Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[tommy100]

I'm not at all surprised Sarah isn't attending, to be honest I was much more surprised she attended the funeral of the late Queen, certainly surprised she did so as prominently as she did rather than in the larger congregation. That was obviously the wish of the late Queen and respected. It doesn't necessarily translate to an invite to the coronation (I don't recall her attending the Jubilee services in 2002, 2012 and 2022 for example)
I think there is a line between events marking official things and events marking personal (wedding, funerals etc).

The concert guests...well usual collection of people I would say. Without getting into it too much off topic I'd love to know if its more because other big names don't want to appear (there were some rumours of that) or because the BBC chooses rather "out the field" stars to perform.

As for the polls - the British public have a reputation for not being interested in anything until it happens. The Golden Jubilee was notorious for that, as were the Olympics. Anything other than football tbh we seem to say we aren't interested in yet still thousands turn up, millions tune in and street parties and sandwiches are made. Really we just need to wait and see/

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

SBS rarely shows any royal events.

In the past the other four have had the events on their main channel but with it clashing with the football and the millions the channels have paid for the rights to show the football and the expectation of the sports to be shown on the main channel in prime time I am not sue if 7 or 9 will show it at all.

So far no network has announced that they will be covering it (compared to the Jubilee when at least three of them were already talking about their teams this far out).

SBS showed the Queens funeral, the wedding of Prince William, Prince Phillip's funeral, the Wedding of CP Frederik and Mary Donaldson, highlights of Prince Felipe's wedding, and King Charles' ascension. Channel 7 and 9 do not dedicate all their channels to NRL or AFL -they both have 3 or 4 channels. The coronation is 3 weeks away - programming and advertising usually happen 2 weeks out, especially considering it's only now other Royal houses are confirming and announcing who will be present.

This is a major event. It won't be shown on the main HD channel, but they will broadcast it

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is 2023. It is internet. No one relies on aerial or cable broadcasters. I just go straight to the source: the BBC. No idiotic newsreels under in the screen, no advertising blocks.

In Australia we do because we simply can't get overseas stations on demand.

I can't access any UK TV as I am not in the UK and that is the message from those channels - same with anything else in Europe - can't access due to living in Australia.

We are still reliant on aerial and cable and very strict rules and laws about whether it can even go onto cable e.g. a lot of things MUST be shown on free-to-air although often can be done in conjunction with a cable channel.

Take the premier league football - if you want to watch it in Australia you have to have Optus - not on free-to-air so you have to pay for it. The Rugby is now on Stan - other than tests involving Australia which, by law, must be shown free-to-air.

When pay-TV was starting here the government took steps to ensure that certain events were guaranteed to the free-to-air set up. This also insists that certain events MUST be shown on the main channel so Channels 7 and 9 will have to show the NRL and AFL games on their main channels and can only put the coronation on a minor channel unless the government makes an exception, which so far no announcement has been made.

 

[Denville]

I think that Sarah's comeback was largely due to the queen's becoming closer to her again, I think that PHilip was the one who really could not stand her but the queen while keeping a certain distance did not want to fall out with the mother of her grandchildren, who was also still close to her ex husband who was the queen's favourite son. But that does not mean that Sarah is back in beyond a certain point. I suspect that Charles may be pleased that since Andrew has had to give up his work and will never be allowed to do any public work again, he has a good companion who lives with him and keeps him company, and is supportive. but all the same, Sarah conjures up memories of Epstein and he's not going to want that at his coronation.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

In Australia we do because we simply can't get overseas stations on demand.

I can't access any UK TV as I am not in the UK and that is the message from those channels - same with anything else in Europe - can't access due to living in Australia.

We are still reliant on aerial and cable and very strict rules and laws about whether it can even go onto cable e.g. a lot of things MUST be shown on free-to-air although often can be done in conjunction with a cable channel.

Take the premier league football - if you want to watch it in Australia you have to have Optus - not on free-to-air so you have to pay for it. The Rugby is now on Stan - other than tests involving Australia which, by law, must be shown free-to-air.

