Coronation of British Monarchs

[Dman]

Quite honestly, I don't think its going to be any big issue with Charles should he be the only one crowned on coronation day. I don't believe either that Camilla gives a hoot either whether or not she's crowned or what title she carries when Charles is king. She has shown time and time again that she's content to be Charles' support system. I think they're really twisting words to mean something else by stating that Charles really, really wants Camilla to be crowned as Queen. We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time comes.

I also firmly think its a wonderful idea to change it from "defender of the faith" to "defender of faith". With listing The Supreme Governor of the Church of England first and foremost, it denotes where Charles' religious faith is prominent and with "defender of faith" after it, it denotes that Charles accepts, respects and defends the rights of all British citizens to practice their personal faiths. As the UK becomes more and more diverse, this would be a change that reflects and acknowledges that.

Just my two cents worth.

I can assure you that, when the time comes, the Camilla situation will become a big deal. I'm only looking forward to the ceremonial events that will come the on the day of and days after when Charles ascends. Everything else will be a headache for the firm, governments, media and people.

 

[Osipi]

Oh I'm sure everything and everyone will be buzzing about the different issues surrounding the coronation but I don't see Charles and Camilla jumping into the fray and fighting one way or the other. I'd be willing to bet my last strudel that they've already pretty much come to grips with the situation and will accept whatever is deemed "correct" when the time comes.

We have to remember too that the moment Charles becomes king, it means that he's lost his mother.

 

[Andy T]

You'd have thought with wars, natural disasters and economic upheaval, social injustice and countless other worthwhile things to write about, the revolting rag that is the Daily Wail could find something more immediate to write about.

HM The Queen would appear to be in good health. It's quite possible that she'll even outdo her Mother and live for another decade plus. It's also not inconceivable that Charles and/or Camilla, both nudging 70 now, could pop their clogs before her.

"Defender of the Faith" was a title bestowed on Henry VIII by the Pope for, ironically, defending Roman Catholicism. You can (although probably shouldn't) reinterpret/stretch that definition to "defending Christianity". However, given its origin, there's no way you can rehash it to mean defending religious faith in general. That would be like receiving the title of "Duke of York" but calling yourself "Duke of England." If Charles isn't comfortable with the title, he should just drop it, resign as Head of the Church of England and let Parliament disestablish the Anglican Church.

Camilla doesn't have to be formally crowned to use the title of Queen (cf Henry VIII's last four wives, Catherine of Braganza, Caroline of Brunswick...) and if she is crowned, she can still be called "Princess Consort" if that is what Charles decrees (cf Mohammed VI of Morocco).

 

[AdmirerUS]

The DM at its most sly.
I know this is in some thread some where, but the search strings I used led me nowhere fast.
Does the COE believe that Charles and Camilla are married? And isn't that a relevant question? And what's the source for any reply (what does the Synod or Primate have to say on the issue?
I dug a bit.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2W1YhMCRQ&sig2=iAa5tKAhAsoqUB9ozjsysw&cad=rja says the COE recognizes all civil marriages as legally valid (item 1)
This policy paper on the COE position on same sex marriage would lead one to believe that the COE sees civil marriage as valid (Item 17). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...I-vDkbSSQ&sig2=2KoFSkR7S3Ql-DPheAzz7A&cad=rja

And this page says nothing at all about a civil marriage being invalid: https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/why-marry-in-church/ It does say that marrying in church has benefits.

 

[Mbruno]

Oh I'm sure everything and everyone will be buzzing about the different issues surrounding the coronation but I don't see Charles and Camilla jumping into the fray and fighting one way or the other. I'd be willing to bet my last strudel that they've already pretty much come to grips with the situation and will accept whatever is deemed "correct" when the time comes.

We have to remember too that the moment Charles becomes king, it means that he's lost his mother.

Following the loss of his mother, it will probably take a few months anyway for Charles to be crowned. The British coronation actually has no meaning in law as, unlike a proclamation or a investiture, it is not a required ritual for the new king to assume the royal prerogative. It is actually a religious ceremony rather than a civil one and will probably be phased out after Charles' accession, not least because the CofE is likely to be disestablished at some point in the 21st century (maybe in Willam's reign, or even before that).

 

[Osipi]

To me, it would just seem logical that if the Church of England did not consider Camilla and Charles married, they would never have held a ceremony to bless the marriage after the civil ceremony.

 

[loonytick]

But isn't the question about constitutional marriage a slightly different affair from whether the COE considers marriage for the normal Anglican? It's an extra layer of definition that really only applies to the monarch's marriage, and not even, really, the POW.

I do think it's something that still needs sorting out. But I think this is exactly the sort of detail that monarchies are best able to adjust from generation to generation and it's only logical for this marriage to be the one that brings this set of requirements more up to date and in line with the general definition of marriage in the COE and in broader British society.

