The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 06-01-2013, 09:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
They didn't seem to have any trouble crowning Edward VII. If they can anoint him, they can crown a cat.
You are quite right. That is most true. The real truth, is that this hypocrisy has existed for numerous years. Perhaps, that is what is really disgusting.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 06-01-2013, 09:25 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
You are quite right. That is most true. The real truth, is that this hypocrisy has existed for numerous years. Perhaps, that is what is really disgusting.
Perhaps even it if is disgusting to some peoples tastes or beliefs, the actual coronation ceremony has nothing to do with them. As we all have the basic right to think, feel and believe what is right for us, this also applies to the monarchy and the monarch being crowned.

As I believe that Charles is very much a traditionalist as well as gifted with a remarkable sense of foresight, I think that if and when his coronation occurs, it will be very reflective of the man he is down to the floral arrangements in the Abbey and the choices of music. It will be an interesting meld of a strong traditional past mixed in with a fresh look to the future. NGalitzine has mentioned several aspects that are bound to be noticed in fact. What other differences there will be is something that we will have to look forward to if and when the time comes.
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 06-01-2013, 09:27 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
You are quite right. That is most true. The real truth, is that this hypocrisy has existed for numerous years. Perhaps, that is what is really disgusting.
The whole system of monarchy and aristocracy, since the Norman invasion at least, was based on hypocrisy, discrimination, and double standards with respect to class, gender, race, and religion, and those characteristics continue to taint it to some extent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 06-01-2013, 09:36 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
The CoE's changing stance in regards to divorce reflects that the Church itself is a constantly evolving structure that represents the beliefs of a people at a time in history. It is not hypocritical because it is not one person going "you can be crowned, you can't, you can divorce, you can't." It is multiple people over a course of generations doing so.

The CoE has never taken a stance about not crowning men who had mistresses and has crowned a good number of men who have done so - Charles II, William IV, and Edward VII being three notable examples. The CoE was against divorce for a very long time - it's part of why one of the George's (I can't remember which) was never able to get divorced. It has also supported the idea that the monarch has to approve any marriages of any heirs to the throne - hence why George III's sons went unmarried for so long.

I personally don't think that Edward VIII and Wallis' marriage was as simple as the fact that she was divorced (although I don't agree that it was because either was a Nazi sympathizer, that's us applying a hindsight bias). Instead I think it was a case of Wallis on the whole was not acceptable as a consort - she was an American, she was twice divorced, she wasn't accepted by David's family, she was seen as an opportunist an after the money and fame that came with being her various significant others. The two divorces were probably the biggest aspect of it, but not the only one. This was the 1930s when divorce was not considered to be socially acceptable.

Similarly, when Margaret was with Peter divorce wasn't considered socially acceptable. By the time Charles and Camilla got married, however, the stance towards divorce had changed. Now 50% of marriages end in divorce, and to reflect that the CoE's stance on the issue, and the treatment of the marriage of Charles and Camilla has changed. It's evolved with the evolution of society. I think the fact that Camilla has proven to be a woman who is with Charles for love and not fame, as well as the fact that she is accepted by Charles' family has done a lot to help her despite whatever precedent Edward set.

Also it should be noted that when Edward wanted to marry Wallis it was discussed by the parliaments of all his realms, which all decided that they wouldn't accept Wallis - it wasn't just a church issue. When Charles wanted to marry Camilla the parliaments of his future realms decided it was a non-issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 06-01-2013, 09:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
You are quite right. That is most true. The real truth, is that this hypocrisy has existed for numerous years. Perhaps, that is what is really disgusting.
Not sure what the hypocracy is, but if it exists I would suggest that it is not limited to the BRF or with monarchies in general but exists in all nations and in all peoples, perhaps even more so in those who talk about Christian beliefs but yet still feel able to be unforgiving and judgemental of others. Sadly so many Christians can be terribly unChristian.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 06-01-2013, 10:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Not sure what the hypocracy is, but if it exists I would suggest that it is not limited to the BRF or with monarchies in general but exists in all nations and in all peoples, perhaps even more so in those who talk about Christian beliefs but yet still feel able to be unforgiving and judgemental of others. Sadly so many Christians can be terribly unChristian.
You bet. You are right. The most "holy", are often the most hypocritical. I agree. It is that with the cost of a Coronation, I recently read that QEII's, today would be $65 million dollars, it seems, somewhat anachronistic. But, hey, that is why they are there, it is the show.

