Fix

Fix (pronounced fiks)

(1) To repair or mend; to rectify a fault.

(2) To put in order or in good condition; to adjust or arrange.

(3) To make fast, firm, or stable; to place definitely and permanently.

(4) To settle definitely; to determine (place, value etc); to make rigid; to mount or secure in place.

(5) To direct (the eyes, one’s attention, one’s gaze etc) steadily; To attract and hold (the eye, one’s attention, one’s gaze etc).

(6) To put into permanent form.

(7) To put or place the responsibility or blame for something upon a person or institution.

(8) To assign or refer to a definite place, time, event etc.

(9) To provide or supply with something needed or wanted, especially popular in narcotics transactions; the quantity supplied in that transaction; to inject oneself with a narcotic.

(10) In informal us, to arrange or influence the outcome or action of, especially privately or dishonestly (juries, sporting events, stock prices etc).

(11) To prepare a meal, snack, drink etc.

(12) In informal use, to put in a condition or position to make no further trouble.

(13) In informal use, to get even with; to visit vengeance upon (often as “fix right up).

(14) In informal use, to castrate an animal (used usually of domestic pets).

(15) In slang, to prepare or plan (followed usually by an infinitive as in “fixing to go”, (mostly US, south of the Mason-Dixon Line).

(16) In informal use, a position from which it is difficult to escape; a dilemma; a predicament (typically “in a fix”).

(17) In informal use, a repair, adjustment, or solution, usually of an immediate nature (sometimes in the form “quick & dirty fix”, expressed also in IT as “a Q&D”).

(18) In navigation, a charted position of a vessel or aircraft, determined by two or more bearings taken on landmarks, GPS location, stars etc.

(19) In navigation, the determining of the position of a ship, plane etc, by mathematical, electronic, or other means.

(20) A clear determination (often as “get a fix on”).

(21) A compulsively sought dose or infusion of something (such as “one’s morning caffeine fix”).

(22) In slang, a euphemism for the state of pregnancy (such as “she’s fixed-up”).

(23) In chemistry, to make stable in consistency or condition; reduce from fluidity or volatility to a more stable state.

(24) In photography, to render (an image) permanent by removing light-sensitive silver halides; in digital imaging, any form or correction.

(25) In microscopy, to kill, make rigid, and preserve for microscopic study.

(26) In cytology to kill, preserve, and harden tissue, cells etc for subsequent microscopic study.

(27) In industrial production, to convert atmospheric nitrogen into nitrogen compounds, as in the manufacture of fertilizers or the action of bacteria in the soil.

(28) In biology, to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially carbohydrates, as occurs in photosynthesis in plants and some microorganisms.

(29) In foreign exchange (forex) trading, a benchmark exchange rate used to settle or fix the value of certain financial instruments or transactions.

1350–1400: From the Middle English fixen, from the Middle French fixer or the Medieval Latin fixāre, from the Latin fixus (fixed), past participle of fīgere (to fasten).  The sense of “to repair” may first have been used in the US in the eighteenth century but the first recorded used in England was in the early 1800s although, in the way of such things, it’s likely already to have been in oral use for some time.  The use to mean “to prepare” to plan ” is a uniquely American use, now heard mostly south of the Mason-Dixon Line (“feel like I’m fixing to die” etc) although linguistic anthropologists note that until the mid twentieth century was a common form throughout the US eastern seaboard states.  Forms (sometimes hyphenated) like overfix, defix & refix are created as required and fixt (an archaic form of fixed) is still sometimes used in SMS messaging, advertising etc.  Fix & fixer are nouns & verbs, fixed, fixated & fixing are verbs, fixable is an adjective, fixative is a noun & adjective and fixability, fixer, fixator & fixation are nouns; the noun plural is fixes.

Depending on the context the synonyms can include dilemma, plight, quandary, mess, install, secure, set, settle, stabilize, define, establish, limit, resolve, solve, specify, work out, adjust, correct, overhaul, patch, rebuild, regulate, amend, fasten, stabilize.  In idiomatic use the word often appears.  To “fix someone right up” means to visit vengeance upon them (including killing them, sometime on behalf of others).  A “fix up” can mean (1) wrongly to implicate someone in a crime or other wrong-doing, (2) corruptly to interfere with a jury, the outcome of a sporting event, the operation of a market, the level of an interest-rate etc.  “Been fixed up” can refer to a young lady with child (in or out of wedlock), often with the implication the state may be unplanned or undesired.  To say “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” is cautionary advice hinting that if something functionally fulfils its purpose, attempting to improve it may make things worse.  To be in a fix (often as “a bit of a fix”) is to find one’s self in a position from which it is difficult to escape; a dilemma; a predicament.  For someone to be “a fixture” is to be seemingly a permanent part of something (a squad, a sporting team etc); it’s used also of institutions.  The “fixer-upper” is something (typically a house or car) in dilapidated condition but usually still in a fit state to inhabit, drive etc so thus suitable for those able to make their own repairs.

Finger fix: In October 2016, during an Aegean cruise, Lindsay Lohan suffered a finger injury.  In this nautical incident, the tip of one digit was severed by the boat's anchor chain but details of the circumstances are sketchy.  It may be that upon hearing the captain give the command “weigh anchor”, she decided to help but, lacking any background in admiralty terms and phrases, misunderstood the instruction.  The detached piece was salvaged from the deck and soon re-attached by a micro-surgeon ashore.  Digit and the rest of the patient apparently made a full recovery and despite the gruesome injury Ms Lohan later managed to find husband and recently announced she’s “fixed up” in the sense of being with child so all’s well that ends well.

The human race has a long tradition of fixing broken stuff but in the twentieth century manufacturers devoted much attention to try to dissuade consumers from fixing things, preferring instead they purchase a new one.  The origins of this were identified by historians in the inter-war years (1918-1939) but the economic conditions of the 1930s limited the effects and it was in the long economic boom of the post-war years that the trend developed in conjunction with the concept of “planned obsolescence”, the beginnings of an era in which it became typically less expensive to replace a broken something than have it fixed, a phenomenon influenced by factors such as increasing unit labor costs, the substitution of parts made from metal, wood, leather etc with plastics and designs deliberately intended to make fixes difficult to effect.  In recent years, particularly in the field of consumer electronics, the tricks have included “sealing for life” (said to be a water-proofing measure) and the use of screws or other fasteners which can be opened only with a special tool (either unavailable to the public or sold as a prohibitively expensive part-number).  One interesting reaction to this has been the “right to repair” movement, an on-line cooperative community which publishes manuals, repair guides and tricks & tips for those who wish to fix.

