1651: The Last Coronation in Scotland — An Anomaly?

Abstract

The last Scottish coronation occurred at Scone in 1651. Charles II’s Scottish coronation has either been completely forgotten or become the subject of distorted interpretations. It has long been suggested that this coronation was a hastily arranged affair, lacking sacredness without an anointing and involving little pomp, and thus minimal cost — almost humiliating, according to one modern view. Furthermore, historians have argued that Charles both resented this ceremony and could barely have found anything joyful in it. Yet Clarendon commented that it ‘passed with great solemnity and magnificence, all men making show of joy, and being united to serve his majesty’. How can one reconcile these positions? Why has this coronation been so neglected? In many respects, it was superseded by immediate events (Charles II’s disastrous military campaign and exile) and then overshadowed at the Restoration (and by the 1661 Westminster Abbey coronation). Nevertheless, 1651 remains of tremendous significance because it was paradoxically both usual and unusual and carried implications for the other kingdoms of the British Isles and their religious systems, not just for Scotland. With the addition of financial archival material unused by previous scholars, this article adopts a fresh approach that challenges the received historiography: by seriously addressing the question of disparity, it identifies what really was anomalous and what, in fact, was far from untypical or surprising.

Charles II’s Scottish coronation of 1651 was a pivotal moment in the political movement towards unity, from a purely dynastic union to a fully political Anglo-Scottish union; at the same time it was also a fundamental religious shift further apart.¹ In brief, following Charles I’s execution in 1649, Charles II faced an uncertain and potentially permanent exile in France (Saint-Germain) and The Hague. He had limited options and after long negotiations culminating in the Treaty of Breda (1 May 1650), found unlikely allies in Scotland in the Covenanters, those who had previously fought so hard to oppose episcopacy in Scotland and to cement a presbyterian church government. Many in Scotland were still smarting from the fact that their monarch had been executed by the Westminster Parliament without consulting them. Having been thoroughly problematic and entrenched enemies of his father, the Scots in the Covenanting Kirk party now switched to being proactive supporters of his son, for not only did they proclaim Charles as king of Scotland, they also laid foundations for his claim to jurisdiction over the rest of the British Isles. This article does not purport to show this alliance as anything other than a marriage of convenience. The Covenanters recognised Charles II as their king and wished to strengthen their religious positions in Scotland and the rest of the Stuart kingdoms, by making use of the powerful symbolic value of the young sovereign. Charles II, meanwhile, was desperate for whatever support he could get, in order to retake the thrones of all the Stuart kingdoms. Above all, in an age of regicide and the Commonwealth, Charles wanted a coronation to provide him with legitimacy in the battle of ideas. Thus, both parties proceeded together to organise the ceremony at Scone in Perthshire in January 1651.

Yet for all of its dramatic implications, the last coronation in Scotland has either been completely forgotten in modern historiography, or, when it has been discussed, become the subject of distorted interpretations. These argue that Charles II was a mere puppet in this period in Scotland, and that this was a uniformly disastrous experience for the young sovereign, none more so than the crowning service. Most historiography considers the coronation an anomaly, a footnote at best.² This article will set out why the 1651 coronation was not a mere anomaly but an event of tremendous significance. It was paradoxically both usual and unusual. It was unusual because (a) it involved a Presbyterian service for a purportedly ‘Anglican’ sovereign; (b) the crowning was performed by a layman and not a senior cleric; and (c) the liturgy incorporated obligations that carried implications for the other kingdoms of the British Isles and their religious systems, not just for Scotland. With the addition of archival material unused by previous scholars relating to financial accounts, this article adopts a fresh approach that challenges the received historiography: by seriously addressing the question of disparity, it identifies what really was anomalous and what, in fact, was far from untypical or surprising.

The starting gun to this remarkable period was the official proclamation at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh, 5 February 1649, declaring Charles II as ‘king of Scotland, Great Britain and Ireland’. This was coupled with a desire to impose the National Covenant on all the kingdoms.³ Whatever had therefore been decided by the English Parliament, Scotland was to take a different course, but most intriguingly it was not simply for Scotland. Thus, we have in this instance a notable shift politically from a simple dynastic union, to one that would have implications for all of ‘Great Britain’.⁴ From the moment of this proclamation Scotland and England were on a collision course to war. For important context, Charles and the Covenanters negotiated for weeks on a deal that would see him return to Scotland in exchange for agreeing to swear to uphold the National Covenant. Unlike his father, for Charles II, ‘no bishop’ did not entail ‘no king’. If Charles was a mere pawn at the hands of his Scottish allies, then it was the young king who had willingly put himself in that position. On 23 June 1650 he sailed into the Moray Firth. His arrival in Scotland was greeted with ‘bonfires and bells’ and a cannon salute in Edinburgh — a remarkably positive response and reception for a supposedly disastrous visit.⁵

Completely Forgotten and Distorted Interpretations

It has long been suggested that the 1651 coronation was a hastily arranged affair, lacking sacredness without an anointing and involving little pomp, and thus minimal cost — almost humiliating, according to one modern view.⁶ Yet, Clarendon records that it ‘passed with great solemnity and magnificence, all men making show of joy, and being united to serve his majesty’.⁷ How can we reconcile these positions?

In many respects, the coronation’s impact was diminished, as it was superseded by immediate events — Charles II’s disastrous military campaign and exile — and then overshadowed at the Restoration by the 1661 Westminster Abbey coronation. Nevertheless, far from forgetting this event and surrounding history, which included — the Covenanters’ defeat at the Battle of Dunbar (3 September 1650) in the build-up; the coronation; the defeat of Charles and his allies at the Battle of Worcester (3 September 1651); and his Royal Oak tree escape and further exile that followed — it was made famous by none other than the King himself.⁸ Furthermore, the coronation would also be marked as an event of memoriam in the Stuart Calendar in the Restoration, not something that fits with the experience being perceived as such a terrible event, as the Mercurius Publicus of January 1660/1 suggests:

This is the first day of the New Year, which is of special [significance] … to his majestie’s good subjects, not only in regard of the known festival, but also in memory of his majestie’s coronation at Schoon in Scotland.⁹

The ten-year anniversary of Charles’s coronation in Scotland would also be used to mark the christening of Charles’s nephew, the son of James, duke of York, and Anne Hyde:

We cannot but observe that Tuesday last (New Year’s Day) will not be its precedency; not only because it was the day of his majesties coronation in Scotland, but also in regard that Charles son of his royal highness James Duke of York … was this day christened.¹⁰

It is clear therefore that the 1651 coronation did not go without mention in the Stuart Calendar. Given contemporaneous noting of the event, let us proceed by examining why it was in fact far from unconventional and rather more in line with Stuart coronation festivities than modern historical accounts would credit.

What was Usual?

Planning

There was a thorough stage of committee planning throughout the autumn of 1650, and key meetings were held on 2 and 5 December, just under a month before the actual date. This was very similar to the coronation committee or Court of Claims of a Westminster Abbey coronation, in this case, involving leading Covenanters and noblemen, such as Arthur Erskine of Scotscraig, the Master of the Robes.¹¹

The committee centred on Scone as the location. This was a return to an ancient tradition — though born out of necessity because of Cromwell’s invasion. Indeed, Stirling was ruled out for fear of Cromwell’s advance.¹² With Edinburgh occupied by Cromwell’s forces and therefore Holyrood Palace and its Abbey unavailable, Scone was the only other serious venue.¹³ Not only had Scone been a favourite hunting destination for Charles’s grandfather, as the owner, David Murray, first Viscount Stormont, had been a favourite of King James, but the Moot Hill Kirk there was also the ancient crowning place of the Scottish monarchs including such personages crucial to historical memory as Robert the Bruce.¹⁴ It had been the famous site of the Stone of Destiny or Stone of Scone, which by this time had become part of the Westminster Abbey Coronation Chair.¹⁵

