Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[Granada]

ladongas, Charles and his advisors, with I'm SURE family "input", ( Anne, Edward & William) decided to exclude her. She has skeletons in her closet, more stuff than the public knows, I'm sure. AND I didn't even bring up her sordid Epstein connections.

They are bringing her back for some Family Events which is nice and she seems grateful. She seem fine with this. She was very hurt when not invited to William and Kate's Wedding, and spoke to that, back in 2011.

Again, it is a State Occasion, not Family Event.

 

[tommy100]

Fergie herself said on a UK tv programme (where she is doing the rounds selling her latest book) that she isn't married to Andrew anymore so can't expect to be invited.

Right or wrong, she hasn't been invited. Case closed.

 

[TLLK]

Fergie herself said on a UK tv programme (where she is doing the rounds selling her latest book) that she isn't married to Andrew anymore so can't expect to be invited.

Right or wrong, she hasn't been invited. Case closed.

So based upon Sarah's own words, she completely understands that this is a State Occasion and not a family one. I doubt that anyone has asked if other former BRF spouses, Mark Phillips, Serena Snowdon and Autumn Phillps are on the Coronation guest list.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Hmm I don't think its as simple as Charles didn't send her an invite because he checked first and was told she'd be travelling. The Queen Mother and The late Queen's funeral were the only two official royal events she has taken part in. Thus her not attending the coronation is a default "back to normal".

Didn’t she go to Harry’s wedding? (Not William’s?). Maybe a wedding isn’t classified as an official event

 

[Mbruno]

So based upon Sarah's own words, she completely understands that this is a State Occasion and not a family one. I doubt that anyone has asked if other former BRF spouses, Mark Phillips, Serena Snowdon and Autumn Phillps are on the Coronation guest list.

Fair point, but Mark Phillips, Serena Snowdon and Autumn Phillips are not listed as members of the Royal Family in the Palace's official website while Sarah, Duchess of York, is. That is what confuses many royal watchers. She is more like "half in, half out" actually, with a somewhat gray zone status.

 

[VictoriaB]

The list of members of the royal family that is being referred to is part of a package relating to use of images and names for commercial purposes

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/royal_arms_blue_booklet_2019_1.pdf

Arguably it is to protect the use of the title "Duchess of York" for commercial purposes that she is on the list rather than as any intent to see her as part of the Royal Family for state and family purposes.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Didn’t she go to Harry’s wedding? (Not William’s?). Maybe a wedding isn’t classified as an official event

Well Harry’s wedding wasn’t on the same stature as William’s as Harry was not the eldest son of the POW. Plus Sarah didn’t have much scandal at that time of Harry’s wedding. Other than a few key people like the now late Queen and DOE and POW and Duke of Cambridge and some immediate family, there weren’t many important people at Harry’s wedding so the comparison is off and Harry invited whoever he wanted.

 

[Spheno]

I wonder how Britons feel about some people being invited only for political reasons or to meet diversity/ representation quotas.

What I am saying is that it is more politically appealing these days to invite a young community organizer ( especially a female PoC), who might actually be privately a republican or not care about the monarchy at all, than to invite a white male hereditary peer whose family has served the Crown since the days of the Franco-Norman Kings, but is that really the right thing to do?

I know that is a deeply controversial discussion, but I think we need to ask ourselves if all this effort to make the monarchy look “ inclusive “ makes sense for an institution that is based on hereditary privilege and is actually the opposite of inclusiveness. It may look fake in my opinion and have the opposite effect of what is intended. I would leave the cultural wars and the inclusiveness agenda to the politicians who need to worry about winning the next election, rather than the King.

A different situation, however, would be if the invited people are associated with charities with which the King has been genuinely involved and are people who have a real working relationship with the Royal Household.

I think you misread news and missed the point. They didn't invite random young and diverse people.
From the government's announcement: 'It has been announced that people from all walks of life who have been awarded British Empire Medals for their service to the community have been invited to attend the Coronation Service at Westminster Abbey.'
So they have achieved inclusive congregation by inviting British Empire Medal recipients. At the late queen's funeral they invited almost 200 people who were recognized in the 2022 Queen's Birthday Honours. Thus UK has new tradition to invited "people from all walks of life" based on the latest list of Honours. All white male hereditary peers have chance to be on such list.