But also, I expect it's in this level of fine detail that Charles will "modernize" the coronation ceremony when his time comes. I expect to see a lot of small tweaks here and there to streamline things, but it seems laughable to me to think that major points of continuity from generation to generation like the use of coronets and peer robes, etc. would be altered.

At this point, the value of a monarch is to be a visible and tangible link to the particular traditions and history that make his or her nation special. In the UK, one of the major points to highlight is the fact that the central traditions date back to the Medieval Era, and that there's been an unbroken line of monarchs on the throne since Charles II, so the highest levels of pomp and circumstance, of which a coronation is the highest, will always have some level Medieval and Baroque overtones (those robes, for instance). And, quite frankly, the most cost-effective pomp to include is the kind that the monarch himself doesn't have to pay for, such as other people's fancy-pants attire.

I'm willing to bet the place for big changes will be the activities surrounding the actual coronation, such as the procession to and from Westminster. When everyone and their brother can see all the details of the ceremony in high def on their phone, there's not really such a need to turn the ride back home into the most overwhelming possible impression by parading of all the fancy carriages in the realm. That's the kind of place where I expect Charles to really pull back and make it be all about his own family (he and Cam, W+K and their kids, Harry and his wife, if he has one by then).

 

[Rudolph]

History‏@HistoryInPix
Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II (colorized).

https://twitter.com/HistoryInPix/status/824833816019742720

 

[Blog Real]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYgsFSRtHxE

 

[eya]

"BBC Parliament marks the 80th anniversary of the Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth on 12 May 1937. Just five months after its launch, the BBC Television Service showed an hour-long live outside broadcast of the 1937 Coronation procession to the Abbey for its small number of television viewers. This was the first outside broadcast by the BBC and no copy of the live output survives. BBC film cameras were on hand though to record the remarkable achievement for this 41/2 minute film."
On 12 May at 9pm

BBC Parliament - 1937 Coronation, On The BBC

 

[Rudolph]

OTD in 1937, George VI was crowned at Westminster Abbey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AJUE8d_BI0

 

[tommy100]

I really want to watch this documentary if and when its shown in the US. I do get the Smithsonian channel as part of my satellite package and will be watching for it.

With watching the clips that are available, HM looks very relaxed and at ease during the whole thing and I saw something that I thought I'd never see. The Queen crosses her legs. I grew up with the fact that ladies, like the Queen, never crosses her legs but crosses her ankles.

Another thought struck me. This was HM, The Queen taking us through her own coronation and giving us an extensive lesson on the various items of the coronation regalia and its significance even down to the sacred oil itself and the anointing being aired to the public for the very first time. This tells me that if, and when, the time comes for Charles' coronation, they are not going to skimp over any part of the centuries of meaning and tradition when it comes to Charles' ceremony. HM, herself, is preparing us for it.

I thought the same, I wonder if the Queen in part did this to remind people how important the different elements of the coronation are before any talk of "modernising" for Charles' eventual coronation.

 

[Osipi]

I think Charles will stick to the tradition and it will not be shown live. This part of the coronation ceremony is sacred and will be between Charles and his God. I fully expect them not to televise that portion.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am not even sure there will be a coronation on that scale again but I do think everything will be shown. If it isn't then there is no point showing the service if the most important part isn't shown. It would be like not showing the couple taking their vows at a wedding ceremony - either show the lot or show nothing.

With Charles of course the next question is - what God? He wants to be more inclusive which is why I think the religious side of the coronation will be played down massively. He may even push to disestablish the CoE before the coronation and not even have one at all so as not to upset the many millions of Britons who are not of the CoE or even the Christian faith anymore.

As for William - I expect a simpler enthronement in Westminster Hall for him with no church service at all. I just don't think he wants to have all the pomp and ceremony and will do away with as much as he can to make the monarchy less impressive. He simply doesn't enjoy the formality and will want to do away with it.

 

[Rudolph]

It’s not up to Charles or William to decide the nature of the coronation. Yes they’ll have input but it’s a state occasion with government of the day making the final decisions.

For someone who allegedly doesn’t like pomp and ceremony William certainly had an impressive wedding service at Westminster Abbey

 

[Iluvbertie]

It’s not up to Charles or William to decide the nature of the coronation. Yes they’ll have input but it’s a state occasion with government of the day making the final decisions.

For someone who allegedly doesn’t like pomp and ceremony William certainly had an impressive wedding service at Westminster Abbey

And made it clear that it wasn't what he and Kate wanted but what his grandmother expected. He was allowed to choose the guest list.

It is actually up to the monarch of the day to determine a lot of the coronation. A lot of the Queen's planned by Philip with her approval. If she hadn't wanted things the way they were they wouldn't have happened.

