Coronation of British Monarchs

[Osipi]

I would imagine that if Charles were to consult someone on his own coronation, it would be the Earl Marshall himself and work things out with him. That's what the Earl Marshall does.

The role that the Duke of Norfolk will play in the coronation dates back even before the Church of England was established if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure Iluvbertie will correct me on this. I count on that.

The long line of the Dukes of Norfolk have *always* been Roman Catholic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Again, Iluvbertie, you know better than this. What you’re trying to suggest is, that because the Earl Marshall is Roman Catholic, he somehow is influencing the coronation.

First we must remember the coronation is merely window dressing, it doesn’t make a king or queen.

As for the symbolism involved in the actual ceremony, it’s entirely Protestant. The RC church plays no part.

The Earl Marshal isn’t there as a catholic, it just happens the holder of the office is catholic.

Not just 'influencing it' but is crucial in its planning and execution. He has a major role to play. From the moment the last coronation ended the Earl Marshal - aka The Duke of Norfolk who is Roman Catholic - has been in charge of organising, planning and making sure things run smoothly. He most certainly does influence what happens on the day and throughout the ceremony. He has also planned the weddings and funerals in the intervening years - so he is fully conversant with planning CoE functions as it is part of his hereditary role even though personally he is Roman Catholic.

You made the comment that ALL the major players were 'white Anglo-Saxon protestants' which is incorrect. At least two of them aren't. Not hard to accept that fact is it?

If the man who plans the coronation isn't 'influencing' the coronation I would like to know what he is doing. If he gets a step in the planning wrong the entire thing can be a disaster. Fortunately he has the plans going back centuries in his family archives and so can see what worked in the past and what didn't.

 

[JR76]

"Diversity, inclusive" doesn't only mean the presence of people with other skin colours but having people of other religions, women, homosexuals etc there. With the House of Lords in it's present form we will have all that and I'm 100% sure that Charles will see to it that him wanting to be a defender of all faiths is mirrored in the ceremony in the Abbey.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would imagine that if Charles were to consult someone on his own coronation, it would be the Earl Marshall himself and work things out with him. That's what the Earl Marshall does.

The role that the Duke of Norfolk will play in the coronation dates back even before the Church of England was established if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure Iluvbertie will correct me on this. I count on that.

The long line of the Dukes of Norfolk have *always* been Roman Catholic.

Charles and the Duke of Norfolk and the Queen have regular meetings on not only Charles' coronation but the various funerals - The Queen's, Philip's, Charles' and Camilla's.

It was to the Duke of Norfolk that the BRF turned in 1997 to get the plans for Diana's funeral as they used his plans for the Queen Mother's for Diana's and then again for the Queen Mums'.

 

[Osipi]

I seem to remember all that as it was brought up in the movie "The Queen" which I watch at any given opportunity.

Now I have a question that is bugging me. Is it correct to assume that the coronation ceremony role that the Duke of Norfolk plays was in existence before the Church of England was established in the reign of Henry VIII?

One thing I do know is that the practices of the CoE are very similar to that of the Roman Catholic church with the difference being one includes the Pope and the other one doesn't. Is it wrong to assume that the basic coronation ceremony that is used today is very similar to the one used when the monarchs were crowned in a Roman Catholic ceremony?

I love these kind of discussions. ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Absolutely the role of the Earl Marshal was the same before Henry VIII as after.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

If Diana had lived to attend her sons coronation, what robes and crown would she have worn? Would it have been robes and crown of a Queen or a Princess if technically she was neither. I read that Lady Margaret Beaufort who was neither a Queen or Princess and mother of the King wore robes similar to that of a Queen.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Lady Margaret Beaufort was also Countess of Derby and Richmond and in a very different time ,she very reluctantly walked behind her daughter in law,the queen consort Elizabeth of York and her mother the dowager queen Elizabeth Woodville.

Lady Margaret signed her letters with 'R' so she saw herself as the queen mother and dressed accordingly.

 

[JR76]

If Diana had lived to attend her sons coronation, what robes and crown would she have worn? Would it have been robes and crown of a Queen or a Princess if technically she was neither. I read that Lady Margaret Beaufort who was neither a Queen or Princess and mother of the King wore robes similar to that of a Queen.

It's impossible to say. We don't know if Charles and William will change any of the rituals or if they'll even choose to have a coronation at all. One thing we can be sure off is that the peerage section will be much different than at the last coronation. The House of Lords is now mainly filled with Life Peers who, although quite full of themselves, lack the finesse of the Hereditary Peers. Even if the Hereditary Peers were to be included I doubt that the majority of them would be able to but on the same show as in 1953. Times have changed and many of them have lost their estates, glitz and fortunes.