From official announcement: 'In addition, 400 young people representing charitable organisations, nominated by The King and The Queen Consort and the UK Government, will have the opportunity to watch the Coronation Service and Procession from St Margaret’s Church, Westminster Abbey, by kind permission of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.'
These people are invited to be OUTSIDE Westminster Abbey (as thousands others).

 

[Somebody]

The list of members of the royal family that is being referred to is part of a package relating to use of images and names for commercial purposes

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/royal_arms_blue_booklet_2019_1.pdf

Arguably it is to protect the use of the title "Duchess of York" for commercial purposes that she is on the list rather than as any intent to see her as part of the Royal Family for state and family purposes.

Do you also have a link to the list itself (annex C)? The exact wording in this part of the document is 'The names of Members of the Royal Family are listed at Annex C.' So, she is indicated as a member of the royal family - although it is helpful to know in which context this list was created.

Nonetheless, if they had wanted to make it clear that titles of former members of the royal family couldn't be used either, they could easily have made that clear by stating that explicitly instead of including her as one of the members of the royal family.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I think you misread news and missed the point. They didn't invite random young and diverse people.
From the government's announcement: 'It has been announced that people from all walks of life who have been awarded British Empire Medals for their service to the community have been invited to attend the Coronation Service at Westminster Abbey.'
So they have achieved inclusive congregation by inviting British Empire Medal recipients. At the late queen's funeral they invited almost 200 people who were recognized in the 2022 Queen's Birthday Honours. Thus UK has new tradition to invited "people from all walks of life" based on the latest list of Honours. All white male hereditary peers have chance to be on such list.

From official announcement: 'In addition, 400 young people representing charitable organisations, nominated by The King and The Queen Consort and the UK Government, will have the opportunity to watch the Coronation Service and Procession from St Margaret’s Church, Westminster Abbey, by kind permission of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.'
These people are invited to be OUTSIDE Westminster Abbey (as thousands others).

Well I think really his point in general was that the make up of coronation invites are largely different and unique in comparison to previous coronations. I get what you’re saying but Charles’s coronation is big contrast to his predecessor’s. I don’t recall people working at charities being invited to previous coronations until this upcoming one. Plus many peers haven’t been invited and don’t seem to feature prominently (aside from a few exceptions) unlike in previous coronations.

 

[Spheno]

Well I think really his point in general was that the make up of coronation invites are largely different and unique in comparison to previous coronations. I get what you’re saying but Charles’s coronation is big contrast to his predecessor’s. I don’t recall people working at charities being invited to previous coronations until this upcoming one. Plus many peers haven’t been invited and don’t seem to feature prominently (aside from a few exceptions) unlike in previous coronations.

Obviously, hereditary peers lost most of their powers in 1999.

 

[Lilyflo]

I wonder how Britons feel about some people being invited only for political reasons or to meet diversity/ representation quotas.

What I am saying is that it is more politically appealing these days to invite a young community organizer ( especially a female PoC), who might actually be privately a republican or not care about the monarchy at all, than to invite a white male hereditary peer whose family has served the Crown since the days of the Franco-Norman Kings, but is that really the right thing to do?

I know that is a deeply controversial discussion, but I think we need to ask ourselves if all this effort to make the monarchy look “ inclusive “ makes sense for an institution that is based on hereditary privilege and is actually the opposite of inclusiveness. It may look fake in my opinion and have the opposite effect of what is intended. I would leave the cultural wars and the inclusiveness agenda to the politicians who need to worry about winning the next election, rather than the King.

A different situation, however, would be if the invited people are associated with charities with which the King has been genuinely involved and are people who have a real working relationship with the Royal Household.

The UK is about 75/80% white so it's perfectly reasonable to include ethnic minorities in the coronation as they are a significant part of our population. Women are at least 50% of our population so yes, it's totally OK by me to have a female PoC take the place of a male hereditary peer. The monarch is head of state so the coronation is for the whole country, whether they are royalists or not. This is a democracy and the head of state represents us all just as the Prime Minister is supposed to serve the entire UK, not just those on his/her political side.

 

[tihkon2]

I know that is a deeply controversial discussion, but I think we need to ask ourselves if all this effort to make the monarchy look “ inclusive “ makes sense for an institution that is based on hereditary privilege and is actually the opposite of inclusiveness. It may look fake in my opinion...