Fluctuations: Eurodollar LIBOR rates 1 July 1989-28 April 2023 (chart by FedPrimeRate.com). The LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) is the average interest rate at which (a basket of major) banks borrow funds from other banks in the London market (as defined).  Globally, the daily LIBOR fix is a widely used benchmark (or reference) rate for short term interest rates.

In foreign exchange (forex) trading, the term “a fix” most often used to refer to a benchmark exchange rate used to settle (or fix) the value of certain financial instruments or transactions and it’s commonly heard in the context of determining the daily or hourly exchange rates for major currency pairs.  The rate is used as a standard for settling various transactions, such as corporate hedging, portfolio valuation, or derivatives contracts and there are also interest-rate fixes such as the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) which gained infamy following revelations of the insider-trading some used to manipulate to point at which it was fixed.  Reflecting the city’s history as a financial centre, the “London 4 pm fix” (known also as the “WM/Reuters” or “London” fix) is probably still the best-known daily fix; used as a benchmark against which many forex-related instruments are valued, it’s calculated from the aggregate of physical trades executed during a specific time-window and, as the name implies, that’s usually some defined period either side of 16:00 London time.  As a general principle fixes are set by aggregating and averaging the transactional traffic generated by major banks and financial institutions which, in theory, should ensure a fair and transparent process but there have been instances of malpractice (of which the one associated with the LIBOR was merely the most publicized) which have seen fines imposed and regulatory scrutiny increased.  The principle of the fix as used in forex markets is typical but in other areas of finance, the mechanisms can differ.

The colonial fix

The term “colonial fix” is used to describe the various trick and techniques the European colonial powers used to maintain and extend control in their empires, all of which, sometimes for centuries, used a relative handful of personnel to rule over millions and the best remembered are those practiced under the Raj.  Raj refers to British rule in India prior to 1947 (historians debate just when it can be said to have begun because the project predated the legal construct which formalized things in 1858-1859 although some, for convenience, have applied it to the whole empire.  Raj was a proprialisation of the Hindi noun raj (reign, rule), from the Hindustani राज & راج‎ (rāj), (reign, rule; empire, kingdom; country, state; royalty), from the Pali & Prakrit rajja, from the Sanskrit राज्य (rājyá) (empire, kingdom, realm; kingship, royalty, sovereignty; country), from rājati (he rules), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European h₃reǵ- (to right or straighten oneself; to govern, rule; just; right (with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line” and thus “to lead, to rule”)), source also of the German Reich.

A classic colonial fix was the Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturaga) in Fiji which the British administrators created in 1878.  While it's true that prior to European contact, there had been meetings between tribal chiefs (turaga) to settle disputes and for other purposes, all the evidence suggests they were ad-hoc appointments with little of the formality, pomp and circumstance the British introduced.  Still, it was a successful institution which the chiefs embraced, apparently with some enthusiasm because the cloaks and other accoutrements they adopted for the occasion became increasingly elaborate and it was a generally harmonious form of indigenous governance which enabled the British to conduct matters of administration and policy-making almost exclusively through the chiefs.  The council survived even after Fiji gained independence from Britain in 1970 until it was in 2012 abolished by the military government of Commodore Frank Bainimarama (b 1954; prime minister of Fiji 2007-2022), as part of reform programme said to be an attempt to reduce ethnic divisions and promote a unified national identity.  The commodore's political future would be more assured had he learned lessons from the Raj.

Colonial fixes took many forms, all designed to “fix” some tiresome local problem but they really can be reduced to two themes: (1) In any dispute between factions/tribes/families etc in the local population, always back the weakest, politically and militarily and (2) the most effective and efficient method of control is to align with a recognized and accepted local elite and strengthen their authority and status (knighthoods, visits to London to meet the queen, their own Rolls-Royce etc).  The idea of the colonial fix comes to mind when watching the squabble going on in Australia about the creation of a “Voice”, a institution of some kind (the structure uncertain, the details unclear) which would provide representatives (elected somehow, the details unclear) of the indigenous peoples of the continent (First Nations) now the preferred term) with a mechanism whereby they can make submissions to both the national parliament and executive government (where that begins and ends undefined, the details unclear) about matters which in any way involve or affect indigenous peoples (which is presumably everything, the details are unclear).  There will be a national referendum on the Voice late in 2023, required because of the desire to include the institution in the constitution.  That’s the only way to amend the constitution and the success rate of such referenda is low, only 8 of the 44 submitted gaining the necessary “double majority” of an absolute majority of “yes” votes nationally and a majority in each of the six states.  Because of the distribution of population, it’s possible to succeed in one but not the other in which case the proposal is rejected.  If the details of what’s proposed remain unclear, it’s possible still to predict the likely form a Voice will assume.

In the abstract it’ll be something like feminism in that most of the benefits will accrue to a small, urban, educated elite.  In the same way most female CEOs don’t give a lot of thought (or a pay rise) to the working-class women who serve their coffee and empty their trash bins compared with their efforts to secure quotas for women to be appointed to corporate boards, be given winnable seats in legislatures or seats in cabinet, those who serve on the voice will be most interested in cementing their own power and status and the most disadvantaged among the indigenous can expect little.  The phrase “First Nations” at least partly explains the dynamics of this because viewed from the comfort of the Voice, they’ll appear as inconveniently disparate as Karl Marx (1818-1883) found peasants who he compared to a sack of potatoes: “all the same, yet all different”.  Although the word is no longer fashionable (and is probably proscribed), the structure of the First Nations remains that of competing tribes with interests and priorities which sometimes conflict with others and the Voice cannot simultaneously advocate for both.  At that point, the government will back the weakest.  Practically, it will be a bureaucracy which the government will be sure richly to endow with the trappings of office (big cars, fancy titles, much business class travel and a dutiful secretariat which will produce mountains of reports few will read and those who do will ignore).