Scone’s famous Stone of Destiny is a rectangular block of sandstone.¹⁶ Yet this sandstone has a remarkable history, much of it shrouded in myth. Medieval legend considered it to have biblical origins; some thought it associated with Egypt and claimed that it had been protected and taken out of the land by the daughter of a pharaoh (rather similar to Moses’ protection); others linked it to the pillow on which Jacob dreamed when he saw the angels of Bethel.¹⁷ Whether it had these origins or not, it was thought to have eventually arrived in Ireland and was apparently placed on the sacred Hill of Tara and was called the ‘fatal stone’: ‘Lia-Fail’, or as often referred to today, the Stone of Destiny. It was said to play a fundamental role in the authentication of true kingship, for at an Irish monarch’s enthronement it would apparently groan aloud if the claimant was of true royal kingship but remain silent if he was a pretender.¹⁸ Folklore then has it that the Stone followed a Gaelic route taken by Kenneth MacAlpin, king of Dalriada (d. 858), from Antrim to Argyll, and then to the monastery at Scone, Perthshire, in 846.¹⁹ It was there placed upon the ‘Moot Hill’ that was used in the crowning of the Scottish kings. A ‘moot’ or ‘mound’ was a meeting place or ceremonial centre, sometimes a gathering of stones, a raised mound or miniature hill, used for the inauguration of early Pictish monarchs.²⁰ This famous site, also referred to as the Mount of Belief, may have derived its name from Nechtan mac Derile (d. 732) (king of the Picts, c. 706–24; and 728–9) who had taken a keen interest in Christianity.²¹ Not only did the Stone rest on this mount and represent some of the earliest origins of Scottish Christianity and kingship, but it was believed that in c. 906, ‘Constantine the King [Constantine II (r. 900–943)] and Cellach the Bishop vowed that the laws and discipline of the Faith, and the rights of the Churches and the Gospels, should be kept equally as amongst the Scots’.²²

The legend apart, the Stone played an intrinsic role as an object of veneration in the inauguration of Scottish kings such as Lulach (d. 1058) stepson of Macbeth, who was proclaimed king of Scots on it in 1057, down to 1292 and John Balliol. In addition to housing the famous Stone, Scone had also been the immemorial political centre of the ‘Pictes’ and Pictish kings, and evolved as the coronation site of Scottish rulers from the semi-mythical king Fergus in the eighth century, to medieval monarchs like Alexander II in 1214. Thus, it became a place of political and religious legitimisation. In 1296 Edward I of England (1239–1307) invaded Scotland and took the Stone from Scone to Westminster.²³ This marked the beginning of the Stone’s place within the coronation chair of Westminster Abbey. Yet its long association with the Mount of Belief or Moot Hill made Scone a venerable site for the most solemn of kingly ceremonies even without the Stone. The site itself continued to be revered by monarchs in the House of Stuart, such as James I, crowned at Scone in 1424.²⁴ For ‘James … came to Perth, and shortly after to Scone, where he was crowned king, and his wife Queene’.²⁵ Thus, the choice of Scone for the coronation of Charles II in 1651 had important historical, legendary, mythical and religious significance and would add further weight to the legitimisation of Charles as a crowned sovereign in Scotland.

Coronations are sizeable events, requiring significant advanced planning. Throughout history they have been prone to delays. In this instance, war was the problem, whereas in 1603 and 1626 plague had been the issue. In 1603, London had been suffering from a plague epidemic, and indeed James I had issued a proclamation announcing a cut-down version of the normal celebrations. Plague also affected Charles I’s coronation in February 1625/6.²⁶ Indeed, even in the modern era, Edward VII’s 1902 coronation was delayed because of the monarch’s ill health.²⁷ In 1651 there was not so much a delay, as a difficulty in finalising the date because of Cromwell’s approaching army. There were questions over the potential rite to be used (as there would be for James II’s 1685 coronation and for the joint coronation of William and Mary in 1689).²⁸ Nevertheless, as with other Stuart coronations, the monarch drove proceedings forward. On 5 December, the committee’s report was read in the Scottish Parliament at Perth (having also moved from danger) and Charles, after considerable effort in making his way to Scotland, negotiating with the Covenanters and after so many ‘petition[s] to … Parliament’, was finally able to provide his extremely eager royal sanction.²⁹ His pleasure with proceedings can be seen in the most formal assent to the acts of session of the Parliament at its close, two days before the event, on 30 December. Charles, did not merely add the sign manual, but touched the new legislation with the royal sceptre, part of the regalia known as the ‘honours of Scotland’, as a definitive blessing of his assent.³⁰

By December of 1650 Charles did at last have the parliamentary backing he required, even if the rite itself needed fine tuning. This endorsement was largely his achievement and a result of his driving force: ‘The King himself grew very popular, and, by his frequent conferences with the knights and burgesses, he got any thing passed in the Parliament which he desired.’³¹ It was a remarkable achievement given the ever-changing political wrangling and dangerous nature of the times.

The Ceremony

There was a procession, another typical element of the ritual of a coronation: on the morning of Wednesday, 1 January 1651, Charles in a ‘Princes robe’, was conducted from his

Bed-chamber, by the Constable on his right-hand, and the Marshal on his left-hand to the Chamber of Presence, and there was placed in a chair under a Cloath of State by the Lord of Angus, Chamberlain appointed by the King for that day; and there after a little repose, the noblemen with the commissioners of Barons and Bouroughs, entered the Hall and presented themselves before his Majesty.³²

From the Hall of the Palace he was accompanied in procession towards the Moot Hill Kirk by various noblemen carrying the Scottish regalia.³³ On entering the kirk, the three central elements of the royal procession beyond that of the King were held by Argyll who ‘bore the crown, Eglinton the gilt spurs, and another kirk party noble, Lord Rothes, the sword of state’.³⁴ Once inside, Charles sat with the ‘Honours’ laid out on a table beside him, while the coronation sermon was delivered.³⁵ A coronation sermon was typical for coronations in the British Isles, although the content varied much. With the sermon over, the service moved on to the Covenants, a pre-condition for his crowning.³⁶ After Charles’s sworn commitment:

the Kings Majesty stood up, showing himself to the people, in each corner And the people expressed their willingnesse, by chearfull acclamations, in these words, GOD SAVE THE KING, CHARLES THE SECOND.³⁷

Following the acclamation, Charles took his coronation oath and then ascended a ‘platform six feet high [that] was created in the little church to bear a throne’.³⁸ Once seated in the chair of state, Charles was then ready for the formal investiture and the ultimate of coronation moments, the crowning.

Without running to a narrative description of the coronation, it is worth noting other elements that took place that could be classified as usual for a Westminster Abbey style coronation (to which comparison has so often been given): There was music, in this instance in the form of psalms.³⁹ As noted above, a sermon was given (though this was strikingly unusual in both preacher and content). The regalia were part of the procession and presented to the monarch. In addition, the nobility paid homage to the sovereign; and the leading cleric of Scotland (even if not a bishop) presided: the Moderator of the General Assembly, Robert Douglas. Notice was given of Charles’s lineage, when the ‘Lyon King of Arms rehearsed the Royal Line of the Kings upward, to Fergus the first’. The proceedings in the kirk over, there ensued a typical post coronation procession and the customary handing out of coins.⁴⁰ ‘Special commemorative medals were also handed out to the people awaiting Charles’s reappearance following the service.’⁴¹

The procession was then succeeded by a coronation banquet at Scone Palace. In London, such celebrations would usually take place in Westminster Hall.⁴² On Charles’s return to the Palace, the banquet highlighted a taste for luxury: royal Household books show a substantially increased food order, along with a plentiful supply of Bordeaux and Burgundy.⁴³ Naturally, such splendid fare was not to be eaten without suitable tableware, and the accounts reveal that damask napkins embroidered with ‘CR’ and expensive cloth from Holland were also obtained in readiness for the great day.⁴⁴

What conclusion can we draw? For one, as we have seen, the event remained significant as it was still recorded in the Stuart court calendar in the Restoration. For another, the evidence for provisioning at Scone does not suggest that Charles allowed anyone to dampen his spirits (!). Additionally, items (during a period of war) had been purchased from Holland, and coupled with the planning of the event, it is clear that it was not therefore, quite so hastily arranged.

