Coronation of British Monarchs

[padams2359]

Well, considering QE2 is half Scotish, she is actually more Scotish than James I was.

 

[cepe]

The Church of Scotland's ruling General Assembly has approved a call to crown monarchs in both England and Scotland, should Scotland becomes independent.

BBC News - Scottish independence: Kirk approves separate coronations

An interesting article about the possibility that if Scotland becomes independent, a seperate investiture ceremony could be held for new monarchs. Although I do not think that the matter has been discussed much in the Scottish Parliament, the approval simply sets out the Church of Scotands position if the matter became a reality.
Scotland has it's own set of crown jewels known as "The Honours of Scotland", whcih presumably could be used.

All very well, but the newly independent Scotland, IF it ever happens, will have to pay for the ceremony and security and the Scottish Government would have to approve and pay the costs.

 

[NGalitzine]

All very well, but the newly independent Scotland, IF it ever happens, will have to pay for the ceremony and security and the Scottish Government would have to approve and pay the costs.

Right now the SNP don't seem to know what they want including what form of government a newly independent Scotland would have. Different reps keep saying different things. About the only thing they seem to agree on is keeping the pound as their currency even though they would have no control over monetary policy in their newly independent nation. I have visions of Alex Salmond running up the hill to Edinburgh Castle and placing the crown on his own head but its too small to fit.

 

[Dman]

The next coronation should be a civil partnership ceremony:
This medieval ritual, moving though it is, is so overwhelmingly religious it risks diminishing the monarchy. Reform it now-
The next coronation should be a civil partnership ceremony | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[An Ard Ri]

Sixty years ago: Coronation preparations

Sixty years ago: Coronation preparations - Telegraph

 

[An Ard Ri]

The next coronation should be a civil partnership ceremony:
This medieval ritual, moving though it is, is so overwhelmingly religious it risks diminishing the monarchy. Reform it now-
The next coronation should be a civil partnership ceremony | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Another article on the next coronation

An act of national communion – but what will happen at the next coronation? - Telegraph

 

[royalistbert]

the next coronation should be a civil partnership ceremony:
this medieval ritual, moving though it is, is so overwhelmingly religious it risks diminishing the monarchy. Reform it now-
the next coronation should be a civil partnership ceremony | simon jenkins | comment is free | the guardian

destroy 1000 years of history! So much of our culture has been ruined by these lefties.

 

[Dman]

Very interesting reads on the next Coronation. I thought it was mentioned several years ago that plans are being drawn up behind closed doors for Charles's future Coronation. I guess that wasn't true. I think something should be drawn up. The Queen is 87 and may look fine today but there's no telling what's around the corner for her, health wise.

 

[cepe]

Very interesting reads on the next Coronation. I thought it was mentioned several years ago that plans are being drawn up behind closed doors for Charles's future Coronation. I guess that wasn't true. I think something should be drawn up. The Queen is 87 and may look fine today but there's no telling what's around the corner for her, health wise.

It could be true, but the press wouldn't know that. The service will be criticised whatever it is before hand, that's a certainty.

 

[Dman]

It could be true, but the press wouldn't know that. The service will be criticised whatever it is before hand, that's a certainty.

I agree, the service details and ceremony won't be met by everyone's approval. I do know that American tv coverage will be mind blowing.

 

[Roslyn]

destroy 1000 years of history! So much of our culture has been ruined by these lefties.

Change does not necessarily equal destruction. Change is what keeps the monarchy relevant and ongoing. Flexibility is essential to survival.

 

[COUNTESS]

Look if the British people want to have a coronation for Charles and Camilla, so be it. What is Left about thinking this is wasteful and foolish? Two adulterers being anointed, by whom? What a joke. The Churchmen who do this are , also, fools. Not that I care, I just am looking at the situation and laughing about "God's anointed". No one is in this position because of GOD, it is because their ancestors wielded the greatest sword.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Look if the British people want to have a coronation for Charles and Camilla, so be it. What is Left about thinking this is wasteful and foolish? Two adulterers being anointed, by whom? What a joke. The Churchmen who do this are , also, fools. Not that I care, I just am looking at the situation and laughing about "God's anointed". No one is in this position because of GOD, it is because their ancestors wielded the greatest sword.