Quite why there’s such agitation in certain right-wing circles against the Voice is curious because the very existence of the body seems likely only to be one of their assets.  Although some are cautious, the constitutional lawyers have taken the view that there’s nothing in the amendment which would require a parliament or government to act upon the submissions a Voice might make, it saying only that the right to make them exists; they need to be heard and can be acted upon or ignored on a case-by-case basis.  Nor does there seem great potential that the Voice could seek judicial review if their proposals are declined although presumably the possibility does exist if a case can be made that the Voice is not even being listened to.  The concern about appeals to the courts was based on an earlier period in the life of the High Court of Australia (HCA; the nation’s final court of appeal which might in matters involving the relationship between the voice and the parliament & government be a court of first instance) when some judges were inclined to find that although some concepts weren’t written in the constitution, there was a construction under which they could be said to be “implied” and the court could thus proceed as if they were ink on paper.  That moment of judicial activism seems now to have passed although, even if it reappears, it would be quite a leap for a court to find a parliament or government is compelled to adopt a recommendation of an advisory body.  At the most, they would probably require a process which indicates the matter has been duly considered.  For the right-wing fanatics, the run-up to the vote has actually started well.  Already there’s dissention among the self-appointed elite of the First Nations, the view of the dominant faction being there’s only one permissible view and anyone who dares to express another view must be put down.  Politically that makes sense but it’d be better done behind closed doors.  Hopefully, the referendum will pass with a substantial majority so political junkies can enjoy watching the shark-feeding which will follow.  Unfortunately for the most disadvantaged of the indigenous peoples, the latest generations of those who have been marginalized and appallingly treated since white settlement, they can expect that a decade hence, things are likely to be much the same.  Still for those who can hop aboard the Voice gravy train, there’ll be expense accounts, five-star hotels and celebrity status when addressing the United Nations (UN) General Assembly so there’s that.

Dominion

Dominion (pronounced duh-min-yon)

(1) The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

(2) Rule; control; domination; predominance; ascendancy.

(3) A territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single ruler-ship holds sway (used sometimes figuratively).

(4) Lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

(5) In political science, a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire.  Formerly applied to self-governing former colonies of the British Empire; Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and later, others.

(6) In law, a rare (probably archaic) alternative spelling of dominium.

(7) In taxonomy, kingdom.

(8) A specialized classification in theology; in biblical scholarship, an order of angel in Christian angelology, ranked above virtues and below thrones.

Mid 1400s: From the Middle English dominion (lordship, sovereign or supreme authority), from the Middle & Old French dominion (rule, power), from the Medieval Latin dominionem (nominative dominio) or dominium (lordship, right of ownership), from dominus (lord, master), corresponding to dominium (property, ownership) from domus (house) from the primitive Indo-European root dem (house, household).  The meaning "territory or people subject to a specific government” dates from the 1510s, the specific legal meaning at law “power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal" was codified by the 1650s.  In law, dominion was used from the 1510s to refer to (a territory or people subject to a specific government or control) and in the law of real property, from the 1650s assumed the meaning "power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal".

British sovereign colonies often were called dominions, hence the Dominion of Canada, the formal title after the 1867 union, Dominion Day, the Canadian national holiday in celebration of the union, and “Old Dominion”, the popular name for the US state of Virginia, first recorded 1778.  Dominions are best remembered as the quasi-independent nations under the British Crown, constituting the part of the British Empire best remembered as “the white dominions” or, later, “the white commonwealth”.  Canada was the first, declared in 1867 and Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa followed.  Later additions included the Irish Free State and the states of the old Raj, India, East and West Pakistan, and Ceylon.  The Balfour (Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour), 1848–1930, UK prime-minister 1902-1905; Lord President of the Council 1925-1929) Declaration of 1926 recognized the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be "...autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." and the Statute of Westminster (1931), in what was the first general enactment for the constitution of the British Empire since Lord North's (later Lord Guilford, 1732–1792; GB prime-minister 1770-1782) regulating act of 1778, granted them what was close to legislative independence.

The word dominion was earlier used to refer to a geographically-defined political entity without legal status mentioned above.  Wales was thus described between 1535-1801 and New England between 1686-1689.  It was also the popular name for the US state of Virginia, the use first recorded in 1778.  While never bothering fully to define the status, the covenant of the League of Nations made provision for the admission of any “fully self-governing state, Dominion, or Colony”, the implication being that Dominion status was something between that of a colony and a state.  That certainly reflected British Empire practice.

Flag of Canada, adopted 1965.

Canada, officially still uses the title though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created such a dominion by passing into law the British North America Act which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.  It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next major event in 1982 when the structurally significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).

Canada, officially still uses the title “Dominion of Canada”, though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created the dominion by passing into law the British North America Act (1967) which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.

It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next structural event in 1982 when the significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).  In this context the difference between "patriation" & “repatriation” was merely political, lawyers agreeing there was no technical point to be argued but as a symbolic gesture, it appealed to politicians who wished to make the point that the Canadian constitution was, for the first time, fully to be in Canadian hands.  Prior to the 1982 act, the process to amend the constitution required the parliament in Ottawa to request the parliament in Westminster to give effect to the change; the United Kingdom assembly thus still functioning as an imperial parliament.  This was the arrangement which prevailed upon the granting of dominion statue in 1867 and while the 1931 Statute of Westminster (limiting the circumstances win which the British Parliament's could legislate for Canada) and the 1949 British North America (No 2) Act (granting the (federal) parliament in Ottawa significant authority to amend the constitution) did render Canada de facto independence, the device of needing to refer major amendments to London remained.

Lindsay Lohan at the Ultra Supper Club, during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), Toronto, Canada, September, 2008.

The retention of this authority in London was not the choice of the colonial oppressors, successive British governments having offered to expedite any (patriative or repatriative as preferred; repatriate from the Latin repatriare, the construct being re- (back, backwards, again) + patria (homeland) and cognate to repair (to return)) request from the Canadian parliament, but rather the inability of the politicians in Ottawa to secure the agreement of the politicians in Quebec City about the exact model of any locally-held authority.  In one of the charming quirks which emerged as the decolonization processes of the twentieth century unfolded, the view, rightly or wrongly, of the French-speaking politicians in Quebec was that the UK politicians would be less likely to make changes disadvantageous to them than would other Canadian politicians.  In the end, despite decades of discussion, debate and dissent, unanimous agreement between the federal and provincial governments proved impossible to secure and it was announced by Ottawa that regardless of that, the request would be made unilaterally to patriate the constitution from Britain.  Several provinces challenged that in the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges (in something of an echo of the prevailing view about the circumstance of the 1975 dismissal of an Australian prime-minister in 1975) ruled that provincial consent was not a legal necessity although “substantial consent” by the provincial assemblies was a longstanding constitutional convention.  As it turned out, with a small legislative tweak, the Canadian prime-minister was able to obtain the agreement of nine of the ten provinces, thereby presumably satisfying both spirit and letter.

