Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[sophie25]

It’s his brother. I don’t know what kind of relationship he has with Charles and William but he seems very involved with the rest of the family. He and Fergie were extremely involved with the Queen and the others.

It is his brother but I just can't see Charles wanting him there. This is a clean slate, a new reign and I think Charles doesn't want to rock the boat with the public if he can possibly avoid it. Plus I have never had the impression that he and Andrew are close either, quite the opposite I think.

 

[Car8007]

Tiaras in this age are really just fancy pieces of jewelry, I can wear one (fake, of course) to the grocery store if I want to. I don't understand all the hand-wringing and pearls-clutching over them. There's several dozen tiaras in the vaults that are just gathering dust. Have all the female royal members of the family wear one to the coronation. Easier than handpicking and agonizing who specifically should wear one and why.

 

[FigTree]

Tiaras in this age are really just fancy pieces of jewelry, I can wear one (fake, of course) to the grocery store if I want to. I don't understand all the hand-wringing and pearls-clutching over them. There's several dozen tiaras in the vaults that are just gathering dust. Have all the female royal members of the family wear one to the coronation. Easier than handpicking and agonizing who specifically should wear one and why.

Sure whack them on their heads. In 70 years ladies haven’t worn them unless getting married or at a banquet and in recent years just HM, her daughter, daughter in laws and Kate did. I mean it depends on the feel of this thing. If it is lounge suits then tiaras are not approximate. They may do a ball that night with everyone in their regalia which would be lovely to see. I mean the coronation 70 years ago was a massive royal banquet and then some on the dress code.

 

[muriel]

Sure whack them on their heads. In 70 years ladies haven’t worn them unless getting married or at a banquet and in recent years just HM, her daughter, daughter in laws and Kate did. I mean it depends on the feel of this thing. If it is lounge suits then tiaras are not approximate. They may do a ball that night with everyone in their regalia which would be lovely to see. I mean the coronation 70 years ago was a massive royal banquet and then some on the dress code.

I would be surprised if there was a major white tie Coronation banquet. Given the economic times, I think the visiting international government representatives will be invited to tea or something like that.

 

[FigTree]

It is his brother but I just can't see Charles wanting him there. This is a clean slate, a new reign and I think Charles doesn't want to rock the boat with the public if he can possibly avoid it. Plus I have never had the impression that he and Andrew are close either, quite the opposite I think.

Who knows who will go. I don’t think this is likely, but many of his nieces, nephews etc may not go either. Harry may not go. I think we forget that in previous reigns loads of family members just didn’t go to things…not even from a falling out but just because they didn’t. As it stands I do think they will all be there: siblings, sons, stepchildren, grandchildren x2, step grandchildren x5, nieces x 4, nephews x2, grand nieces x 3, cousins, 2nd cousins. Them all. I think it’s historical and like the Queens funeral a lot of the family who don’t bring their children to things will bring them to this.

 

[FigTree]

I would be surprised if there was a major white tie Coronation banquet. Given the economic times, I think the visiting international government representatives will be invited to tea or something like that.

They haven’t had many of those state banquets in recent years anyway. Usually just for big state visits. Well if they are lounge dress then I don’t see tiaras.

 

[Somebody]

I can’t see any at all. None of those ladies have any of their own. They’d need to borrow. Easy enough for Zara…get from Mum but the others are hold have to from Charles. Part of me just doesn’t see this being some big ball gown, ermine, crowns thing. There won’t be any ermine anyway they’d have to kill them all and apparently the ones from 70 years ago will have disintegrated.

Do you put Charlotte I’m a little tiara, coronet thing like E and M had at their fathers coronation?

Neither does Meghan - which is why I am thinking the most likely distinction is between royal highnesses and non-royal highnesses within the family. The distinction cannot be 'working/non-working' royals as that would exclude one of the king's daughters-in-law; and I don't think they would want to do that. However, HRH or not is a pretty clear-cut line:

Tiaras for:
Camilla
Catherine
Meghan
Sophie
Anne
Beatrice
Eugenie
Birgitte
Katharine (if she's attending which I doubt)
Alexandra
Marie-Christine

I don't think Charlotte will wear one as she'll be only 8 at that time. And unlike the coronation of George VI, she is not a child of the new monarch but a grandchild.

 

[Somebody]

And I would expect Andrew at his brother's coronation - not too long after Andrew 'fell out of grace', Charles seemed to make a point of joining him on a walk to the church - which was by many interpreted as him emphasizing that he still is his brother and a member of the family. He might no longer undertake engagements to support the monarch but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to attend an event like this that the whole family is invited to.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I read something yesterday, can't remember where, that only working royals will be invited so no Sussex's, York's etc - only 12 royals, plus Tim, to be invited at all although it is expected that The Duchess of Kent won't be well enough to attend.

I have also read morning suits for men and that means day dresses for women so no tiaras or coronets either. I have read elsewhere that there will be no robes for anyone either.

