Coronation of British Monarchs

[Dman]

No one knows what the future hold, but Charles is pretty much a healthy man and will be able to handle his Coronation. After waiting all these years for the "Top Job" (as Diana called it), Charles will do everything possible to make sure he's in good shape for his crowning.

 

[LauraS3514]

The article I read had a coronet for the heir-apparent, children of the heir apparent, children of the other sons of the sovereign, grandchildren of the sovereign.

There is a difference of one word between what you and I wrote- a vs the. If it's the , Charles is the sovereign in this discussion and the coronets are limited to Anne, Andrew and Edwards as siblings and then W and H's families.

If a is right, it adds Peter, Zara, Bea, Eugenie, Louise, James, David Linley, Sarah Chatto, DoGloucester, DoKent, Michael of Kent, Alexandra of Kent

The 2 Dukes would had a coronet as dukes.

Which is right?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Lady Patricia Ramsey wore the coronet of a sovereign's granddaughter at the coronations of Edward VII, George V, George VI and Elizabeth II. It's "a" not "the."

Probably they would not use this Crown for William. The one for Charles was made specailly for him as the ral üprince of Wales cvoronet was still with the Duke of Windsor.

The coronet worn by the future Edward VIII at his investiture as POW was NOT the one he wore at his father's coronation - it was specifically made for that ceremony. The "Prince of Wales" coronet is different from the "Heir Apparent's" coronet. As a matter of fact, I Edward VIII and the current Prince of Wales are the only POWs to ever have an investiture: all the rest were simply created by Letters Patent with no ceremony. On the other hand, all the POWs who were present at their parents' coronations wore the traditional Heir Apparent's coronet. The coronet Prince Charles wore in 1969 was also made specifically for him - and if rumor is correct, not of overly-valuable materials...

 

[MARG]

I think the technological improvements since the last Coronation will make the set up of the cathedral a lot faster. Camera's and sound systems will not be taking up vast amounts of space. Even the tiered seating can go up faster and safer. We only have to look at the speed with which some pretty radical changes were made for William's wedding.

Any major cuts to the actual Coronation Order of Service itself are unlikely as the Coronation remains, rightly or wrongly, the cornerstone of the Reign.

Reading earlier I saw that someone had queried the status of Princess Anne's children and I have to admit I will be interested to see what happens there. Since the changes to the succession affected only William's issue, I imagine that there will be no significant differences.

 

[eya]

No one knows what the future hold, but Charles is pretty much a healthy man and will be able to handle his Coronation. After waiting all these years for the "Top Job" (as Diana called it), Charles will do everything possible to make sure he's in good shape for his crowning.

That i think me too. Charles if become King (who knows) sure wore the crown.

Operation Golden Orb: Codename given by officials for Charles's top secret coronation plans is revealed after Whitehall blunder* | Daily Mail Online

CHRISTOPHER WILSON explains why Charles's coronation will be one of the trickiest | Daily Mail Online

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think the technological improvements since the last Coronation will make the set up of the cathedral a lot faster. Camera's and sound systems will not be taking up vast amounts of space. Even the tiered seating can go up faster and safer. We only have to look at the speed with which some pretty radical changes were made for William's wedding.

Westminster Abbey can hold 2000 quite comfortable - and that is how many they had there for William and Kate's.

For a Coronation extra seating is needed along with other parts of the Abbey needing to be re-arranged as they have been done e.g. the area where William and Kate went to sign the registry has to be opened up more.

Any major cuts to the actual Coronation Order of Service itself are unlikely as the Coronation remains, rightly or wrongly, the cornerstone of the Reign.

Until 1901 EVERY peer of the realm individually and in person made their oath of allegiance. After 1901 only the most senior of the five levels of the peerage have done so - cutting quite a long period of time from the service.

If necessary more can be cut - including the entire section where the oaths are sworn.

They could also cut out the communion service - and there goes another 30 minutes or so.

Reading earlier I saw that someone had queried the status of Princess Anne's children and I have to admit I will be interested to see what happens there. Since the changes to the succession affected only William's issue, I imagine that there will be no significant differences.