In Westminster, a few MPs took advantage of the situation to do a bit of virtue-signaling and generally practice the politics of “warm inner glow” by voting against the Canada Act (1982) claiming to be concerned about Canada’s prior treatment of Quebec and its indigenous peoples.  The UK government however, although concerned about a couple of technical points, quickly passed the act and from that point, Canada became wholly independent, the position of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state an entirely personal relationship with the Canadian government with no connection to the government of the UK.  Presumably to try to show the people of Canada something had happened, the name of the Dominion Day national holiday was changed to Canada Day.

King George V with prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference. Back row: WS Monroe (Newfoundland), JG Coates (New Zealand), SM Bruce (Australia), JBM Hertzog (South Africa) and WT Cosgrave (Irish Free State).  Front row: Stanley Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, Mackenzie King (Canada).

Creating some confusion, which they seem often to have enjoyed, the Colonial Office referred to all the Empire’s possessions as dominions (with a small d) while those with a capital D were the Dominions (at various times Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State) proper.  Thus all Dominions were dominions but not all dominions were Dominions.  How the Foreign Office must have envied the pedantry.  

Dylan Thomas’ poem And Death Shall Have No Dominion recalls Romans 6:9 (King James translation) “death hath no more dominion”.

And death shall have no dominion.
Dead man naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.
 
And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea
They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan't crack;
And death shall have no dominion.
 
And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.

Brand

Brand (pronounced brand)

(1) The kind, grade, or make of a product or service, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or such.

(2) A mark made by burning or otherwise, to indicate kind, grade, make, ownership (of both objects and certain animals) etc.

(3) A mark formerly put upon slaves or criminals, made on the skin with a hot iron.

(4) Any mark of disgrace; stigma.

(5) A kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic.

(6) A set of distinctive characteristics that establish a recognizable image or identity for a person or thing.

(7) A conflagration; a flame.  A burning or partly burned piece of wood (now rare except regionally although the idea of brand as “a flaming torch” still exists as a poetic device).  In the north of England & Scotland, a brand is a torch used for signalling. 

(8) A sword (archaic except as a literary or poetic device).

(9) In botany, a fungal disease of garden plants characterized by brown spots on the leaves, caused by the rust fungus Puccinia arenariae

(10) A male given name (the feminine name Brenda was of Scottish origin and was from the Old Norse brandr (literally “sword” or “torch”).

(11) To label or mark with or as if with a brand.

(12) To mark with disgrace or infamy; to stigmatize.

(13) Indelibly to impress (usually in the form “branded upon one’s mind”)

(14) To give a brand name to (in commerce including the recent “personal brand).

Pre 950: From the Middle English, from the Old English brond & brand (fire, flame, destruction by fire; firebrand, piece of burning wood, torch (and poetically “sword”, “long blade”) from the Old High German brant, the ultimate source the primitive Indo-European bhrenu- (to bubble forth; brew; spew forth; burn).  It was cognate with the Scots brand, the Dutch & German Brand, the Old Norse brandr, the Swedish brand (blaze, fire), the Icelandic brandur and the French brand of Germanic origin.  The Proto-Slavic gorěti (to burn) was a distant relation.  Brand is a noun & verb, brander is a noun, brandless is an adjective, branded is a verb and branding is a noun & verb; the noun plural is brands.  Forms (hyphenated and not) like de-brand, non-brand, mis-brand & re-brand are created as required and unusually for English, the form brander seems never to have been accompanied by the expected companion “brandee”.

Some work tirelessly on their “personal brand”, a term which has proliferated since social media gained critical mass.  Lindsay Lohan’s existence at some point probably transcended the notion of a personal brand and became an institution; the details no longer matter.

The verb brand dates from the turn of the fifteenth century in the sense of “to impress or burn a mark upon with a hot iron, cauterize; stigmatize” and originally described the marks imposed on criminal or cauterized wounds, the used developed from the noun.  The figurative use (often derogatory) of “fix a character of infamy upon” emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, based on the notion of the association with criminality.  The use to refer to a physical branding as a mark of ownership or quality dates from the 1580s and from this developed the familiar modern commercial (including “personal brands”) sense of “brand identity”, “brand recognition”, “brand-name” etc.  Property rights can also attach to brands, the idea of “brand-equity”.

Although it’s unknown just when the term “branding iron” (the (almost always) iron instrument which when heated burned brands into timber, animal hides etc) was first used (it was an ancient device), the earliest known citation dates only from 1828.  The “mark made by a hot iron” was older and in use since at least the 1550s, noted especially of casks and barrels”, the marks indicating variously the maker, the type of contents, the date (of laying down etc) or the claimed quality..  By the early-mid nineteenth century the meaning had broadened to emphasise “a particular make of goods”, divorced from a particular single item and the term “brand-name” appears first to have been used in 1889, something significant in the development of the valuable commodity of “brand-loyalty” although that seems not to have been an acknowledged concept in marketing until 1961.  The idea of “brand new” is based on the (not always accurate) notion a brand was the last thing to be applied to a product before it left the factory.

BMC ADO16 brands, clockwise from top left: Wolseley 1300, Riley Kestrel 1300, MG 1300, Austin 1300 GT, Morris 1100 and Vanden Plas Princess 1300.

The British Motor Corporation's (BMC) ADO16 (Austin Drawing Office design 16) was produced between 1962-1974 and was a great success domestically and in many export markets, more than two million sold in 1.1 & 1.3 litre form.  The Austin & Morris brands made up the bulk of the production but versions by Wolseley, Riley, MG & Vanden Plas versions were at various times available.  All were almost identically mechanically with the brand differentiation restricted to the interior trim and the frontal panels.  This was the high (or low) point of the UK industry's “badge engineering”.  The abbreviation ADO is still sometimes said to stand for “Amalgamated Drawing Office”, a reference to the 1952 creation of BMC when the Austin & Morris design & engineering resources were pooled.  Like many such events subsequently, the amalgamation was more a “takeover” than a “merger” and the adoption of “Austin Drawing Office” reflected the priorities and loyalties of Leonard Lord (later Lord Lambury, 1896–1967), the former chairman of Austin who was appointed to head the conglomerate.  The appearance of “Amalgamated Drawing Office” appears to be a creation of the internet age, the mistake still circulating.

US market 1964 MG Princess 1100 brochure.  The advertising theme may have been ambitious but BMC also described MG's other US market ADO16 (a LHD (left-hand-drive) version of the home market MG 1100) as a "sports sedan" which, although legally "mere puffery", seems at least misleading.