Finance

In terms of overall finance, there is not space for a full analysis of sources covering expenditure here — that information is reserved for another article — but in summary, maintenance payments for the monarch that had been neglected in the instability of 1649–51 (with regicide and war) were retrospectively collected in 1661, amounting to tens of thousands. When this is considered in relation to the February 1651 accounts of Scone Palace dealing with January expenditure, and therefore the month of the coronation, including the housing of the monarch and his retinue, detailing a sum of £7,800 (£3,380 and £4,420 respectively for January and February),⁴⁵ we therefore have a magnitude of spending that fosters an impression more consistent with Clarendon’s description than with modern historians’ assessments. Of course, individuals had also incurred expense. For instance, the earl of Kinghorne had paid £26 4s. 4d. on 14 March 1650/1 for ‘mantenance [costs for the] coronation’.⁴⁶ The Table below shows the sums raised under the 1661 Act for the months March and June 1651 for the King’s maintenance in Scotland.

Table 1. King’s maintenance in Scotland, under 1661 Act of Parliament for 1650–51

Area	Region (£)
Southern Scotland	67,125 7s. 5d.^47
Highlands and Islands	£79,698 15s. 9d.^48
Other regions (unspecified)	£6,384 (with several unspecified exemptions)^49
Other regions (unspecified)	£82,022 8s. 9d. (with several unspecified exemptions)^50

These are significant figures, but such maintenance allowances for Charles II in Scotland, or rather the debts relating to them, should be understood in conjunction with other outlays. It is increasingly clear, for example, that Charles’s relatively brief time in Scotland (June 1650–August 1651) must have involved considerable disbursements or gifts to his supporters. Furthermore, his coronation, far from being drab, did not lack traditional pomp and ceremony, even with the changes to the ritual of the coronation demanded by his Presbyterian, Covenanting allies.⁵¹ Charles’s coronation required a degree of magnificence and solemnity in order for it to function as a beacon to supporters, the undecided and the opposition alike. Thus, Charles wore a robe of a richness befitting such an occasion and his trainbearers were not assorted nobodies, but rather peers’ sons. Like his ancestors, he sat in the Scone kirk on the throne under a canopy of crimson velvet — hardly, therefore, an ephemeral or cheap item. On his return to the palace, the banquet illustrated a taste for luxury: royal Household books show a substantially increased food order, including ‘twenty-two salmon, a total of ten calves’ heads, vast numbers of partridges and meat’.⁵² Newly discovered manuscripts in the Scone Palace archives disclose similar entries for generous food orders. Amongst further purchases relating to Charles’s Scone sojourn and coronation were ‘linning … of Holland cloath’, as well as ‘silk … buttons [and] ribbons’.⁵³ A horse was procured for £280, possibly intended for the King himself.⁵⁴ Expenditure totals for January–March are utterly disproportionate to those for other months, which reached hundreds rather than thousands. What conclusion can we draw? It is clear therefore, from the evidence for provisioning at Scone, that the coronation was far from cheap and must have been near crippling for Scone’s owner, Lord Stormont, even taking into consideration whatever small assistance Charles had to offer. A ‘follow the money’ approach therefore allows us to revise the received historiography: the 1650/1 coronation was not so very anomalous, for much planning went into the occasion and considerable expenditure too. It may also have constituted, in the King’s mind, the benchmark against which to measure financial investment in his 1661 Westminster Abbey coronation.

Thus, we are dealing with a coronation full of typical pomp, and one where enormous expenditure had been incurred. We should be wary of describing it as an anomaly, given the significant similarity with other early modern coronations of the British Isles.⁵⁵ Nevertheless, there was also much that was distinctive.

What was Unusual?

As already outlined above, there were many traditional elements to the 1651 coronation at Scone, but Charles II’s Scottish coronation was unique principally due to the presbyterian nature of the rite for a reigning sovereign, of which there was no precedent in the British Isles.⁵⁶

In the kirk on the famous Mount, Charles II was crowned king of not just Scotland, but England, France and Ireland as well.⁵⁷ The implication of the statement of acclamation was a clear line of intent, from both Charles and the leadership in Scotland, that his rule went beyond the Scottish kingdom. This was both usual and unusual. An acclamation is the typical beginning of a British coronation; what was striking was its claim to jurisdiction beyond the borders of Scotland. No previous Scottish coronation had done this. Here we see a shift from a Union of the Crowns, involving separate coronations, to an Anglo-Scottish union, but driven by Scottish aims.

There were other notable departures from the traditional Liber Regalis⁵⁸ of Westminster Abbey services (the traditional right of order of c.1390). It was customary for a monarch to take the coronation oath before being crowned as a form of contract with the people, nevertheless Charles would also be required to take the Covenantal oath again — it was thus a condition of his kingship. In addition, the King had to ‘forego anointing on the grounds that it was superstitious’, a popish sacrament in the eyes of his Presbyterian allies.⁵⁹ Likewise, there would be no Eucharist, although of course this would also be the case for James II in 1685 and indeed the whole question of precisely what had been done for Elizabeth I remains unclear.⁶⁰

In contrast to previous English and Scottish coronations, Charles was not crowned by a cleric: John Campbell, first earl of Loudoun (1598–1662), Lord Chancellor of Scotland, offered Charles the crown and Archibald Campbell, marquess of Argyll (1605/7–1661), placed the ‘symbol of Scottish majesty, heavy with pearls, on his monarch’s head’. They were assisted by Alexander Montgomery, sixth earl of Eglinton (1588–1661), John Leslie, duke of Rothes (c.1630–1681) who ‘carried the sword of state’, and John Lindsay, seventeenth earl of Crawford and firs^t earl of Lindsay who carried the sceptre (1596–1678).⁶¹

The lack of anointing and clerical crowning are very significant differences to traditional British coronations and were clear concessions to the Covenanting cause.⁶² Those such as Lee have therefore argued that the lack of anointing diminished the coronation in terms of its religious status.⁶³ Yet one cannot have it both ways — if anointing was superstitious for Charles’s Presbyterian allies then the absence of it could not in any way diminish Charles’s status as the ultimate kingly sovereign for them.

Furthermore, the lack of clerical crowning has also been viewed as a failure for Charles, in that in some way this coronation lacked solemnity and authenticity, it should, nevertheless be noted that ‘Argyll acted as of right, being the realm’s leading subject, Loudoun was the Chancellor, and Eglinton and Rothes had hereditary claims to their parts’; moreover, Crawford, as the newly appointed Colonel of the Foot in Fife, represented military support for the new regime.⁶⁴ This was not just a show of factional strength, but rather a ceremony, in which the elite of the Scottish nobility paid homage to their king. Charles had managed by the beginning of 1651, to unify previously entrenched and hostile parties, even if such unification was driven by the call of war, he had still succeeded. Such an ideal would have been unthinkable back in February 1649.

The coronation sermon was as distinctive as the ritual within the kirk, in that it was delivered not by a leading bishop, but by the Moderator of the General Assembly, Robert Douglas. For modern historians, it is this element of preaching that is often cited as proof that Charles resented his coronation,⁶⁵ one of the central criticisms being that it was extremely long and protracted at ‘one hour in length’.⁶⁶ Yet other examples of sermons given by Douglas suggest a man capable of remarkable skill in biblical reference, and long sermons were by no means unusual in this period. Furthermore, if this was the problem then it would seem strange that Charles II permitted an equally long sermon for his Westminster Abbey coronation ten years later.⁶⁷

It is true that the content of the sermon included a warning about monarchical dynasties falling, those straying from the path and lacking respect for the presbyterian and Covenantal cause; and is liberally scattered with examples of the ‘misdeeds of his father’, yet given the changing nature of the times and disastrous nature of Charles I’s fall, the martial context, with the imminent arrival of Cromwell’s forces, perhaps a sermon of a serious and solemn tone was the order of the day. It might not have been the most pleasant sermon to hear, but it was set firmly in the context of the moment. Indeed, Douglas went on to stress that the central purpose of this magnificent ceremony was to bind the Scottish people to their young sovereign.⁶⁸ Referring to 2 Kings 11, verse 17, Douglas sought to compare the young king to Joash and saw himself as the high priest Jehoiada, for

They crowned the young king, to endeare the peoples affections to their own native Prince, and to alienate their heartes from her that had usurped the kingdome … [t]he same is observed in our case … it is our necessarie duetie to crowne the king upon all hazards, and to leave the successe God.⁶⁹

Advantages

For all of its paradoxically usual and unusual elements, the coronation had tremendous advantages for the young king. As a precursor to the event, on 2 December 1650, the Scottish Parliament ordered a new privy seal reiterating for official documentation their initial 1649 proclamation for the young king.⁷⁰ The coronation cemented the Stuart hold over the Scottish crown. As has been mentioned, traditional Scottish royal heritage was brought to bear on the coronation, to add authenticity to the event. What was, nevertheless, unusual, was the discovery, on Christmas Day, by the chief herald of Scotland, Sir James Balfour, of a manuscript purportedly written by none other than Robert the Bruce in 1326 providing the entail of the Scottish Crown to the Stuart dynasty. The information provided by this miraculous discovery was enshrined in law as an act that granted the chief herald of Scotland and his heirs certain rights, immunities and privileges for their lifetimes.⁷¹ Such a finding was all part of the build up to the coronation, reinforcing further the legitimacy Charles was in line to claim by hereditary right.

