Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[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.

Isn’t security the only thing the govt will be paying for? But will of course be expensive

 

[Curryong]

I believe the Govt (ie British taxpayers) pays for the Coronation as it is a State event.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9412/

From this document

As it is a state event, a coronation is paid for by the UK Government. Organisation involves ministers, the Royal Household, the Church of England and the Commonwealth Realms. A Privy Council “Coronation Committee” is formed to oversee the planning, and its Executive Committee is chaired by the Earl Marshal, an hereditary office of state. This can take several months. A monarch also has significant influence on the form a coronation takes.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

That is the same as saying to Mr Biden or Mr Obama: you yourself have to pay for the presidential inauguration.

 

[Alison H]

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.

Too true. People complain about celebs having lavish weddings during a time of economic crisis, as if people aren't entitled to spend their own money.

That is the same as saying to Mr Biden or Mr Obama: you yourself have to pay for the presidential inauguration.

Yes, exactly.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ingham-Palace-FIVE-YEARS-370m-renovation.html

All that money to repair a building where three quarters of it is empty?

 

[muriel]

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.

I do agree the service will be streamlined and made considerably shorter than the long service QE2 had in 1953. However, I'm not sure how the length of a service (whether it be 60 or 120 minutes) substantially impacts the cost.

My own sense is the service will be 60-75 minutes, and have many ordinary people invited. Some thoughts:

> There will be much fewer peers or MPs invited.

> The overseas ruling houses will probably be represented by the heirs and / or the Consorts, where appropriate (Netherlands, Belgium and Spain).

> Not sure if the other diplomatic corps in London will be invited to the Coronation per se, or top a Diplomatic Reception style event at BP that evening, or on either side of the Coronation.

> Much smaller government presence to free up space in the abbey for the common man. Possibly select members of the cabinet only, perhaps just the PM, the holders of the 4 great offices of state, representatives of the devolved administration, and suitable representation from Parliament and the judiciary, all with their partners.

> Representatives from key charities that have royal patronage, including the Princes Trust.

> Family members of the King and Queen

 

[muriel]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ingham-Palace-FIVE-YEARS-370m-renovation.html

All that money to repair a building where three quarters of it is empty?

Of course BP can be abandoned, and let it go to rot! I am sure Charles will happily run The Firm from Windsor.

These are buildings of national significance, and have to be maintained by the government, irrespective of who uses them. BP has been opened up a lot and used for many charity and other functions all year around. I would not be surprised if C&C retreated to a much smaller private apartment within BP, and opened up a lot more of the building for tours and charitable use.

 

[Stefan]

Of course BP can be abandoned, and let it go to rot! I am sure Charles will happily run The Firm from Windsor.

I think he should do it like it is done in Sweden, Spain, etc. Use BP for official Events but don't live there. And keep it open for most of the year.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I think he should do it like it is done in Sweden, Spain, etc. Use BP for official Events but don't live there. And keep it open for most of the year.

I think that is what he will most likely do.

 

[Mbruno]

I do agree the service will be streamlined and made considerably shorter than the long service QE2 had in 1953. However, I'm not sure how the length of a service (whether it be 60 or 120 minutes) substantially impacts the cost.

My own sense is the service will be 60-75 minutes, and have many ordinary people invited. Some thoughts:

> There will be much fewer peers or MPs invited.

> The overseas ruling houses will probably be represented by the heirs and / or the Consorts, where appropriate (Netherlands, Belgium and Spain).

> Not sure if the other diplomatic corps in London will be invited to the Coronation per se, or top a Diplomatic Reception style event at BP that evening, or on either side of the Coronation.

> Much smaller government presence to free up space in the abbey for the common man. Possibly select members of the cabinet only, perhaps just the PM, the holders of the 4 great offices of state, representatives of the devolved administration, and suitable representation from Parliament and the judiciary, all with their partners.

> Representatives from key charities that have royal patronage, including the Princes Trust.

> Family members of the King and Queen

I am pretty sure the Diplomatic Corps will be invited. That is pretty much mandatory for a state event. The representation from MPs and peers may be cut down to government ministers, party leaders and the shadow cabinet only, plus the Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and first ministers from the devolved administrations, but that would be pretty much the minimum. If all MPs and peers with a seat in the House of Lords were invited, that would mean today 1407 people, not counting their plus ones. Even if only a fraction of those were actually in attendance, it would already exceed the target size of the congregation according to press reports.