The changes to the succession didn't only affect William's issue but all children born after October 2011 e.g. two of the Duke of Gloucester's grandchildren's place in the line of succession changed after that law came into effect as the younger brother was moved down below his older sister as they were born after the cut-off date.

Anne's children are commoners with no titles, and the children of commoners, while Andrew's and Edward's children, regardless of the HRH issue, are the children of a peer of the realm with the status, at least, that that bestows on them.


This is one of those occasions when finding a precedent will be difficult as in the past female line grandchildren of a monarch have also been the children of peers of the realm e.g. Princess Mary's children in 1953. Margaret's children are also the children of a peer of the realm, giving them a different status than those of Anne's. That makes the situation for Peter and Zara at a coronation different. I would simply expect them to have seats in a royal box while Margaret's son may very well have a seat in the body of the Abbey as possibly by then an Earl in his own right or at the very least still their heir apparent to an Earldom.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Does that include Louise and James too?

James Wessex is a Viscount. Depending on his age and attendance, he can indeed wear the robes and a coronet of a Peer of the Realm with the rank of a viscount. Lady Louise is no Peeress in her own right nor is she married to a Peer. I think we will not see her in robes and a coronet.

Having said that, I hope the dressing-party will be limited and not go out of hand, turning it all into a vaudeville theatre and a thankful inspiration for mockeries and satirical comments. That Peers of the Realm wear their robes is nothing new. We see that every year. For myself I would take these ugly red, smelly robes out of the mothballs and set them in fire. Let the gentlemen be dressed in tails and the ladies in long (the same dresscode as in the Netherlands).

Here we can see the Lords and Ladies Peers of the Realm in these ugly red cloths and look how they dress themselves: see picture. Awful! In comparison, see the Netherlands (see picture) with the gentlemen dressed in jacquet (morning tails) and the ladies with hats, better than the ladies in the red rags we saw during the State Opening earlier this year. Be honest: what does look more neat, clean and crisp?

 

[Stefan]

Westminster Abbey can hold 2000 quite comfortable - and that is how many they had there for William and Kate's.

For a Coronation extra seating is needed along with other parts of the Abbey needing to be re-arranged as they have been done e.g. the area where William and Kate went to sign the registry has to be opened up more.

I read that in 1953 there where 7000 people in the Abbey for the coronation. Then they 1953 the Abbes was closed for 6 months before the coronation because of preparations for the Coronation. Don't think they will need as long the next time. I could imagine that it could be done in 2-3 weeks.

 

[Iluvbertie]

James Wessex is a Viscount. Depending on his age and attendance, he can indeed wear the robes and a coronet of a Peer of the Realm with the rank of a viscount. Lady Louise is no Peeress in her own right nor is she married to a Peer. I think we will not see her in robes and a coronet.

James is NOT a Viscount. He uses his father second title as a courtesy but in his own right he holds no title, other than Lord. He is not therefore a peer of the realm - yet. He will be when his father dies and he inherits his father's titles of Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn.

Having said that, I hope the dressing-party will be limited and not go out of hand, turning it all into a vaudeville theatre and a thankful inspiration for mockeries and satirical comments. That Peers of the Realm wear their robes is nothing new. We see that every year. For myself I would take these ugly red, smelly robes out of the mothballs and set them in fire. Let the gentlemen be dressed in tails and the ladies in long (the same dresscode as in the Netherlands).

Here we can see the Lords and Ladies Peers of the Realm in these ugly red cloths and look how they dress themselves: see picture. Awful! In comparison, see the Netherlands (see picture) with the gentlemen dressed in jacquet (morning tails) and the ladies with hats, better than the ladies in the red rags we saw during the State Opening earlier this year. Be honest: what does look more neat, clean and crisp?

The British peers, in their red robes, look magnificent.


They are NOT wearing 'cloths' or 'rags' (both terms are rather insulting as implying they are rubbish and only fit to be used for cleaning purposes) but 'robes' made from the finest wool with a collar of miniver fur and silk satin ties. This is what they wear to the State Opening of Parliament. For a Coronation they will wear different robes - made from crimson velvet, with white satin ribbon ties and a cape and colour of miniver fur. Under that they wear court uniform. Having seen the robes that the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire wore in 1953 - along with their Coronation Chairs - on display at Chatsworth they were really grand.