When pay-TV was starting here the government took steps to ensure that certain events were guaranteed to the free-to-air set up. This also insists that certain events MUST be shown on the main channel so Channels 7 and 9 will have to show the NRL and AFL games on their main channels and can only put the coronation on a minor channel unless the government makes an exception, which so far no announcement has been made.

Yep! And you now need to pay extra for the Premier League on Optus. No Eurosport either.

Don't get me started on the exorbitant cost of popular software as well....

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yep! And you now need to pay extra for the Premier League on Optus. No Eurosport either.

Don't get me started on the exorbitant cost of popular software as well....

I don't worry about those as I have no interest in soccer and never have.

I do get annoyed that so much of the cricket is now on pay-TV but the Ashes series from the UK must be on free-to-air and so the usual issue - what to show due to it clashing with the Aussie Rules.

Anyway we will get some idea in about a week's time when the TV guide for the 6th May becomes available (certainly for me via my Foxtel - two weeks in advance only).

 

[Hallo girl]

I'm not at all surprised Sarah isn't attending, to be honest I was much more surprised she attended the funeral of the late Queen, certainly surprised she did so as prominently as she did rather than in the larger congregation. That was obviously the wish of the late Queen and respected. It doesn't necessarily translate to an invite to the coronation (I don't recall her attending the Jubilee services in 2002, 2012 and 2022 for example)
I think there is a line between events marking official things and events marking personal (wedding, funerals etc).

The concert guests...well usual collection of people I would say. Without getting into it too much off topic I'd love to know if its more because other big names don't want to appear (there were some rumours of that) or because the BBC chooses rather "out the field" stars to perform.

As for the polls - the British public have a reputation for not being interested in anything until it happens. The Golden Jubilee was notorious for that, as were the Olympics. Anything other than football tbh we seem to say we aren't interested in yet still thousands turn up, millions tune in and street parties and sandwiches are made. Really we just need to wait and see/

I believe Charles has requested a more eclectic mix of performers for his concert. As far as people refusing to perform, not saying it didn't happen but some are already on tour, and it isn't as straight forward as turning up on the Sunday performing then going back to rejoin the tour.

It has been typical of the press to plant the suggestion of snubs to the King, he probably isn't all that bothered.
An interest is beginning to build up, even in my small village we have family events/ community events planned.

Each to their own, some will use the time off to do other stuff some will use it to watch the royal events, lets just enjoy the history of the event,

 

[tommy100]

100% agree, I tend to think the BBC and organisers go for more than just a good music concert and want a better mix to suit all age groups / interests. The same as the King has apparently requested.

These things always seem to clash with pre-announced concerts/tours so getting people to commit to a detour is tricky.

 

[Durham]

This reminds me of the remarks that many in the UK were making prior to the 2012 Summer Olympic games Opening Ceremony. Then in the days before the Games opened, there was an enthusiastic response from the public. I am curious to see if there will be a repeat when it comes to the Coronation.

This is an interesting point. Here are the figures for London 2012. Not all that different to the coronation really.

Olympics:
29% not at all interested
24% not very interested
30% fairly interested
14% very interested

Paralympics:
32% not at all interested
30% not very interested,
27% fairly interested
7% very interested

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/03/30/interest-london-olympics

To add some more context about 20 million people watched (BBC & ITV) England’s crucial final World Cup game against France. That was on a Saturday as well. That’s about a third of England’s population (less as a proportion of the UK’s population). And the World Cup as usual was all over the media. A lot!

 

[Durham]

Coronation row over hundreds of peers forbidden from wearing robes (archive)

Some senior peers who have been given ceremonial roles in the service - performed by their families at successive coronations - may be allowed to wear their coronation robes."

It will look very incongruous if these peers wear suits & not robes.

 

[tommy100]

Very telling! And everyone raved about London 2012 after it!

I don't know how much of a factor it is but the shops are now starting to put coronation related products front and centre as its the next big "event" now Easter it out the way. I suspect that will start getting people thinking about what they are going to do.

I know in my family my grandparents who will 100% watch the coronation don't know what they are doing for it yet but I am 90% sure they'll end up going to someones house having something of an afternoon tea party for it and not just sitting in watching themselves.