 

[Alison H]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ingham-Palace-FIVE-YEARS-370m-renovation.html

All that money to repair a building where three quarters of it is empty?

Manchester Town Hall's currently closed for expensive renovations as well. No-one's complaining. Buildings need maintenance.

I think Stefan is right - Charles and Camilla won't live there, but will keep it open to the public.

 

[Denville]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ingham-Palace-FIVE-YEARS-370m-renovation.html

All that money to repair a building where three quarters of it is empty?

Its empty because it is going through a long process of repairs and parlty because the queen moved to Windsor because of Covid and remained there for the rest of her life.

 

[royalistbert]

Like I said before the Coronation is small change for a government budget of 100s of billions of pounds.

 

[Denville]

Like I said before the Coronation is small change for a government budget of 100s of billions of pounds.

In the present climate it is not something to spend a lot of money on. I appreciate that Charles has waited years to be king and he is old fashioned. But I dont wnat the govt to spend more than it has to on a coronation. Neither IMO do most people.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

At this rate, there shouldn’t be a coronation. Some people say let there be pomp, others say streamline it. Etc. It would be nice to see a coronation but there’s negativity and uncertainty and it’s not even a month before the coronation which is next year.

 

[Denville]

At this rate, there shouldn’t be a coronation. Some people say let there be pomp, others say streamline it. Etc. It would be nice to see a coronation but there’s negativity and uncertainty and it’s not even a month before the coronation which is next year.

I'd say Charles would like a coronation but it may be the last one. I dont think William would really want one. But it should be kept within reasonable limits as the tax payer has to pay for it

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I'd say Charles would like a coronation but it may be the last one. I dont think William would really want one. But it should be kept within reasonable limits as the tax payer has to pay for it

You are right.

 

[Skippy]

I'd say Charles would like a coronation but it may be the last one. I dont think William would really want one. But it should be kept within reasonable limits as the tax payer has to pay for it

AFAIK, he has never mentioned anything about it, so we cannot know this. For all we know, he could be all for it.

Generally, is a monarch free to decide against having a coronation - at all?

 

[royalistbert]

The last Coronation was 70 years ago with rationing. I'm not saying it should be a carbon copy of 1953. I'm just trying to point out that there seems to never be a right time for these things. These things can't be done on the cheap.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Of course BP can be abandoned, and let it go to rot! I am sure Charles will happily run The Firm from Windsor.

These are buildings of national significance, and have to be maintained by the government, irrespective of who uses them. BP has been opened up a lot and used for many charity and other functions all year around. I would not be surprised if C&C retreated to a much smaller private apartment within BP, and opened up a lot more of the building for tours and charitable use.

And the republics of Italy France, Germany, Russia, Austria show that they go lengths to preserve former royal palaces. So even a United Republic of Great-Britain still would spend millions for the renovation of state property with a monumental status hors catégorie.

 

[Mbruno]

AFAIK, he has never mentioned anything about it, so we cannot know this. For all we know, he could be all for it.

Generally, is a monarch free to decide against having a coronation - at all?

That is an interesting question.

The coronation, as we have seen recently, is not necessary for the King to ascend the throne. However, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that certain oaths be administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury to all Kings or Queens "at their respective coronation" and that requirement is reiterated in S.2 of the Act of Settlement 1701 .

My understanding then is that, although the coronation does not affect the succession to the Crown, it is still mandated by British law. To do away with the coronation, I believe Parliament would have to repeal the Coronation Act 1688 and amend S.2 of the Act of Settlement 1701.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Denville]

as far as I know all European monarchies now only have some kind of simple ceremony, rather than a coronation, so I'd imagine that by the time Will is King, the law will be changed to make this possible.

 

[Alison H]

Yes, there has to be a coronation. And there has to be some pomp and grandeur to it, or else what’s the point? Parts of the ceremony go back to Anglo-Saxon times, and the monarchy represents all that history and tradition and continuity. People dressed as if they’re going to a church fete just won’t cut it. Royalty has to provide something that you can’t get from having a politician as head of state.

 

[Iain]

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
-

Yes, but as the English Royal family died out the King's main line of descent is through the Scottish Royal Family.

