Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 2

[Durham]

I think it's an odd idea as well, not necessarily bad, but odd. Anyway I'm not from the realms so I probably better shut my mouth

I agree it is an odd inclusion. Not really sure what to make of it really.

 

[shady lady]

It is all way too elaborate. The only thing the King should do, and he already is King anyway, is to swear allegiance to the not-written Constitution and maintain and defend the rights of all in his realms and the territories under the Crown.

That is it. That is the essence.

All this is really a circus and is only alienating the common citizen worrying about the costs of living or endlessly waiting on NHS waiting lists or experiencing impossibilities finding an affordable house.

Pledging allegiance, Holy Oil, Golden Spurs, Stone of Scone, I am sorry, even for a royalist all this can look way overdone anno 2023, let alone to not-so-royalists... I can very well imagine how this looks to a farmer in Québec or a pizzeria owner in Melbourne. Good heavens...

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The UK is not a good place to live right now...NHS on its knees, strikes, sky high energy bills, food prices rocketing, the aftermath of covid, problems caused by Brexit, a weak government... the list goes on.

It's not just Australians as per Curryong's post; there's plenty of people in the UK who couldn't care less about the coronation either. But whereas Australian opposition is probably driven by a desire to become a republic, here it's down to a feeling that the whole thing is outdated, out of place and utterly detached from the struggles the country are going through, producing feelings of antipathy and disinterest.

That's not Charles's fault. The last Coronation was 70 years ago remember, and life in Britain was very different then. Yes, we had just come out of a World War and there was still food rationing in place (it finally ended in 1954), but whereas there was a feeling then of hope for the future, a new era of prosperity and progress which would indeed blossom in the 1960s, today that hope seems conspicuously absent.

And to be fair, Charles has "slimmed down" the event such as the guest list and length of the service, and recognised the different Britain we live in today, such as in terms of diversity.

I love history and so I will be watching the Coronation, and many will embrace it as a welcome distraction from the difficulties the country is facing; fair enough. But in contrast to 1953 when it seemed everyone was desperate to get access to a TV set one way or another, many people here will just not care. And today of course it can be recorded to watch later, or just watch "the highlights". Many will have to do this anyway of course, because they have to go out and work and put bread on the table.

Increased social isolation in the intervening years means many more people will watch this coronation alone too - another big change and a sad one. I'm lucky that I live in a town that has a strong community spirit.

Would people be more enthusiastic and watch the Coronation if we were currently a happy and prosperous nation? I think the answer is, undoubtedly, yes.

Looking forward, I'm guessing when William's time comes, his Coronation will be even more modernised than this one, and far removed from his grandmother's, all those years ago.

MOO

 

[wbenson]

Abbey releases music for the Coronation Vivats

Westminster Abbey has today released the words and music of the Vivat acclamations which will be sung at the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen on Saturday 6th May.

The words which will be sung at this Coronation are:
Vivat Regina Camilla! Vivat Regina Camilla!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!

Vivat Rex Carolus! Vivat Rex Carolus!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!
(Or ‘Long live Queen Camilla! Long live King Charles!')

------

I think, based on the music that they posted, it will be very similar to the 1911 version, heard at 3:27 below.

 

[Claire]

Also and this is purely a logistical issue - how is it going to be controlled in the Church. if it is going to be in the church? Are people just going to read ot off the programme or be lead by an official. When people are unaware of the oath and I believe most will be - there will be a difference of rhythm and cadence. So unlike regular talking phases - like the Lord's Prayer or the Plegde of Alligiance which is drilled into you, the people in the church are going to be a bit lost at least at first. So they will either find the rhythm fast and pull in or it is going to sound like a muttering mess.

Also the TV camera are going to zoom in on people to see who is saying in - who is saying it with gusto, who is staring off into the side alters praying that the whole service will come to an end. The tabloids are going to have a field day.

I can image the oath with a bounching ball at the bottom of the BBC coverage - sorry going off topic.