You know, God can also forgive, he isn't stuck in the past, like many people here. The Almighty hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.

The only foolish thing that I can see here is your comment.

 

[COUNTESS]

Perhaps, by I hate the hypocrisy. First of all, I don't care what they do, it is not my call, it is not my nation. But, since, they have often been the doyennes of how others live (Sarah, Duchess of York) no paragon, but neither are Charles and Camilla. God does forgive, but he is not, really, any part of this scenario. This is all invention. You want a coronation and to be consecrated by GOD and your religious beliefs, then live by them. Otherwise, step aside. On the other hand, many Princes of Wales were adulterers and were anointed. So, the joke is on the church and their acceptance. As I said hypocrisy. Queen Wallis was an anathema, Queen Camilla is no better, except she is not an American, I guess. And her other husband, if circumstances permit it will be able to attend the ceremony.

 

[Dman]

Well, as the Beatles put it, 'Let It Be.'

 

[VictoriaB]

. Queen Wallis was an anathema, Queen Camilla is no better, except she is not an American, I guess. And her other husband, if circumstances permit it will be able to attend the ceremony.

As you know, because it has been posted many times in threads where you have raised the same old arguments, Wallis was an anathema because she was a divorcee at a time when divorce was an anathema and the Church of England did not recognise divorce. Times change, society and the Church have moved with them. Divorce is no longer unacceptable in society & divorcees are allowed to marry in the Church of England (except those who are members of the British royal family).

The Church recognises repentance & forgiveness of sin by those who truly repent. And who, except God (if one believes in Him) can know what was in Charles & Camilla's hearts when they made their act of contrition?

So the hypocrisy is with those who claim to be christian & who preach Christian virtues (including forgiveness) & do not practice it.

 

[Roslyn]

Perhaps, by I hate the hypocrisy. First of all, I don't care what they do, it is not my call, it is not my nation. But, since, they have often been the doyennes of how others live (Sarah, Duchess of York) no paragon, but neither are Charles and Camilla. God does forgive, but he is not, really, any part of this scenario. This is all invention. You want a coronation and to be consecrated by GOD and your religious beliefs, then live by them. Otherwise, step aside. On the other hand, many Princes of Wales were adulterers and were anointed. So, the joke is on the church and their acceptance. As I said hypocrisy. Queen Wallis was an anathema, Queen Camilla is no better, except she is not an American, I guess. And her other husband, if circumstances permit it will be able to attend the ceremony.

The Anglican Church - into which I was baptised but never confirmed - has a handy little ritual which can tidy up breaches of its rules about things like adultery, and Charles and Camilla went through that ritual immediately after they married, so unless either or both of them is now committing adultery with others, there is no hypocrisy.

 

[COUNTESS]

Perhaps, you don't see that it is the church that is the hypocrite, not Charles or Camilla. Actually, there is no need for forgiveness. Only for themselves and their families. What they did was a matter of their conscience. The "please forgive our sin" is said by many each day for many different sins. How God deals with this, I, personally, have no idea. I do not think that they have ever had any remorse, but whom am I to say. One has said divorce and remarriage is not acceptable for the RF, so lucky Charles that Diana is dead, but he is not a widower, he was divorced. Semantics.

 

[vkrish]

This thread is about the traditions and evolution of British Coronations past and future. Not about the Church of England's stand on divorce or Charles-Camilla "sins" or the other departed "saint"..
So lets leave this and move ahead..

 

[NGalitzine]

There will be some changes in the coronation simply because Britain and British society has changed a great deal over the last 60 years. The hereditary peers are unlikely to be there since they no longer sit in the HoL. Some will be there because they hold positions of state or at court or are KG, but mostly it will be life peers. The Empire is gone so we won't have the massive parade of colonial troops (some Commonwealth participation do doubt from the 15 other realms) or members of colonial "royal" families. The religious aspect will remain since the monarch is still Supreme Governor of the CofE but I think we might well see leaders of other faiths represented but not being an active part of the service. I expect a number of guests will be representatives of charities or leaders of other aspects of British & Commonwealth life.

 

[scooter]

This thread is about the traditions and evolution of British Coronations past and future. Not about the Church of England's stand on divorce or Charles-Camilla "sins" or the other departed "saint"..
So lets leave this and move ahead..

Funny, but it's always the Diana haters who do the 'Saint' bit. But what ever it takes to make your rationalization about Charles and Caw not committing any 'sins'...go for it...However, I would suggest you check both the old and new testament re: adultery and bearing false witness.


If, hypothetically, Charles is to be crowned king, he will have to swear to uphold the established Church of England, so it might have some bearing on the issue.

 

[cepe]

Funny, but it's always the Diana haters who do the 'Saint' bit. But what ever it takes to make your rationalization about Charles and Caw not committing any 'sins'...go for it...However, I would suggest you check both the old and new testament re: adultery and bearing false witness.


If, hypothetically, Charles is to be crowned king, he will have to swear to uphold the established Church of England, so it might have some bearing on the issue.

Not hypothetically - he will be crowned king - if he outlives his mother.

His marriage has been blessed by the church; he receives communion in the Anglican faith and the Church and God - unlike you apparently - forgives "sinners".

Perhaps you should concentrate on the New Testament which speaks of a forgiving God and preaches forgiveness as a path to heaven.

 

[NGalitzine]

One would assume that if the CofE had a problem with the PoW or with his wife they would not have allowed the act of contrition or the blessing of the marriage so for them now to have a problem with performing the coronation would be very odd and hard for the CofE to explain. Christianity is after all supposed to be about forgiveness although some people who claim to be Christians seem to find that a hard concept to accept which must make things very difficult for their families and friends.
You do seem intent today on highjacking as many threads as possible with your own special charms. Oh well, guess it gives the mods something to do.

 

[cepe]

Don't know if this is the right thread but I have had a "beaucoup de royale" tonight, watching More 4 here in the UK - the documentary on Princess Alice (hadn't seen that before) and I was moved by her plight as someone suffering mental illness; appalled by her husband ; impressed with her help of her Jewish friends in occupied Greece and then pleased with the support given by Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth in her old age. I hadn't realised she had been given the highest honour of the Jewish state and is buried in Jerusalem. Very moving programme.

Then there was a programme on the courtship of Prince Philip and Princess Elizabeth. IT dwelt (too much IMO) on the machinations of Louis Mountbatten. But the picture of the visitors book at Broadlands which Prince Philip signed and gave "no fixed abode" as his address gave me quite a jolt. I think it was a love match - but I think it has survived through negotiation. And that leads me to the 3rd programme - the behind scenes of the coronation.

Fascinating stuff with a regular ding-dong going on between QEQM and Prince Philip. It's this programme that made me think about negotiating because, frankly, I don't think the Queen supported Philip enough in the early days. And if he wandered off, this is probably the reason why.

But we should all thank him for his support in getting the coronation filmed otherwise we would never know what went on!

Wonderful few hours on royalty and tomorrow I will run the coronation on the BBC parliament channel for 7 (?) hours and drop in and out.

Tomorrow is a day of historical significance and I'm going to make the most of it.

 

[COUNTESS]

One would assume that if the CofE had a problem with the PoW or with his wife they would not have allowed the act of contrition or the blessing of the marriage so for them now to have a problem with performing the coronation would be very odd and hard for the CofE to explain. Christianity is after all supposed to be about forgiveness although some people who claim to be Christians seem to find that a hard concept to accept which must make things very difficult for their families and friends.
You do seem intent today on highjacking as many threads as possible with your own special charms. Oh well, guess it gives the mods something to do.