We are a nation of last minute deciders - there was an article in one of the papers the other day about how many last minute people they were expecting to suddenly realise they need ID to vote in the elections on 4th May but the deadline for a voter ID card is approaching now. Again, this doesn't mean everyone will suddenly turn into Charles fans or become obsessive about the coronation going all the way to organising street parties and the like but I'm sure a lot for than expected will mark it somehow - even if its just an excuse for a party in May sunshine.

 

[Mbruno]

In Australia we do because we simply can't get overseas stations on demand.

I can't access any UK TV as I am not in the UK and that is the message from those channels - same with anything else in Europe - can't access due to living in Australia.

Really? In most countries, you can get BBC World Service on pay TV (cable or satellite) and, in the US in particular, there is BBC America. You can also stream Sky News (UK) live for free on YouTube. The BBC also offers free live Internet streaming for major events like the Queen's funeral and probably the coronation. For the Queen's funeral, there was live streaming from many UK media on YouTube, including newspapers like The Telegraph . I would imagine the same might happen for the coronation.

I didn't realize Australia was so insular.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Really? In most countries, you can get BBC World Service on pay TV (cable or satellite) and, in the US in particular, there is BBC America. You can also stream Sky News (UK) live for free on YouTube. The BBC also offers free live Internet streaming for major events like the Queen's funeral and probably the coronation. For the Queen's funeral, there was live streaming from many UK media on YouTube, including newspapers like The Telegraph . I would imagine the same might happen for the coronation.

I didn't realize Australia was so insular.

A lot of times the BBC simply blocks us - I couldn't get the BBC for the funeral via the internet as I was blocked for being in Australia.

Our ABC did show the BBC coverage though.

A lot of the time even you tube streams are blocked here.

Our government is very protective of local TV content and the stations.

If a person has pay-TV they will get the BBC World News coverage and Sky News coverage but about a third of the nation don't have access to pay-TV and about 10% don't have access to the internet (when covid was at its height the government tried to mandate the use of QR codes to enter places but had to scale it back when it was revealed that about 10% of adults don't have a mobile phone - myself included).

 

[tommy100]

I don't know if it will make a difference but the BBC has announced it ill suspend the license fee for the coronation - it sounds like it is aimed at local events being able to show the events live (street parties etc) but it maybe also means they'll open livestreaming up

https://archive.ph/UusBK#selection-1325.0-1355.155

The BBC has announced that it will suspend the licence fee as a one-off for the King’s Coronation weekend.

The broadcaster said it is in “exceptional circumstances” that a temporary dispensation is granted, with the event needing to be of “national importance”.

It was previously done for Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June last year.

The fee suspension will allow venues across the country to screen the live coronation ceremony coverage on May 6, as well as the coronation concert at Windsor Castle the following day.

Usually, they would have to purchase the broadcaster’s TV licence, which costs £159 for a colour licence and £53.50 for a black and white licence annually.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It would be weird when the public funded broadcasters in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with Charles III as head-of-state would not broadcast it in full, even if it is only transmitting the BBC feed.

In Europe, the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II was the first major live Eurovision broadcast. This cooperation still is fully operational: all European public broadcasters have access to each other's streams via Eurovision. So the Norwegian NRK, the Spanish TVE, the Italian RAI, the Dutch NOS, they all can share the BBC broadcast via Eurovision.

 

[llj]

For past royal events, I've watched the Royal Family's YouTube channel, which streams events live without commentary. It's fantastic.

 

[Granada]

I don't know why People thought Sarah would be invited to The Coronation. It is a State Occasion and She is THE ex wife of Prince Andrew, however odd their arrangement is.
She has always been a loose cannon, with an eye for capitalizing off of her Royal Connections too. The Family and Their Advisers are well aware of her History and really poor choices that reflected badly on her. And by extension the reputation of The Royal Family.

Had an documented affair while pregnant with Eugenie with Texan Steve Wyatt in 1990. Caught out when pictures surfaced from their romantic Morrocan getaway *mysteriously surfaced*.

