Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[Stefan]

Isn’t May 6th the anniversary of George V’s coronation?

No but of his accession as Edward VII. died on that date in 1910. And Margaret married on that date.

 

[sarahedwards2]

Just for curiosity: when did he have his appendix cut out?

When he was 8 or so.

 

[Curryong]

I believe Charles had his appendix out in February 1962.

 

[An Ard Ri]

It is normal to not announce the date for a coronation for about six months after the death of the previous monarch. It hasn't been a month yet. I expect an announcement before the end of the year (note that BP, according to the DM, said that no date has been set yet)

The announcement came a little over a month after the death of the late queen,the month of May however was a surprise.

 

[Meee]

I’m very surprised by the date. I expected a Saturday, so as to allow as many people as possible to watch it without the need of a Bank Holiday. When the Queen died, we originally heard that the funeral date wouldn’t be a Bank Holiday but that the coronation would and my sense was that this wasn’t popular; by granting the Bank Holiday when he did instead, he is showing that he is in touch with the public mood.

But not this Saturday. I think he will be accused of hijaking Archie’s birthday, excluding his second son etc somewhere along the line, by one outlet or another. I’m not pointing the finger at any particular person when I say that.

Most coronations are over a year from accession (George VI’s was the obvious exception as he kept the date that was originally being planned for his brother) and therefore the earliest I expected was June if Charles wanted the date 70 years from his mother’s. I concur with those who mentioned the weather might still be more of a lottery that early in May. Picking May 27th would to me have made more sense, long weekend by default rather than the week after one as things stand, and that little bit later in the year in the hope of better weather. Possible that they’ve gone with the logic that the weather is usually bad on a Bank Holiday weekend though. My mum thought that at his age, Charles just wouldn’t have wanted to wait.

A day of the Jubilee celebrations had to fall on Lili’s birthday, it was always going to be the weekend closest to the 2 June and 4 June happened to be a Saturday this year. But the coronation didn’t have to fall on Archie’s. Unless of course he’s planning to officially confirm their titles on that day, which might be a nice touch (if out of kilter with the slimming down around the rest of the day.)

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I’m very surprised by the date. I expected a Saturday, so as to allow as many people as possible to watch it without the need of a Bank Holiday. When the Queen died, we originally heard that the funeral date wouldn’t be a Bank Holiday but that the coronation would and my sense was that this wasn’t popular; by granting the Bank Holiday when he did instead, he is showing that he is in touch with the public mood.

But not this Saturday. I think he will be accused of hijaking Archie’s birthday, excluding his second son etc somewhere along the line, by one outlet or another. I’m not pointing the finger at any particular person when I say that.

Most coronations are over a year from accession (George VI’s was the obvious exception as he kept the date that was originally being planned for his brother) and therefore the earliest I expected was June if Charles wanted the date 70 years from his mother’s. I concur with those who mentioned the weather might still be more of a lottery that early in May. Picking May 27th would to me have made more sense, long weekend by default rather than the week after one as things stand, and that little bit later in the year in the hope of better weather. Possible that they’ve gone with the logic that the weather is usually bad on a Bank Holiday weekend though. My mum thought that at his age, Charles just wouldn’t have wanted to wait.

A day of the Jubilee celebrations had to fall on Lili’s birthday, it was always going to be the weekend closest to the 2 June and 4 June happened to be a Saturday this year. But the coronation didn’t have to fall on Archie’s. Unless of course he’s planning to officially confirm their titles on that day, which might be a nice touch (if out of kilter with the slimming down around the rest of the day.)

No one will actually think he’s hijacking a barely seen 4 year old’s birthday and everyone including the media knows ‘who’ choose exclude himself or themselves. I don’t think he will confirm their titles, but maybe the Sussexes will be invited to come to the coronation. They may have chosen the dates out of coincidence so I don’t see what should be the issue.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

A newsbroadcaster expressed that King Charles III's coronation will not be as long as Queen Elizabeth II's three hour coronation. Was not Elizabeth's coronation four hours long?

 

[Skippy]

No one will actually think he’s hijacking a barely seen 4 year old’s birthday and everyone including the media knows ‘who’ choose exclude himself or themselves. I don’t think he will confirm their titles, but maybe the Sussexes will be invited to come to the coronation. They may have chosen the dates out of coincidence so I don’t see what should be the issue.

Exactly, and those who seek fault with this would do so anyway. They cannot keep literally everything into account and it's highly unlikely he will throw a fuss because his grandfather is being coronated on his birthday.

I am delighted that we have a date now and look forward to it.