 

[tommy100]

Interestingly the BBC headline has been changed from "asked to" to "invited to" which is much more accurate IMO. "asked to" suggest an expectation it will be done, "invited to" is more akin to 'if you want to'.

For those worried about how it will "work" given nearly every church service includes the congregation reciting the lords prayer without it turning into a disaster I'm not sure what the fuss it about.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

(I have not had the time to read through all of the new information and posts, so I apologize in advance if there is anything I have overlooked.)

There seems to be an assumption here that the modification in the homage is what is attracting criticism and jibes, and the old version would have been acceptable. I am not sure if that is correct.

Among the residents of Charles III's realms, a substantial proportion either disapprove of having a monarch, disapprove of having a British monarch, disapprove of having a hereditary monarch, or disapprove of having Charles, personally, be their monarch. Logically, all of these groups of people should be opposed to having any form of coronation and any group of people paying homage to King Charles III.

If critics are attacking the current form and not the old form, I suspect that is not because they approve of having hereditary peers swearing allegiance to King Charles III at a state event as was done in 1953, but simply because most of them are either ignorant of or not thinking about the 1953 coronation at this time.


Personally, I approve of allowing the homage to be voluntary and inviting the general public and not only hereditary peers to participate, because both are acknowledgements of changes to the political system.

The first modification recognizes that Realm citizens today have the democratic right to either give or withhold their support from the monarchy.

The second modification recognizes that the feudal hierarchy is long dead. Commoners in medieval Europe typically did not swear homage to kings because, in most cases, ordinary people were directly governed by their local landowners (not the king). Those landowners were themselves subjects of higher nobility, and so forth. It is for the most part no longer the case that commoners are ruled by hereditary peers (though there remain 92 hereditary peers making law for the general public through their reserved seats in the House of Lords...), so there is less reason for hereditary peers in 2023 to be pledging allegiance on the commoners' behalf.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

there were comments not that long ago on here, maybe not this thread, about the plans not having enough pomp and ceremony, now as we get details posters are saying there shouldnt be anything. make up your minds.

I like good pomp and circumstance. But what monarchs do in other countries is essentially the same as presidents do: swear allegiance to the Constitution and promise to be a good and just head of state. It is just the re-affirmation of a centuries old contract between a family and the State. It can be done in 5 minutes, so to say.

Nothing of this prevents pomp. See the ceremonies in Amsterdam or Tokyo. But "chrism oil from the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem", an anointing of the Head of State of a secular parliamentary democracy, hidden behind a screen, the offering of "golden spurs" and a "golden spoon" , the wearing of "bracelets of sincerity and wisdom"...

Is it strange that people in the Realms and beyond are watching all this with growing disbelief? Is all this really happening in 2023, while queuing at congested Fulham Road with a screaming child in the back seat?

 

[royalistbert]

I like good pomp and circumstance. But what monarchs do in other countries is essentially the same as presidents do: swear allegiance to the Constitution and promise to be a good and just head of state. It is just the re-affirmation of a centuries old contract between a family and the State. It can be done in 5 minutes, so to say.

Nothing of this prevents pomp. See the ceremonies in Amsterdam or Tokyo. But "chrism oil from the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem", an anointing of the Head of State of a secular parliamentary democracy, hidden behind a screen, the offering of "golden spurs" and a "golden spoon" , the wearing of "bracelets of sincerity and wisdom"...

Is it strange that people in the Realms and beyond are watching all this with growing disbelief? Is all this really happening in 2023, while queuing at congested Fulham Road with a screaming child in the back seat?

Because it harms no one. What does the year 2023 got to do with it. It's just a number.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Abbey releases music for the Coronation Vivats

Westminster Abbey has today released the words and music of the Vivat acclamations which will be sung at the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen on Saturday 6th May.

The words which will be sung at this Coronation are:
Vivat Regina Camilla! Vivat Regina Camilla!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!