Oh, Ish, I am reading a book, that points out the Edward VIII never broached marrying Wallis, he may have had expectations, but had not in anyway acted upon them. He was backed into the thought by Baldwin and some others, as his Nazi friends and sympathies caused the government a great deal of concern. They wanted him to abdicate, before the coronation, as this act codified the role he was to accept, also in many way lifts popularity for a period of time. Edward was very popular, but his political outlooks and immaturity were a problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 06-01-2013, 10:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
$65 million amortized over 60 years seem like a pretty good deal. How much does it cost to put on the show/inauguration of an America president every 4 years, even when the president has been reelected?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 06-01-2013, 11:06 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,654
Edward VIII/Duke & Duchess of Windsor help pave the way for Charles & Camilla, IMO. It is what it is and I'm looking forward to the next Coronation.
__________________
"If you are always trying to be normal you will never know how amazing you can be."

Dr. Maya Angelou
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 06-01-2013, 11:08 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Edward VIII/Duke & Duchess of Windsor help pave the way for Charles & Camilla, IMO. It is what it is and I'm looking forward to the next Coronation.
Well put, Dman.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 06-01-2013, 11:33 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
I agree. It is that with the cost of a Coronation, I recently read that QEII's, today would be $65 million dollars, it seems, somewhat anachronistic. But, hey, that is why they are there, it is the show.
Only Obama's inauguration cost R$ 300 million dollars. I doubt the next Coronation will be more expensive then the last one, it'll be much more cheaper, in my opinion.

And what's the purpose of the American President? Send his countrymen to war everytime he needs more oil?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 06-01-2013, 11:49 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,596
Can we go back to the idea of crowning a cat? Although I've never met a cat who did not feel he/she was already king/queen.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 06-02-2013, 09:30 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
Let's stay on topic...this thread is NOT about the United States Presidency.

Any and all additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 06-02-2013, 09:46 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Can we go back to the idea of crowning a cat? Although I've never met a cat who did not feel he/she was already king/queen.
That can not be more true. Our cat doesn't live with us, we live with him!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 06-02-2013, 11:26 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

Today, June 2nd, is the 60th anniversary of the Coronation of Elizabeth II.
A rainy and chilly day but it did not dampen the spirits of the people - a very successful event all round....

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 06-02-2013, 05:50 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 8,787
The Queen's Coronation 1953

The Queen's Coronation 1953 | Royal Collection Trust
__________________
4th of August 1900 : Birth of H.M.Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:14 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Oh, Ish, I am reading a book, that points out the Edward VIII never broached marrying Wallis, he may have had expectations, but had not in anyway acted upon them. He was backed into the thought by Baldwin and some others, as his Nazi friends and sympathies caused the government a great deal of concern. They wanted him to abdicate, before the coronation, as this act codified the role he was to accept, also in many way lifts popularity for a period of time. Edward was very popular, but his political outlooks and immaturity were a problem.
What book is this? I would be interested in reading it.

The timeline of events as I've always understood it through various things that I've read is that by October 1936 it was widely rumoured that Edward and Wallis would marry once she was divorced and that on November 16, 1936, after Wallis had filed for divorce, Edward met with Baldwin to announce his intention to marry Wallis. Edward was likely encouraged to broach the subject by his private secretary, who may have been acting under the advice of senior ministers. That doesn't mean that he was pushed into wanting to marry Wallis by Baldwin or others, but rather that he was pushed into announcing his intentions on the matter. The belief that Edward and Wallis would marry was considered to be a given fact discussed in American (and possibly European) papers. Edward was pushed on the matter because it was only a matter of time before the British began to discuss it as well.

There were many reasons why Wallis was deemed unacceptable, her Nazi connections being just one - similarly there were many reasons why Edward himself was unacceptable, politics being one. Edward wanted to abandon accepted societal norms, the CoE at the time did not allow divorced people to remarry in the church while former spouses were still alive and Wallis had not one but two living former spouses, Wallis' first divorce was not recognized as legal by the CoE and may not have been legal by English law making a marriage to Edward a bigamous one, both the ministers and the BRF found Wallis' background and behaviour to be unacceptable, and many believed her to be with Edward only for the money while having affairs with other men - it's hypocritical, yes, but while the British public may forgive its King for having an affair, it's always been less likely to forgive its Queen.