BMC's six-brand spread for ADO16 is well-known and often used as a case-study for the way the approach should and should not be pursued.  A neglected footnote in the multi-brand ADO16’s tale was the MG Princess 1100, sold in the US between 1964-1966.  The MG Princess was the by then familiar Vanden Plas 1100 (all with a manual transmission, no automatic ever offered) modified to the extent of being adorned with an MG badge on the trunk (boot) lid and hubcaps although it must have been though that wasn't getting the message across because in mid-1964 the octagonal symbol was added also to the Vanden Plas grill.  The rationale behind this curious hybrid was the perception the US market would respond well to a “luxury version” of the basic vehicle (and how the US industry would handle that notion in the next two decades proved the idea was sound) but the “Vanden Plas” name was essentially unknown in the US whereas MG had strong “brand recognition” because of the post-war success of first the updated pre-war “square riggers” (the TC, TD & TF (1945-1955)) and the later MGA (1955-1962), Midget (1961-1979) & MGB (1962-1980) sports cars.  Thus the MG Princess 1100 was introduced in February 1964 at the New York Motor Show but while the sports cars enjoyed strong demand, BMC shifted a paltry 156 of the MG Princess and in 1966 the model was withdrawn from the US market.  As the Austin America, the ADO16 would later be sold in the US between 1968-1972; it was not a great success.

Since the beginnings of mass-production made possible by powered industrial processes and the ability to distribute manufactured stuff world-wide, brand-names have become (1) more prevalent and (2) not of necessity as distinctive as once they were.  Historically, in commerce, a brand was an indication of something unique but as corporations became conglomerates they tended to accumulate brands (sometimes with no other purpose than ceasing production in order to eliminate competition) and over time, it was often tempting to reduce costs by ceasing separate development and simply applying a brand to an existing line, hoping the brand loyalty would be sufficient to overlook the cynicism.  The British car manufactures in the 1950s use the idea to maintain brand presence without the expense of developing unique products and while originally some brand identity was maintained with the use of unique mechanical components or coachwork while using a common platform, by the late 1960s the system had descended to what came to be called “badge engineering”, essentially identical products sold under various brand-names, the differences restricted to minor variations in trim and, of course, the badge.

Grounds of the Mercedes-Benz factory decorated in honor of a visit to Stuttgart by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), the display visible from his aircraft (1936, top left), a Mercedes-Benz showroom in Munich, Lenbachplaz (1935, top right) and 1938 Mercedes-Benz W125 Rekordwagen (bottom).  Although, tucked away in a corner of the corporate website there is a single page which contains a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of company’s complicity in some of the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime between 1933-1939 there’s little attempt to discuss the matter, an understandable reticence and quite a gap in the otherwise extensively documented history which dates back to 1886 with the debut of what is claimed to be the world’s “first automobile”.  Brand-management can be as much about what is left unsaid or hidden as what is projected. 

When used in events other straight-line speed record attempts (ie where corners needed to be negotiated) the streamlined version of the W125 Formel-Rennwagen (race car built in accord with defined rules) didn’t use the spats (fender-skirts) covering the wheels.  It was used thus on Berlin’s high-speed Avusrennen with its two, uniquely long straights and differed from the conventional W125 in that it was powered by V12 engine rather than the usual big-bore straight-eight, the lower hood (bonnet) line further reducing drag.  Fitted with the spats, W125 Rekordwagen (record car) was used in 1938 to achieve a speed of 432.7 km/h (269 mph) over the flying kilometre, then the fastest timed speed achieved on a public road and a record which stood until 2017.  It’s now on display in the Mercedes-Benz Museum in Stuttgart, although, the swastika with which it was once adorned has been removed from the aluminum skin (displays of the swastika banned in Germany except as authorized).

Australia Day vs Invasion Day: The case for a re-brand

Although it came to be known as “Australia’s national day” and in some form or other had been celebrated or at last marked since the early nineteenth century, as a large-scale celebration (with much flag waving) it has been a thing only since the 1988 bi-centennial of white settlement.  What the day commemorated was the arrival in 1788 in what is now Sydney of the so-called “First Fleet” of British settlers, the raising of the Union Flag the first event of legal significance in what ultimately became the claiming of the continental land-mass by the British crown.  Had that land been uninhabited, things good and bad would anyway have happened but in 1788, what became the Commonwealth of Australia was home to the descendants of peoples who had been in continuous occupation sine first arriving up to 50,000 years earlier (claims the history extends a further 10,000 remain unsupported by archaeological evidence); conflict was inevitable and conflict there was, the colonial project a violent and bloody business, something the contemporary records make clear was well understood at the time but which really entered modern consciousness only in recent decades.

What the colonial authorities did was invoke the legal principle of terra nullius (from the Latin terra nūllīus (literally “nobody's land”)) which does not mean “land inhabited by nobody” but “land not owned by anyone”.  The rational for that was the view the local population had no concept of land “ownership” and certainly no “records” or “title deeds” as they would be understood in English law.  Given that, not only did the various tribes not own the land but they had no system under which they could own land; thus the place could be declared terra nullis.  Of late, some have devoted much energy to justifying all that on the basis of “prevailing standards” and “accepted law” but even at the time there were those in London who were appalled at what was clearly theft on a grand scale, understanding that even if the indigenous population didn’t understand their connection to the land and seas as “ownership” as the concept was understood in the West, what was undeniable by the 1830s when the doctrine of terra nullius was formally interpolated into colonial law was that those tribes understood what “belonged” to them and what “belonged” to other tribes.  That’s not to suggest it was a wholly peaceful culture, just that borders existed and were understood, even if sometimes transgressed.  Thus the notion that 26 January should better be understood as “Invasion Day” and what is more appropriate than a celebration of a blood-soaked expropriation of a continent is there should be a treaty between the colonial power (and few doubt that is now the Australian government) and the descendants of the conquered tribes, now classified as “first nations”.  Although the High Court of Australia in 1992 overturned the doctrine of terra nullius when it was recognized that in certain circumstances the indigenous peoples could enjoy concurrent property rights to land with which they could demonstrate a continuing connection, this did not dilute national sovereignty nor in any way construct the legal framework for a treaty (or treaties).