Then the infamous "toe sucking" pictures with John Bryant ( who she claimed as just an financial advisor) while separated hit the newspapers.
The girls ( then toddlers) were on vacation with them and the whole episode blew up her reputation, Divorce, and led to Philip refusing to have ANYTHING to do with her in 1992. Unbelievably, Sarah was with the Royals at Balmoral when the Tabloids printed all the lurid details and photos !

Then we had the disgraceful rock bottom "Cash for Access" Scandal in 2010 where Sarah was selling access to Andrew via the Fake Sheik from "News of The World " tabloid.

ALL ON TAPE. "The cash would open any door you want"....."Look after Me and he'll look after you" .

I have never believed Andrew wasnt aware of what was going on either, he was protected or The Scandal would have been MUCH WORSE.
IT hurt Sarah greatly, but that's Sarah, ALWAYS finds a way to reinvent herself. The comeback kid.

Charles and The Family are forgiving types, as The Queen was. Probably viewing the now older Sarah as jolly but ditzy, and hopefully *somewhat* wiser.
But they do know She DOES trade off of her Royal Connections, and The Coronation is just to prestigious to risk Sarah using an invite to flag her Books on the Talk Show circuit either.

Wise move. They are trying successfully to eliminate *other* controversies from bubbling up before or after The Coronation.

 

[Somebody]

I don't know why People thought Sarah would be invited to The Coronation. It is a State Occasion and She is THE ex wife of Prince Andrew, however odd their arrangement is.

As several people explained, for some reason she is still a formal member of the royal family (as per their own list). So, it is not too farfetched to think they would invite all adult members of the royal family to attend.

I personally don't understand why divorced wives are still considered members of the royal family but if they are they should be treated as such and be invited to events like this.

 

[Granada]

Somebody, well I guess Charles and his Advisors don't view Sarah that way.
She was purposely not invited.

 

[Claire]

Personal i think that Sarah as simply not on the list as the list had to be cut severly down. I do not think we will see the whole British royal family either. There will be people that we expect to see there that we will not - simply because there is not room.

 

[Mbruno]

Personal i think that Sarah as simply not on the list as the list had to be cut severly down. I do not think we will see the whole British royal family either. There will be people that we expect to see there that we will not - simply because there is not room.

I wonder how Britons feel about some people being invited only for political reasons or to meet diversity/ representation quotas.

What I am saying is that it is more politically appealing these days to invite a young community organizer ( especially a female PoC), who might actually be privately a republican or not care about the monarchy at all, than to invite a white male hereditary peer whose family has served the Crown since the days of the Franco-Norman Kings, but is that really the right thing to do?

I know that is a deeply controversial discussion, but I think we need to ask ourselves if all this effort to make the monarchy look “ inclusive “ makes sense for an institution that is based on hereditary privilege and is actually the opposite of inclusiveness. It may look fake in my opinion and have the opposite effect of what is intended. I would leave the cultural wars and the inclusiveness agenda to the politicians who need to worry about winning the next election, rather than the King.

A different situation, however, would be if the invited people are associated with charities with which the King has been genuinely involved and are people who have a real working relationship with the Royal Household.

 

[Granada]

Mbruno, completely agree. Sensitivity over Common Sense unfortunately takes precedence in many things these days.

 

[Alison H]

This reminds me of the remarks that many in the UK were making prior to the 2012 Summer Olympic games Opening Ceremony. Then in the days before the Games opened, there was an enthusiastic response from the public. I am curious to see if there will be a repeat when it comes to the Coronation.

I think people will be interested when it comes to it. There's quite a big marketing campaign going on by supermarkets etc who are keen to sell Coronation merchandise, and a lot of local events are being organised.

Regarding whom to invite, unfortunately it's a no win situation. People complain if anything doesn't look "inclusive". Also, I think the King is genuinely keen for everything to be inclusive. There are reportedly some quite major arguments going on behind the scenes because the King wants representatives of different faiths to play a part in the ceremony and the Church of England doesn't want them to.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

As several people explained, for some reason she is still a formal member of the royal family (as per their own list). So, it is not too farfetched to think they would invite all adult members of the royal family to attend.