Vivat Rex Carolus! Vivat Rex Carolus!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!
(Or ‘Long live Queen Camilla! Long live King Charles!')

------

I think, based on the music that they posted, it will be very similar to the 1911 version, heard at 3:27 below.

A bit strange to bring homage to a consort whom is constitutionally not relevant. Imagine Vivat Jill Biden, vivat!

Was there a similar homage to the Duke of Edinburgh?

 

[Spheno]

I understand the constitutional explanation but I don’t find it convincing. I think if any PM follows another faith then they should have the option not to read. Everyone would understand.

For all we know he may well find the idea uncomfortable. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he did. Obviously we’re not going to know either way.

I think this has the potential to be a rather odd & awkward moment in the service.

Why do you think the PM doesn't want to be part of the coronation? Why do you think that he was forced to do it???
I am sure he was asked in advance and he was ok with this idea.

 

[wbenson]

A bit strange to bring homage to a consort whom is constitutionally not relevant. Imagine Vivat Jill Biden, vivat!

Was there a similar homage to the Duke of Edinburgh?

No, and I think it took some pushing for him to even be included in the processions and the communion.

 

[Hallo girl]

A bit strange to bring homage to a consort whom is constitutionally not relevant. Imagine Vivat Jill Biden, vivat!

Was there a similar homage to the Duke of Edinburgh?

What has Jill Biden got to do with anything, this is two totally different situations, a read of British history would explain a great deal.

 

[Mbruno]

Abbey releases music for the Coronation Vivats

Westminster Abbey has today released the words and music of the Vivat acclamations which will be sung at the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen on Saturday 6th May.

The words which will be sung at this Coronation are:
Vivat Regina Camilla! Vivat Regina Camilla!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!

Vivat Rex Carolus! Vivat Rex Carolus!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!
(Or ‘Long live Queen Camilla! Long live King Charles!')

------

I think, based on the music that they posted, it will be very similar to the 1911 version, heard at 3:27 below.

I wonder why they inisist on saying "Vivat" or "Regina" in the UK as they would be pronounced if they were English words.

Incidentally, I was watching "Seven Kings Must Die" on Netflix (a sequel to the TV series "The Last Kingdom") and, even though it is not historically accurate, there was a scene at least in this cheap TV movie where the coronation of King Aethelstan is shown and the congregation actually pronounces "Vivat" as in Latin. I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

[wbenson]

I wonder why they inisist on saying "Vivat" or "Regina" in the UK as they would be pronounced if they were English words.

That's how all Latin words were traditionally pronounced in Britain. It's taught differently now but the old pronunciations have stuck around for some things.

 

[Durham]

Why do you think the PM doesn't want to be part of the coronation? Why do you think that he was forced to do it???
I am sure he was asked in advance and he was ok with this idea.

Not the whole coronation just the reading of one St Paul's epistles. I would think he's agreed because he believes, or has been informed, that it's his duty as the PM.

 

[royalistbert]

Probably they will scrap the peoples homage seems rather odd thing to add.

 

[Denville]

there were comments not that long ago on here, maybe not this thread, about the plans not having enough pomp and ceremony, now as we get details posters are saying there shouldnt be anything. make up your minds.

Very true. If Charles was just going to have a simple inauguration, fine but if he's having a coronation, then all these things are part of it.

 

[Erin9]

Interestingly the BBC headline has been changed from "asked to" to "invited to" which is much more accurate IMO. "asked to" suggest an expectation it will be done, "invited to" is more akin to 'if you want to'.

For those worried about how it will "work" given nearly every church service includes the congregation reciting the lords prayer without it turning into a disaster I'm not sure what the fuss it about.

Yes. This sounds more accurate. You are invited to. It’s an option. It sounds like this is an attempt to be more inclusive.

I’d like to think the people who actually choose to attend the coronation can manage to behave properly in church.