The recognition that white settlement was an inherently racist project based on theft is said by some to be a recent revelation but there are documents of the colonial era (in Australia and elsewhere in the European colonial empires) which suggest there were many who operated on a “we stole it fair and square” basis and many at the time probably would not have demurred from the view 26 January 1788 was “Invasion Day” and that while it took a long time, ultimately that invasion succeeded.  Of course, elsewhere in the British Empire, other invasions also proved (militarily) successful but usually these conflicts culminated in a treaty, however imperfect may have the process and certainly the consequences.  In Australia, it does seem there is now a recognition that wrong was done and a treaty is the way to offer redress.  That of course is a challenging path because, (1) as the term “first nations” implies, there may need to be dozens (or even hundreds according to the count of some anthropologists) of treaties and (2) the result will need to preserve the indivisible sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, something which will be unpalatable to the most uncompromising of the activists because it means that whatever the outcome, it will still be mapped onto the colonial model.

As the recent, decisive defeat of a referendum (which would have created an constitutionally entrenched Indigenous advisory body) confirmed, anything involving these matters is contentious and while there are a number of model frameworks which could be the basis for negotiating treaties, the negotiating positions which will emerge as “the problems” are those of the most extreme 1% (or some small number) of activists whose political positions (and often incomes) necessitate an uncompromising stance.  Indeed, whatever the outcome, it’s probably illusory to imagine anything can be solved because there are careers which depend on there being no solution and it’s hard to envisage any government will be prepared to stake scare political capital on a venture which threatens much punishment and promises little reward.  More likely is a strategy of kicking the can down the road while pretending to be making progress; many committees and boards of enquiry are likely to be in our future and, this being a colonial problem, the most likely diversion on that road will be a colonial fix.

One obvious colonial fix would be a double re-branding exercise.  The New Year’s Day public holiday could be shifted from 1 January to December 31 and re-branded “New Year’s Eve Holiday”, about the only practical change being that instead of the drinking starting in the evening it can begin early in the day (which for many it doubtless anyway does).  Australia Day could then be marked on 1 January and could be re-branded to “Constitution Day” although given the history that too might be found objectionable.  Still, the date is appropriate because it was on 1 January 1901 the country and constitution came into existence as a consequence of an act of the Imperial Parliament, subsequently validated by the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (an institution created by the London statute).  It’s the obvious date to choose because that was the point of origin of the sovereign state although in the narrow technical sense, true sovereignty was attained only in steps (such as the Statute of Westminster (1931)), the process not complete until simultaneously both parliaments passed their respective Australia Acts (1986).  The second re-branding would be to call 26 January “Treaty Day” although the actual date is less important than the symbolism of the name and Treaty Day could be nominated as the day on which a treaty between the First Nations and the Commonwealth could be signed.  The trick would be only to name 26 January as the date of the signing, the year a function of whenever the treaty negotiations are complete.  The charm of this approach is the can can be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future.  Any colonial administrator under the Raj would have recognized this fix.

Enthrone

Enthrone (pronounced en-throhn)

(1) To put on the throne in a formal installation ceremony (sometimes called an enthronement) which variously could be synonymous with (or simultaneously performed with) a coronation or other ceremonies of investiture.

(2) Figuratively in this context, to help a candidate to the succession of a monarchy or by extension in any other major organisation (ie the role of “kingmakers”, literal and otherwise).

(3) To invest with sovereign or episcopal authority (ie a legal instrument separate from any ceremony).

(4) To honour or exalt (now rare except in literary or poetic use).

(5) Figuratively, to assign authority to or vest authority in.

Circa 1600: The construct was en- + throne and the original meaning was “to place on a throne, exalt to the seat of royalty”.  For this purpose it replaced the late fourteenth century enthronize, from the thirteenth century Old French introniser, from the Late Latin inthronizare, from Greek the enthronizein.  In the late fourteenth century the verb throne (directly from the noun) was used in the same sense.  Throne (the chair or seat occupied by a sovereign, bishop or other exalted personage on ceremonial occasions) dates from the late twelfth century and was from the Middle English trone, from the Old French trone, from the Latin thronus, from the Ancient Greek θρόνος (thrónos) (chair, high-set seat, throne).  It replaced the earlier Middle English seld (seat, throne).  In facetious use, as early as the 1920s, throne could mean “a toilet” (used usually in the phrase “on the throne”) and in theology had the special use (in the plural and capitalized) describing the third (a member of an order of angels ranked above dominions and below cherubim) of the nine orders into which the angels traditionally were divided in medieval angelology.  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- (en-, in-), from the Old French en- (also an-), from the Latin in- (in, into).  It was also an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin & Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- was due to confluence with Frankish intensive prefix an- which was related to the Old English intensive prefix -on.  It formed a transitive verb whose meaning is to make the attached adjective (1) in, into, (2) on, onto or (3) covered.  It was used also to denote “caused” or as an intensifier.  The prefix em- was (and still is) used before certain consonants, notably the labials b and p.  Enthrone, dethrone, enthronest & enthronize are verbs, enthronementm, enthronization & enthroner are nouns, enthroning is a noun & verb, enthroned is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is enthronements.  The noun enthronable is non-standard.  The derived forms include the verb unenthrone, reenthrone & disenthrone and although there have been many enthroners, the form enthronee has never existed.

Alhaji Ibrahim Wogorie (b 1967) being enskinned as North Sisala community chief, Ghana, July 2023.

In colonial-era West Africa the coined forms were “enskin” (thus enskinment, enskinning, enskinned) and “enstool” (thus enstoolment, enstooling, enstooled).  These words were used to refer to the ceremonies in which a tribal chief was installed in his role; the meanings thus essentially the same as enjoyed in the West by “enthrone”.  The constructs reflected a mix of indigenous political culture and English morphological adaptation during the colonial period, the elements explained by (1) the animal skins (the distinctive cheetah often mentioned in the reports of contemporary anthropologists although in some Islamic and Sahelian-influenced chieftaincies (including the Dagomba, Mamprusi, Hausa emirates), a cow or lion skin often was the symbol of authority) which often surrounded the new chief and (2) the tradition in Africa of a chief sitting on a stool.  Sometimes, the unfortunate animal’s skin would be laid over the stool (and almost always, one seems to have been laid at the chief’s feet) but in some traditions (notably in northern Ghana and parts of Nigeria) it was a mark of honor for the chief to sit on a skin spread on the ground.

Dr Mahamudu Bawumia (b 1963), enstooled as Nana Ntentankesehene (Chief of the Internet/Web), Ghana, August 2024.  Note the cheetah skin used to trim the chair.