They are old-fashioned and traditional which is exactly what the BRF is in many ways. They have preserved many traditions that other royal houses have dispensed with and one of them is the coronation itself (mainly because the British monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and so a formal religious ceremony is included).



I see no need to constantly put down the British way of doing things by saying that the continental royals do it better. Why not respect each way as different and enjoy them for their differences as much as their similarities?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[....]

The British peers, in their red robes, look magnificent.

[....]

I have looked to the picture again to see the magnifence in all this. I see a Lord with a blue collared shirt wearing his cloths poorly, I see a Lady with white pantalons and peeptoe shoes under her robes and a Lady with -so to see- black sneakers. Quelle magnificence! This is the best advert for an abolition of the House of Lords.

Imagine that all these gentlemen wore neat jacquets and these ladies in nice dresses with hats and gloves? Really, the Peers above look like my sister and myself pulling grandma's bed covers out of the mothballs and dressing around our shoulders to play!

 

[Iluvbertie]

I read that in 1953 there where 7000 people in the Abbey for the coronation. Then they 1953 the Abbes was closed for 6 months before the coronation because of preparations for the Coronation. Don't think they will need as long the next time. I could imagine that it could be done in 2-3 weeks.

They need to put in the seating for around 6000 - 7000 people:

the peers of the realm and the peeresses have increased in number quite significantly due to the number of life peers;

the other realms will have their GGs and Heads of Government and their partners (probably means 30 for instance from Australia - due to 6 states, 2 territories and a federal government);

the Heads of Government of the rest of the Commonwealth that are not realms;

the representatives of the EU (Deputy Head of Government or Head of State, Crown Princes/Princesses and partners), probably the same from NATO if not already included;

other royal houses will send their Crown Prince/Princesses and partner (not the monarch - Heads of State do NOT attend these events but their deputies);

the Ambassadors and High Commissioners and partners of other nations at least if not all of the above as well,

family,

friends,

charities (Charles has over 400 along with Camilla's and will add quite a few more that have the monarch as their patron automatically although he will pass some automatically to William) adding many more people.

Then there are the British politicians who number around 600 - although not all will attend but they will have partners so even if only half the House of Commons is invited with partners there is 600 but if all politicians are invited it will be around 1200.

All members of the Privy Council (not already qualified from the above list) would also be invited with their partners as would

all the members of the Orders of Chivalry such as Garter, Thistle, Bath etc if not already on the list with partners.

This list is probably not even complete with the types of people who would rightly expect an invitation to the major State event. This isn't a private event like William and Kate's wedding was but a full State event so friends and family take a back seat to the requirements of the government of the day to make a splash.

 

[Rudolph]

The moment the Queen is crowned. Always sends chills down my spine. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first to pay homage, followed by the Duke of Edinburgh.

Queen is presented with Royal Sceptre, Orb, and she is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Royal family watching the ceremony. Top shot of the Queen being crowned (slightly out of focus).

Queen walks with clergy to Chair of State. As she sits, Archbishop of Canterbury pays homage to her as his sovereign. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh kneels and swears his loyalty, then kisses her on left cheek and leaves. Several shots of the dignitaries, peers, and clergy. Queen receives communion. The end of ceremony - Queen and her entourage walking slowly out of the cathedral - choir sings the National Anthem. Queen leaving the Abbey in State Coach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9AaHAoCnkI

 

[An Ard Ri]

Coronation Of George VI And Queen Elizabeth


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6U6EC_ivBo

 

[Mbruno]

One reason why I suspect it won't be as grand is that Westminster Abbey was closed to the public for six months to prepare it for the coronation - to put in all the extra seating etc. I don't see them closing the Abbey for that length of time which would mean fewer guests at the ceremony.


I am not sure it will be anything like 1953 - certainly it will be simpler. One reason will be Charles' age. He will probably be in his late 70s at the time and so the ceremony will need to be shortened for him so he can simply survive it - it would be awful if he couldn't last through the ceremony due to health issues. The Queen was a young woman in her 20s while her son will be in his 70s and he isn't as fit now as he was even 10 years ago. Camilla's health will also be a factor as she also has to make it through the ceremony - whether she is going to be crowned as Queen or simply take the title of Princess Consort she still has to be there for the entire ceremony.

