The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #401  
Old 08-01-2018, 10:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
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'.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 08-01-2018, 10:35 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,996
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.
__________________

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 08-01-2018, 11:01 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,359
Absolutely the role of the Earl Marshal was the same before Henry VIII as after.
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 10-02-2018, 05:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 105
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.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 10-02-2018, 05:55 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 24,160
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.
__________________

8th of October 1515 ; Birth of The Lady Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 10-02-2018, 06:49 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 10-02-2018, 11:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 1,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 10-03-2018, 05:20 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 10-03-2018, 07:21 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 10-03-2018, 09:12 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 2,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 10-03-2018, 09:35 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
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.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 10-03-2018, 05:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
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.
__________________

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
Unexpected Monarchs auntie Royalty Past, Present, and Future 86 08-25-2018 07:53 AM
Worst British Monarchs Kurenai British Royal History 171 08-15-2017 06:26 AM
What Would You Wear To Your Own Coronation?! constance Royal Chit Chat 25 12-09-2015 07:43 AM




Popular Tags
administrator alqasimi aristocracy armenia bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig belgian belgian royal family birthday celebration countess of snowdon crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria current events cypher cyprus danish history denmark duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch history earl of wessex family search french royalty future wife of prince hussein germany hamdan bin mohammed harry head of the house henry v house of bernadotte house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau house of saxe-coburg and gotha king philippe letter lithuanian castles marriage mbs meghan markle mohammed vi monarchist monarchy naples nelson mandela bay official visit palaces potential areas prince charles prince harry princely family of monaco prince of wales princess anne princess benedikte qe2 queen mathilde queen paola romanov family rumania shakespeare south korea spanish royal state visit sweden swedish history swedish royal family united kingdom usa valois viscount severn windy city


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×