The coronation tells us a lot about the state of the nation — and it’s not all good news

In less than a year, London will have hosted three major royal events, each with its own distinctive mood and theatre. But the one with greatest historic meaning and magnificence will be the coronation of King Charles III on Saturday. That’s why, even if you were to argue that the city, the British public and aficionados of pageantry the world over have become blasé about such occasions, you would be wrong.

I have the privilege, and at times such as these the massive headache, of living just a short distance from Westminster Abbey and St James’s Park. When I walked down the Mall towards Buckingham Palace early in the week, there were people already camped out in prime positions, not just securing their spot but advertising their allegiance. There was a group from Wales with huge national flags fixed to crowd barriers, a group from the United States, stars and stripes similarly announcing their provenance, and a good dozen or more clusters of people from other parts of England tending to their tiny tents.

Simply walking around, as I have done practically every day this week, has afforded glimpses of the scale of the planning of such events; of how everything has to be assembled methodically, piece by piece, until it all slots into place.

The Union flags lining the Mall and the Commonwealth flags lining Horse Guards Avenue have been up for weeks. Marquees have sprouted. The reception area for dignitaries from around the world will be where those who joined the queue for the Queen’s lying in state reached the final security checks.

There is also a huge stand that will accommodate the world’s media and their cameras directly opposite the Abbey. With its solid construction, unusually elegant design and speedy assembly, the stand might even tempt Michael Gove to consider it as a template for the housing the capital so badly needs.

And this slick contraption points to one of so many contradictions: the collision of the old and the new. Charles III’s coronation is the formal start of the post-Elizabethan age. It heralds at once the possibility of a new tone and new priorities, but it also confirms the continuity of the institution and the established order.

In one elegant gesture, the Princess of Wales will be forsaking a tiara for flowers, and the other ladies are expected to follow suit. The only crowns will be those of the King and the Queen. Along with the curtailed processional route, the shorter ceremony, the more ethnically and culturally diverse participation and the preponderance of “ordinary” people invited to the Abbey, this is one of the changes contrived to signal that the appearance of the King’s court has been updated to present a more modern, less hierarchical aesthetic.

Here is another contradiction. It is crucial that the coronation looks as spectacular on the screen as it does in real life. But does all this scrimping and saving on more triumphalist traditions act as a frank and public admission of Britain’s own diminished state?

I was abroad when the Queen died and remember that, for the first 24 hours, you could switch from international TV channel to channel – from Chinese to Russian, to American, to French, to al-Jazeera from the Gulf – and there was only one story. For one day, the planet’s airwaves will be dominated by the coronation in London. It is a heaven-sent opportunity to reinforce what is termed, in the mercenary language of today, the UK’s national brand.

A spectacular show on Saturday will surely boost future tourist footfall in the same way that landscapes and cityscapes used as film locations do. How much, though, will it boost the UK’s “soft power”, or its influence in the world?

I suspect hopes are high. But being a world leader in staging particularly impressive street parties or demonstrating the durability of your social and political system is not the draw that it once was. Does it invite imitation and envy? Does the UK need to stand as a beacon of excellence in anything beyond talking to itself, about itself?

I am struck, perhaps wrongly, by how much the UK’s preparations for the Eurovision Song Contest – essentially Ukraine’s Eurovision Song Contest in exile – are being promoted by His Majesty’s government. That suggests a recognition that Eurovision is an international event that could not only enhance the UK’s national brand, but which may speak more directly to more people.

This is where those hopes for increased soft power come unstuck. It is not hard to detect a growing disenchantment in the UK towards established institutions, the social order, public services and even the look of shabby towns and cities that compare unfavourably with their counterparts in those countries that the UK would regard as its peers. Visitors to the UK and those who follow its other doings on television will duly note the same deficiencies.

In this respect, the pared-back coronation spectacle then starts to become a pantomime version of the real Britain. The persistence of the ceremonial – and the enthusiasm with which the powers-that-be promote it – only highlights how anachronistic it all is. It is not just the anti-monarchists who may be buoyed by the coronation, but also those demanding recognition and reparations for slavery and colonisation. Indeed, a senior Jamaican official told Sky News this week that the King's coronation had only accelerated her government’s plans to push for a Jamaican republic.

Two recent departures from the norm may be couched against this. The King showed how he could personally rise above controversies during his recent successful state visit to Germany. In recognising a difficult past, speaking German and rejecting much of the stuffiness associated with such visits, he showed how the monarchy could be a diplomatic asset in the world of today.

The coronation has also provided a pretext – taken up by the media – for looking at how other monarchies have adapted to the social and demographic change of the past three decades years. Less formal and with fewer family members on the payroll, the Dutch and the Scandinavian monarchies likely point to where King Charles and his heir will follow. Indeed, you could argue that if he does not, it will be a toss-up as to which ends first: the ceremonial extravagance or the institution itself. Either way, this coronation could very well be the last of its kind.