Many in UK greet King Charles’s coronation with a ‘take it or leave it’ shrug

When King Charles III is crowned on Saturday, he will undergo a ritual so rare in modern British history that it last occurred 70 years ago, roughly the wait between sightings of Halley’s comet. And yet the coronation has yet to capture the imagination of a Britain preoccupied by other concerns.

Images of the new king — in chocolate, in Legos and in wax — are popping up in bakeries, toy stores and at Madame Tussauds wax museum. Ancient relics of coronation, including the Scottish stone of destiny, are being delivered to Westminster Abbey for the ceremony. Charles and his queen consort, Camilla, are rehearsing every step of the service in a specially staged room at Buckingham Palace.

But in a recent poll of 3,070 adults in Britain by the market research firm YouGov, 64 per cent of respondents said they had little or no interest in the coronation. Only one-third said they were strongly or fairly interested in it. Among those ages 18-24, the number voicing little or no interest rose to 75 per cent.

“Love for the royal family has sort of declined,” said Jason Abdalla, 24, an information technology worker outside a pub recently in the exclusive Mayfair neighbourhood of London. “It feels like appreciating the monarchy is an older, more mature thing. I mean, my parents are into it. They love the royal family. It’s ‘take it or leave it,’ for me.”

There are other, less generational explanations for the lack of excitement, like the rainy spring weather, which may loosen its grip in time for Saturday’s ceremony, and Britain’s economic doldrums, which have focused public attention on the cost of bread rather than what cynics might label bread-and-circuses.

Then, too, there is the contrast between King Charles and his mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Her coronation in 1953 introduced a poised young monarch who was thrust on the throne by the death of her father, King George VI, and became a beloved icon. At 74, Charles is a familiar figure, one whose foibles have been dissected in the news media for decades and who still presides over a dysfunctional family.

“He is not a romantic figure like she was,” said Ed Owens, a historian who has written about the interplay between the monarchy and the news media. “He is a complex human personality whose private life we know a great deal more about than we did with the queen in 1953.”

Whereas the queen’s coronation symbolised a new start for the country and the royal family, Owens said, Charles’ coronation comes after a period of family feuds that has left the House of Windsor divided and diminished. “He’s inheriting a crown that has been shaken by events over the last five years, and tarnished by those events as well,” Owens said.

Last week, the king’s younger son, Prince Harry, was behind yet another airing of the family laundry. In a filing in his lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper group for hacking the prince’s cellphone, Harry disclosed that his older brother, Prince William, had received a “huge sum of money” to settle phone-hacking charges against the company, News Group Newspapers.

Harry said he had been discouraged from pursuing his own litigation because of a secret deal between the palace and News Group. The palace, eager to rehabilitate the reputation of Charles and Camilla after the breakup of his marriage to Princess Diana, was determined to keep the favour of Murdoch’s tabloids.

The timing of these revelations — however unwitting on Harry’s part, given that he does not dictate the schedule of legal cases — is likely to dash any lingering hopes that Harry will repair a years-long rift with his brother and father when he attends the coronation, according to royal watchers. Whether Harry would show up at all was a mystery, but one addressed this past month with the announcement that he would, but that his wife, Meghan, and their two children, Archie and Lilibet, would stay at their home in Montecito, California. Archie’s fourth birthday is Saturday, which some said gave Meghan a ready excuse.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times