Charles’s crowning allowed him to drum up support for the fight against Cromwell — he was therefore ritually enabled to carry out a traditional rite of progress, befitting the true status of a crowned sovereign.⁷² Just weeks later, he ‘issued a declaration to his subjects of Scotland, Ireland and England that was a call for military aid to restore him’.⁷³ This is further proof of the post-coronation confidence that Charles and his followers felt, in the aftermath of the coronation that had acclaimed him with sovereignty de jure over all his kingdoms. Such a move was not merely of consequence for Scotland but had wider implications for England and Ireland too. There was now an opportunity for Royalists to attempt to rally support amongst the other kingdoms.

Coupled with this military declaration for support, the propaganda campaign could truly take shape with artwork and a special coronation coin commissioned, showing the newly crowned and thus legitimate ruler (extant examples of which can be found in the British Museum). Even with the obvious complexities of a Commonwealth invasion force hard on his heels, there was still time for coronation medals to be produced. Indeed, the language deployed here would not suggest that Charles II was in any way embarrassed by his coronation. In one of these, Charles appears on the obverse side, crowned, and as Sharpe points out, ‘wearing his Garter collar’: of important significance as a link with his father, given Charles I’s keen interest in the honour.⁷⁴ Further, the legend on the coin presents Charles as ‘By the grace of God king of Scotland, England, France and Ireland’. Again, this is a claim to legitimacy and of a unifying nature for the various kingdoms in contrast to the ‘fractured British kingdoms over only a part of which the Commonwealth claimed sovereignty’.⁷⁵ The reverse side of the coin is equally important as a gesture of defiance with ‘a lion rampant, the royal beast’ holding the Scottish thistle in its paw: again, the claim of legitimate sovereignty, this time of course only over Scotland.⁷⁶ Charles II’s coronation coin was not only a symbolic token of resistance or bold dissent — the young sovereign laying down a gauntlet to the Commonwealth — but it also shows just how important it was for Charles to be on British soil. His very presence did much to vitalise the royalist propaganda machine. In addition to the coronation coins, the publication of his coronation service and accompanying coronation sermon was achieved in 1651 in Aberdeen, including significantly, important images of the young sovereign in some versions, and they would indeed be reprinted in 1660 in London, and in 1662 (and remained of interest long beyond that, receiving a further reprint in Aberdeen and Edinburgh in 1700).⁷⁷ In continental exile Charles had been unable to do much, but now physically present in the British Isles, and with the legitimising impact of his coronation, there were considerable opportunities envisioned for his cause.

Nevertheless, for all of the political gains that his coronation and accompanying propaganda opportunities gave him, Charles was unable to match these with military success. Within a matter of months his forces had been roundly beaten by Cromwell at the Battle of Worcester (3 September 1651) and Charles forced to escape (ignominiously — although he would shape his Royal Oak tree tale into something far more daring and special) back into Continental exile. Yet, whilst events soon turned against the young king, Charles arrived back at the French court in October 1651 fully blooded in the art of political rule. He was in exile again, but he was now a crowned king, and should the time arise, he was the undoubted royal alternative to Commonwealth rule.

Religious Implications

For all of the political advantages accrued for the royalist cause, at the same time a clear religious divide had been cemented in Scotland — for Charles was not crowned by a bishop or in a Church of England ceremony. Yes, there were many traditional elements, but 1651 was unique, most principally down to the Presbyterian nature of the rite.

Many have pointed to the absence of anointing at the ceremony. The Presbyterian element of the coronation committee succeeded in having this perceived superstitious act removed from proceedings, being seen as a Popish sacrament. Robert Douglas, Moderator of the General Assembly, pointed out in his sermon that the absence of material anointing did not undermine the anointed authority of a monarch, for in his view,

The anoynting with materiall oyle, maketh not a king the anoynted of the Lord, for hee is so without it. Hee is the anoynted of the Lord, who by divine ordinance, and appoyntment is a king. Is[aiah] 45. 1. God calleth Cyrus his anoynted, yet wee reade not that hee was anoynted with oyle. Kinges are the anoynted of the Lord, because by the ordinance of the Lord, their authoritie is sacred and inviolable.⁷⁸

For Douglas, actual, earthly anointing could be done away with, along with the need for bishops, as he celebrates:

But now by the blessing of God poperie and praelacie are removed. The bishops as limmes of Antichrist, are put to the doore: Let the anoynting of kinges with oyle goe to the doore with them, and let them never come in agayne.⁷⁹

Episcopacy was therefore also entirely absent from the ceremony — there was no presiding archbishop or bishop and Charles was crowned not by a priest, but by Argyll (see above), and he received the sceptre from another Covenanter, the earl of Crawford. From a Church of England perspective, and in coronation tradition (as per the Liber Regalis — see above), this can easily be seen to have been a detraction from the solemnity of such an event, and reducing the holiness of the occasion. Yet one should be wary of giving too much credence to such an interpretation. To be crowned by the leading nobleman of Scotland was as much an affirmation of the nobility’s and Covenanters’ support for Charles as any priest would have been, and even more so in the context of war. Charles needed the support of nobles and their accompanying troops far more than religious clerics who were always more sceptical of his Anglican background.

In terms of a religious legacy from the coronation of 1651, none could be more important than the critical moment in the service involving Charles II’s sworn oath to uphold the covenants. This reiterated his support for the covenants that he had previously sworn to uphold in the summer of 1650, an act ratified in the Scottish parliament on 4 July 1650.⁸⁰

I Charles, King of Great Britane, France and Ireland, doe assure and declare, by my solemn oath, in the presence of almightie God, the searcher of hearts, my allowance and approbation of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant above-written, and faythfullie obliedge my selfe, to prosecute the ends thereof, in my station and calling; and that I for my selfe and successours, shall consent and agree, to all acts of parliament enjoyning the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, and fullie establishing Presbyterial Government, the directorie of worship, confession of faith, and catechismes in the kingdom of Scotland, as they are approven by the general assemblies of this kirk, and parliament of this kingdom; and that I shall give my royall assent, to acts and ordinances of parliament, passed, or to be passed, enioyning the same in my other dominions: and that I shall observe these in my own practice and familie, and shall never make opposition to anie of these, or endevour any change thereof.⁸¹

For all of the later Restoration efforts, it would be impossible to put the presbyterian genie back in the bottle — and it would be more formally reinstated and preserved with the Glorious Revolution. The chance for Church uniformity and one Church governance with episcopal involvement had received a telling blow that it would never recover from.⁸²

Conclusion

There is of course a danger here of not comparing like with like. Certain coronation customs existed in Scotland that were obviously not the same as those for Westminster Abbey coronations, with for instance, different nobles having rights to preside and different regalia. Yet the anomalous elements of the 1651 coronation did not constitute something less significant or important in terms of a crowning occasion, but rather a ceremony adapted to meet the times, with Charles II very much at the centre of events. Financial accounts reveal a ceremony and feast of considerable cost, and therefore not a hastily arranged service and banquet, but rather an occasion with not inconsiderable luxury. The implications of this coronation were to bring the politics of the two countries even closer together, whilst the religious divide moved further apart. It would no longer be possible for the two states to function independently politically, whilst at the same time it would not be possible to have one uniform Church. In this case, this direction of travel, this route, was a choice made by Scotland.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

George William Cullen Gross

George William Cullen Gross

Dr George Gross is a Visiting Research Fellow at King’s College London, where he completed his doctoral thesis entitled ‘“The Lord’s Anointed”: British Coronations in Religious, Political and Social Contexts, c.1661–c.1714’ in April 2017. He is a co-convener at ‘The Religious History of Britain, 1500–1800’ seminar held at the Institute of Historical Research in London. Recent publications include a co-edited book, D. J. Cranskhaw and G. W. C. Gross (eds), Reformation Reputations: The Power of the Individual in English Reformation History (Cham, 2020); and G. W. C. Gross, ‘Ivan IV and Elizabeth I: The Influence of the Tsar’s Matrimonial Endeavours on the Development of Russo-English Relations’, RUDN Journal of Russian History 4 (18) (2019), pp. 938-61. A co-authored book British Coronations and the Shaping of National Identity, c.973–1953 is forthcoming.