I don't think we have to ask ourselves that at all. I think it's completely unnecessary. Especially on this board and in this thread. It's asking for off topic posts.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Obviously, hereditary peers lost most of their powers in 1999.

I just said that. But at the 1953 coronation, peers who were not involved with the House of Lords were still invited so at that point it didn’t matter if they were part of the HOL or not. Peers lost their power in the HOL Act of 1911, and just lost the automatic right to sit in the HOL in 1999 due to Blair’s reforms.

 

[VictoriaB]

Do you also have a link to the list itself (annex C)? The exact wording in this part of the document is 'The names of Members of the Royal Family are listed at Annex C.' So, she is indicated as a member of the royal family - although it is helpful to know in which context this list was created.

Nonetheless, if they had wanted to make it clear that titles of former members of the royal family couldn't be used either, they could easily have made that clear by stating that explicitly instead of including her as one of the members of the royal family.

The list was linked to up thread (it is actually annexure D not C)

https://www.royal.uk/use-royal-arms

 

[duchessrachel]

I wonder how Britons feel about some people being invited only for political reasons or to meet diversity/ representation quotas.

What I am saying is that it is more politically appealing these days to invite a young community organizer ( especially a female PoC), who might actually be privately a republican or not care about the monarchy at all, than to invite a white male hereditary peer whose family has served the Crown since the days of the Franco-Norman Kings, but is that really the right thing to do?

I know that is a deeply controversial discussion, but I think we need to ask ourselves if all this effort to make the monarchy look “ inclusive “ makes sense for an institution that is based on hereditary privilege and is actually the opposite of inclusiveness. It may look fake in my opinion and have the opposite effect of what is intended. I would leave the cultural wars and the inclusiveness agenda to the politicians who need to worry about winning the next election, rather than the King.

A different situation, however, would be if the invited people are associated with charities with which the King has been genuinely involved and are people who have a real working relationship with the Royal Household.

I totally agree.

 

[Spheno]

I just said that. But at the 1953 coronation, peers who were not involved with the House of Lords were still invited so at that point it didn’t matter if they were part of the HOL or not. Peers lost their power in the HOL Act of 1911, and just lost the automatic right to sit in the HOL in 1999 due to Blair’s reforms.

Until 1953 the entire peerage attended a coronation ceremony. At that point, there was a total UK peerage of 936, including 736 members of the House of Lords, minors and peeresses in their own right.
In a statement to the House of Lords on 27 January 1953 the then Lord Chancellor rejected the view that every peer enjoyed an “absolute right” to a seat in the Abbey. Rather he was:
convinced that it lies entirely within the Royal Prerogative or otherwise within the personal power of the Sovereign to determine what Peers shall be summoned to the Abbey and what services shall be rendered by them; and it would be clearly improper in this House to challenge or criticise the exercise by the Sovereign of such powers.
The Lord Chancellor also reminded peers that their homage had been curtailed after 1902. Instead, 910 peers were accommodated (via a ballot) in the Abbey. If unsuccessful, a peer and his wife were entitled to a free seat in a covered stand to be erected outside.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9412/CBP-9412.pdf

So they started in 1953.

 

[wbenson]

Armed Forces personnel to feature in Coronation

More than 6,000 men and women of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces will participate in the historic Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla next month.

In the largest military ceremonial operation for 70 years sailors, soldiers and aviators from across the UK and the breadth of the Commonwealth will take part in two magnificent processions accompanying Their Majesties to and from Westminster Abbey, where the Coronation Service takes place.

Later in the day, military personnel will conduct a breath-taking Coronation flypast of more than 60 aircraft from the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force flying over The Mall in Central London.

From military bases in all corners of the country and on His Majesty’s ships at sea, gun salutes will sound out to herald the moment when The King is crowned.

 

[Durham]

The UK is about 75/80% white so it's perfectly reasonable to include ethnic minorities in the coronation as they are a significant part of our population. Women are at least 50% of our population so yes, it's totally OK by me to have a female PoC take the place of a male hereditary peer. The monarch is head of state so the coronation is for the whole country, whether they are royalists or not. This is a democracy and the head of state represents us all just as the Prime Minister is supposed to serve the entire UK, not just those on his/her political side.

