1651: The Last Coronation in Scotland — An Anomaly?

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 In many respects, it was superseded by immediate events (Charles II’s disastrous military campaign and exile) and then overshadowed at the Restoration (and by the 1661 Westminster Abbey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.

C harles II's Scottish coronation of  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.  In brief, following Charles I's execution in , 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 ( May ), 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

Completely Forgotten and Distorted Interpretations
It has long been suggested that the  coronation was a hastily arranged affair, lacking sacredness without an anointing and involving little pomp, and thus minimal costalmost humiliating, according to one modern view.  Yet, Clarendon records that it 'passed with great solemnity and magnificence, all men making show of joy, and being united to serve his majesty'.  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 exileand then overshadowed at the Restoration by the  Westminster Abbey coronation. Nevertheless, far from forgetting this event and surrounding history, which includedthe Covenanters' defeat at the Battle of Dunbar ( September ) in the build-up; the coronation; the defeat of Charles and his allies at the Battle of Worcester ( September ); and his Royal Oak tree escape and further exile that followedit was made famous by none other than the King himself.  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 / 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.  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.  It is clear therefore that the  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 , and key meetings were held on  and  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.  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.   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.  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.  Folklore then has it that the Stone followed a Gaelic route taken by Kenneth MacAlpin, king of Dalriada (d. ), from Antrim to Argyll, and then to the monastery at Scone, Perthshire, in .  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.  This famous site, also referred to as the Mount of Belief, may have derived its name from Nechtan mac Derile (d. ) (king of the Picts, c. -; and -) who had taken a keen interest in Christianity.  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. , 'Constantine the King [Constantine II (r. -)] 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'.  The legend apart, the Stone played an intrinsic role as an object of veneration in the inauguration of Scottish kings such as Lulach (d. ) stepson of Macbeth, who was proclaimed king of Scots on it in , down to  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 . Thus, it became a place of political and religious legitimisation. In  Edward I of England (-) invaded Scotland and took the Stone from Scone to Westminster.  This marked the beginning of the Stone's Scotland, Monograph series, , Edinburgh, ); and http://www.westminster-abbey.org last accessed  November .  Exodus : - (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 : - (KJV). 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 .  For 'James … came to Perth, and shortly after to Scone, where he was crowned king, and his wife Queene'.  Thus, the choice of Scone for the coronation of Charles II in  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  and  plague had been the issue. In , 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 /.  Indeed, even in the modern era, Edward VII's  coronation was delayed because of the monarch's ill health.  In  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  coronation and for the joint coronation of William and Mary in ).  Nevertheless, as with other Stuart coronations, the monarch drove proceedings forward. On  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.  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  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.  By December of  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.'  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,  January , 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.  From the Hall of the Palace he was accompanied in procession towards the Moot Hill Kirk by various noblemen carrying the Scottish regalia.  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'.  Once inside, Charles sat with the 'Honours' laid out on a table beside him,  NRS, GD//, fol.r (William Kerr, third earl of Lothian, Perth, to William Hamilton, second duke of Hamilton,  December ). This was not the end of it, however, as details of further meetings at 'perth [on]  decemb[e]r ' 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. while the coronation sermon was delivered.  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.  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.  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'.  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.  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.  'Special commemorative medals were also handed out to the people awaiting Charles's reappearance following the service.'  The procession was then succeeded by a coronation banquet at Scone Palace. In London, such celebrations would usually take place in Westminster Hall.  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.  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.  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 herethat information is reserved for another articlebut in summary, maintenance payments for the monarch that had been neglected in the instability of - (with regicide and war) were retrospectively collected in , amounting to tens of thousands. When this is considered in relation to the February  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 £, (£, and £, respectively for January and February),  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 £ s. d. on  March / for 'mantenance [costs for the] coronation'.  The Table below shows the sums raised under the  Act for the months March and June  for the King's maintenance in Scotland.
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 -August ) 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.  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 velvethardly, 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'.  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'.  A horse was procured for £, possibly intended for the King himself.  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 / 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  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.  Nevertheless, there was also much that was distinctive.

What was Unusual?
As already outlined above, there were many traditional elements to the  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.  In the kirk on the famous Mount, Charles II was crowned king of not just Scotland, but England, France and Ireland as well.  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 Regalis  of Westminster Abbey services (the traditional right of order of c.). 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 againit 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.  Likewise, there would be no Eucharist, although of course this would also be the case for James II in  and indeed the whole question of precisely what had been done for Elizabeth I remains unclear.  In contrast to previous English and Scottish coronations, Charles was not crowned by a cleric: John Campbell, first earl of Loudoun (-), Lord Chancellor of Scotland, offered Charles the crown and Archibald Campbell, marquess of Argyll (/-), placed the 'symbol of Scottish majesty, heavy with pearls, on his monarch's head'. They were assisted by Alexander Montgomery, sixth earl of Eglinton (-), John Leslie, duke of Rothes (c.-) who 'carried the sword of state', and John Lindsay, seventeenth earl of Crawford and firs t earl of Lindsay who carried the sceptre (-).   Douglas, The Form and Order, pp. -.  The manuscript Liber Regalis (MS ) (Latin composition) of c.. 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 (), 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. The lack of anointing and clerical crowning are very significant differences to traditional British coronations and were clear concessions to the Covenanting cause.  Those such as Lee have therefore argued that the lack of anointing diminished the coronation in terms of its religious status.  Yet one cannot have it both waysif 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.  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 , 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 .
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,  one of the central criticisms being that it was extremely long and protracted at 'one hour in length'.  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.  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.  Referring to  Kings , verse , 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. 

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  December , the Scottish Parliament ordered a new privy seal reiterating for official documentation their initial  proclamation for the young king.  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  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.  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 Cromwellhe was therefore ritually enabled to carry out a traditional rite of progress, befitting the true status of a crowned sovereign.  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'.  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.  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'.  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.  Charles II's coronation coin was not only a symbolic token of resistance or bold dissentthe young sovereign laying down a gauntlet to the Commonwealthbut 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  in Aberdeen, including significantly, important images of the young sovereign in some versions, and they would indeed be reprinted in  in London, and in  (and remained of interest long beyond that, receiving a further reprint in Aberdeen and Edinburgh in ).  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 ( September ) and Charles forced to escape (ignominiouslyalthough 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  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 Scotlandfor Charles was not crowned by a bishop or in a Church of England ceremony. Yes, there were many traditional elements, but  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] . . 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.  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.  Episcopacy was therefore also entirely absent from the ceremonythere 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 Regalissee 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 , 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 , an act ratified in the Scottish parliament on  July .  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.  For all of the later Restoration efforts, it would be impossible to put the presbyterian genie back in the bottleand 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. 

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  coronation did not constitute something less significant or important in terms of a crowning occasion, but rather a ceremony adapted to meet the