Notes

1 This article was delivered as a paper in a modified form during ‘The ‘British’ Churches 1603–1707: From Dynastic Union to Anglo-Scottish Union’, conference, University of Kent, 22–23 June 2017.

2 See for examples: M. Lee, Jr., The ‘Inevitable’ Union and Other Essays on Early Modern Scotland (East Lothian, 2003), passim; T. Harris, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (London, 2006), p. 44; A. Keay, The Magnificent Monarch: Charles II and the Ceremonies of Power (London, 2008), pp. 46-7; and J. Morrill, “Uneasy Lies the Head that Wears a Crown”: Dynastic Crises in Tudor and Stewart Britain 1504–1746 (Reading, 2005), p. 31. In more populist history it has been relegated to but a passing mention and included in a chapter ‘The Crown, Without Glory’, see C. Spencer, To Catch A King: Charles II’s Great Escape (London, 2017), p. 62; whilst at the same time Spencer notes that following the coronation, ‘matters … were turning in the king’s favour’. See also A. Fraser, King Charles II (reprint, London, 1997), pp. 98, 119.

3 K. M. Brown et al. (eds), The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707 (St Andrews, 2007–20), 1649/1/71.

4 A reality that would not of course be enacted politically until the Act of Union in 1707.

5 See Keay, Magnificent Monarch, pp. 46-7. For an excellent analysis of the public celebrations at such occasions cf. D. Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989). See also, J. Nicoll, A Diary of Public Transactions, ed. D. Laing (Edinburgh, 1836), pp. 16-17, 20.

6 See Harris, Revolution, p. 44; Keay, Magnificent Monarch, pp. 46-7; and Morrill, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”, p. 31.

7 Edward, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England Begun in the Year 1641, ed. W. D. Macray, 6 vols (Oxford, 1888), vol. V, p. 172.

8 The Royal Oak adventure would be solidified in memory by the King himself: see R. Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland and Ireland (Oxford, 1989), pp. 67, 75; and P. Stamper, ‘The Tree that Hid a King: The Royal Oak at Boscobel, Shropshire’, Landscapes 3 (2002), pp. 19-35.

9 British Library [hereafter BL], Add. MS 6308, fol. 25r.

10 Mercurius Publicus … , 3–10 January 1660/1 (No. 1), p. i. This would seem to answer an argument made in E. Gregg, Queen Anne (2nd edition, New Haven and London, 2001), p. 3, that the birth of the boy was an embarrassment and the christening was therefore delayed. It seems that this was a perfectly credible anniversary date to have waited for, as the child was just over two months old (born 22 October 1660). As it happened the young Charles was not to live long and died on 5 May 1661, see R. Latham and W. Matthews (eds), The Diary of Samuel Pepys, 11 vols (London, 1971), vol. II, p. 95 (6 May 1661); see also G. E. C[okayne] et al. (eds), The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, 14 volumes in 15 parts (2nd edition, London or Stroud, 1910–98), vol. II p. 496.

11 J. P. C. Stuart, Marquis of Bute, Scottish Coronations (London, 1902), pp. 145-6.

12 National Records of Scotland [hereafter NRS], Kerr family papers, GD40/2/19/1/22, fol. 1r (John Campbell, first earl of Loudoun, Chancellor, Edinburgh, to Charles II, 16 August 1650). Cf. NRS, GD40/2/19/1/22–25: for further correspondence between John Campbell, first earl of Loudoun and Charles II (16 August–13 September 1650).

13 Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, and in other Libraries of Northern Italy, ed. R. Brown et al. (38 vols, London etc., 1864–1947), vol. XXVIII, 1647–52, p. 168.

14 Scone Palace had come to prominence thanks to Sir David Murray, a major supporter and benefactor of James VI and I: K. Brown, ‘Courtiers and Cavaliers: Service, Anglicization and Loyalty among the Royalist Nobility’, in J. Morrill (ed.), The Scottish National Covenant in its British Context 1638–51 (Edinburgh, 1990), pp. 155-92, at p. 169. Sir David Murray became Lord Scone in 1606 in Parliament, and in 1608 by charter. He was later advanced to the viscountcy of Stormont in 1621. (I. Cowan and D. Easson, Medieval Religious Houses, Scotland [second edition, London, 1976], p. 98). Out of the ruins of Scone Abbey, a considerable property was created. The ‘building as now seen is almost entirely the work of the architect William Atkinson for the third Earl of Mansfield, and it took shape between 1803 and 1812’ and sits as Scone Palace today. R. Welander et al., The Stone of Destiny: Artefact and Icon, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Monograph Series, 22 (Edinburgh, 2003), pp. 175-8. For more details cf. C. McKean, The Scottish Chateau: Country Houses of Renaissance Scotland (Stroud, 2001), pp. 209–10; and https://scone-palace.co.uk/ last accessed 16 April 2020. I would like to thank in particular for their tremendous assistance: The Earl and Countess of Mansfield & Mansfield, and Sarah Adams archivist of Scone Palace.

15 See also, Welander et al., Stone of Destiny, p. 176; Cf. R. Holinshed et al. (eds), The Firste Volume … Chronicles of En[gland] … Scotlande, and Ire[land] … Faithfully gathered and set forth (London, 1571). For a detailed geological and historical analysis of the Stone of Scone, see Welander, Stone; and W. Rodwell, The Coronation Chair and Stone of Scone: History, Archaeology and Conservation (Oxford, 2013).

16 For the linguistic origins cf. OED. It is something of an understatement to suggest that the Stone of Destiny has not been without controversy! It is a subject that evokes widespread interest. Much writing and airtime have been given to its authenticity and its role as incorporated in the famous Westminster Abbey Chair of St Edward the Confessor (anachronistically called after The Confessor). There have been endless debates on the proper resting place for the Stone. It has influenced monarchs down the ages; been the centre-piece for the crowning of Scottish and English monarchs; referenced in Shakespeare’s Macbeth; been the subject of films such as ‘Stone of Destiny’ (2008) and featured most recently in the Oscar-winning ‘The King’s Speech’ (2010); and inspired numerous folk, classical and other genres of music: For examples: Steve McDonald’s ‘Stone of Destiny’ (2001); and John McLeod’s ‘Stone of Destiny’ (2003). McLeod’s was commissioned by Perth Symphony Orchestra and is a Symphonic Suite for orchestra in 4 movements: 1. Jacob’s pillow — the legend begins; 2. Odyssey — a journey through time; 3. Moot hill — ghosts of ancient kings; 4. Crown triumphant — a coronation march. For more details of the Stone’s history and significance, cf. R. Welander, D. Breeze and T. Clancy (eds), The Stone of Destiny: artefact & icon (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Monograph series, 22, Edinburgh, 2003); and http://www.westminster-abbey.org last accessed 10 November 2020.

17 Exodus 2: 1–10 (KJV); ‘And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.”’ Genesis 28: 18-22 (KJV).

18 W. Rodwell et al., The Coronation Chair and Stone of Scone: History, Archaeology and Conservation (Oxford, 2013), pp. 23-6. Cf. Welander et al., Stone of Destiny, pp. 91-93.