 

[sndral]

If Diana had lived to attend her sons coronation, what robes and crown would she have worn? Would it have been robes and crown of a Queen or a Princess if technically she was neither. I read that Lady Margaret Beaufort who was neither a Queen or Princess and mother of the King wore robes similar to that of a Queen.

Lady Margaret Beaufort was also Countess of Derby and Richmond and in a very different time ,she very reluctantly walked behind her daughter in law,the queen consort Elizabeth of York and her mother the dowager queen Elizabeth Woodville.

Lady Margaret signed her letters with 'R' so she saw herself as the queen mother and dressed accordingly.

Very much different times. It was through his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, that Henry VII had a claim to the throne (although he claimed it by right of conquest.) It was also in part due to her efforts that Henry VII was able to win the crown, her husband Lord Stanley was a deciding factor in the battle of Bosworth, and her agreement that her son would wed Elizabeth of York brought the allegiance of that faction to her son’s side.
Indeed, IMO, but for the efforts of Lady Margaret, I doubt that Henry VII would have succeeded.
Diana, on the other hand, in the Panorama interview advocated for Charles to be bypassed in favor of William, thus I doubt she would have attended Charles’ coronation. Whether she attended Wlliam’s coronation and in what capacity I suspect would very much have depend on the nature of her relationship with an adult William and with his Queen consort as well as what direction her own life took and that we’ll never know.

 

[wbenson]

One thing we can be sure off is that the peerage section will be much different than at the last coronation. The House of Lords is now mainly filled with Life Peers who, although quite full of themselves, lack the finesse of the Hereditary Peers. Even if the Hereditary Peers were to be included I doubt that the majority of them would be able to but on the same show as in 1953. Times have changed and many of them have lost their estates, glitz and fortunes.

Yes, and even in 1953, times were already starting to change, and there had to be cheaper alternatives to the robe and coronet for barons and viscounts.

 

[wartenberg7]

It's impossible to say. We don't know if Charles and William will change any of the rituals or if they'll even choose to have a coronation at all. One thing we can be sure off is that the peerage section will be much different than at the last coronation. The House of Lords is now mainly filled with Life Peers who, although quite full of themselves, lack the finesse of the Hereditary Peers. Even if the Hereditary Peers were to be included I doubt that the majority of them would be able to but on the same show as in 1953. Times have changed and many of them have lost their estates, glitz and fortunes.

There´ll be definitely further coronations in the future as they are part of british cultural and historic heritage. To abolish it as long as the monarchy exists is simply not imaginable - one just cannot compare it with the scandinavian countries where just a majority in parliament was enough to sack it.
What is less sure is how exactly it will look like as they will positively alter it to today´ s society we live in instead of keeping it being reduced to the few of the "great and good" like it has been done before. So I guess there´ll be representatives of all parts of society present (at the hommage, for instance) or other kind of religions instead of only the anglican or scottish church.

If Diana had lived to attend her sons coronation, what robes and crown would she have worn? Would it have been robes and crown of a Queen or a Princess if technically she was neither. I read that Lady Margaret Beaufort who was neither a Queen or Princess and mother of the King wore robes similar to that of a Queen.

Well, if Diana had outlived her eldest son´s coronation, her former husband would have been dead then what had given them more freedom to allow her a more prominent role at the ceremony, taking her seat positively in the front row of the royal box (as mother of the King).
Of course she was a Princess, she was just no Royal Highness anymore! Princess was even in her title after the divorce ("Diana, Princess of Wales"). Princess was not her only title. She was also the Duchess of Cornwall, a countess etc. So, if she was still alive they couldn´t have given the Cornwall-title to Camilla and had to make up something else instead!
I presume at her son´s coronation she would have worn something a royal Duchess would wear, a tiara and a coronet combined with a Duchesse´s train with its specific hermine rows and gold embroidery.

 

[JR76]

There´ll be definitely further coronations in the future as they are part of british cultural and historic heritage. To abolish it as long as the monarchy exists is simply not imaginable - one just cannot compare it with the scandinavian countries where just a majority in parliament was enough to sack it.

The Swedish coronations were never abolished by the will of the Parliament. Instead the newly ascended Gustav V himself chose not to be crowned in 1907 because he felt that the ceremony was archaic and not compatible with a modern monarchy.
Up until then the coronation had been as ingrained in Swedish culture as it is in British culture.
I didn't say that future British monarchs won't be crowned, but that there is a possibility that they might not be.

