Could King Charles' coronation be 'invalid' because of something he did 27 years ago?

A royal author floated a fascinating theory that King Charles' coronation could spark a constitutional crisis because of something he did almost three decades ago.

The claim was made by Anthony Holden - an author who has written a biography of the King - in a letter sent to The Guardian.

He argued that any coronation would be invalid because King Charles is a confessed adulterer and divorcee. He officially ended his marriage with Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1996.

Holden wrote: "The Church of England has never crowned a divorced man as King, let alone one who has publicly confessed to adultery – with the relevant woman expecting to be crowned Queen Consort.

"The late Robert Runcie (the former Archbishop of Canterbury) told me this would require a revision of the coronation oath, which would require a new statute of Parliament.

"Given the convention that Parliament does not debate the monarchy without the monarch's consent, this would require the Prime Minister to seek King Charles's permission. This, Runcie told me, would amount to a constitutional crisis."

Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

But two figures told Mail Online that his fears were likely unfounded.

Sir Vernon Bogdanor, from King's College London, pointed out that Charles and Camilla's marriage was officiated by Archbishop Rowan Williams.

"This surely overrides anything Robert Runcie may or may not have said."

Royal biographer Hugo Vickers claimed Holden has a grudge against the King and that "times move on".

Meanwhile barrister Geoffrey Robertson KC described the coronation as "a legal irrelevance" which is a "silly and superstitious Church of England ritual".

Seems like the king needn't sweat it.

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.