19 W. Rodwell et al., The Coronation Chair, pp. 25-6.

20 S. T. Driscoll, ‘Picts and Prehistory: Cultural Resource Management in Early Medieval Scotland’, World Archaeology 30 (1998), pp. 142-58, at p. 152; D. H. Caldwell and G. Ewart, ‘Finlaggan and the Lordship of the Isles: An Archaeological Approach’, The Scottish Historical Review 72, (1993), pp. 146-66, at 149. The OED has it as a hill on which a moot or assembly is held, often an important meeting location in a town or village, and later the site for churches.

21 M. O. Anderson, ‘Nechtan mac Derile’, ODNB (2004–); cf. N. Evans, ‘Royal Succession and Kingship among the Picts’, The Innes Review 59 (2008), pp. 1–48; and Welander et al., Stone of Destiny, pp. 102-3, 145.

22 Bute, Scottish Coronations, p. 143. See also M. O. Anderson, ‘Kenneth I [Cináed mac Alpin, Kenneth Macalpine] king in Scotland, d. 858’, ODNB (2004–).

23 R. Holinshed et al., The Firste Volume … Chronicles of En[gland] … Scotlande, and Ire[land] … Faithfully gathered and set forth (London, 1571), pp. 301-2. See also, M. Brown, The Wars of Scotland, 1214–1371 (Edinburgh, 2004), pp. 229-30; and Rodwell et al., The Coronation Chair, pp. 14-16; D. Broun, ‘Macbeth [Mac Bethad mac Findlaích] (d. 1057)’, ODNB (2004–); G. P. Stell, ‘John [John de Balliol] (c. 1248×50–1314), king of Scots’, ibid; M. Prestwich, ‘Edward I (1239–1307), king of England and lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine’, ibid.

24 See on the legend of Fergus: H. Summerson, ‘Fergus I (c. 305BC)’, ibid — and sometimes referred to as Fergus [called Fergus Mór] (d. 501); D. Broun, ‘Malcolm I [Mael Coluim mac Domnaill] (d. 954), king in Scotland, ibid; ibid., ‘Dubh [Duff] [Dub mac Coluim] (d. 966), king in Scotland’, ibid; K. Stringer, ‘Alexander II (1198–1249), king of Scots’, ibid; M. H. Brown, ‘James I (1394–1437), king of Scots’, ibid; Bute, Scottish Coronations, p. 143; Chronicles of En[gland] … Scotlande, and Ire[land], p. 35.

25 Chronicles of En[gland] … Scotlande, and Ire[land], pp. 206, 281, 385. For a pictorial impression of such a coronation at Scone, cf. The Parker Library, Cambridge, MS 171, The Scotch Chronicle (fifteenth-century): ‘The Chronicle was written by John Fordoun with a continuation by Walter Bower (? Bowmakar), Abbot of Inchcolm. The illumination shows Alexander III crowned at Scone (1249). The king holds a massive sceptre and is supported by an upright sword. An old man salutes him as the descendant of Gathelos, King of Athens, and Scota, Pharaoh’s daughter.’ Cf. BL, Hargrave MS 497, fol. 4r–v (‘Scotland. Coronation of Alexander the third King of Scotland in the year 1249’); and National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Wodrow MSS. Quarto LXXXVI (James Balfour’s Annals), p. 5. See also A. Gibb, ‘The Coronation of James the First, King of Scotland, and Jane Beaufort, Queen of Scotland, His Wife, 21st May, 1424’, The Scottish Antiquary 17 (1902), pp. 1-8; and M. Brown, The Wars of Scotland, 1214–1371 (Edinburgh, 2004), pp. 7-9.

26 Anon., A Proclamation [6 July 1603] Signifying the Kings Maiesties Pleasure, Touching the Resort of People to his Coronation (London, 1603); Cf. The Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC, MS X.c.20 (Matthew Hutton to his son, 18 July 1603), excusing his son’s attendance at the reduced coronation solemnities and suggesting that ‘verie few will go’ given plague. Cf. Kent Archives, Maidstone Branch, MS U951 C261/15; ibid., MS NR/CPh1/2 (Edward Kelke’s circular letter to Cinque Ports, 11–13 July 1603). Cf. ibid., MSS NR/CPh1/3 (Circular letter, 12 July 1603) and NR/CPh1/4 – which references the ‘sickness [in] London’. See also D. Cressy, Charles I and the People of England (Oxford, 2015), p. 66.

27 D. Starkey, Crown and Country: The Kings and Queens of England (London, 2010), p. 473. See also R. Strong, Coronation: A History of Kingship and the British Monarchy (London, 2005), p. 466; and M. Carter, The Three Emperors: Three Cousins, Three Empires and the Road to World War One (London, 2009), p. 275; G. W. Wollaston, Coronation of King Edward VII. The Court of Claims. Cases and Evidence … (London, [1903]), passim.

28 See P. Hopkins, ‘Francis Turner (1637–1700)’, ODNB (2004–). See also The London Gazette, 11–14 February 1688/9 (no. 2427). See also L. Schwoerer, ‘The Coronation of William and Mary, April 11, 1689’, in L. Schwoerer (ed.), The Revolution of 1688 1689: Changing Perspectives (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 107-30, at. pp. 107-11. For the proclamation declaring William and Mary joint rulers of Scotland, see Anon., A Proclamation [11 April 1689], Declaring William and Mary, King and Queen of England, to be King and Queen of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1689).

29 NRS, GD406/1/2508, fol.1r (William Kerr, third earl of Lothian, Perth, to William Hamilton, second duke of Hamilton, 16 December 1650). This was not the end of it, however, as details of further meetings at ‘perth [on] 16 decemb[e]r 1650’ dragged on, but one suspects this had more to do with the minutiae of the event and the Presbyterian rite, rather more than with the larger question of whether to crown or not to crown; and much was not actually settled till the day of the crowning itself, as concerns continued over the danger from the Cromwellian threat.

30 NRS, Minutes of Parliament, PA3/2, fol. 86r, cf. Brown, Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, M1650/11/34. See also NRS, PA7/23/2/76, fol. 1r (28 December 1650), draft coronation invitation or summons to the earl of Erroll, Great Constable, to attend the coronation on 1 January 1651.

31 Clarendon, vol. V, p. 172.

32 NRS, Records of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, CH12/12/1019, p. 1 ‘A copy of the form and order of the coronation of King Charles II (1651)’, p. 1. See also, ibid., Hay of Haystoun MSS, GD34/811/6, fol. 1r–v, documents relating to Gilbert, earl of Erroll’s role in the 1651 coronation, and imposed fine from Oliver Cromwell, 12 October 1654. For coronation processions see: Strong, Coronation, pp. 127, 133-6, 213-24.

33 http://www.edinburghcastle.gov.uk/index/tour/highlights/highlight-honours.htm last accessed 30 March 2020. By way of contrast with the English regalia, cf. M. Holmes and Major-General H. Sitwell, The English Regalia (London, 1972); C. Blair, (ed.), The Crown Jewels (London, 1998); and A. Keay, The Crown Jewels (London, 2011).

34 R. Hutton, Charles the Second: King of England, Scotland and Ireland (Oxford, 1989), p. 59. D. Scougall, ‘Campbell, Archibald, marquess of Argyll (1605/7–1661)’, ODNB (2004–); E. M. Furgol, ‘Montgomery [Montgomerie; formerly Seton], Alexander, sixth earl of Eglinton (1588–1661), ODNB (2004–); Sir P. Lely, ‘Leslie, John, duke of Rothes (c.1630–1681)’, ODNB (2004–); J. R. Young, ‘Lindsay, John, seventeenth earl of Crawford and first earl of Lindsay [known as earl of Crawford – Lindsay] (1596–1678)’, ODNB (2004–).