A key issue in my opinion is the nature of the association between Church and State in the UK. Prince Charles has indicated several times that he would be OK with disestablishing the CoE when he becomes king, and I think that will happen eventually at some point in his reign as most British political parties seem to favor disestablishment or, at least, don't have any major reason to oppose it. If and when the State Church is disestablished, the case for replacing the coronation with a Dutch-like secular inauguration will be much stronger.

 

[Rudolph]

The Settlement of the Church of England is by law. Charles no doubt has his opinions but as is with most things, it will be up to Parliament to decide.

Most politicians probably don't care one way or the other but faith leaders do support having an established church, even leaders from other faiths like Islam because it keeps religion in an 'official' position. There are no votes gained by disestablishment so I wouldn't expect it to happen anytime soon.

Do to demographics the time may come when the Church of England is no longer Anglican but I can't see it being done away with.

 

[VictoriaB]

Do to demographics the time may come when the Church of England is no longer Anglican .

What do you mean by this Rudolph?

I can see a time when the Church of England is no longer the largest Christian denomination in the UK. I am Anglican but I would favour the separation of Church and State. That's not to say the King or Queen cannot personally by a person of considerable faith (and I believe Prince Charles is - and a regular church goer).

If it were up to the monarch (and as pointed out, it isn't) I think the situation would be more likely to change with William than with Charles. I can't see the religious aspect changing too much for the coronation of Charles III but I can for William V. By the time of William's coronation, I'm not even sure Christianity would be the largest religion in the UK.

 

[Rudolph]

I don't think Christianity will be the largest religion in the UK either. The Church of England at one time was RC. Its now Anglican and before too long I think it will be islamic.

One way or the other though, I think we will have an established church for a while yet. Even if the church is not Christian.

I'm a practicing Anglican who believes the Queen should be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England but the numbers don't lie Islam is growing exponentially in Britain

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think Christianity will be the largest religion in the UK either. The Church of England at one time was RC. Its now Anglican and before too long I think it will be islamic.

One way or the other though, I think we will have an established church for a while yet. Even if the church is not Christian.

I'm a practicing Anglican who believes the Queen should be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England but the numbers don't lie Islam is growing exponentially in Britain

I agree it is a matter of law for Parliament to decide, but I can't imagine any PM introducing legislation to disestablish the CofE without first consulting the monarch. In that sense, the fact that Charles seems to be OK with it removes a major obstacle to disestablishment IMHO.

As far as the position of faith leaders in the UK is concerned, I honestly can't tell. Just as a comparison though, most churches in the US historically supported separation of Church of State provided that it came together with a strong constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship. That is what ultimately happened with the First Amendment to the US constitution. The concept of a secular state is very different then, for example, in France and the US. In the anti-clerical French tradition, separation of Church and States is seen as a way to suppress relgion and erradicate it from public life. In the US, on the contrary, a secular state is seen as the best way to guarantee that all religions are treated equally and can be freely practiced without favoring any particular church or sect over the others.

There are many things I dislike about US government, but separation of Church and State, in the American tradition, is one of the things I admire the most in the US Constitution. At the time of US independence, it was a truly modern and revolutionary concept.

 

[Rudolph]

Princess Elizabeth proclaimed Queen

"Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign Lord King George VI, of blessed and glorious memory, by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary:

We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm, being assisted with these His late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other Members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one Voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim, That the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, Queen of the Realm, and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom Her Lieges do acknowledge all Faith, and constant Obedience with hearty and humble Affection, beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess, Elizabeth II, with long and happy Years to reign over us.

God Save The Queen"

Princess Elizabeth is formally proclaimed Queen and Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith.
Lords of the Privy Council - numbering 150 - representatives from the Commonwealth, officials from the City of London - including the Lord Mayor - and other dignitaries witnessed the accession of the deceased king's eldest daughter on 6 February 1952.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2NEFkIrnmU

 

[Honeybees]

Rudolph, please correct me if I am wrong but didn't the government get rid of the post of Minister for Faiths this week? Islam is growing hugely, currently, but and please forgive me if I am getting repititive but none of us know what the future holds. I have also heard that POW does not want to be known as King Charles due to the histories of the previous occupiers of that title.