 

[wartenberg7]

Agree with all of the above but still don't understand why they don't say that Camilla is crowned alongside Charles but instead state that Charles is crowned alongside Camilla... As if Camilla is the monarch instead of Charles (and he the +1).

sigh... EVERYBODY knows Charles is the sovereign and Camilla is his consort... so, in that regard, what is the problem, please?!

 

[wartenberg7]

I’m very surprised by the date. I expected a Saturday, so as to allow as many people as possible to watch it without the need of a Bank Holiday. When the Queen died, we originally heard that the funeral date wouldn’t be a Bank Holiday but that the coronation would and my sense was that this wasn’t popular; by granting the Bank Holiday when he did instead, he is showing that he is in touch with the public mood.

But not this Saturday. I think he will be accused of hijaking Archie’s birthday, excluding his second son etc somewhere along the line, by one outlet or another. I’m not pointing the finger at any particular person when I say that.

A day of the Jubilee celebrations had to fall on Lili’s birthday, it was always going to be the weekend closest to the 2 June and 4 June happened to be a Saturday this year. But the coronation didn’t have to fall on Archie’s. Unless of course he’s planning to officially confirm their titles on that day, which might be a nice touch (if out of kilter with the slimming down around the rest of the day.)

I think the birthdays of these children have no relevance what so ever when it comes to this coronation. Perhaps their parents, who virtually broke with the institution, won´t attend anyway...?

 

[wartenberg7]

A newsbroadcaster expressed that King Charles III's coronation will not be as long as Queen Elizabeth II's three hour coronatioin. Was not Elizabeth's coronation four hours long?

The whole ceremony, when it comes to The Queen´s entrance into the Abbey, processions etc, took about - not quite- 3 hours. Before that, though, guests, peers and peeresses and so on had to be there much earlier so that some, minor ranked guests, spend about 5 hours or so inside the Abbey...

 

[An Ard Ri]

A newsbroadcaster expressed that King Charles III's coronation will not be as long as Queen Elizabeth II's three hour coronatioin. Was not Elizabeth's coronation four hours long?

The late The Queen's Coronation Service began at 11.15am and lasted almost 3 hours.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Exactly, and those who seek fault with this would do so anyway. They cannot keep literally everything into account and it's highly unlikely he will throw a fuss because his grandfather is being coronated on his birthday.

I am delighted that we have a date now and look forward to it.

Yes, I’m glad that an actual date has been confirmed and that’s important here. All the speculation ended and hopefully everything will go well.

 

[wbenson]

A newsbroadcaster expressed that King Charles III's coronation will not be as long as Queen Elizabeth II's three hour coronatioin. Was not Elizabeth's coronation four hours long?

I think four hours was perhaps how long she was at the Abbey in total, but that included preparation time before the service and then, I believe, lunch after.

The actual service was about two hours, with the procession in starting about fifteen minutes before that, then after the service another ~30 minutes to prepare for and complete the procession out.

 

[Alison H]

There's now some talk of moving the May 1st Bank Holiday to May 5th or May 8th, to give a long weekend for the Coronation. It was done in 2020, when it was moved to mark the 75th anniversary of VE Day.

There's also talk of moving all the football fixtures scheduled for the 6th. It may not concern Charles, but it concerns a lot of other people!

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...n-date-Premier-League-fixture-list-disruption

 

[An Ard Ri]

There's also talk of moving all the football fixtures scheduled for the 6th. It may not concern Charles, but it concerns a lot of other people!

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...n-date-Premier-League-fixture-list-disruption

Football or the Coronation...a wise move!

 

[wartenberg7]

 

[Iain]

So long as the Church of England remains the State Religion in the UK and Monarch remains head of it then there will be a Coronation..

The Church of England is not the state religion of the UK, only of England. In fact, it doesn't exist in the others countries of the UK.
.

 

[Iain]

I am an American and certainly am not affected in any financial or national way by the coronation, and what I want does not matter. What matters is what the people in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth want. But, as a royal watcher and admirer of the British Royal Family, a very slimmed down and more casual Coronation is seriously going to disappoint me. This is a once in a lifetime event, and although I imagine some slimming down will be done, I sincerely hope it won't be much. I want pomp and circumstance!!! (stomps feet ) I want a golden coach, fancy robes, tiaras, fancy dresses, pledging fealty to the King, etc, etc, etc. I want all the pomp and circumstance that Britain does best. I just love British tradition. For those of you who are citizens or the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, how do you think the general population of the UK and Commonwealth feel about it? I am wondering if this has been leaked to the Daily Mail to get a pulse from the people on how they feel about how the Coronation should be? I just can't imagine the Daily Mail would be the first to get this information and not the Telegraph.