35 For illustrations cf. British Museum, London [hereafter BM], Charles II’s coronation as King of Scotland at Scone in 1651: Registration number: 1872,1012.1711. AN288457001; and RC750107 Charles II in Moot Hill Kirk crowned on ‘dais’ = stand. Cf. D. Stevenson, King or Covenant? Voices from Civil War (East Lothian, 1996), p. 188: Dutch print: Huych Allaerdt Exc. ‘The CORONATION OF CHARLES II’, 1651. According to Stevenson, this ‘Dutch print is the only known depiction of the coronation – unfortunately, as it is almost entirely imaginary’. However, as the two foregoing references indicate, it is quite clear that he is mistaken here and other prints do indeed exist.

36 NRS, CH12/12/1019, pp. 1–2. Cf. Edinburgh University Library, DC.5.71 (Revolutions in the Church of Scotland), pp. 42-3.

37 R. Douglas, The Form and Order of the Coronation of Charles the Second, King of Scotland, England, France, and Ireland. As it was Acted and Done at Schoone, the First Day of January, 1651. (Aberdeen, 1651), pp. 20-2.

38 Hutton, Charles the Second, p. 59.

39 Douglas, The form and order, pp. 23-4; cf. Bute, Scottish Coronations, p. 208.

40 Douglas, The Form and Order, pp. 24-5. Cf. K. Sharpe, Image Wars: Promoting Kings and Commonwealths in England, 1603–1660 (New Haven, Connecticut, and London, c. 2010), p. 441; cf. E. Hawkins, (comp.) and A. W. Franks, and H. A. Grueber (eds), Medallic Illustrations of the History of Great Britain and Ireland to the Death of George II (2 vols, London, 1885), vol. I, p. 394, no. 18 and plate XXXV, no. 8.

41 Cf. NRS, CH12/12/1019, p. 6: ‘Gold and Silver pieces struck … for this Solemnity’; and Stevenson, King or Covenant, p. 188 (Dutch print: Huych Allaerdt Exc. of ‘The CORONATION OF CHARLES II’, 1651. ‘On the right Charles sits on a dais … behind him money is thrown to the crowd in celebration.’).

42 See BL, MS Harley 41, fol. 12, for an illustrated plan of Anne Boleyn’s coronation banquet in Westminster Hall (1533). For more examples and discussions of the traditional feast, see: Strong, Coronation, pp. 173-5; J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (London, 1968), p. 18.

43 NRS, Earls of Morton Papers, GD150/2949 (extract from Royal household book).

44 Ibid., Exchequer Records: Household books, MS E31/19, fol. 32r–v.

45 Scone Palace, Perth [hereafter ScP], Vol. 1 fol. 24r.

46 Glamis Castle, Angus, Box 59/3/11. See also ibid., Box 59/5/23 (October 1651: retrospective discharge for the coronation and for ‘his lord[ships] maintenance’).

47 NRS, Exchequer Records: Taxation accounts, MS E67/2, fol. 5 r–v.

48 Ibid., MS E67/2, fol. 8r–v.

49 Ibid., MS E67/2, fol. 6r–v.

50 Ibid., MS E67/2, fol. 7r–v.

51 See below — What was unusual?

52 NRS, GD150/2949.

53 ScP, Bundle 268, fols 1r–3v (Such items were expensive, amounting to ‘149 sh[illings]’).

54 For further costs, see ibid., Vol. 1 nos 12-28 [fols 10r-22r].

55 Cf. Westminster Abbey Library, Westminster Abbey Muniments 51119 ‘Account of the Procession at the Coronation of King Edward VI’, 1547; BL, Add. MS 47184, fol. 6 for evidence of the acclamation in Charles I’s 1626 coronation: ‘the Archbyshopp … speaking to the people … the people signifying their willingness by answering all in one voyce yea yea God save King Charles’; and National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, Keith Earl Marischal MS 21183, fols. 71r-72v for an account of Charles I’s 1633 Coronation, including fol. 72r ‘the people made there acclamat[io]n crying God Save the King’.

56 Bute, Scottish Coronations, p. 141. Bute points out that ‘the one other Presbyterian Coronation … [was] that of … Anne of Denmark, at Holyrood, May 17, 1590’: yet this was for a queen consort — the actual Sovereign was quite another matter altogether and unprecedented. Yet, both Anne of Denmark’s coronation in 1590 and that of James VI in 1567 included the ceremony of anointing. John Knox may have preached the coronation sermon in 1567, but the anointing of James VI separates it from that of Charles II’s 1651 Presbyterian service. See National Library of Scotland, Advocates’ MS 33.7.10, f. 15r-16r;Adv. MS 33.2.26, 32r-34v; NRS, GD 124/10/24; and A. L. Luhala, ‘The Household and Court of King James VI of Scotland, 1567–1603’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Edinburgh, 2000), pp. 202-10. See also I. Bradley, God Save the Queen: The Spiritual Heart of the Monarchy (London, 2012), p. 97; M. F. Graham, ‘Kirk in Danger: Presbyterian Political Divinity in Two Eras’, in B. Heal and O. P. Grell (eds), The Impact of the European Reformation: Princes, Clergy and People (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 167-86, at p. 169; D. Stevenson, Scotland’s Last Royal Wedding: The Marriage of James VI and Anne of Denmark. With a Danish Account of the Marriage Translated by Peter Graves (Edinburgh, 1997), p. 99.

57 Douglas, The Form and Order, pp. 4-5.

58 The manuscript Liber Regalis (MS 38) (Latin composition) of c.1390. In the Later Middle Ages, the volume containing this rite was in the custody of Westminster Abbey, and the abbey Library still houses it, which is the classic version of the medieval text. The Liber Regalis sets out: the presentation of the monarch to the people, the Coronation Oath and anointing, the offering of the ornaments to the sovereign (including the sword, bracelets, mantle, ring and sceptre), the crowning and trumpet fanfare and, lastly, the mass. The Liber Regalis was extended into an all-encompassing order, entitled the ‘Little Device’, for Richard III’s coronation (1483), detailing not only the ritual, but also the events of the day before; the latter order provided the model for all coronations that have followed. See L. G. Wickham Legg (ed.), English Coronation Records ([London], 1901), pp. 81-131 (Liber Regalis), 219-40 (‘Little Device’).

59 Lee, ‘Inevitable’ Union, p. 217.

60 For James II see: Schwoerer, ‘The Coronation of William and Mary’, pp. 114-5; J. Callow, James II: The Triumph and the Tragedy (Kew, 2005), pp. 52-4. For the early twentieth-century debate surrounding Elizabeth I’s coronation see: C. G. Bayne, ‘The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth’, HER XXII (1907), pp. 650-73; H. A. Wilson, ‘The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth’, HER XXIII (1908), pp. 87-91; G. L. Ross, ‘Il Schifanoya’s Account of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth’, HER XXIII (1908), pp. 533-4; C. G. Bayne, ‘The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth’, HER XXIV (1909), pp. 322-3; A. F. Pollard, ‘The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth’, HER XXV (1910), pp. 125-6; and C. G. Bayne, ‘The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth’, HER (1910), pp. 550-3. Many have argued that her coronation ‘anticipated her settlement of religion’ — D. Hoak, ‘The Coronations of Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I, and the Transformation of the Tudor Monarchy’, in C. S. Knighton and R. Mortimer (eds), Westminster Abbey Reformed 1540–1640 (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 114-51, at p. 138; R. Bowers, ‘The Chapel Royal, the First Edwardian Prayer Book, and Elizabeth’s Settlement of Religion, 1559’, Historical Journal 43 (2000), pp. 317-44, at p. 327, which cites the relevant literature of this famous controversy. Hoak maintains that Bowers follows the argument set out in W. P. Haugaard, ‘The Coronation of Elizabeth I’, JEH XIX (1968), pp. 161-70, which corrected earlier readings. Hoak is rightly critical of Starkey’s biography of Elizabeth, Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (London, 2000), which ignores Haugaard on this point, and relies largely on Bayne’s hugely debatable interpretation of 1907 i.e. Bayne, ‘Coronation’; BL, Egerton MS 3320, fol. 22r.