 

[Osipi]

Well, if Diana had outlived her eldest son´s coronation, her former husband would have been dead then what had given them more freedom to allow her a more prominent role at the ceremony, taking her seat positively in the front row of the royal box (as mother of the King).
Of course she was a Princess, she was just no Royal Highness anymore! Princess was even in her title after the divorce ("Diana, Princess of Wales"). Princess was not her only title. She was also the Duchess of Cornwall, a countess etc. So, if she was still alive they couldn´t have given the Cornwall-title to Camilla and had to make up something else instead!
I presume at her son´s coronation she would have worn something a royal Duchess would wear, a tiara and a coronet combined with a Duchesse´s train with its specific hermine rows and gold embroidery.

Actually, Diana had the styling of a divorced wife of a peer. It denotes that at one time she was a Princess of Wales. It is a courtesy extended to ex-wives of peers. She was no longer a princess or a countess. Even if she had lived and not remarried, all of the Charles' titles in their feminine versions would be available for his second wife. The second wife would be The Princess of Wales (Camilla legally holds that title) while Diana as Diana, Princes of Wales denotes she was *a* Princess of Wales at one time. She was no longer a wife of a peer. Should she have remarried though, she still could have used Lady Diana, Mrs. X as the daughter of an Earl of the realm.

I'm sure that should she have attended William's coronation, she would be afforded every courtesy and seated properly as the King's mother but she wouldn't have the right to wear any coronet or robes designating the peerage.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course she was a Princess, she was just no Royal Highness anymore! Princess was even in her title after the divorce ("Diana, Princess of Wales"). Princess was not her only title. She was also the Duchess of Cornwall, a countess etc. So, if she was still alive they couldn´t have given the Cornwall-title to Camilla and had to make up something else instead!
I presume at her son´s coronation she would have worn something a royal Duchess would wear, a tiara and a coronet combined with a Duchesse´s train with its specific hermine rows and gold embroidery.

She was not a princess after the divorce.

Yes she was Diana, Princess of Wales which means she was the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales. Losing the HRH meant she lost the royal status.

She could have referred to herself as Diana, Duchess of Cornwall etc after the divorce - as that again shows that she was the divorced wife of the Duke of Cornwall.

That would not have stopped Camilla being HRH The Duchess of Cornwall as Camilla is the wife of the Duke of Cornwall.

Note the difference in the wording of the titles - first name and then title as opposed to the use of 'the' with a capital 'T'.

Go back to 1974 - HRH The Duchess of Gloucester's husband, The Duke of Gloucester died. For the next 28 years there were two ladies known as Duchess of Gloucester. The difference was that the elder was HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester while the younger was, and is HRH The Duchess of Gloucester. If only one woman can hold a title at a time then Birgitte would have had to use a different title for those 28 years.

Earl Spencer's first wife was known as Victoria, Countess Spencer while his second wife was The Countess Spencer. At the same time, Raine, was also using Countess Spencer as the widow of Diana's father.

As soon as a wife is using their first name they are indicating they are either divorced, or widowed, and the title shows who her husband was. It doesn't stop another woman from using the title.

Add to that is the fact that even now there are two women who can use Countess of St Andrews - the wife of the actual holder of the title and the wife of the heir apparent who uses that title as a courtesy. The Duke of Kent's secondary titles - Earl of St Andrews and Baron Downpatrick are used by his son and grandson but they are still his titles. His wife, The Duchess, therefore is also The Countess of St Andrews and Baroness Downpatrick but her daughter-in-law uses Countess of St Andrews as a courtesy title to show she is the wife of the heir apparent to the Dukedom of Kent.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Which company made the Coronation Flags for King Edward VIII?

 

[Mbruno]

Charles and the Duke of Norfolk and the Queen have regular meetings on not only Charles' coronation but the various funerals - The Queen's, Philip's, Charles' and Camilla's.

It was to the Duke of Norfolk that the BRF turned in 1997 to get the plans for Diana's funeral as they used his plans for the Queen Mother's for Diana's and then again for the Queen Mums'.

It always amazes me that the duke of Norfolk, a Catholic, should be in charge of planning Protestant ceremonies.

 

[MARG]

I am interested in what form the next Coronation would take. While many see it as archaic and that they should totally abolish them, there would be more than a few parliamentarians and their constituents that would disagree.

You only had to see the financial benefits of the weddings of Prince Harry and even Princess Eugenie to see the number of tourists there and, where there are tourists there is trade and with live coverage (not to mention the international rights to screen it internationally). Just think of the people flying in and out of the country, the number of Hotels, Motels, to house them, restaurants to feed them, shops to keep them entertained.

Further, there will also be community activities arranged throughout the UK, pubs with big screens and parties in parks holding festivities more on the family side, family get-togethers and even places holding "we don't want to know or care" parties. The UK is not likely to miss such a historic reason to celebrate.