The government of the day has an imput but it is the monarch that has the final say. If it is the government of the day and Corbyn is PM (not beyond the realms of possibility) and he has the final say it will be a quick car drive to an empty abbey with Archbishop plonking the Crown on the head and then back to the palace - done.

 

[Rudolph]

And made it clear that it wasn't what he and Kate wanted but what his grandmother expected. He was allowed to choose the guest list.

It is actually up to the monarch of the day to determine a lot of the coronation. A lot of the Queen's planned by Philip with her approval. If she hadn't wanted things the way they were they wouldn't have happened.

The government of the day has an imput but it is the monarch that has the final say. If it is the government of the day and Corbyn is PM (not beyond the realms of possibility) and he has the final say it will be a quick car drive to an empty abbey with Archbishop plonking the Crown on the head and then back to the palace - done.

William wasn’t allowed to choose the guest list. The Queen told him to start with his friends and go from there. 1900 people were in the Abbey that day, including over 50 foreign royals.

The Coronation ceremony changes very little from monarch to monarch.

Prince Philip was on the coronation committee but in actuality had little input.

The oath is decided by parliament. The sovereign’s title is decided by parliament

The service itself is centuries old

The main person in charge of organising the actual ceremony is the sovereign’s hereditary earl marshal, The Duke of Norfolk.

 

[Iluvbertie]

William wasn’t allowed to choose the guest list. The Queen told him to start with his friends and go from there. 1900 people were in the Abbey that day, including over 50 foreign royals.

He was allowed to basically have the guest list he wanted - not what the government wanted. He recognised that meant some foreigners he didn't really know but unlike his mother he had a huge say in who was invited.

The Coronation ceremony changes very little from monarch to monarch.

Not strictly true. They had to almost re-write it in 1902 as so much of what happened couldn't be remembered from Victoria's and a lot of the records were lost. They also had to cut the ceremony down a lot due to the King's health.

Prince Philip was on the coronation committee but in actuality had little input.

Actually he had a lot of input and many of the innovations were his ideas.

The oath is decided by parliament. The sovereign’s title is decided by parliament.

The oath was changed between 1901 and 1910 because Edward VII didn't like the oath he had to take and ensured it was more relevant for his son. I can see Charles insisting on something similar.

The service itself is centuries old

Elements of the service but not the service itself. It dates from 1902 when they basically had to re-write so much of it for the King's health and having so few records from Victoria's - and virtually no one alive to remember it.

Remember Edward VII had nearly died six weeks earlier so there were massive modifications made to the day so he would make it through the day and those changes have remained with modifications at each coronation since.

The main person in charge of organising the actual ceremony is the sovereign’s hereditary earl marshal, The Duke of Norfolk.

True - but he incorporates the desires of the monarch - just as he had to incorporate the ideas of the 2nd in line to the throne for his wedding in 2011. He is involved in all the ceremonies by tradition but the various Earls' Marshals have incorporated what the monarch of the day wants.

 

[Leopoldine]

I am not even sure there will be a coronation on that scale again but I do think everything will be shown. If it isn't then there is no point showing the service if the most important part isn't shown. It would be like not showing the couple taking their vows at a wedding ceremony - either show the lot or show nothing.

With Charles of course the next question is - what God? He wants to be more inclusive which is why I think the religious side of the coronation will be played down massively. He may even push to disestablish the CoE before the coronation and not even have one at all so as not to upset the many millions of Britons who are not of the CoE or even the Christian faith anymore.

As for William - I expect a simpler enthronement in Westminster Hall for him with no church service at all. I just don't think he wants to have all the pomp and ceremony and will do away with as much as he can to make the monarchy less impressive. He simply doesn't enjoy the formality and will want to do away with it.

I respectfully disagree regarding William. I think he is a very traditional man and will adhere to the time-honored ceremony, perhaps with less personal robing-and-coronet expenditures from the peers. I think he will have a full Church of England service and everything that befits a British Monarch.

When you say "enthronement", it implies that he won't be anointed. I am sure he will be anointed.

And, making the Monarchy "less impressive" makes no sense. Why reduce them to some kind of Mini-Cooper-driving budget epaulette-wearing chicken farmers.

Either you have a British Monarchy or you don't.

 

[Mbruno]

It’s not up to Charles or William to decide the nature of the coronation. Yes they’ll have input but it’s a state occasion with government of the day making the final decisions.

True, not least because a coronation is still, ar least implicitly, mandated by law in the UK as the monarch is legally required to take certain oaths "at his coronation".

I agree that the coronation most likely will be replaced by a secular enthronement ceremony at some point in the future, but not before the CoE is disestablished. Disestablishment is definitely a possibility, but I am not sure how soon it will happen, I mean, if it will be passed during Charles' or William's reign. I still expect Charles to have a full coronation.