 

[MARG]

the moment I saw that sentence I thought exactly the same thing! Exactly. The PR offensive is in full swing (not a Camilla fan, sorry).

This seems so silly to me. They’ve been married since 2005. They clearly care for each other deeply. She’s been very good in her role.

At this point, it just seems like people can’t let go of old grudges driven by the tabloid media when they say stuff like this.

I’m glad she will be crowned alongside Charles. The job of monarch is very lonely. George VI needed Elizabeth, Elizabeth II needed Philip, and Charles III needs Camilla. Seems as simple as that to me.

.

I agree, this is silly, in fact IMO it's just plain stupid. Just because someone's sentence structure is less than adequate there is no need for people to imply that a) It was intentional: and b) It's just PR for Camilla, for no other reason than a personal dislike of the King and Queen. The utter lack of human forgiveness after twenty-five years blows my mind. It must be exhausting to maintain that level of animus, verging on vindictiveness, for a quarter of a century. PR, what absolute nonsense. I see from your address that you live across the pond Grace, and perhaps that is indicative of you not being a UK or Commonwealth citizen. I don't know. We don't refer to King Charles as "Regnant" because we know he is the King! Noting that Camilla, his Consort, will be crowned beside him is a fact.

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.

Indeed it is, for the first time in over 70 years the peoples of the UK and the Commonwealth will witness this historic occasion with all its pageantry, that celebrates a form of government, Constitutional Monarchy, which is one, of the most stable and successful types of government in the world. For us this is a cause for celebration of where we come from and, with the longevity of this royal family, it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for its citizens to celebrate the wheels of government turning.

If, as your address indicates, Sister Morphine, you do not reside in the UK or Commonwealth, Therefore you will not be financially burdened in any way and so I fail to find your point has any validity other than your admitted aversion to our new Queen Consort. However, I do not believe that gives you the right to disrespect the traditions of said Constitutional Monarchy and its people. Your personal opinion of the King and Queen is yours to own, however, trying to hide it behind faux "concern" about the cost to the UK citizens is a non-starter.

A Coronation, the absolute apex of a Constitutional Monarchy, has not been seen in 70 years and for good or ill, if the voice of the people was as accepting and proud of the funeral of the late Queen and subsequent elevation of the Prince of Wales to King, I believe the actual Coronation will stir pride in the heart of the people and since its time of mourning is past it is only natural that a time of joy and celebration during the actual coronation would be both welcome and profitable.

 

[Sister Morphine]

If, as your address indicates, Sister Morphine, you do not reside in the UK or Commonwealth, Therefore you will not be financially burdened in any way and so I fail to find your point has any validity other than your admitted aversion to our new Queen Consort. However, I do not believe that gives you the right to disrespect the traditions of said Constitutional Monarchy and its people. Your personal opinion of the King and Queen is yours to own, however, trying to hide it behind faux "concern" about the cost to the UK citizens is a non-starter.

One, I don't have an "admitted aversion" to either Charles or Camilla, and I'm not sure why you think I do. I've actually been very vocal in my support for Camilla, and I've defended her and the fact she's the Queen, not some lesser title, more than a few times. You have confused my comments about Camilla in this thread with someone else's.

Two, just because I don't live in the UK doesn't mean I'm not allowed an opinion or that I'm not allowed to express that opinion. If I didn't like monarchies, I wouldn't be a member here for almost 17 years. I don't think there should be NO coronation, I just think if the UK economy is in the toilet, which it's looking like it will be, I don't think a huge, ginormous spectacle would be the right optics. The same as I wouldn't want a huge, ginormous spectacle made of a Presidential inauguration if our economy was in the toilet.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Edit: Combined with earlier comment.

 

[Curryong]

Do you think that if the royal ladies wear long gowns and tiaras they may also wear a coronet behind the tiara, such as was worn by Prss Margaret at part of the 1953 ceremony.

https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/554787247837892942/

 

[muriel]

Do you think that if the royal ladies wear long gowns and tiaras they may also wear a coronet behind the tiara, such as was worn by Prss Margaret at part of the 1953 ceremony.

https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/554787247837892942/

Personally, I would be very surprised if coronets were worn.

 

[Tilia C.]

Personally, I would be very surprised if coronets were worn.

Same here. And I don't expect to see the velvet robes either. Actually, I'm preparing myself to a coronation without even tiaras.