I can see how this could open itself up to abuse online or people responding negatively at home. Not sure why people would want to watch though if they’re so strongly anti monarch.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Abbey releases music for the Coronation Vivats

Westminster Abbey has today released the words and music of the Vivat acclamations which will be sung at the Coronation of Their Majesties The King and The Queen on Saturday 6th May.

The words which will be sung at this Coronation are:
Vivat Regina Camilla! Vivat Regina Camilla!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!

Vivat Rex Carolus! Vivat Rex Carolus!
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!
(Or ‘Long live Queen Camilla! Long live King Charles!')

------

I think, based on the music that they posted, it will be very similar to the 1911 version, heard at 3:27 below.

The choir sang this at my wedding- without the “vivat” obviously

 

[Spheno]

The King & Queen's Robes in 2023 - Reuse and Symbolism

 

[Durham]

Nothing of this prevents pomp. See the ceremonies in Amsterdam or Tokyo. But "chrism oil from the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem", an anointing of the Head of State of a secular parliamentary democracy, hidden behind a screen, the offering of "golden spurs" and a "golden spoon" , the wearing of "bracelets of sincerity and wisdom"...

Is it strange that people in the Realms and beyond are watching all this with growing disbelief? Is all this really happening in 2023, while queuing at congested Fulham Road w

I don't get a sense of that in the UK, or at least in England. No idea about the other realms.

It's more a mix of some interest & some indifference. It's difficult to judge the balance of the mood. I think that will be more obvious in retrospect.

As for the seemingly esoteric elements of the coronation well an alternative take would be Tom Holland's piece in today's Observer:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-seem-to-speak-to-a-modern-love-of-the-sacred

His contention is that, in a funny sort of way, the coronation might not actually be that out of tune with modern sensibilities after all.

 

[Durham]

here it's down to a feeling that the whole thing is outdated, out of place and utterly detached from the struggles the country are going through, producing feelings of antipathy and disinterest.

Would people be more enthusiastic and watch the Coronation if we were currently a happy and prosperous nation? I think the answer is, undoubtedly, yes.

MOO

I would agree that there is some of this. How much exactly is difficult to gauge. So I'm not quite as pessimistic. I do agree that the national mood would have been different a few short years ago.

I suppose the worst time for a coronation was 1937. Smack bang in the middle of the Great Depression. That was a time of dreadful hardship & poverty. It would be interesting to read some research on attitudes to the coronation at that time.

 

[Alison H]

And the strange thing is: he already is King since September, he was solemnly proclaimed and no one fights his rightful place. Now, so many months furtherer, suddenly all this is needed. For what? That is why it feels like a theatre, and lots of it really is just invented theatre too, thanks to the fantasies of King Edward VII.

People have a sharp eye for this and immediately see through the superficialness of all this. Maybe it was better - like in other monarchies - to have the ceremony immediately after the funeral period. But now it really feels as serving mustard after the meal has already been eaten.

Why is it superficial? It's a religious ceremony. Many parts of it date back hundreds of years. And it's not considered appropriate to hold a big celebration just after the death of the previous monarch, when the new monarch is in mourning for their parent or sibling.

 

[Nico]

And the strange thing is: he already is King since September, he was solemnly proclaimed and no one fights his rightful place. Now, so many months furtherer, suddenly all this is needed. For what? That is why it feels like a theatre, and lots of it really is just invented theatre too, thanks to the fantasies of King Edward VII.

People have a sharp eye for this and immediately see through the superficialness of all this. Maybe it was better - like in other monarchies - to have the ceremony immediately after the funeral period. But now it really feels as serving mustard after the meal has already been eaten.

I must admit you're losing me a bit
You're the first to moan about lack of return dinners during State Visit, Queens not wearing proper hats and gloves during outings and generaly complaining about " c était mieux avant " and now you dont seem satisfied with a full pagentery galore not seen since 1953.
I.don't.get it

 

[Hallo girl]

Also and this is purely a logistical issue - how is it going to be controlled in the Church. if it is going to be in the church? Are people just going to read ot off the programme or be lead by an official. When people are unaware of the oath and I believe most will be - there will be a difference of rhythm and cadence. So unlike regular talking phases - like the Lord's Prayer or the Plegde of Alligiance which is drilled into you, the people in the church are going to be a bit lost at least at first. So they will either find the rhythm fast and pull in or it is going to sound like a muttering mess.

