The Queen had her coronation in 1953 though not 1952 and we celebrated it in 2022, 70 years of her becoming queen
The work that goes on to influence the public's perception would make many of us think twice. However, this is a time of mourning and hopefully these squabbles can be kept to a minimumThere are many challenges ahead for King Charles. Belize and Antigua already announced plans to remove him as their head of state. And the Queen hasn't even been buried!!
People love to focus on these family squabbles. But the truth is Harry and Meghan are a side show to distract from real issues. Would Belize and Antigua like to remain in the commonwealth if Harry and Meghan have stayed as working royals? I doubt it.
In the coming days and weeks, there will be major PR push to try to shore up King Charles image. He has never been as popular as his Mother. There will be effort made to improve his image (for example, there were reports that Charles order William to invite Harry and Meghan to the walkabout, but later that was disputed by William's camp.) It is hilarious that they are fighting over who gets the credit to appear more magnanimous.
It is important for King Charles to try to stay above the fray, like his Mother. And while he can't stop the declining influence of the Monarchy, he will try to slow it down.
There are many challenges ahead for King Charles. Belize and Antigua already announced plans to remove him as their head of state. And the Queen hasn't even been buried!!
People love to focus on these family squabbles. But the truth is Harry and Meghan are a side show to distract from real issues. Would Belize and Antigua like to remain in the commonwealth if Harry and Meghan have stayed as working royals? I doubt it.
In the coming days and weeks, there will be major PR push to try to shore up King Charles image. He has never been as popular as his Mother. There will be effort made to improve his image (for example, there were reports that Charles order William to invite Harry and Meghan to the walkabout, but later that was disputed by William's camp.) It is hilarious that they are fighting over who gets the credit to appear more magnanimous.
It is important for King Charles to try to stay above the fray, like his Mother. And while he can't stop the declining influence of the Monarchy, he will try to slow it down.
We saw irritation with the King, when he had to sign a Golden Book with a leaking pen. It struck me how calm, self-controlled and poised Queen Camilla remained. As if her unperturbability calmed the King (or was a reminder to him to follow her example).
A TV camera got the first clear image I've seen of the new signatures of the King and Queen consort: https://imgur.com/a/0fMCwON
A TV camera got the first clear image I've seen of the new signatures of the King and Queen consort: https://imgur.com/a/0fMCwON
Yes it is serious. Charles has always held himself to a high standard and nearly everything he is signing is on parchment and will end up with a seal or, in books with heavy and expensive "paper", all of which are historic, legal, constitutional or parts of all three They will all be part of history so when my ink pen squirted I was narked but able to take out another piece of paper and start again.
I agree but I think it is more than his high standards. He is shaking hands with many people, not just dignitaries but people who have waited for hours to see him. He wasn't in a position to run to the restroom and wash his hands. He didn't yell or insult anyone - hardly a meltdown.
Perhaps there are examples of when this happened to Elizabeth and she shrugged it off but I would not be surprised if it wouldn't have irritated her too. It's also been reported that Elizabeth was not seen in public very much during the mourning period after her father's death.
The proclamation of the new monarch occurs at St. James Palace.
Who was the first sovereign to be proclaimed at St. James Palace?
I'm not sure if there is a more specific thread for this, but:
I wonder if HM The King will issue any proclamation regarding the name of the Royal House.
I'm thinking he may change the name to "the House of Mountbatten-Windsor", and that way the (sometimes hidden) family surname will be the same as that of the House.
Of course he might issue a proclamation or statement, confirming that it will remain the House of Windsor or he may do nothing at all in which case it remains the House of Windsor.
Thoughts, comments?
I'm not sure if there is a more specific thread for this, but:
I wonder if HM The King will issue any proclamation regarding the name of the Royal House.
I'm thinking he may change the name to "the House of Mountbatten-Windsor", and that way the (sometimes hidden) family surname will be the same as that of the House.
Of course he might issue a proclamation or statement, confirming that it will remain the House of Windsor or he may do nothing at all in which case it remains the House of Windsor.
Thoughts, comments?
I'm not sure if there is a more specific thread for this
I think that will be left as it is… Agnatically the BRF belongs to the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg since 8:th September, just like the Danish and Norwegian royal families.
Yes, there is. You can find it here:
Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname
The house name of the Danish and Norwegian royal families is simply Glücksburg/Glücksborg. No "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg".
https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/the-monarchy-in-denmark/history
https://www.royalcourt.no/seksjon.html?tid=28435&sek=27259
Their Schleswig-Holstein ancestry is not (purely) agnatic, as King Christian I of Denmark was a Schleswig-Holstein on his maternal side, not paternal.