Charles and Camilla’s coronation, despite all the adjustments made through the centuries up to and including last Saturday, is a medieval ritual. The core remains untouched. That was a big difference from the coronation of King Willem-Alexander, which arose out of the ideas of the French Revolution. That is a fundamental difference.

Charles III’s position is determined by Glorious Revolution and we as glorious revolution. Those are events from the year 1688. Our Stadtholder Willem III, married to Mary, daughter of the English King James II, left Hellevoetsluis with an army and fleet to land at Torbay, England. In doing so, he supported a rebellion against his father-in-law, who was deeply hated in England because of his Roman Catholic faith. It was feared he wanted to undermine the prerogative of the Anglican Church so that his own religion would again take the lead. William III arranged for it so that James could easily escape to France, where he died as a guest of King Louis XIV.

Legally Mary was now the surrogate, but the couple made it clear that William III also had to ascend the throne and they were crowned together as king and queen of England in 1689. That’s a difference from last Saturday. Camilla wasn’t crowned on equal footing with her husband, she was just empress, empress. Please remember that the position of the Prince Consort, to which we owe the preservation of the House of Orange, is also an invention of England. Prince Albert of Saken-Coburg received this status after marrying Queen Victoria.

That Glorious Revolution is a change of power, nothing more. William and Mary did promise to fully and radically respect old rights and privileges. From this grew the custom that the king appointed a prime minister who enjoyed the confidence of a majority in parliament. There is no constitution in Great Britain. It was an invention of the French and American revolutions. The separation of church and state was also never established. That Church of England it has been the state church since Henry VIII. The king stood like that fide defender in charge, although he will be careful not to interfere in the policies of his deputy, the Archbishop of Canterbury and his associates. Traditionally there is great freedom of learning within the church: some are almost Catholic Anglicans and on the other hand you have people who lean into blackstocking.

That is why the ceremony is an Anglican service with the coronation after the sermon. Such is the case where no distinction is made between the religious and secular spheres. It is a beautiful ritual. It begins with Charles’ announcement that he has come to serve, not to be served. Then, one by one, he received the tokens of his power. In the Middle Ages they were good at capturing abstract concepts in very concrete actions and objects. That’s how Charles got the sword Curtana. The point is blunt because it symbolizes grace. Charles received the same copy as Willem III at the time. With every object presented to him, he is invariably called upon to rule with moderation and administer justice to all. There was no other way, because according to the medieval view, the king did not derive his sovereignty from the people or from a better class, but exclusively from God. Therefore, he is responsible to him and to no one else on earth. You must use such immense power with deliberation and caution.

A king achieves that position through anointing and coronation. French kings have been anointed and crowned in this way at Reims Cathedral. After the ceremony, they went outside and miraculously healed the sick. The last to do this was King Charles X in 1824. In 1830, the people of Paris expelled him in a rebellion known as Les Trois Glorieuses, three glorious days. This later inspired the Belgians for their revolution.

We owe the fact that the Netherlands has a king to Napoleon. After he crowned himself Emperor in a mad ceremony in 1804, he bestowed the kingdom on his brothers. Lodewijk Napoleon received the kingdom of Holland, which was taken from him in 1810 because he had not followed the emperor’s instructions accurately enough. When William I was invited to take over after the fall of Napoleon, he retained the modernization brought on during the French era. That’s why he asked for a constitution and it’s important for his inauguration. Willem was not crowned, although there was a throne on a table somewhere, but the heart of the ceremony was the constitutional oath. Incidentally, he gave Willem I almost dictatorial powers, but that’s another story. Therefore, our inauguration was a modern revolutionary event, while the inauguration of Charles III was not.

Twenty million Britons watched the coronation, according to the BBC, seven million less than those who watched Queen Elisabeth’s funeral on television. Worldwide, 277 million people watched.

On social media you can read derogatory statements about “wasting money”, “puppet show” and “fair”. Or: “Let them pay for themselves if it’s really important to them”.

You can say what you want but it’s not snobbish kitsch. The coronation turned out to be a beautiful performance full of symbolism and special details. It is as interesting in its kind and as evidence of European culture as Westminster Abbey, Notre Dame or the Town Hall in Dam Square, which is also made of stone. As a show, it is a living monument.

And you have to appreciate the monuments.

For the rest, I am of the opinion that the surcharge scandal should not disappear from the public eye, and neither should the Groningen natural gas affair.

Listen Memory Palace, Han van der Horst and John Knieriem’s ​​weekly podcast on politics and history. Now: The Obama Show.