61 Hutton, Charles II, pp. 59-60. For more biographical details see: D. Stevenson, ‘Campbell, John, first earl of Loudoun (1598–1662)’, ODNB (2004–); D. Scougall, ‘Campbell, Archibald, marquess of Argyll (1605/7–1661)’, ODNB (2004–); E. M. Furgol, ‘Montgomery [Montgomerie; formerly Seton], Alexander, sixth earl of Eglinton (1588–1661), ODNB (2004–); Sir P. Lely, ‘Leslie, John, duke of Rothes (c.1630–1681)’, ODNB (2004–); J. R. Young, ‘Lindsay, John, seventeenth earl of Crawford and first earl of Lindsay [known as earl of Crawford – Lindsay] (1596–1678)’, ODNB (2004–).

62 Douglas, The form and order, pp. 11-13. In 1661 Charles would be anointed as per the traditional Liber Regalis, see Sir Edward Walker, A Circumstantial Account of the Preparations for the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles the Second, and a Minute Detail of that Splendid Ceremony, with all the Particulars Connected with it; Including the Installation of Knights, Creation of Peers, &c., to which is Prefixed, an Account of the Landing, Reception, and Journey of His Majesty from Dover to London (London, 1820), pp. 99-100. Walker’s ‘detailed account of the event in fifty-two manuscript folios dated 25 May 1661, [was] subsequently published in 1820’ — H. Chesshyre, ‘Walker, Sir Edward (1612–1677)’, ODNB (2004–). A copy of Walker’s account (dated 25 May 1661) of Charles II’s arrival at the Restoration and also of his 1661 coronation survives in BL, Add. MS 30195. Either that or another MS was used as the basis for Walker, Circumstantial Account. Further coronation material exists in other MSS associated with Walker: BL, Add. MS 37998, Hargrave MS 497 and Stowe MS 580; Bodl., Carte MS 129; and SAL, MS SAL/MS/455. See also Anon., The Manner of the Solemnity of the Coronation of his Most Sacred Majesty King Charles (London, 1660). The iconography of the consecration of a king is too extensive to discuss here, but for a spectacular example see the 9th century MS miscellany on the life of St Edmund: The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, USA, MSM 736.

63 Lee, ‘Inevitable’ Union, pp. 217-8.

64 Hutton, Charles the Second, pp. 59-60. See also NRS, CH12/12/1019, p. 5; cf. Royal Collection, Windsor Castle, RCIN 750107 for depiction of the Scone coronation showing Charles being crowned by a figure, probably Argyll. It is a highly stylised engraving (probably Dutch, by Hugo Allart), with a Cloth of Estate and set in a form of temple — almost a biblical scene.

65 R. Douglas, Sermon Preached at Scoone, January 1st 1651, at the Coronation of Charles the Second (Edinburgh, 1651). As Moderator of the General Assembly, Douglas took the coronation sermon to be his due on this occasion.

66 Fraser, Charles II, pp. 98-9. Keay, Magnificent Monarch, pp. 46-7.

67 Cf. Edinburgh University Library, DC.5.30–31: Papers of Robert Douglas vol. 1-11, for other examples of his Sermons and of note his remarkable skill including in biblical reference. For 1661 see G. Morley, A Sermon [on Prov. XXVIII 2] Preached at the … Coronation of … Charles II, King of Great Britain, etc. (London, 1661); cf. D. J. Sturdy, ‘English Coronation Sermons in the Seventeenth Century’, in H. Duchhardt (ed.), Herrscherweihe und Königskrönung im Frühneuzeitlichen Europa (Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 69-81, at pp. 69-70. See also D. Shaw, ‘The Coronation and Monarchical Culture in Stuart Britain and Ireland 1603–1661’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2002). One must have caution when dealing with Shaw’s work on the Coronation Sermon of Douglas as he draws comparison with Cranmer’s Sermon for Edward VI’s Coronation on idolatry as a form of precedent. Yet as MacCulloch has revealed what is said to be Cranmer’s sermon never actually took place or rather the details of what we have are a forgery. Douglas’s Sermon was therefore a unique Presbyterian Sovereign’s Coronation Sermon for the British Isles without precedent; and if there is any comparison to be drawn with Cranmer it cannot be from a forged Sermon. Cf. D. MacCulloch, ‘Foxes, Firebrands and Forgery: Robert Ware’s pollution of Reformation history’, HJ 104 (2011), 307-46.

68 Correspondence of Sir Robert Kerr; first Earl of Ancram and his son William, third Earl of Lothian 1616, 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1875), vol. I, 93.

69 R. Douglas, The form and order of the coronation of Charles the Second, King of Scotland, England, France, and Ireland. As it was acted and done at Schoone, the first day of January, 1651. (Aberdeen, 1651), p. 7.

70 Brown, Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, M1650/11/8.

71 NRS, PA3/2, fol. 84r-v, cf. RPS, M1650/11/30. According to Penman the original (and any copies) have since been lost. See M. Penman, Robert the Bruce: King of the Scots (New Haven, Connecticut, 2014), pp. 266-95, at n. 16.

72 I. W. Archer, ‘City and Court Connected: The Material Dimensions of Royal Ceremonial, ca.1480–1625’, HLQ 71 (2008), pp. 157-79, at pp. 175-8 (for royal progress in the City of London); Sharpe, Image Wars, pp. 244-7 (Elizabeth I; James I & VI; Charles I); D. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven, Connecticut, and London, 1996), pp. 138-9 (Henry VIII), pp. 517-8 (Edward VI).

73 Sharpe, Image Wars, p. 414, see A Declaration by the Kings Majesty to His Subjects of the Kingdomes of Scotland, England, and Ireland (Edinburgh, 1650).

74 BM, M.7336 (coronation medal, Charles II, 1651); Sharpe, Image Wars, p. 441; Hawkins, Medallic Illustrations, vol. I, p. 394, no. 18, plate XXXV, no. 8. For Charles I and the Garter, see R. Cust, ‘Charles I and the Order of the Garter’, Journal of British Studies 52 (2013), pp. 343-69.

75 BM, M.7336 (coronation medal, Charles II, 1651); Sharpe, Image Wars, p. 441; Hawkins, Medallic Illustrations, vol. I, p. 394, no. 18, plate XXXV, no. 8.

76 Sharpe, Image Wars, p. 441.

77 For publications see: Douglas, The form and order; ibid.,, The form and order of the coronation of Charles the II, King of Scotland together vvith the sermon then preached by Mr. Robert Dowglas &c, and the oath then taken with several speeches made : as it was acted at Scoone, the first day of January, 1651 (London, 1660); ibid., A phenix, or, The Solemn League and Covenant whereunto is annexed: 1. The form and manner of His Majesties coronation in Scotland, with a sermon then preached on that occasion, by Robert Douglas of Edenburgh, II. A declaration of the Kings Majesty to all his loving subjects of the Kingdoms of Scotland, &c. in the yeare 1650, III. …  (Edinburgh, 1662); ibid., The form and o[rder] of the coronation of Charles the Second, King of Scotland, England, France, and Ireland. As it was acted and done at Schoone, the first day of January, 1651 (Aberdeen and Edinburgh, 1700).

78 Douglas, The Form and Order, pp. 12-13.

79 Ibid., p. 12.

80 Brown, Records of the Parliaments of Scotland, A1650/5/120.

81 Douglas, The Form and Order, p. 41.

82 See G. Burgess, British Political Thought, 1500–1660: The Politics of the Post-Reformation (Basingstoke, 2009), pp. 367-72; T. Claydon, Europe and the Making of England, 1660–1760 (Cambridge, 2007); pp. 288-9; T. Harris, ‘Incompatible Revolutions?: The Established Church and the Revolutions of 1688–9 in Ireland, England and Scotland’, in A. I. Macinnes and J. Ohlmeyer (eds), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century: Awkward Neighbours (Dublin, 2002), pp. 204-25; T. Harris, Restoration: Charles II and his Kingdoms, 1660–1685 (London, 2005), pp. 114-6; Harris, Revolution, pp. 21-2, 364-5; 408-9; J. Black, ‘Confessional State or Elect Nation? Religion and identity in eighteenth-century England’, in T. Claydon and I. McBride (eds), Protestantism and National Identity: Britain and Ireland, c.1650–c.1850 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 53-74; D. Allan, ‘Protestantism, Presbyterianism and National Identity in Eighteenth-Century Scottish History’, ibid, pp. 182-205. For the impact on the Glorious Revolution see S. Sowerby, Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2013), passim.