Also the TV camera are going to zoom in on people to see who is saying in - who is saying it with gusto, who is staring off into the side alters praying that the whole service will come to an end. The tabloids are going to have a field day.

I can image the oath with a bounching ball at the bottom of the BBC coverage - sorry going off topic.

I would be really disappointed if there are guests at the Coronation who cannot wait for the whole thing to end, all they had to do was decline the invitation.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I like how the people's oath is voluntary, so there's not a lot of pressure to make it (although it could end up like the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States, which is also voluntary but many people are compelled to give it anyway).

At first, I was worried about how it would look if the majority of the people don't make the pledge or worse, scream out something inappropriate instead. However, I realized that this scenario is nearly impossible. Besides the foreign heads of state, everyone at the ceremony proper has been hand-picked by either the British government or through HM The King's patroned organizations. All of them will happily swear allegiance to the king.

Beyond that, the people who will be closest Buckingham Palace/Westminster Abbey, i.e. the ones who would have been waiting outside for several days at that point to see the coronation up close and personal, are not going to put that energy into throwing abuse or cold silence at TM The King and Queen.

Beyond that, according to the polls, it seems as the majority of the British people support the monarchy, even if they are lukewarm about HM The King himself (which many are not). Plus, events like the coronation are when British people are the most patriotic, so they may take up the pledge solely in their pride as British people.

So, I'm sure they will be people who don't pledge or say things that are inappropriate, but it won't be enough to distract from the ones who wholeheartedly pledge to Their Majesties.

But I'm an American, so I don't have a dog in this fight. The British people and the Commonwealth citizens will do what they want.

 

[Denville]

I must admit you're losing me a bit
You're the first to moan about lack of return dinners during State Visit, Queens not wearing proper hats and gloves during outings and generaly complaining about " c était mieux avant " and now you dont seem satisfied with a full pagentery galore not seen since 1953.
I.don't.get it

Thats very true. I mean in todays world do people really want the state visits to have endless gala dinners and tiara wearing, when people are sitting around in the NHS or counting their money?
I seem to remember this being said recently.
The Coronation will be a lot less grand, shorter and less expensive than the late Queens coronation, but it is going to have ceremonial and things like taking the oath because that is part of what a coronation is about, the monarch pledging himself to his people and the people dong the same to their monarch.

 

[Denville]

Why is it superficial? It's a religious ceremony. Many parts of it date back hundreds of years. And it's not considered appropriate to hold a big celebration just after the death of the previous monarch, when the new monarch is in mourning for their parent or sibling.

More to the point any ceremony like a royal marriage or a coronation takes time to organise and it woudl not be possible to hold it less than 6 months or a year after the monarch's death.

 

[Mbruno]

I like how the people's oath is voluntary, so there's not a lot of pressure to make it (although it could end up like the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States, which is also voluntary but many people are compelled to give it anyway).

In the United Kingdom and some realms like Canada and Australia, there are people who are required to take an oath of allegiance to the King, for example, members of Parliament; government ministers; recruits and officer cadets in the armed forces; members of the police forces and the intelligence and security services; judges; members of the diplomatic service, etc., but they do so because, as I said, they hold a public office and the oath of allegiance in this case is to the King as a personification of what, in republics, we would call "the State" instead.

Calling on common citizens who do not hold an office under the Crown or an elected office to pledge allegiance to the King is, I think, unusual and something that does not happen ordinarily in the UK or the realms. There is no such thing as the US Pledge of Allegiance for example in British or Canadian schools as far as I know.

 

[Denville]

People can do it if they want to. If they dont want to, they dont have to. What is the problem then?