I personally don't understand why divorced wives are still considered members of the royal family but if they are they should be treated as such and be invited to events like this.

The only real exception was Diana was because she was mother of the main line heirs. In any case, the invites are up to the King and in some cases Home office (government officials) and if they don’t have to or want to invite someone, they won’t.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I wonder how Britons feel about some people being invited only for political reasons or to meet diversity/ representation quotas.

What I am saying is that it is more politically appealing these days to invite a young community organizer ( especially a female PoC), who might actually be privately a republican or not care about the monarchy at all, than to invite a white male hereditary peer whose family has served the Crown since the days of the Franco-Norman Kings, but is that really the right thing to do?

I know that is a deeply controversial discussion, but I think we need to ask ourselves if all this effort to make the monarchy look “ inclusive “ makes sense for an institution that is based on hereditary privilege and is actually the opposite of inclusiveness. It may look fake in my opinion and have the opposite effect of what is intended. I would leave the cultural wars and the inclusiveness agenda to the politicians who need to worry about winning the next election, rather than the King.

A different situation, however, would be if the invited people are associated with charities with which the King has been genuinely involved and are people who have a real working relationship with the Royal Household.

Well demographics in the country have changed so much since 1953 and politically with the the House of Lords Act of 1999 so changes have been made. Plus Charles’s circumstances are very different that what the late Queen had to deal with. Charles is aware of this and not trying to look out of touch as he’s been generally assumed to be.

 

[ladongas]

I don't know why People thought Sarah would be invited to The Coronation. It is a State Occasion and She is THE ex wife of Prince Andrew, however odd their arrangement is.
She has always been a loose cannon, with an eye for capitalizing off of her Royal Connections too. The Family and Their Advisers are well aware of her History and really poor choices that reflected badly on her. And by extension the reputation of The Royal Family.

Had an documented affair while pregnant with Eugenie with Texan Steve Wyatt in 1990. Caught out when pictures surfaced from their romantic Morrocan getaway *mysteriously surfaced*.

Then the infamous "toe sucking" pictures with John Bryant ( who she claimed as just an financial advisor) while separated hit the newspapers. The girls were on vacation with them and the whole episode blew up her reputation, Divorce, and led to Philip refusing to have ANYTHING to do with her in 1992. Unbelievably, Sarah was with the Royals at Balmoral when the Tabloids printed all the lurid details and photos !

Then we had the disgraceful rock bottom "Cash for Access" Scandal in 2010 where Sarah was selling access to Andrew via the Fake Sheik from "News of The World " tabloid.

ALL ON TAPE. "The cash would open any door you want"....."Look after Me and he'll look after you" .

I have never believed Andrew wasnt aware of what was going on either, he was protected or The Scandal would have been MUCH WORSE.
IT hurt Sarah greatly, but that's Sarah, ALWAYS finds a way to reinvent herself. The comeback kid.

Charles and The Family are forgiving types, as The Queen was. Probably viewing the now older Sarah as jolly but ditzy, and hopefully *somewhat* wiser.
But they do know She DOES trade off of her Royal Connections, and The Coronation is just to prestigious to risk Sarah using an invite to flag her Books on the Talk Show circuit either.

Wise move. They are trying successfully to eliminate *other* controversies from bubbling up before or after The Coronation.

Well, if other guests and participants had to pass a ‘purity test’, there would be plenty of room for Sarah!

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Well, if other guests and participants had to pass a ‘purity test’, there would be plenty of room for Sarah!

I don’t think so. In any case, Sarah isn’t going because she’s travelling. Case closed.

 

[tommy100]

Hmm I don't think its as simple as Charles didn't send her an invite because he checked first and was told she'd be travelling. The Queen Mother and The late Queen's funeral were the only two official royal events she has taken part in. Thus her not attending the coronation is a default "back to normal".

 

[ladongas]

Like it or not, she is Andrew’s ‘partner’ of nearly four decades, and the courteous thing to do would have been to invite her.

 

[Spheno]

Like it or not, she is Andrew’s ‘partner’ of nearly four decades, and the courteous thing to do would have been to invite her.

She is FORMER partner.