But it is not just about the income that can be made by an actual Coronation but, to my way of thinking, the community spirit it would engender and the potential it has to inspire the national pride that runs deep but often silent in the nature of the peoples of the UK.

 

[Blog Real]

After seeing the documentary about the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, I began to wonder what Charles and William's quotes will be like.
I think both Charles and William will keep the tradition but fit for the new times.
I think Charles and William are traditional people.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

Charles probably has still coronation but not sure if William will has. Such thing is already thing of past. Any other European monarchy doesn't anymore practise coronations. Some haven't ever practised such things. I am quiet sure that coronations will end in UK eventually even if monarchy would be still around.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Coronation has a lot of similarities to the consecration of a Bishop in the Latin (and the Anglican) Church, which still happens today. It is essentialy a religious ceremony. Not only does the wearing of a huge diamond encrusted crown, a fur cloak, an orb, sceptre, sword-of-state etc. quite clash with Modern Britain Anno 2028 or so, it is also essentially a profound ecclesiastical Anglican ceremony for one of Europe's most secular countries, where especially the Church of England sees a dramatic decline.

In an increasingly atheistic and religiously diverse British society, a neutral secular state – which guarantees freedom of religion or belief for all, but eschews religious favouritism – seems the obvious model to embrace, in my humble view. An installation ceremony like in all other European monarchies, where it is about state and not about religion, seems the solution.

Problem: the King is also head of the Church. A position which conflicts with a neutral secular state. It could be solved by transfering the position to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Again diverse European monarchies show the example: in the Scandinavian countries the ties between monarch and the former State Churches have changed as well.

It will be fascinating to see how the installation of British Kings will develop.

 

[Jacknch]

I've think I've said it before in this thread a long tome ago, but I would like to witness just one full coronation along the lines of the Queen's coronation in my lifetime for Charles. Thereafter, I don't mind so much if it is changed or modernised.

 

[wartenberg7]

Charles probably has still coronation but not sure if William will has. Such thing is already thing of past. Any other European monarchy doesn't anymore practise coronations. Some haven't ever practised such things. I am quiet sure that coronations will end in UK eventually even if monarchy would be still around.

You just cannot simply abandon it like in the scandinavian countries as in Britain it is an integral part of the country´s constitution - and I don´t see that anyone in this nation, which is so much in love with old traditions and rituals like any other I could think of, who would want that (well, with the exception of republicans perhaps)! In the broad british society most people remain very much in favour, not to say mad, about the ceremony.

 

[Durham]

It'll be like the 2012 Olympics, everyone complained about it before it happened, that it would be an embarrassing flop & cost too much etc etc.... & raved about it afterwards saying what a great success it had been & how it had brought the country together.

It's a great British pastime, having a good old moan.

I don't believe for one moment that there won't be a coronation. It is inconceivable.

 

[Durham]

It always amazes me that the duke of Norfolk, a Catholic, should be in charge of planning Protestant ceremonies.

It is one those historical peculiarities. The continued existence of an English Catholic aristocracy & gentry, usually far removed from the centres of power in remote & peripheral areas, is a remarkable tale of survival. They intermarried & carried on their religious life discreetly. They became a caste within a caste. Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited is about one of these English Catholic dynasties. It wasn't until the terrible famine & the arrival of huge numbers of Irish people that the Catholic population of England grew substantially.

 

[Denville]

It is one those historical peculiarities. The continued existence of an English Catholic aristocracy & gentry, usually far removed from the centres of power in remote & peripheral areas, is a remarkable tale of survival. They intermarried & carried on their religious life discreetly. They became a caste within a caste. Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited is about one of these English Catholic dynasties. It wasn't until the terrible famine & the arrival of huge numbers of Irish people that the Catholic population of England grew substantially.

No Lord Marchmain's family are not catholic.. He turned Catholic to marry Lady Marchmain...

 

[Durham]

No Lord Marchmain's family are not catholic.. He turned Catholic to marry Lady Marchmain...

Yes I know but it's a well known description of an English catholic aristocratic family. That could have been made clearer but there are many examples of continuous catholic dynasties of course not just the Howards.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The joint coronation of King Richard III and Queen Anne Neville on July 6, 1483 was a first in 175 years.

 

[angieuk]

Thinking about the coronations of previous Kings and Queens.

King Edward VII
King George V
King George VI
Queen Elizabeth II

Is Charles going to get the same big Coronation?
Is William going to?

Or, is this long in the past? So now, the same sort of ceremony as with European Monarchy?

 

[Iluvbertie]

While the monarch of the UK is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England they will have a coronation with a religious aspect as this ceremony isn't just about crowing a monarch but investing a new Supreme Governor of the CoE.

I doubt that it will ever again be on the scale of Elizabeth's but it will still be a large event.