 

[JR76]

Yes, Islam is growing in numbers all over Europe because of immigration and births but its outnumbered in speed by more and more people (even cultural Moslems) becoming agnostic, atheist or irreligious so I'm absolutely positive that we won't see an Islamic state in Europe in the foreseeable future.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, Islam is growing in numbers all over Europe because of immigration and births but its outnumbered in speed by more and more people (even cultural Moslems) becoming agnostic, atheist or irreligious so I'm absolutely positive that we won't see an Islamic state in Europe in the foreseeable future.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Exactly. The fastest growing "religions", at least in northern Europe, are actually agnosticism and atheism, i.e. no religion at all.

In southern Europe, on the other hand, although most people don't really care too much about religion in their private lives, I think they are reluctant to say openly that they are agnostic or not affiliated e.g. with the Catholic church. What I mean is that even people who never go to church have church weddings and baptize their children. I guess it is mostly a cultural thing.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Also in the United Kingdom the secularization is unstoppable and also there, in a more and more multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, the Anglican church, complete with Bishops residing in Parliament and with a head of state so glued to one specific Faith with an elitist position, will change. I predict that, like in the once oh so Catholic Spain or the oh so Lutheran Denmark, the position of the head of state will become completely secular, as will be the solemn ceremonies of state. Mark my words. Britain will be unrecognizeably changed in four/five decades and the position of King William as well his Coronation will be different. Note that already since Pope Paulus VI even the Vatican has abolished coronations. We will see a more sort of solemn Investiture. Mark my words.

 

[Rudolph]

As long as there is a monarchy in Britain we will have coronations. Europe has its way of doing things, Kings walking off the job. Queens taking their oath of office at city hall like a common civil servant. To each country their customs but Britain is about pomp and circumstance. Its about Lords Spiritual and Temporal.

Its about the Earl Marshall and Hereditary Marshall of England. Its about the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury asking Her Majesty -

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

England will be last as it was first.

 

[VictoriaB]

Hopefully I will see the coronations of King Charles III & King William V and I truly hope they are coronations and not installations or inaugurations. I think most people in the UK would as well.

Britain loves its pomp and circumstance as seen by the ceremonial funeral of the Queen Mother, the celebration of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the Royal Wedding. Inaugurations may work well on the continent but I don't think they are right for Britain.

By all means tweak the coronation but I don't think Britain is quite ready to do way with it yet.

 

[Osipi]

One thing the British monarchy represents is the continuity of its people and the rich history behind them. To do away with some of the ages old traditions as far as coronations and the State Opening of Parliament and other much loved British traditions would be like changing tea time to coffee time. It just doesn't have the same flavor and makes everything else so ordinary. People take pride in their heritage and its been those time honored ceremonies and rituals that makes their history come alive and appreciated.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The House of Lords is under constant fire. More and more people are fed up with the fine unelected lord- and ladyships snoring in their benches, suddenly waking up: "Uh oh... where can I sign for my day-allowance?" or "Uh oh... just bought a pair of sunglasses at Harrod's, where is the form to declare my expenses?"

The "Scottish Question" is on the table again, with Scottish leader Nicolae Sturgeon having higher and higher approval ratings while Labour is completely fallen to ruins in their once unbreakable stronghold which was Scotland. Another referendum is looming on the horizon.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, as well the present one, Justin Welby, have warned that the Church of England is "one generation away from extinction". See link.

All this: the more and more urgent reorganization of the House of Lords into an elected Upper House with the end of all the privileges of the "established Church", the still snoring giant which is "the Scottish Question" prying for any opportunity to break the Union, the changes in the UK demography which go with an unbelievable speed, the ever increasing trek from the traditional rural communities which kept the old values of Church, Monarchy and "Britishness" to the big, anonymous metropoles, expecially London. The biggest Pearls in the Crown which will undoubtedly move towards a republican form of State after the demise of the present Queen (Australia and Canada).

But no... "nothing will change". The Lords Peers will remain to take their cloths out of the mothballs, the Archbishop will still anoint the new King as if he is blessing a new Pope? Sometimes I think you need to be a bystander, like me -at the other side of the Channel- to see the changes sharper than when you are living within. I am sure we all will see dramatic changes. In all monarchies by the way. The British included.

[...] To do away with some of the ages old traditions as far as coronations and the State Opening of Parliament and other much loved British traditions [...]

Have you ever read the comments in the newspapers (if allowed, some newspapers wisely do not allow comments under royal articles) when there has been a State Openening of Parliament again? When a lady from head to toe bedecked in jewels, wearing an ermine cloak and transported in a guilded carriage, announced -flat faced and without emotion- the one draconic cut after the other, and all of course hard-hitting the lowest-paid. This with approval knicks from the head by the Lords in their finery (or where it knicks from snoring under their wigs?) Then this "much loved British tradition" is maybe not really that very much loved amongst a substantial part of society, I dare to say.

 

[Honeybees]

This ceremony also reminds everyone that The Monarch is outlining the democratically elected governments, schedule for their time in office. Yes it is a tiaria and ermine event and part of the reason The British Royal Family has an added allure to many world wide is that very grandeur. The House of Lords is an issue that will IMHO rumble on for quite some time. What is the alternative, HM turns up in a dress, coat, wonderful brooch and bearing her handbag to open Parliament?

 

[VictoriaB]

Have you ever read the comments in the newspapers (if allowed, some newspapers wisely do not allow comments under royal articles) when there has been a State Openening of Parliament again? When a lady from head to toe bedecked in jewels, wearing an ermine cloak and transported in a guilded carriage, announced -flat faced and without emotion- the one draconic cut after the other, and all of course hard-hitting the lowest-paid. This with approval knicks from the head by the Lords in their finery (or where it knicks from snoring under their wigs?) Then this "much loved British tradition" is maybe not really that very much loved amongst a substantial part of society, I dare to say.

And the beauty of online comments is that they are not confined to citizens of the UK or any of the other countries of which the British monarch is also Queen. They can be made by anyone from anywhere.

I dare say the comments on an Internet website are no more representative of the feelings of British citizens than they are of the citizens of any other country.

I don't doubt that the coronation will change or perhaps be done away with (as might the monarchy itself) but I don't think it will happen by the next coronation.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The British monarchy will remain one of the grandest monarchies. Of course. But opening the windows and cleaning the dust off might be a good revamp. King George VI of course still reigned after WWII but he was a sick man, Britain was on his knees, exhausted from the war and the start of the crumbling of the Empire (the Pearl in the Crown which went lost in 1947).

Queen Elizabeth came on the throne in 1952. We can more or less say that her Reign lasted from the post-WWII years until the day of today. When this Queen remains a few years, she has been so long Queen as is the time when a British baby is born until his/her retirement on the age of 65... All these years there has only been one chef.

When we look to Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands or the Vatican, we see that every new King brings a new energy, a fresh breath, changes also in traditions. It is very well possible that the kingship of Charles or William will be most different from that of the present one, based on the Monarchy Model 1952.

By the way, Prince William seems to understand the immense changes of the time. In a pretext to a book dedicated to Queen Elizabeth II he described it as "the confidence of the previous century had morphed into uncertainty and many worried – as they still do – about the challenge presented to our communities by rapid technological and social change". See link.

 

[wyevale]

As regards the building of the Coronation 'Theatre' in Westinster Abbey, I'm certain that can be created in a couple of weeks [max]. Modern scaffolding techniques are a far cry from the wooden carpentry methods used in 1952, and as other posters have noted, the television and electrical requirements are far more compact [and discreet] than they were. If the Glastonbury 'rig' can be put together as speedily as it is... so can the Abbey 'rig'.

As for the actual ceremony, I believe the 1000 year old ritual, and its central features, the recognition, anointing, oaths, investiture with the regalia and the Holy Communion will remain essentially unchanged for Charles III.
As for the 'bit part' players [the Peerage, and the politicians] they can be comfortably accomodated in Westminster Hall, and watch the proceedings on Screens from there, IF that is what has been decided.
I have no doubt the Earl Marshall, the Palace and the Civil servants have it all planned [down to the 'nth' degree] already.

As for William V all bets are off.. Who knows what this singularly 'unregal' individual might desire ? Perhaps a kickabout at Wembley Stadium...