The ethnic minority population is just under 15% of the UK. Higher than that in London (getting on for half) & most other larger English cities but much lower in Scotland, Wales & non-metropolitan England.

It’s entirely reasonable that the coronation attempts to reflect these demographics in some form. I’m not sure how religious diversity can be included however other than having representatives of other denominations & religions present in the abbey. People of south Asian heritage make up by far the largest percentage of ethnic minority Britons (the PM & Scottish 1st minister for example) & they're overwhelmingly Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. Maybe some sort of inclusive civic event can be hosted elsewhere?

 

[Alison H]

As I understand it, Catholic, Nonconformist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh leaders will all be attending the Coronation, and the issue is that Charles would like them to read some prayers but the Church of England isn't keen. As Charles is the Supreme Governor of the C of E, I think what he says should go!

The Sunday papers are saying that the Department of Culture chose most of the invitees, and Charles only got about 150 invitations, which is why so many senior peers haven't made the cut.

 

[Iluvbertie]

According to the FE page of the BRF the Duchess of Gloucester won't be at the coronation concert - assuming that is an evening event - as she will be attending Evensong at St Paul's Cathedral on the Sunday night. It is possible I suppose for an early Evensong service and a helicopter to get her to the concert but maybe she would prefer to return to KP and watch it with her slippers on ... or maybe no bother with it given the line-up so far announced.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As I understand it, Catholic, Nonconformist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh leaders will all be attending the Coronation, and the issue is that Charles would like them to read some prayers but the Church of England isn't keen. As Charles is the Supreme Governor of the C of E, I think what he says should go!

He has no say on the liturgy and the CoE is clear - only Christians can take an active part in a Christian service but all are welcome to attend.

Charles has NO say on matters of this nature and when they are decided he won't even be present. He may attend a Synod's opening and closing ceremonies but otherwise, when the important stuff is being discussed and decided he isn't there and has no say in what is said - same as parliament - he opens it and then has nothing further to do with it.

Like being Head of State he has to do what the government tells him and as Supreme Governor he has to do what the church tells him. In both cases he is largely a rubber stamp with no say. He is probably the least free person in the UK now as he has no right of free speech or freedom of movement or any of the basic freedoms that non-incarcerated people take for granted. Every speech he gives, other than his Christmas message, has to be approved ... and if the Christmas message is ever anything more than platitudes he will find that being approved as well - like his mother he will never say anything of any importance that the government of the day doesn't want said.

He could trigger a crisis if he pushes and has an Archbishop who refuses to crown him ... as happened in 1936.

Even the heads of many of the other faiths have publicly said that they hope to be there but it is a CHRISTIAN service and thus they have no role to play.

 

[Durham]

As I understand it, Catholic, Nonconformist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh leaders will all be attending the Coronation, and the issue is that Charles would like them to read some prayers but the Church of England isn't keen. As Charles is the Supreme Governor of the C of E, I think what he says should go!

The Sunday papers are saying that the Department of Culture chose most of the invitees, and Charles only got about 150 invitations, which is why so many senior peers haven't made the cut.

I lean more to it being the Church of England's decision. It's their service after all. Whatever is decided some people will disagree I suppose.

 

[Durham]

Armed Forces personnel to feature in Coronation

More than 6,000 men and women of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces will participate in the historic Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla next month.

In the largest military ceremonial operation for 70 years sailors, soldiers and aviators from across the UK and the breadth of the Commonwealth will take part in two magnificent processions accompanying Their Majesties to and from Westminster Abbey, where the Coronation Service takes place.

Later in the day, military personnel will conduct a breath-taking Coronation flypast of more than 60 aircraft from the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force flying over The Mall in Central London.

From military bases in all corners of the country and on His Majesty’s ships at sea, gun salutes will sound out to herald the moment when The King is crowned.

This all sounds splendid! It's a great shame that the route is not longer so more people can watch. The armed forces are very popular in the UK & are much respected.

Fingers crossed for the weather & the flypast!

 

[Mbruno]

As I understand it, Catholic, Nonconformist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh leaders will all be attending the Coronation, and the issue is that Charles would like them to read some prayers but the Church of England isn't keen. As Charles is the Supreme Governor of the C of E, I think what he says should go!

