The sentence "Wie mag de koning kronen" is ambiguous and means both:
-"Who may crown the king" when "Wie" is the subject and "de koning" is the direct object -"Who may the king crown" when "de koning" is the subject" and "Wie" is the direct object
If you want to avoid ambiguity, you could preface the sentence with "De koning":
-"De koning, wie mag hem kronen?" > "The king, who may crown him?"
-"De koning, wie mag hij kronen?" > "The king, who may he crown?"
Nobody, the Dutch king isn't crowned, however the crown is present at the inauguration.
Wikipedia inhuldiging: "Kroningen hebben een religieus karakter. Inhuldigingen zijn seculier van karakter. In een staat waarin kerk en staat zijn gescheiden, ligt een inhuldiging voor de hand."
So it is common for countries where state and church are separate (like the Netherlands), to have an inauguration, not a coronation. Also see this wikipedia page.
I'm confused about "mag". Logically, I would have thought, as in this case, it translates to its closest English counterpart, "may" (as in: "is allowed to"). However, I'm almost certain that in other lessons - specifically the one that talks about what a goalkeeper can do - I was marked wrong for "may" ("the goalkeeper may kick the ball"), and the correct translation was given as "can". I would have thought that if it's "kan" it translates as: "can" (is able to), and if it's "mag", it translates as "may" (is allowed to). Is it me, or is it inconsistent between lessons?
I'm sure "mogen" wasn't accepted when translated as "can" in any of my recent sentences as I often write it automatically and have to correct myself. I know that sometimes "may" is rejected as well (especially in negation or unusually heard contexts) but "be allowed to" always works. Perhaps a year ago it wasn't like that though.