Edward's politics came into play as well - he wasn't a passive, apolitical monarch like he was supposed to be. As for Wallis' politics, it wasn't that she was associated with Nazism itself (at least not in 1936), it was that she was rumoured to be a spy leaking government documents to a foreign ambassador who she was rumoured to be having an affair with. It didn't matter that said ambassador was Joachim von Ribbentrop - he could have been Ghandi for all it mattered. The point wasn't that Wallis was associated with Nazis (beyond the fact that if she were to become the Queen she would have been expected to also be apolitical), but rather that it was believed that she was using her relationship with Edward to spy for another nation, while carrying on another affair.

None of this - beyond the fact that Camilla is a divorced woman - relates to the situation of Charles and Camilla. Camilla's divorce is recognized in the eyes of the Church and British law - as was Charles', although Diana's death makes that redundant. The CoE now recognizes remarriage of divorced persons, regardless of whether the former spouse(s) is alive, and has specifically recognized and blessed the marriage of Charles and Camilla (and would only be hypocritical if it recognized this one marriage while not recognizing any other marriage of divorced persons). It is not believed, at least not widely so, that Camilla is with Charles just for his money, nor is she accused of having any other affairs - and certainly not with foreign ambassadors who she gives government documents to. Thus, as the initial point was, no one here is being a hypocrite in accepting Charles as a one day king and Camilla as his consort, despite Edward's abdication.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 06-02-2013, 06:58 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,759
I just wondered whether, seeing as it is currently proposed that the Duchess of Cornwall will become Pincess Consort when Charles becomes king, will she actually be crowned Queen Consort during the coronation?
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 06-02-2013, 07:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Its an interesting question. Putting aside the issue of the concept of a Kings wife even being just a Princess Consort and not automatically Queen by right, I would say a Princess Consort would be put into a category similar to that of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1953. That is not crowned and only a participant in part of the ceremony like the communion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 06-02-2013, 07:37 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 1,596
Ish, you have raised very good points on the comparisons between C&C and David and Wallis.

I think that Charles is working diligently, day and night, to ensure that Camilla is crowned Queen along with him. Given HM's longevity, and that fact that those of us who remember Diana as if it were yesterday are getting older and older (ahem)... ask my kids or their friends who Princess Diana is - might as well ask them what a walkman is - I believe she will be crowned Queen with only a few grumbles.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 06-02-2013, 10:03 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I just wondered whether, seeing as it is currently proposed that the Duchess of Cornwall will become Pincess Consort when Charles becomes king, will she actually be crowned Queen Consort during the coronation?
If she's going to be Queen Consort it will be from the moment that he's King. The actual crowning doesn't make her any more or less of a Queen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
Its an interesting question. Putting aside the issue of the concept of a Kings wife even being just a Princess Consort and not automatically Queen by right, I would say a Princess Consort would be put into a category similar to that of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1953. That is not crowned and only a participant in part of the ceremony like the communion.
They could do a coronation for a Princess Consort. The DoE doesn't hold the title Prince Consort - that was only held by Prince Albert. It stands to reason that had Albert been married to Victoria at the time of her coronation (and held the title Prince Consort) then he may have been crowned such as well. Princess Consort (a title) seems more akin to Prince Consort (also a title) than the DoE's current role of prince consort (simply a position).

Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Ish, you have raised very good points on the comparisons between C&C and David and Wallis.

I think that Charles is working diligently, day and night, to ensure that Camilla is crowned Queen along with him. Given HM's longevity, and that fact that those of us who remember Diana as if it were yesterday are getting older and older (ahem)... ask my kids or their friends who Princess Diana is - might as well ask them what a walkman is - I believe she will be crowned Queen with only a few grumbles.
Thank you.

I think that Camilla should be crowned Queen, and I think that both she and Charles have done a lot to revitalize their images to help such a coronation, but I think the fact that they made the Princess Consort announcement in the time of the Internet - and we so clearly still remember it - might hurt them if they try to crown her as Queen. People might not like that one thing was said and another done, even if they don't remember or care about Diana.

Personally I'd like to see more events done between Camilla and either HM or the boys (or Catherine), both with and without Charles. Show that the family has accepted her more, so that the naysayers can be dissuaded a bit.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchs, ceremonies, coronation, king george vi, regalia


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your coronation: jewels, gowns, uniforms, service, music constance Royal Chit Chat 24 08-02-2014 11:33 PM
Unexpected Monarchs auntie Royalty Past, Present, and Future 72 12-05-2013 07:40 PM
Worst British Monarchs Kurenai British Royal History 169 10-24-2013 01:03 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]