There’s been an interesting discussion about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s addition to the coronation service, but has anyone actually tried to parse it?
It goes as follows: ‘Your Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The coronation oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law. Are you willing to take the oath?’ The King: ‘I am willing.’
Wouldn’t it be clearer to ask the King to swear directly that he will protect people of all faiths and beliefs?
Right. We get the gist, but it doesn’t make sense.
‘The Church is…committed to X…and in so doing will seek to…’ Being committed to something is a state, an intention, not an act, so the follow-up clause, ‘in so doing’ is just odd.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in