For someone who allegedly doesn’t like pomp and ceremony William certainly had an impressive wedding service at Westminster Abbey

William's wedding was already less impressive than his father's (with the excuse of course that he was not the heir and, therefore, it was not a state wedding). In any case, I don't think he had the choice of having a more low-key ceremony as his brother.

Pomp and ceremony is actually something thar is expected from the monarchy in wealthy European countries. The key is to find the right amount of it under the current circumstances, as I think the Dutch and Scandinavian royal families have done. William's wedding in particular took place in a year when the UK had not fully recovered yet from the 2009 financial crisis and there was still a lot of economic hardship; nevertheless, there was hardly any complaint against "the pomp and ceremony" of it if I recall it correctly.

 

[wyevale]

being too holy to broadcast

It IS a private vocational moment betwixt God and an individual.. it is no business of ours..

 

[Princess Larisa]

It IS a private vocational moment betwixt God and an individual.. it is no business of ours..

I agree, I for one do not need or want to see this part of the ceremony. Some people seem to have an obsessive, voyeuristic desire to see every intimate detail of royal lives. The amount of fuss made over the though of not seeing a royal wedding kiss or similar things is totally weird to me.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a couple of off-topic/empty posts have been deleted as they added nothing to the conversation - note also that subsequent responses to those posts have thus been deleted.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

When King George V had his coronation, was there not a certain order of the Royal Family in a carriage procession that went to Westminster Abbey?
Who accompanied Prince Edward, the heir to the throne, to the Abbey?
With a new King and Queen Consort, who is the last to enter the Abbey on Coronation Day?

 

[Hans-Rickard]

When King George V had his coronation, was there not a certain order of the Royal Family in a carriage procession that went to Westminster Abbey?
Who accompanied Prince Edward, the heir to the throne, to the Abbey?

From Wikipedia about the Coronation in 1911

" The first of three processions left Buckingham Palace at 9:30 am. It consisted of representatives of foreign royal families and governments, carried in fourteen carriages. The second procession had five state landaus for members of the British royal family; the fifth contained the king and queen's children, the Prince of Wales, Princess Mary and the young Princes Albert, Henry and George. The third procession brought the officers of state in a further four carriages and the twenty-fifth and final carriage, the Gold State Coach carrying the king and queen. They were surrounded by equerries, aides-de-camp and the commanders of the armed forces mounted on horseback, all escorted by Yeomen of the Guard, colonial and Indian cavalry and the Royal Horse Guards ".

With a new King and Queen Consort, who is the last to enter the Abbey on Coronation Day?

The King's procession is the last to enter as he is the sovereign. The Queen's procession is the 2:nd last to enter.

 

[hel]

Does anyone know who Charles' Lord Great Chamberlain is likely to be? There are 13 potential candidates amongst the decendents of the 1st Marquess of Lincolnshire.

The shares those people hold range from 1/20 (Nicholas Llewellen Palmer, Rufus Keppel, and Harry Legge-Bourke) to 1/100 (the various descendents of Ruperta Legge).

 

[Rudolph]

The coronation of George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as King and Queen of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth and as Emperor and Empress of India took place at Westminster Abbey, London, on 12 May 1937.

Via History Twitter

In 1727, George Frideric Handel was commissioned to write four coronation anthems for King George II. One of these anthems, Zadok the Priest, has been performed at every British coronation since.

 

[Somebody]

Does anyone know who Charles' Lord Great Chamberlain is likely to be? There are 13 potential candidates amongst the decendents of the 1st Marquess of Lincolnshire.

The shares those people hold range from 1/20 (Nicholas Llewellen Palmer, Rufus Keppel, and Harry Legge-Bourke) to 1/100 (the various descendents of Ruperta Legge).

As the earl of Dartmouth fulfilled the position for his wife the Countess of Darthmouth, I'd say that line is the least likely. My guess would be the 10th Earl of Albemarle (Rufus Keppel) as he has been in office for the longest time among the three that have a share of 5%. A case could also be build for Nicholas Llewen Palmer as the most senior line (among the 5%) or for The Hon. Lorraine Wilson as the most senior line overall (but only a share of 1.25% and female, which would be a novelty)

 

[Mbruno]

As the earl of Dartmouth fulfilled the position for his wife the Countess of Darthmouth, I'd say that line is the least likely. My guess would be the 10th Earl of Albemarle (Rufus Keppel) as he has been in office for the longest time among the three that have a share of 5%. A case could also be build for Nicholas Llewen Palmer as the most senior line (among the 5%) or for The Hon. Lorraine Wilson as the most senior line overall (but only a share of 1.25% and female, which would be a novelty)

It would be great to have a female as Lord Chamberlain. Why not ?

 

[Somebody]

Who would be the one to decide? The family or Charles or some other official?

And if Charles, is he friends with either one of them?