The stool was the central symbol of chieftaincy and kingship among Akan-speaking peoples (still in present-day Ghana where “to enskin” is used generally to mean “to install as a leader of a group” and the constitution (1992) explicitly protects the institution of chieftaincy and judicial decisions routinely use “enstool” or “enskin” (depending on region)).  In Akan political culture, the most famous use was the Sika Dwa Kofi (the Golden Stool) of the Asante and it represented the embodiment of the polity and ancestors, not merely a seat (used rather like the synecdoches “the Pentagon” (for the US Department of Defense (which appears now to be headed by a cabinet office who simultaneously is both Secretary of Defense & Secretary of War)) or “Downing Street” (for the UK prime-minister or the government generally).  Thus, to be “enstooled” is ritually to be placed into office as chief, inheriting the authority vested in the stool.  Enskin & enstool (both of which seem first to have appeared in the records of the Colonial Office in the 1880s and thus were products of the consolidation of British indirect rule in West Africa, rather than being survivals from earlier missionary English which also coined its own terms) were examples of semantic calquing (the English vocabulary reshaped to encode indigenous concepts) and, as it was under the Raj in India, it was practical administrative pragmatism, colonial officials needing precise (and standardized) terms that distinguished between different systems of authority.  In truth, they were also often part of classic colonial “fixes” in which the British would take existing ceremonies and add layers of ritual to afforce the idea of a chief as “their ruler” and within a couple of generations, sometimes the local population would talk of the newly elaborate ceremony as something dating back centuries; the “fix” was a form of constructed double-legitimization.

A classic colonial fix was the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) in Fiji which the British administrators created in 1878.  While it's true that prior to European contact, there had been meetings between turaga (tribal chiefs) to settle disputes and for other purposes, all the evidence suggests they were ad-hoc appointments with little of the formality, pomp and circumstance the British introduced.  Still, it was a successful institution which the chiefs embraced, apparently with some enthusiasm because the cloaks and other accoutrements they adopted for the occasion became increasingly elaborate and it was a generally harmonious form of indigenous governance which enabled the British to conduct matters of administration and policy-making almost exclusively through the chiefs.  The council survived even after Fiji gained independence from Britain in 1970 until it was in 2012 abolished by the military government of Commodore Frank Bainimarama (b 1954; prime minister of Fiji 2007-2022), as part of reform programme said to be an attempt to reduce ethnic divisions and promote a unified national identity.  The commodore's political future would be more assured had he learned lessons from the Raj.

There was of course an element of racial hierarchy in all this and “enskin” & “enstool” denoted a “tribal chief” under British rule whereas “enthrone” might have been thought to imply some form of sovereignty because that was the linkage in Europe and that would never do.  What the colonial authorities wanted was to maintain the idea of “the stool” as a corporate symbol, the office the repository of the authority, not the individual.  The danger with using a term like “enthronement” was the population might be infected by the European notion of monarchy as a hereditary kingship with personal sovereignty; what the Europeans wanted was “a stool” and they would decide who would be enstooled, destooled or restooled. 

Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Moses Mabhida Stadium, Durban, South Africa, October 2022.

English words and their connotations did continue to matter in the post-colonial world because although the colonizers might have departed, often the legacy of language remained, sometimes as an “official” language of government and administration.  In the 1990s, the office of South Africa’s Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi (1928–2023) sent a series of letters to the world’s media outlets advising he should be styled as “Prince” and not “Chief”, on the basis of being the grandson of one Zulu king and the nephew of another.  The Zulus were once described as a “tribe” and while that reflected the use in ethnography, the appeal in the West was really that it represented a rung on the racist hierarchy of civilization, the preferred model being: white people have nations or states, Africans cluster in tribes or clans.  The colonial administrators recognized these groups had leaders and typically they used the style “chief” (from the Middle English cheef & chef, from the Old French chef & chief (leader), from the Vulgar Latin capus, from the Classical Latin caput (head), from the Proto-Italic kaput, from the primitive Indo-European káput).  As the colonial records make clear, there were “good” chiefs and “troublesome” chiefs, thus the need sometimes to arrange a replacement enstooling.

Unlike in the West where styles of address and orders of precedence were codified (indeed, somewhat fetishized), the traditions in Africa seem to have been more fluid and Mangosuthu Buthelezi didn’t rely on statute or even documented convention when requesting the change.  Instead, he explained “prince” reflected his Zulu royal lineage not only was appropriate (he may have cast an envious eye at the many Nigerian princes) but was also commonly used as his style by South African media, some organs or government and certainly his own Zulu-based political party (IQembu leNkatha yeNkululeko (the IPF; Inkatha Freedom Party).  He had in 1953 assumed the Inkosi (chieftainship) of the Buthelezi clan, something officially recognized four year laters by Pretoria although not until the early 1980s (when it was thought he might be useful as a wedge to drive into the ANC (African National Congress) does the Apartheid-era government seem to have started referring to him as “prince”).  Despite that cynical semi-concession, there was never a formal re-designation.

Enthroned & installed: Lindsay Lohan in acrylic & rhinestone tiara during “prom queen scene” in Mean Girls (2004).

In the matter of prom queens and such, it’s correct to say there has been “an enthronement” because even in the absence of a physical throne (in the sense of “a chair”), the accession is marked by the announcement and the placing of the crown or tiara.  This differs from something like the “enthroning” of a king or queen in the UK because, constitutionally, there is no interregnum, the new assuming the title as the old took their last breath and “enthronement” is a term reserved casually to apply to the coronation.  Since the early twentieth century, the palace and government have contrived to make an elaborate “made for television” ceremony although it has constitutional significance beyond the rituals related to the sovereign’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Dame Sarah Mullally in the regalia of Bishop of London; in January 2026, she will take office as Archbishop of Canterbury, the formal installation in March.  No longer one of the world's more desirable jobs (essentially because it can't be done), all wish her the best of British luck.

In October 2025, the matter of enthronement (or, more correctly, non-enthronement) in the Church of England made a brief splash in some of the less explored corners of social media after it was announced the ceremony marking the accession of the next Archbishop of Canterbury would be conducted in Canterbury Cathedral in March 2026.  The announcement was unexceptional in that it was expected and for centuries Archbishops of Canterbury have come and gone (although the last one was declared gone rather sooner than expected) but what attracted some comment was the new appointee was to be “installed” rather than the once traditional “enthroned”.  The conclusion some drew was this apparent relegation was related to the next archbishop being Dame Sarah Mullally (née Bowser; b 1962) the first woman to hold the once desirable job, the previous 105 prelates having been men, the first, Saint Augustine of Canterbury (circa 630s-circa 604) in 597 (not to be confused with the still influential Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430)).

