Is there a compelling reason for holding the Queen's funeral at Westminster Abbey?

Question

The Abbey seats only 2000 people.

Charles & Diana's wedding in 1981 was held at St Paul's which seats almost twice the number - for that reason.

At the Queen's Coronation in 1953, the Abbey seating was extended by adding tiers to accommodate 8,000 people. Presumably it is not possible to do that while meeting modern health & safety standards. It also delayed the Coronation, which was held 16 months after the Queen's accession.

Given that the leaders of all European nations, all crowned heads of Europe, President Biden, the government leaders of all Commonwealth countries, apart from other international leaders, Members of Parliament, as well as family, palace staff etc. will want to attend, I am amazed they are not using St Paul's.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to why that might be?

Answer 1

There isn’t any reason in law - it’s up to the highest-ranking peer in the realm, the Duke of Norfolk, to organise the Queen’s funeral as part of his duties as Earl Marshal. Presumably, then, it’s being held in Westminster Abbey in accordance with the wishes of the Queen. The Dean of Westminster also noted the following, which seems to explain the choice further:

The church in which she was married and in which her coronation took place, the Abbey was witness to promises that defined the life of our faithful and devoted Queen. In deep gratitude and in deep sorrow we will give thanks to God for the service she gave to God, nation and Commonwealth. We pray now, and in the days ahead, for our new King and for his family. God save the King.

It was also reported in 2008 that the Queen had wanted Prince Philip to agree to a funeral at the Abbey, but that he had refused and opted for a more private affair at Windsor.

In addition to being the location in which she married Philip in 1947, and was crowned in 1953, it also held the funeral of her mother in 2002, as well as a thanksgiving service for the life of her husband after his funeral at Windsor in 2021.

Answer 2

In the short term, the reason that the late Queen's funeral is being held at Westminster Abbey is that the plan says it will be.

Sam Knight's excellent article in the The Guardian, which has been right on every detail to date, assumes without further explanation that the funeral would be held at the Abbey. Planning for this ceremony has been undertaken for over half a century and the location must surely have been one of the first decisions taken, because so much depends upon it. Rewriting almost the entire plan at short notice, with many of the key figures being grief-stricken and busy at other events, would be an extremely risky decision.

Of course, that raises the long-term question of why Westminster Abbey is the place in the plan. That is answered by CDJB's post, and Stuart F's important comment to it about policing.

I would add a couple of minor points to their overview. Firstly, the coffin will lie in state at Westminster Hall, so moving it the 200 metres or so to the Abbey is surely less complicated than moving it through the West End to St Paul's, on a day when security resources are already stretched to the limit. Secondly, there is an ecclesiastical difference between St Paul's and Westminster Abbey. St Paul's is the cathedral of London and primarily exists to serve the spiritual needs of that city. Westminster Abbey is a Royal Peculiar - it stands outside the parish system and is part of no diocese. So it has come to specialize in hosting events of national significance. If you're going to close a church building for ten days without notice, it's probably less disruptive to close the Abbey than a diocesan cathedral, as many of the senior cathedral staff are double-hatted and also have diocesan responsibilities. I doubt that either of these points were conclusive though.

Answer 3

There is no legal reason why the late Queen's funeral has to be at Westminster Abbey (formally it is actually the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster).

It is purely tradition but one unlike any seen anywhere else.

Since 1066 every English and later British monarch has been crowned at Westminster Abbey. It has gone on for so long that it is unthinkable for it to be otherwise. To be crowned elsewhere would potentially raise questions as to whether one was really the monarch.

Virtually every monarch between 1066 and the late 18th century was buried at the Abbey. There are some notable exceptions such as those that were deposed. Since the late 18th century such funerals have been held at the Abbey but many monarchs have chosen to be interred elsewhere. St Georges Chapel is the current preference of the House of Windsor.

To be afforded a funeral at the Abbey is considered the greatest honour that the state can bestow. This will be why the late Queen tried so hard to persuade her husband to agree to such a funeral. Changing the location so that more people can be accommodated doesn't really come into it.

I note that some people have suggested that it is because the late Queen wished it so, that this is what the plan says and that the Earl Marshall has made the choice. In fact it is because the new King as head of state has decided that it will be so. It is actually he that signs off on every stage of the arrangements and he has decided to abide by the late Queens wishes.

Answer 4

It may have something to do with the complicated relationship between the Royal Family and the City of London, where St Pauls is located. A long story short is that the City of London has a strange quasi-independence and privilege above other parts of the UK, especially with regards to the Crown - the City actually predates the monarchy and the United Kingdom, and has never been formally under the Crown's control.

The symbolism of a major royal event in the part of the country which is ceremonially independent from the Crown is probably seen as distinctly inappropriate. The monarch can't even enter the City without permission and a special ceremony from the Lord Mayor of London (not to be confused with the Mayor of London!).

(I do find it confusing that Charles & Diana were married there but perhaps because he was a prince it was less of an issue?)

More information here:

https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc