Coronation of British Monarchs


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
COUNTESS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the hypocracy is, but if it exists I would suggest that it is not limited to the BRF or with monarchies in general but exists in all nations and in all peoples, perhaps even more so in those who talk about Christian beliefs but yet still feel able to be unforgiving and judgemental of others. Sadly so many Christians can be terribly unChristian.
 
NGalitzine said:
Not sure what the hypocracy is, but if it exists I would suggest that it is not limited to the BRF or with monarchies in general but exists in all nations and in all peoples, perhaps even more so in those who talk about Christian beliefs but yet still feel able to be unforgiving and judgemental of others. Sadly so many Christians can be terribly unChristian.
Click to expand...

You bet. You are right. The most "holy", are often the most hypocritical. I agree. It is that with the cost of a Coronation, I recently read that QEII's, today would be $65 million dollars, it seems, somewhat anachronistic. But, hey, that is why they are there, it is the show.

Oh, Ish, I am reading a book, that points out the Edward VIII never broached marrying Wallis, he may have had expectations, but had not in anyway acted upon them. He was backed into the thought by Baldwin and some others, as his Nazi friends and sympathies caused the government a great deal of concern. They wanted him to abdicate, before the coronation, as this act codified the role he was to accept, also in many way lifts popularity for a period of time. Edward was very popular, but his political outlooks and immaturity were a problem.
 
$65 million amortized over 60 years seem like a pretty good deal. How much does it cost to put on the show/inauguration of an America president every 4 years, even when the president has been reelected?
 
Edward VIII/Duke & Duchess of Windsor help pave the way for Charles & Camilla, IMO. It is what it is and I'm looking forward to the next Coronation.
 
Dman said:
Edward VIII/Duke & Duchess of Windsor help pave the way for Charles & Camilla, IMO. It is what it is and I'm looking forward to the next Coronation.
Click to expand...

Well put, Dman.
 
COUNTESS said:
I agree. It is that with the cost of a Coronation, I recently read that QEII's, today would be $65 million dollars, it seems, somewhat anachronistic. But, hey, that is why they are there, it is the show.
Click to expand...

Only Obama's inauguration cost R$ 300 million dollars. I doubt the next Coronation will be more expensive then the last one, it'll be much more cheaper, in my opinion.

And what's the purpose of the American President? Send his countrymen to war everytime he needs more oil?
 
Can we go back to the idea of crowning a cat? Although I've never met a cat who did not feel he/she was already king/queen. :p
 
Let's stay on topic...this thread is NOT about the United States Presidency.

Any and all additional off topic posts will be deleted without notice.
 
Hi,

Today, June 2nd, is the 60th anniversary of the Coronation of Elizabeth II.
A rainy and chilly day but it did not dampen the spirits of the people - a very successful event all round....

Larry
 
COUNTESS said:
Oh, Ish, I am reading a book, that points out the Edward VIII never broached marrying Wallis, he may have had expectations, but had not in anyway acted upon them. He was backed into the thought by Baldwin and some others, as his Nazi friends and sympathies caused the government a great deal of concern. They wanted him to abdicate, before the coronation, as this act codified the role he was to accept, also in many way lifts popularity for a period of time. Edward was very popular, but his political outlooks and immaturity were a problem.
Click to expand...

What book is this? I would be interested in reading it.

The timeline of events as I've always understood it through various things that I've read is that by October 1936 it was widely rumoured that Edward and Wallis would marry once she was divorced and that on November 16, 1936, after Wallis had filed for divorce, Edward met with Baldwin to announce his intention to marry Wallis. Edward was likely encouraged to broach the subject by his private secretary, who may have been acting under the advice of senior ministers. That doesn't mean that he was pushed into wanting to marry Wallis by Baldwin or others, but rather that he was pushed into announcing his intentions on the matter. The belief that Edward and Wallis would marry was considered to be a given fact discussed in American (and possibly European) papers. Edward was pushed on the matter because it was only a matter of time before the British began to discuss it as well.

There were many reasons why Wallis was deemed unacceptable, her Nazi connections being just one - similarly there were many reasons why Edward himself was unacceptable, politics being one. Edward wanted to abandon accepted societal norms, the CoE at the time did not allow divorced people to remarry in the church while former spouses were still alive and Wallis had not one but two living former spouses, Wallis' first divorce was not recognized as legal by the CoE and may not have been legal by English law making a marriage to Edward a bigamous one, both the ministers and the BRF found Wallis' background and behaviour to be unacceptable, and many believed her to be with Edward only for the money while having affairs with other men - it's hypocritical, yes, but while the British public may forgive its King for having an affair, it's always been less likely to forgive its Queen.

Edward's politics came into play as well - he wasn't a passive, apolitical monarch like he was supposed to be. As for Wallis' politics, it wasn't that she was associated with Nazism itself (at least not in 1936), it was that she was rumoured to be a spy leaking government documents to a foreign ambassador who she was rumoured to be having an affair with. It didn't matter that said ambassador was Joachim von Ribbentrop - he could have been Ghandi for all it mattered. The point wasn't that Wallis was associated with Nazis (beyond the fact that if she were to become the Queen she would have been expected to also be apolitical), but rather that it was believed that she was using her relationship with Edward to spy for another nation, while carrying on another affair.

None of this - beyond the fact that Camilla is a divorced woman - relates to the situation of Charles and Camilla. Camilla's divorce is recognized in the eyes of the Church and British law - as was Charles', although Diana's death makes that redundant. The CoE now recognizes remarriage of divorced persons, regardless of whether the former spouse(s) is alive, and has specifically recognized and blessed the marriage of Charles and Camilla (and would only be hypocritical if it recognized this one marriage while not recognizing any other marriage of divorced persons). It is not believed, at least not widely so, that Camilla is with Charles just for his money, nor is she accused of having any other affairs - and certainly not with foreign ambassadors who she gives government documents to. Thus, as the initial point was, no one here is being a hypocrite in accepting Charles as a one day king and Camilla as his consort, despite Edward's abdication.
 
I just wondered whether, seeing as it is currently proposed that the Duchess of Cornwall will become Pincess Consort when Charles becomes king, will she actually be crowned Queen Consort during the coronation?
 
Its an interesting question. Putting aside the issue of the concept of a Kings wife even being just a Princess Consort and not automatically Queen by right, I would say a Princess Consort would be put into a category similar to that of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1953. That is not crowned and only a participant in part of the ceremony like the communion.
 
Ish, you have raised very good points on the comparisons between C&C and David and Wallis.

I think that Charles is working diligently, day and night, to ensure that Camilla is crowned Queen along with him. Given HM's longevity, and that fact that those of us who remember Diana as if it were yesterday are getting older and older (ahem)... ask my kids or their friends who Princess Diana is - might as well ask them what a walkman is - I believe she will be crowned Queen with only a few grumbles.
 
Jacknch said:
I just wondered whether, seeing as it is currently proposed that the Duchess of Cornwall will become Pincess Consort when Charles becomes king, will she actually be crowned Queen Consort during the coronation?
Click to expand...

If she's going to be Queen Consort it will be from the moment that he's King. The actual crowning doesn't make her any more or less of a Queen.

NGalitzine said:
Its an interesting question. Putting aside the issue of the concept of a Kings wife even being just a Princess Consort and not automatically Queen by right, I would say a Princess Consort would be put into a category similar to that of the Duke of Edinburgh in 1953. That is not crowned and only a participant in part of the ceremony like the communion.
Click to expand...

They could do a coronation for a Princess Consort. The DoE doesn't hold the title Prince Consort - that was only held by Prince Albert. It stands to reason that had Albert been married to Victoria at the time of her coronation (and held the title Prince Consort) then he may have been crowned such as well. Princess Consort (a title) seems more akin to Prince Consort (also a title) than the DoE's current role of prince consort (simply a position).

GracieGiraffe said:
Ish, you have raised very good points on the comparisons between C&C and David and Wallis.

