That was my idea too: the Archbishop of Canterbury placing St Edward's Crown on the head of the King, all Peers placing their coronets on their heads. (The actual coronation).
After this the Archbishop removes St Edward's Crown but the Imperial State Crown will be placed on a side table (and will remain on a side table for all State Openings of Parliament).
Personally I can not see a gentleman, be it Charles, William or George, announcing the one budget cut after the other with a diamond-encrusted Crown wobbling on the head.
How would this strange practice save any budget money (to have a crown laid on a table next to you instead of wearing it...)?! IMO those europ. monarchies who abolished their coronation rituals, didn´t serve them a good job. A coronation, because of its rarity these days, attracts worldwide attention which especially the smaller countries could gain benefit of. Well, it was their choice.
But their is no reason for Britain, to have another "crownless King". The UK should be proud of and underline its uniqueness and treasured traditions!
No, it is only right for a new, uncrowned monarch to have the Crown being placed beside him at the parliament opening, but of course wear it (that´s what are crowns made for - to be worn!) after the coronation has been performed! And I don´t see how crowning a monarch and after that taking the crown away from him again to put it beside him would make any sense (except, maybe, because of medical reasons of the monarch)...
I know in your country, The Netherlands, there is a practice to have the crown being placed on a credential table. But this is an inauguration ( a grander act of an average "parliament session", so to speak, and the crown is just a heraldic symbol that, during this parliamentary act, the monarch is present), but not a coronation, which is something quite different!
As one observer journalist put it quite right: The coronation should be put under the safety of the National trust, like an old, historic building.