughter-in-law with his coronation plans, but his subjects too.
In 1953 when Queen Elizabeth was officially sworn in, the ceremony took three hours, saw 8000 people crammed into Westminster Abbey (four times its actual capacity) and cost the equivalent of about $80 million in today's money. Any wonder then that one of the most famous images from the day was of a four-and-a-half-year-old Prince Charles looking both miserable and bored?
However, Charles' coronation will be quite different from his mother's. The whole thing will clock in at about the one-hour mark, only about 2000 will get highly coveted invitations and some of the more feudal elements, including the homage of the peers, are likely to end up on the cutting room floor. (You can put your ermine cloaks away now chaps.)
Prince Harry with his son Archie. Photo / Instagram
If you have glanced at a British newspaper or headline recently, this might all make perfect sense, with winter energy concerns so bad that the National Grid has plans for scheduled power cuts and with the cost of living crisis becoming dire as inflation has reached almost 10 per cent.
In light of all this, a slimmed-down, fat-free coronation might initially sound like just the ticket.
But, is that the right call here?
A coronation is, by definition, not a cheap thing and there is no way that UK taxpayers are getting out of this without forking out millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds. Denying them a truly decadent chance to show the world that Britain does pomp ceremony like no other nation could be a serious miscalculation.
Why not give the people something big and shiny to be really proud of? To cheer up a beleaguered nation after a winter of discontent and freezing toes? Something truly glorious to revel in and the chance to break out the coronation chicken sandwiches and Tesco's home brand bubbles?
Adding insult to injury is the fact that Brits are unlikely to get a bank holiday for the occasion either.
As things currently stand, Operation Golden Orb (the codename for the coronation) is off to quite the rocky start.
There is one exciting thing we have not delved into here yet. Remember miserable little Charles circa 1953? Come May 6, 2023, Archie will be nearly the same age his grandfather was when he sat through the Queen's interminable service, meaning there is the possibility that the little boy could attend along with his parents in what would be his first official royal outing. Now that would be one for both front pages and the history books.
• Daniela Elser is a writer and a royal commentator with more than 15 years' experience working with a number of Australia's leading media titles.