I think that Charles is working diligently, day and night, to ensure that Camilla is crowned Queen along with him. Given HM's longevity, and that fact that those of us who remember Diana as if it were yesterday are getting older and older (ahem)... ask my kids or their friends who Princess Diana is - might as well ask them what a walkman is - I believe she will be crowned Queen with only a few grumbles.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I think that Camilla should be crowned Queen, and I think that both she and Charles have done a lot to revitalize their images to help such a coronation, but I think the fact that they made the Princess Consort announcement in the time of the Internet - and we so clearly still remember it - might hurt them if they try to crown her as Queen. People might not like that one thing was said and another done, even if they don't remember or care about Diana.

Personally I'd like to see more events done between Camilla and either HM or the boys (or Catherine), both with and without Charles. Show that the family has accepted her more, so that the naysayers can be dissuaded a bit.
 
Well this will be fun.

I was just looking at the online pages for this Summer's Coronation Exhibit at BP.

I had no idea that Hartnell designed regalia for so many people and kinds of people.

Down to robes, coronets etc. for Peers. The Peers and Peeresses | Royal Collection Trust

Granted I hope HRH Elizabeth II outlives me, but if she doesn't, this will be the greatest bling-watching opportunity of my life!

It will be fascinating to see what Prince Charles will make of his coronation; will he go for a unified look a la Hartnell or something else. In any case, my imagination is quite abuzz just now. :)
 
I don wonder how the next Coronation will take place? I hope the glory and majesty of the event is maintained.
 
The "Hartnell" look as mentioned by AdmirerUS. won't be there. The House of Lords has changed from Hereditary peers (and their wives) to mostly political choices and most of them are male.

I think that as long as the Church of England is still Established and the Monarch is Head of the Church, then much of the "glory and majesty" (hoped for by Dman) will be maintained.

However, I don't think that Charles will wear knee breeches and velvet as his grandfather did - not in keeping with today. I think the service will be abbreviated - a couple of hours at the most. Far more inclusive of the wider population of the UK and the Commonwealth.

And it will feel different. It won't be a 26 year old young woman but a 70-something male. But the music will be superb and it will be a wonderful ceremony.

Then a party and more music and fireworks.

I'm at an age where I'm not 100% certain I'll see it, especially if HMQ hangs on to her centenary. Does she send herself a card?
 
One other requirement for the coronation is that the King or Queen must be at least eighteen before they can be crowned. That's my educated guess. If so and Prince George of Cambridge becomes King before the age of eighteen then his coronation won't occur until July 22, 2031, at the earliest.
 
To be crowned the monarch does have to be 18 as before that there would be a Regency and the monarch wouldn't be able to make the necessary oaths as they would be under age.

I don't think the next Coronation will have the majesty etc of the last as I don't think the people will care as much - I don't see the street parties etc. There will be some pomp and ceremony - maybe the Gold Coach but as it wasn't used last year due to the cost of refurbishing it it maybe that it is permanently mothballed now and so Charles won't be in that coach - maybe they will be in cars with everyone from Andrew down in buses for instance.
 
Iluvbertie said:
I don't think the next Coronation will have the majesty etc of the last as I don't think the people will care as much - I don't see the street parties etc. There will be some pomp and ceremony - maybe the Gold Coach but as it wasn't used last year due to the cost of refurbishing it it maybe that it is permanently mothballed now and so Charles won't be in that coach - maybe they will be in cars with everyone from Andrew down in buses for instance.
Click to expand...

I think when the time comes, we just may be pleasantly surprised at how widespread and grand Charles' coronation will be. I do think you're right that it will be scaled down as far as the cars/buses and such, but after seeing how fabulously the people celebrated Will and Kate's wedding and then the Diamond Jubilee, I think the Coronation will be the granddaddy of all celebrations as the majority of people do not remember the coronation of HMQ. Now when Charles passes and William is crowned King, it might be a different story.

I know I'll be glued to the goings on surrounding Charles' coronation should I be fortunate to still be able to.
 
The middle ages were very different as the coronation had to happen for the king to be accepted as king while nowadays the monarch is accepted clearly without the coronation so it won't happen while there is a regency.
 
Is there a source to back that up? I.E. has Parliament or BP ever said as much, or is this speculation on your part?
 
It is based on the fact that there is now a legal age at which a monarch can assume the responsibities of monarch laid down in law whereas in the middle ages, when this last happened, the age at which a monarch could carry out the duties of monarch were more flexible.

Everything change in 1649 when Parliament decided that an annointed king wasn't anyone special and could be executed so the need to have the monarch crowned as soon as possible, almost as soon as their predecessor was buried went out the window and the idea of a year or so before death and coronation was born.

The formal establishment of an age at which the monarch could actually carry out the role of monarch was set at 18 as that was the age that they could be seen as being responsible.

My information comes from various lecturers in this area - I asked this question at uni many years ago and was told that it was now accepted that the monarch had to be of a legal age to take a legally binding oath such as the coronation oath and so had to be 18.

As these days the monarch has to be legally 18 to actually carry out the duties of the monarch it also makes sense that they won't be crowned until they are able to do so - it would be silly to have a child crowned and make all the oaths etc but not legally be able to carry out any of the formal duties such as signing legislation, dissolving parliament, opening parliament etc until they were some what older. That is set down by law - an monarch must be 18 to avoid a regency.
 
The London diarist Samuel Pepys attended the Coronation ceremony of Charles II at Westminster Abbey.
Samuel Pepys wrote:
'The king in his robes, bare headed, which was very fine...in the Quire at the high altar he passed all the ceremonies of the Coronacion...the crowne being put upon his head, a great shout begun...and three times the King-at-armes...proclaimed that if anyone could show any reason why Ch. Steward should not be King of England, that he should come and speak'.

:throne::crown8::orb::sceptre:
​

Richard III and his wife Anne made preparations for their coronation.
It was essential that all the rituals be performed correctly.
A special book, The Little Device, was drawn up for their coronation, which followed the provisions set down in Liber Regalis (Royal Book).
​

On Queen Elizabeth II's Coronation Day in 1953, the Gold State Coach had eight gray horses pulling it.
One of the horses was named Eisenhower after Dwight D. Eisenhower. :coach:
​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On his Coronation Day of April 23, 1661, Charles II wore robes of crimson velvet and cloth of gold.
He rode a horse fitted with a gold- and pearl-encrusted saddle
to Westminster Abbey. :crown7:
​

In September of 1831, William IV was formally crowned.
He only assented to a coronation at all because too many in Parliament insisted on it.
​

In The War of the Roses, Alison Weir wrote:

In England there was a coronation on 5 November,1429, when Henry VI was crowned at Westminster Abbey. It was a long ordeal for a child not yet eight, but Henry bore it well and with gravity.

The Wikepedia article on Henry VI gave his English coronation date as November 6, 1429.

Which is correct: November 5, 1429 or November 6, 1429
​

King George V's Coronation Day was June 22, 1911.
Queen Mary's white satin gown was embroidered in gold with the design of rose, shamrock, and thistle.
These motifs would be used on her granddaughter Elizabeth II's Coronation dress in 1953. :shamrock::shamrock::rose2::rose2::shamrock::shamrock:
​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zadok the Priest, in full Zadok the Priest: The Coronation Anthem, the most popular of George Frideric Handel’s Coronation Anthems for George II. Like the three other anthems in the set, “Zadok the Priest” premiered on October 11, 1727, the occasion of the coronation, in London’s Westminster Abbey. Although less widely famed abroad than Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus, “Zadok the Priest,” using texts from the King James Bible, blends voices and instruments into a potent musical statement. The anthem’s majesty is such that it has been used for every English coronation since that of George II.

Though Handel was born in Germany, he spent most of his career in England, becoming a British subject in 1727. He had first arrived in England in 1710 with the expressed wish of learning London’s musical developments for the benefit of his ostensible employer, the elector of Hanover, though Handel’s visits to ...
Click to expand...
Zadok the Priest (work by Handel) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW9Uudkx42g
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
God Save the Queen anthem
Replies
0
Views
54
jf161
J
D
Suggestions for Donation of Magazines and Books on British Royal Ceremonies
Replies
5
Views
947
Sionevar
S
T
Closest friends of Tudor and Stuart monarchs
Replies
0
Views
820
The Stuart Runaway
T
Marengo
  • Sticky
The Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla, 6 May 2023
30 31 32
Replies
946
Views
93K
Somebody
Somebody
Blog Real
King Magnus IV/VII (1316-1374) and Queen Blanche of Namur
Replies
1
Views
535
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom