Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[JGio]

So, will King Charles wear a long robe with train? As will Queen Camilla?

 

[Toledo]

I think is going to be an UK event for the ages:

1. The first coronation in both the 21st Century and the Millenium
2. The first coronation after the long reign of the most beloved 'Granny' on the planet (sorry, UK, we also loved QEII)

3. The overall production will be shown now, in the amazing internet and social media age that connects everyone on Earth and the Space station too, as one big family.

Even if it's scaled down when compared to QEII's coronation, it will still be a great production and for those of us that love fiction like Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings books and TV series and movies about real or fictional royals. This is the real thing and I'm glad it's happening in my lifetime because at my age I'll be lucky if I'm around to see William's or George's moment.

I'm looking forward to it!

 

[wbenson]

So, will King Charles wear a long robe with train? As will Queen Camilla?

At this moment, I would expect the King to arrive wearing such (the red robe of state, which is also the traditional robe for the opening of parliament), and for Queen Camilla to wear it throughout the ceremony. Obviously we don't have many firm details, so that's all subject to change.

I'm less certain of what the King will wear for the crowning itself. Some articles have said that he won't be having as many changes of outfit as his mother had. And if he's wearing something as heavy as a naval uniform, I think that is perhaps a sign that the layers upon layers of traditional garments might be going by the wayside, and perhaps we'll simply see him wear only the imperial mantle and not the garments that go under it (based on what's in the London Gazette, that's what William IV did).

I'm also somewhat skeptical that they will have purple imperial robes for their departure. Unlike the robes of state, they are only used the one time, and my suspicion is that they will fall to modern economies and the red robes will be used for both directions of travel through the Abbey.

 

[Stefan]

I'm also somewhat skeptical that they will have purple imperial robes for their departure. Unlike the robes of state, they are only used the one time, and my suspicion is that they will fall to modern economies and the red robes will be used for both directions of travel through the Abbey.

If i understand it right Queen Camilla will arrive and leave in a purple imperial robe and only the King goes from a crimson red one to a purple one.
Wonder if he could not use the one of his grandfather, therefore they would have make a new one for him.

 

[wbenson]

Yes, I think you're right. I'm looking at video of 1937 and Queen Elizabeth arrived in the robe with her cypher (which was purple based on the portrait) and not the plainer red robe she used at openings of Parliament (ignore the caption saying it's in Ottawa).

 

[Lemon Lyman]

Hugo Vickers is on The Royal Rota podcast this week talking to Lizzie about the coronation. Very interesting.

 

[duchessrachel]

The information on the Coronation is say that Camilla will be crowned "Queen Consort". When Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) was crowned along with King George VI, was she crowned "Queen" or "Queen Consort"? What about Queen Mary prior to her?

 

[Alison H]

The King's wife is the Queen Consort by definition, so they were all crowned as consort. Any king's wife is only the Queen because she's married to the King. It's just confusing because previous consorts were referred to as Queen [First Name]. As time goes on and we get used to the idea that *the* Queen is gone, I'm sure that "Queen Consort" will become "the Queen" or "Queen Camilla".

 

[Toledo]

The King's wife is the Queen Consort by definition, so they were all crowned as consort. Any king's wife is only the Queen because she's married to the King. It's just confusing because previous consorts were referred to as Queen [First Name]. As time goes on and we get used to the idea that *the* Queen is gone, I'm sure that "Queen Consort" will become "the Queen" or "Queen Camilla".

Is Queen Regnant still in use as a title? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant

At this point everybody knows the designation carries two meanings, ruling female monarch and wife of a ruling (male) monarch. Like with the Princess of Wales now, we can always meet in the middle(ton) . She is Princess Catherine of Wales as well as Princess Kate for shorts.

I know the difference and my preference referring to her in the forum would be the shorter Queen Camilla than the more formal Queen Consort Camilla, just for the sake of saving fonts and space. ?

 

[Somebody]

Is Queen Regnant still in use as a title? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant

At this point everybody knows the designation carries two meanings, ruling female monarch and wife of a ruling (male) monarch. Like with the Princess of Wales now, we can always meet in the middle(ton) . She is Princess Catherine of Wales as well as Princess Kate for shorts.

I know the difference and my preference referring to her in the forum would be the shorter Queen Camilla than the more formal Queen Consort Camilla, just for the sake of saving fonts and space. ?

However, Catherine is not princess Catherine of Wales. She is the Princess of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge and the Princess William, but she is not princess Catherine (of anything). Her daughter is princess Charlotte of Wales; using a comparable structure for Catherine suggests that she is the prince of Wales' daughter not his wife.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If i understand it right Queen Camilla will arrive and leave in a purple imperial robe and only the King goes from a crimson red one to a purple one.
Wonder if he could not use the one of his grandfather, therefore they would have make a new one for him.

Was it not a requirement that a new purple robe would have to be made for the new sovereign?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is Queen Regnant still in use as a title? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant

At this point everybody knows the designation carries two meanings, ruling female monarch and wife of a ruling (male) monarch. Like with the Princess of Wales now, we can always meet in the middle(ton) . She is Princess Catherine of Wales as well as Princess Kate for shorts.

I know the difference and my preference referring to her in the forum would be the shorter Queen Camilla than the more formal Queen Consort Camilla, just for the sake of saving fonts and space. ?

Camilla's title is Queen Consort - unlike other Queen's Consort who were always only Queen. Evidence - the Royal Warrant issued by Charles III within days of his accession instructing the CoE to refer to her as The Queen Consort in the prayers for the royal family. Her title can't just be changed to The Queen without Charles III issuing another Royal Warrant changing that official title.

Catherine is NOT Princess Catherine of Wales or Princess Kate. She is not eligible to be a Princess 'own name' under the 1917 Letters Patent that govern who is and who isn't a Prince/Princess with their own name in the UK.

Her title is HRH The Princess of Wales - no name at all. If you wish to refer to her as Princess she is Princess William but that is a massive demotion in status ... in fact Princess 'own name' is a sign of a commoner and not the wife of a peer so Princess Catherine would be a demotion in status for The Princess of Wales (taking her from the second highest female title in the land to below all the peers/peeresses so below a Baroness by marriage.

That is what so many people don't understand - that a peeress ranks higher in title (not in precedence but in title) than an person using a non-peerage style such as Princess.

 

[Tarlita]

I really do hope the televised commentary is by someone who can explain things properly. Such as the significance of The Cap of Maintenance. The reason for using a Sur Coat as opposed to a Military uniform such as King William IV wore a Uniform. Apparently there is difficulty in annointing the breast if one is wearing a Uniform jacket. Etc.

 

[Stefan]

I really do hope the televised commentary is by someone who can explain things properly. Such as the significance of The Cap of Maintenance. The reason for using a Sur Coat as opposed to a Military uniform such as King William IV wore a Uniform. Apparently there is difficulty in annointing the breast if one is wearing a Uniform jacket. Etc.

I hope that there will be an official Website released soon where all such things are explained

 

[Countessmeout]

Camilla's title is Queen Consort - unlike other Queen's Consort who were always only Queen. Evidence - the Royal Warrant issued by Charles III within days of his accession instructing the CoE to refer to her as The Queen Consort in the prayers for the royal family. Her title can't just be changed to The Queen without Charles III issuing another Royal Warrant changing that official title.

Catherine is NOT Princess Catherine of Wales or Princess Kate. She is not eligible to be a Princess 'own name' under the 1917 Letters Patent that govern who is and who isn't a Prince/Princess with their own name in the UK.

Her title is HRH The Princess of Wales - no name at all. If you wish to refer to her as Princess she is Princess William but that is a massive demotion in status ... in fact Princess 'own name' is a sign of a commoner and not the wife of a peer so Princess Catherine would be a demotion in status for The Princess of Wales (taking her from the second highest female title in the land to below all the peers/peeresses so below a Baroness by marriage.

That is what so many people don't understand - that a peeress ranks higher in title (not in precedence but in title) than an person using a non-peerage style such as Princess.

Nothing is final about Camilla's title. A royal warrant is not a change. Its simply the first step. It would require the filing of a royal pattent to change her title officially. The Queen consort title does not exist in the UK and needs to be created for her. If was to be created, would likely apply to all women after her.

A royal warrant was simply issued informing the COE to use the title. If and when a royal pattent is issued officially creating a new title, I am sure there will be some official update made.

At the moment nothing has to be issued for Camilla to be titled HM Queen Camilla. On the flip side, something else needs filing for Queen Consort.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Camilla's title is Queen Consort - unlike other Queen's Consort who were always only Queen. Evidence - the Royal Warrant issued by Charles III within days of his accession instructing the CoE to refer to her as The Queen Consort in the prayers for the royal family. Her title can't just be changed to The Queen without Charles III issuing another Royal Warrant changing that official title.

Nothing is final about Camilla's title. A royal warrant is not a change. Its simply the first step. It would require the filing of a royal pattent to change her title officially. The Queen consort title does not exist in the UK and needs to be created for her. If was to be created, would likely apply to all women after her.

A royal warrant was simply issued informing the COE to use the title. If and when a royal pattent is issued officially creating a new title, I am sure there will be some official update made.

At the moment nothing has to be issued for Camilla to be titled HM Queen Camilla. On the flip side, something else needs filing for Queen Consort.

It seems you define "title" as a title created by new letters patent. Under that definition of "title", neither the King nor the Queen Consort currently have "titles" and the current Princedom of Wales is also not a "title". Personally, I think that is too restrictive a definition.

Definitions aside, Charles and Camilla have been referred to as The King (or occasionally King Charles III) and as The Queen Consort respectively in all legal documents and official communications issued by the household and the government since the accession. No changes have been made yet.

It is widely understood that it is the sovereign's prerogative to regulate royal titles (or usages or whatever one prefers to call them), even if he or she does not follow the precedent. No official authorities have demanded that Charles III file a letters patent about the queen consort being known as Queen Consort rather than Queen, or refused to accept his decision, so his current form of making his will known seems to be acceptable.

Catherine is NOT Princess Catherine of Wales or Princess Kate. She is not eligible to be a Princess 'own name' under the 1917 Letters Patent that govern who is and who isn't a Prince/Princess with their own name in the UK.

No, the 1917 letters patent are completely silent on the matter of whether wives should use their own name or their husband's name.

In fact, the 1917 Letters Patent are silent on whether wives should be called "Princess" at all. That is why six years later, in 1923, courtiers sought legal advice as to whether a nonroyal bride becomes a Princess by marriage.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#After_1917

That is what so many people don't understand - that a peeress ranks higher in title (not in precedence but in title) than an person using a non-peerage style such as Princess.

However, that traditionally did not apply to senior members of the British royal family, whose precedence was derived from their degree of kinship to the monarch and not from the peerages or titles they bore.

And since this thread is on the subject of titles at the moment, I hope it is all right to add that the crown princess of Belgium's title is not the Duchess of Brabant, as was said earlier in this thread, but Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Nothing is final about Camilla's title. A royal warrant is not a change. Its simply the first step. It would require the filing of a royal pattent to change her title officially. The Queen consort title does not exist in the UK and needs to be created for her. If was to be created, would likely apply to all women after her.

A royal warrant was simply issued informing the COE to use the title. If and when a royal pattent is issued officially creating a new title, I am sure there will be some official update made.

At the moment nothing has to be issued for Camilla to be titled HM Queen Camilla. On the flip side, something else needs filing for Queen Consort.

A Royal Warrant is an OFFICIAL statement by the King. Letters Patent are only one way of doing things. A royal warrant is another and The King has said by Royal Warrant that her title is Queen Consort.

He hasn't issued any documents at all so far for the Prince of Wales title - but no one queries 'The King's Will' as a means of making a change of title known for William while querying the use of a more official means for his wife. Strange isn't it?

There are THREE ways to change a title and Charles III has used two of them - Royal Warrant and King's Will.

 

[wbenson]

More on the canopy issue, and also some speculation on what the King and guests will wear:

Most sacred part of the King’s Coronation could be caught on camera for first time in history (archive link)

The Telegraph understands that an alternative canopy, with a see-through top, is being made to give the King the option of allowing the anointing to be caught on camera for the very first time.

Whichever canopy is chosen for the Coronation of Charles III, it had been hoped it would be carried by scholars of Christ’s Hospital - a charity boarding school in Horsham, West Sussex, which offers children from humble backgrounds the chance of a better education. But there are concerns it may prove too heavy for schoolchildren and will need to be carried by Guardsmen instead.

 

[Saragli]

::SIGH:: I think we can safely assume that the coronation will not be a tiara event. I now would even be surprised if Their Majesty's wear the crowns outside of the Abbey.

 

[An Ard Ri]

::SIGH:: I think we can safely assume that the coronation will not be a tiara event. I now would even be surprised if Their Majesty's wear the crowns outside of the Abbey.

Why do you say that?

Was there an announcement on this?

 

[wbenson]

::SIGH:: I think we can safely assume that the coronation will not be a tiara event. I now would even be surprised if Their Majesty's wear the crowns outside of the Abbey.

Being a day dress event for most attendees wouldn't necessarily preclude it from being a tiara event for the royal guests. Think of the opening of Parliament, where you could see tiaras, day dress, or business dress depending on which direction you look. (But then again, in the last six years, only one opening of Parliament out of five had tiaras. There were special circumstances for each of the other four...but maybe it changed permanently and we just won't notice until the next one.)

 

[wartenberg7]

 

[wartenberg7]

Being a day dress event for most attendees wouldn't necessarily preclude it from being a tiara event for the royal guests. Think of the opening of Parliament, where you could see tiaras, day dress, or business dress depending on which direction you look. (But then again, in the last six years, only one opening of Parliament out of five had tiaras. There were special circumstances for each of the other four...but maybe it changed permanently and we just won't notice until the next one.)

If a coronation would not be a tiara event, there would be no tiara events left anymore all together...There are pretty funny rumours circulating, like the Golden State coach wouldn´t be used or just used to transport the crown etc. All this was speculative and has already been denied by the court.

 

[Stefan]

Perhaps this woman should tell this the couturiers and advisers HM who think he should not go traditional and wear an Uniform.

 

[MARG]

Charles grandfather wore his "uniform" and, to be honest, the only real difference is wearing long trousers instead of breeches, knee high hose and garters. The rest is pretty much the same. Needless to say, if he wears a military uniform, it will definitely not be his Air Force one nor will it be a break with "tradition".

George V: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/RM7KJH/ki...-by-sir-luke-fildes-painting-c1911-RM7KJH.jpg

George VI: https://media.gettyimages.com/photo...a-coloured-plate-from-the-picture-id463975949

 

[yukari]

The official website:

https://coronation.gov.uk/about-the-coronation/

 

[wbenson]

Charles grandfather wore his "uniform" and, to be honest, the only real difference is wearing long trousers instead of breeches, knee high hose and garters.

George V wore a naval uniform in the portrait, but he wore the silk coat and breeches for the actual ceremony. You can see it under the robe here.

Frankly, I've always thought it looked like fancy pajamas, so I think a naval uniform is actually an upgrade.

 

[MARG]

Thanks, and I agree, it does look better with uniform.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Delete post please

 

[Stefan]

Charles grandfather wore his "uniform" and, to be honest, the only real difference is wearing long trousers instead of breeches, knee high hose and garters. The rest is pretty much the same. Needless to say, if he wears a military uniform, it will definitely not be his Air Force one nor will it be a break with "tradition".

George V: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/RM7KJH/ki...-by-sir-luke-fildes-painting-c1911-RM7KJH.jpg

You mean his great-grandfather. But this pic is not from the coronation where he did not wear uniform


https://www.rct.uk/sites/default/files/collection-online/b/0/297402-1340964854.jpg