Actually, not. Frankly they could crown a cat and it wouldn't matter. The problem that some see and, of course, times change, is that forget about Edward VIII, which I believe was more political than "the marriage", as he was a Nazi sympathizer, as was Wallis and Baldwin moved to rid the throne of that mess, but that people like Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend were, also pushed into the morass, from this same "forgiving church". The blessing and the Act of Contrition was good drama. Nothing more. They had to do something, heartfelt or not. It worked for some. Charles will be king, if he lives long enough and Camilla will be queen, no matter what anyone says. It has been the plan from the outset.

 

[Roslyn]

They didn't seem to have any trouble crowning Edward VII. If they can anoint him, they can crown a cat.

 

[COUNTESS]

They didn't seem to have any trouble crowning Edward VII. If they can anoint him, they can crown a cat.

You are quite right. That is most true. The real truth, is that this hypocrisy has existed for numerous years. Perhaps, that is what is really disgusting.

 

[Osipi]

You are quite right. That is most true. The real truth, is that this hypocrisy has existed for numerous years. Perhaps, that is what is really disgusting.

Perhaps even it if is disgusting to some peoples tastes or beliefs, the actual coronation ceremony has nothing to do with them. As we all have the basic right to think, feel and believe what is right for us, this also applies to the monarchy and the monarch being crowned.

As I believe that Charles is very much a traditionalist as well as gifted with a remarkable sense of foresight, I think that if and when his coronation occurs, it will be very reflective of the man he is down to the floral arrangements in the Abbey and the choices of music. It will be an interesting meld of a strong traditional past mixed in with a fresh look to the future. NGalitzine has mentioned several aspects that are bound to be noticed in fact. What other differences there will be is something that we will have to look forward to if and when the time comes.

 

[Roslyn]

You are quite right. That is most true. The real truth, is that this hypocrisy has existed for numerous years. Perhaps, that is what is really disgusting.

The whole system of monarchy and aristocracy, since the Norman invasion at least, was based on hypocrisy, discrimination, and double standards with respect to class, gender, race, and religion, and those characteristics continue to taint it to some extent.

 

[Ish]

The CoE's changing stance in regards to divorce reflects that the Church itself is a constantly evolving structure that represents the beliefs of a people at a time in history. It is not hypocritical because it is not one person going "you can be crowned, you can't, you can divorce, you can't." It is multiple people over a course of generations doing so.

The CoE has never taken a stance about not crowning men who had mistresses and has crowned a good number of men who have done so - Charles II, William IV, and Edward VII being three notable examples. The CoE was against divorce for a very long time - it's part of why one of the George's (I can't remember which) was never able to get divorced. It has also supported the idea that the monarch has to approve any marriages of any heirs to the throne - hence why George III's sons went unmarried for so long.

I personally don't think that Edward VIII and Wallis' marriage was as simple as the fact that she was divorced (although I don't agree that it was because either was a Nazi sympathizer, that's us applying a hindsight bias). Instead I think it was a case of Wallis on the whole was not acceptable as a consort - she was an American, she was twice divorced, she wasn't accepted by David's family, she was seen as an opportunist an after the money and fame that came with being her various significant others. The two divorces were probably the biggest aspect of it, but not the only one. This was the 1930s when divorce was not considered to be socially acceptable.

Similarly, when Margaret was with Peter divorce wasn't considered socially acceptable. By the time Charles and Camilla got married, however, the stance towards divorce had changed. Now 50% of marriages end in divorce, and to reflect that the CoE's stance on the issue, and the treatment of the marriage of Charles and Camilla has changed. It's evolved with the evolution of society. I think the fact that Camilla has proven to be a woman who is with Charles for love and not fame, as well as the fact that she is accepted by Charles' family has done a lot to help her despite whatever precedent Edward set.

Also it should be noted that when Edward wanted to marry Wallis it was discussed by the parliaments of all his realms, which all decided that they wouldn't accept Wallis - it wasn't just a church issue. When Charles wanted to marry Camilla the parliaments of his future realms decided it was a non-issue.