I would never believe anything published by the DM. In Scotland it's known as the Daily Lie.

 

[Iain]

So, give us an old time, yet budget friendly, pomp and circumstance moment to remember the UK's Charles III continues the line of his ancestor William 956 years ago. He might not be around for the thousand-year anniversary in 44 years from now, so let him have a nice coronation moment at least since his wait for the throne felt like a thousand years already.

As the English Royal Family died out in 1707 and the Scots Royal Family took over, the King's main line of descent is back to King Kenneth I, and the King might be around for the 1200th anniversity of the Kingdom of Scotland in 18 years time.

 

[Biri]

As the English Royal Family died out in 1707 and the Scots Royal Family took over, the King's main line of descent is back to King Kenneth I, and the King might be around for the 1200th anniversity of the Kingdom of Scotland in 18 years time.

King Charles III is a direct descendant of William I the Conqueror

William I the Conqueror - Henry I Beauclerc - Mathilda - Henry II Plantagenet - John the Lackland - Henry III Plantagenet - Edward I - Edward II - Edward III - John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster - John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset - John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset - Margaret Beaufort - Henry VII Tudor - Margaret Tudor - James V Stuart, King of Scotland - Mary, Queen of Scots - James VI/James I, King of Scotland and England - Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia - Sophia of Hannover - George I - George II - Frederick, Prince of Wales - George III - Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn - Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles III
-

 

[Curryong]

The Act of Union certainly occurred in 1707. In practical terms though as far as rulers were concerned, didn’t the Scottish royal family really take over in England when Elizabeth I died and the Scots James I acceded to the Throne?

I know Charles I and II, Mary and Anne, were counted as English monarchs but really they were all Stuarts, and it was actually the childlessness of Elizabeth rather than that of the tragic Anne that ultimately brought the Hanoverians to the throne of what became the UK.

 

[Erin9]

Charles III: Coronation Musings and Information

The Act of Union certainly occurred in 1707. In practical terms though as far as rulers were concerned, didn’t the Scottish royal family really take over in England when Elizabeth I died and the Scots James I acceded to the Throne?

I know Charles I and II, Mary and Anne, were counted as English monarchs but really they were all Stuarts, and it was actually the childlessness of Elizabeth rather than that of the tragic Anne that ultimately brought the Hanoverians to the throne of what became the UK.

That’s been my thinking. Practically speaking the Scottish royal family took over when Elizabeth I died.

Even so James was a claimant because he was a direct descendant of Henry VII of England.

Indeed. The Hanovers were because of poor Anne dying childless. (That is certainly one of the most tragic royal stories I’ve heard. So many lost children.) And the Protestant requirement iirc after the James fiasco.

 

[Iluvbertie]

James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603 but the two countries remained separate until the Act of Union in 1707. That means that James VI and I, Charles I, Charles II, James VII and II, William III and Mary II and Anne were all monarchs of both England and Scotland in the same way as Charles is King of the UK and King of Australia now.

In 1707 Anne became the first monarch of the combined nation of Great Britain.

James VI and I's claim was via his descent from Henry VII.

George I's claim was via his descent from James VI and I. He was simply the first eligible protestant in the line of succession under a number of different acts of parliament.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Big Changes for King Charles III's Coronation

 

[Iluvbertie]

Until BP makes any announcements all we have is speculation.

We have two dates speculated before the date was announced and those speculations were both wrong (both were in June).

I will wait until BP confirms anything before saying what the changes will be.

Cutting a three hour service down to less than one hour does mean that two-thirds have to be cut out - the question will be what will they cut? All we are getting about that is speculation

 

[Leopoldine]

I think they are just testing the waters with this talk of a scaled down coronation. There's an economic situation in the UK which would make an announcement of a big-spending scheme unpalatable.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I think they are just testing the waters with this talk of a scaled down coronation. There's an economic situation in the UK which would make an announcement of a big-spending scheme unpalatable.

If the BRF wanted to foot the bill for the entire coronation, leaving the taxpayers a bill of £0 for everything, then the coronation can be as long and as elaborate as they want.

 

[HRHHermione]

If the BRF wanted to foot the bill for the entire coronation, leaving the taxpayers a bill of £0 for everything, then the coronation can be as long and as elaborate as they want.

This is a take that treats the coronation of a British monarch as a party to celebrate individuals rather than a state occasion deeply tied to the British government.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

If the BRF wanted to foot the bill for the entire coronation, leaving the taxpayers a bill of £0 for everything, then the coronation can be as long and as elaborate as they want.

But people would still complain about it because they would still say the BRF or Charles is out of touch for having an elaborate celebration.