Despite suspicions the event was in some was being "devalued" because a woman got the job, there is in the church no substantive legal or theological significance in the use of “installed” rather than “enthroned” and the choice reflects modern ecclesiastical practice rather than having any doctrinal or canonical effect.  A person becomes Archbishop of Canterbury through a sequence of juridical acts and these constitute the decisive legal instruments; ceremonial rites have a symbolic value but nothing more, the power of the office vested from the point at which the legal mechanisms have correctly been executed (in that, things align with the procedures used for the nation’s monarchs).  So the difference is one of tone rather than substance and the “modern” church has for decades sought to distance itself from perceptions it may harbor quasi-regal aspirations or the perpetuation of clerical grandeur and separateness.  At least in Lambeth Palace, the preferred model long has been pastoral; most Church of England bishops have for some times been “installed” in their cathedrals (despite “enthronement” surviving in some press reports, a product likely either of nostalgia or “cut & paste journalism”).  That said, some Anglican provinces outside England still “enthrone”, apparently on the basis “it’s always been done that way” rather than the making of a theological or secular point”.

Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of Canterbury's official London residence.

Interestingly, Archbishops of York (“the church in the north”) continued to enjoy ceremonies of enthronement even after those those at Canterbury underwent installations.  Under canon law, the wording literally makes no difference and historians have concluded the retention of the older form is clung to for no reason other than “product differentiation”, York Minster often emphasizing their continuity with medieval ceremonial forms; it’s thus a mere cultural artefact, the two ceremonies performing the same liturgical action: seating the archbishop in the cathedra (the chair (throne) of the archbishop).  Because it’s the Archbishop of Canterbury and not York who sits as the “spiritual head of the worldwide Anglican community”, in York there’s probably no lingering sensitivity to criticism of continuing with “Romish ways”.  It's not that northern noses are less troubled by the “whiff of popery”, it just that few now care.

In an indication of how little the wording matters, it’s not clear who was the last Archbishop of Canterbury who could be said to have been “enthroned” because there was never any differentiation of form in the ceremonies and the documents suggest the terms were used casually and even interchangeably.  What can be said is that Geoffrey Fisher (1887–1972; AoC-99: 1945-1961) was installed at a ceremony widely described (in the official programme, ecclesiastical commentaries and other church & secular publications) as an “enthronement” and that was the term used in the government Gazette; that’s as official an endorsement of the term as seems possible because, being an established church, bishops are appointed by the Crown on the advice of the prime minister although the procedure has long (and formalized in 2007) been a “legal fiction” because the church’s CNC (Crown Nominations Commission) sends the names to the prime minister who acts as a “postbox”, forwarding them to the palace for the issuing of letters patent confirming the appointment.  When Michael Ramsey (1904–1988; AoC-100: 1961-1974), was appointed, although the term “enthrone” did appear in press reports, the church’s documents almost wholly seem to have used “install” and since then, in Canterbury, it’s been installations all the way.

Pope Pius XII in triple tiara at his coronation, The Vatican, March, 1939.

So, by the early 1960s the church was responding, if cautiously, to the growing anti-monarchical sentiment in post-war ecclesiology although this does seem to have been a sentiment of greater moment to intellectuals and theologians than parishioners.  About these matters there was however a kind of ecumenical sensitivity emerging and the conciliar theology later was crystallised (if not exactly codified) in the papers of Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965, published 1970).  The comparison with the practice in Rome is interesting because there are more similarities than differences although that is obscured by words like “enthronement” and “coronation” being seemingly embedded in the popular (and journalistic) imagination. That’s perhaps understandable because for two millennia as many as 275 popes (officially the count is 267 but it’s not certain how many there have been because there have been “anti-popes” and allegedly even one woman (although that’s now largely discounted)) have sat “on the throne of Saint Peter” (retrospectively the first pope) so the tradition is long.  In Roman Catholic canon law, “enthronement” is not a juridical term; the universal term is capio sedem (taking possession of the cathedral (ie “installation”)) and, as in England, an appointment is formalized once the legal instruments are complete, the subsequent ceremony, while an important part of the institution’s mystique, exists for the same reason as it does for the Church of England or the House of Windsor: it’s the circuses part of panem et circenses (bread and circuses).  Unlike popes who once had coronations, archbishops of Canterbury never did because they made no claim to temporal sovereignty.

Pope Paul VI in triple tiara at his coronation, The Vatican, June. 1963.  It was the last papal coronation.

So, technically, modern popes are “installed as Bishop of Rome” and in recent decades the Holy See has adjusted the use of accoutrements to dispel any implication of an “enthronement”, the last papal coronation at which a pope was crowned with the triple tiara was that of Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) but in “an act of humility” he removed it, placing it on the on the alter where (figuratively), it has since sat.  Actually, Paul VI setting aside the triple tiara as a symbolic renunciation of temporal and monarchical authority was a bit overdue because the Papal States had been lost to the Holy See with the unification of Italy in 1870 though the Church refused to acknowledge that reality; in protest, no pope for decades set foot outside the Vatican.  However, in the form of the Lateran Treaty (1929), the Holy See entered into a concordat with the Italian state whereby the (1) the Vatican was recognized as a sovereign state and (2) the church was recognized as Italy’s state religion in exchange for which the territorial and political reality was recognized.  Despite that, until 1963 the triple tiara (one tier of which was said to symbolize the pope’s temporal authority over the papal states) appeared in the coronations of Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958), John XXIII (1881-1963; pope 1958-1963) and Paul VI (who didn’t formally abolish the rite of papal coronation from the Ordo Rituum pro Ministerii Petrini Initio Romae Episcopi (Order of Rites for the Beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome (the liturgical book detailing the ceremonies for a pope's installation)) until 1975.

The Chair of St Augustine.  In church circles, archbishops of Canterbury are sometimes said to "occupy the Chair of St Augustine".

The Chair of St Augustine sits in Canterbury Cathedral but technically, an AoC is “twice installed”: once on the Diocesan throne as the Bishop of the see of Canterbury and also on the Chair of St Augustine as Primate of All England (the nation's first bishop) and spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion. So, there’s nothing unusual in Sarah Mullally being “installed” rather than “enthroned” as would have been the universal terminology between the reformation and the early twentieth century.  Linguistically, legally and theologically, the choice of words is a non-event and anyone who wishes to describe Dame Sarah as “enthroned” may do so without fear of condemnation, excommunication or a burning at the stake.  What is most likely is that of those few who notice, fewer still are likely to care.