The Sunday papers are saying that the Department of Culture chose most of the invitees, and Charles only got about 150 invitations, which is why so many senior peers haven't made the cut.

I don't think it is a problem for the CoE to have Catholic, Presbyterian, or Nonconformist ministers or priests say prayers during the coronation service. As you may recall, that happened in the Queen's main funeral service at the Abbey. My understanding is that the Church has a problem with allowing representatives of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu faiths (i.e., non-Christians) to say prayers or read a lesson. That obviously also excludes the current British Prime Minister or the current Scottish First Minister from having a role in the service (as you might recall, both Nicola Sturgeon and Liz Truss, who belong to Christian churches, did readings at the Queen's funeral services in Edinburgh and London)

 

[Durham]

I don't think it is a problem for the CoE to have Catholic, Presbyterian, or Nonconformist ministers or priests say prayers during the coronation service. As you may recall, that happened in the Queen's main funeral service at the Abbey. My understanding is that the Church has a problem with allowing representatives of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu faiths (i.e., non-Christians) to say prayers or read a lesson. That obviously also excludes the current British Prime Minister or the current Scottish First Minister from having a role in the service (as you might recall, both Nicola Sturgeon and Liz Truss, who belong to Christian churches, did readings at the Queen's funeral services in Edinburgh and London)

It's entirely reasonable for the CofE to exclude non-Christians in prayers & bible readings. And I suspect other religious groups fully understand & are accepting. If the coronation was necessary for someone to actually become the monarch then it would be different.

Provision can be made elsewhere for an inter faith service if required. Westminster Hall for example. Or even better outside of London in one of the great civic buildings of northern England like Liverpool's St George's Hall or Manchester Town Hall.

 

[Lilyflo]

The ethnic minority population is just under 15% of the UK. Higher than that in London (getting on for half) & most other larger English cities but much lower in Scotland, Wales & non-metropolitan England.

It’s entirely reasonable that the coronation attempts to reflect these demographics in some form.

Thanks for the figures. I thought it was higher than that, even though ethnic minorities are only about 1% of the population where I live, I still want the coronation to reflect/include the whole population.

 

[SLV]

I don't think it is a problem for the CoE to have Catholic, Presbyterian, or Nonconformist ministers or priests say prayers during the coronation service. As you may recall, that happened in the Queen's main funeral service at the Abbey. My understanding is that the Church has a problem with allowing representatives of the Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu faiths (i.e., non-Christians) to say prayers or read a lesson. That obviously also excludes the current British Prime Minister or the current Scottish First Minister from having a role in the service (as you might recall, both Nicola Sturgeon and Liz Truss, who belong to Christian churches, did readings at the Queen's funeral services in Edinburgh and London)

I don't understand why a non-christian cannot do a reading. It is just reading a text, not preaching a sermon.
I doubt a Jewish man will have a problem with doing a reading from the old Testament. Most of the books are the same.

 

[Somebody]

I don't understand why a non-christian cannot do a reading. It is just reading a text, not preaching a sermon.
I doubt a Jewish man will have a problem with doing a reading from the old Testament. Most of the books are the same.

I'd say that is exactly the problem. For them it would just be 'reading a text', while in the Anglican liturgy it is reading the Word of the Lord (this is typically explicitly stated by the person doing the reading after finishing reading ("The Word of the Lord", to which the congregation responds "Thanks be to God"). Especially the gospel reading is considered a pivotal moment in the service (which is announced by the reader as "The Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ According to [Gospel Writer]" (with the response "Glory to You, Lord Christ" and ended by "The Gospel of the Lord" (with the response by the people: "Praise to You, Lord Christ"). How could anyone who does not believe s/he just read the Word/Gospel of the Lord sincerely introduce and close the readings in this way?!

This piece explains a bit more about how central Bible Reading is to Anglicans during the service (within the Calvinistic tradition the sermon is indeed the central element).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't understand why a non-christian cannot do a reading. It is just reading a text, not preaching a sermon.
I doubt a Jewish man will have a problem with doing a reading from the old Testament. Most of the books are the same.

It is simple - it is the rules of the CoE and many other Christian denominations - just as a Christian can't do a reading in a Synagogue or a Mosque.