They are cutting out over two-thirds of the ceremony to fit it in to the hour it seems Charles wants and they have to add in Camilla's coronation as well so the homage, I am hearing, will be going.

Once things go it will be virtually impossible to get them back.

I can see by the time it gets to George that there won't even be a coronation with the pomp and circumstance gone.

 

[kimebear]

Once things go it will be virtually impossible to get them back.

I can see by the time it gets to George that there won't even be a coronation with the pomp and circumstance gone.

I genuinely dislike this 'slimming down' trend that seems to be gripping the European monarchies lately. Get rid of the glittering jewels, the pomp and circumstance, and the average person is going to wonder what reason is there to have kings and queens at all.

Without the grand ceremonies, the rituals and the traditions, the royal families are nothing more than over-privileged aristocrats who serve no greater purpose than chairing charity groups and cutting ribbons. Just another group of ordinary socialites and, really, who needs more of those?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Except, as we saw during the Queen's funeral ceremonies and the official palace website, the Sussexs have been given a royal downgrade when it comes to official placements.


If King Charles is going to make a decorum statement with the downscaling of his coronation, then don't be surprised to see Meghan getting treated differently from Catherine.

We do not know if Prince Harry and Meghan will even be anywhere in Great Britain at the time of the Coronation. What if the Duchess decides she does not want to attend?

 

[kimebear]

What if the Duchess decides she does not want to attend?

I would be profoundly sad for Charles, William and Harry if that happened. A snub of that magnitude will be the death knell for any reconciliation between them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I genuinely dislike this 'slimming down' trend that seems to be gripping the European monarchies lately. Get rid of the glittering jewels, the pomp and circumstance, and the average person is going to wonder what reason is there to have kings and queens at all.

Without the grand ceremonies, the rituals and the traditions, the royal families are nothing more than over-privileged aristocrats who serve no greater purpose than chairing charity groups and cutting ribbons. Just another group of ordinary socialites and, really, who needs more of those?

In the UK The King is the Head of State so does a lot more than 'chairing charity groups and cutting ribbons'. In fact he will do less of that now as he simply won't have the time with all the other duties that he now has to do.

I hate the 'slimming down' as well but it is the way things are going.

The 'slimmed down' coronation will try to honour more people but as many, if not most, of those who will be honoured with an invitation won't have expensive jewellery to wear or even be able to afford the designer gowns it makes sense not to stand out with others showing off their wealth. Either everyone has equal access to expensive jewels or those that do are told to not wear them so as not to make those who can't afford them feel 'lesser' somehow.

 

[kimebear]

In the UK The King is the Head of State so does a lot more than 'chairing charity groups and cutting ribbons'. In fact he will do less of that now as he simply won't have the time with all the other duties that he now has to do.

Nonsense. As a Constitutional Monarchy, the British monarch is merely a titular Head of State with no real power to speak of, lest they incite a riot by delving into politics and undermining the will of the people who have voted for their chosen elected representatives. Queen Victoria was the last sovereign to exercise any sort of power that was technically afforded to her. For Charles to do so in today's climate would be simply foolhardy.

Like his mother, Charles will be kept abreast of the goings on with Parliament, but will ultimately have no real say in what happens. He will do the job that any experienced diplomat could do without the royal pedigree.

The 'slimmed down' coronation will try to honour more people but as many, if not most, of those who will be honoured with an invitation won't have expensive jewellery to wear or even be able to afford the designer gowns it makes sense not to stand out with others showing off their wealth. Either everyone has equal access to expensive jewels or those that do are told to not wear them so as not to make those who can't afford them feel 'lesser' somehow.

So, does that mean that from now on all State Dinners and formal galas that are held should be jewel free as well? Since the majority of those attendees also do not possess tiaras and gemstone rivière necklaces? Why not just auction them off then? If they are not to be used when an occasion really calls for it?

Again, without the pomp and sparkling trappings, the grand ceremonies and the rituals, the royals cease to be royal and become garden variety nobles. No more important or interesting than a lowly baronet.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Charles III's Coronation is already brewing serious controversy

 

[Iluvbertie]

Nonsense. As a Constitutional Monarchy, the British monarch is merely a titular Head of State with no real power to speak of, lest they incite a riot by delving into politics and undermining the will of the people who have voted for their chosen elected representatives. Queen Victoria was the last sovereign to exercise any sort of power that was technically afforded to her. For Charles to do so in today's climate would be simply foolhardy.

Like his mother, Charles will be kept abreast of the goings on with Parliament, but will ultimately have no real say in what happens. He will do the job that any experienced diplomat could do without the royal pedigree.

You do know that he has the power to veto laws and that there were a number of laws that never made it to parliament because The Queen told the PM she wouldn't sign it.

One was parliament wanting to take full control of the declaration of war.

The monarch has a lot more power than is often believed. He can refuse to sign any law and that would cause a constitutional crisis but it will happen if the government insists on passing legislation that goes against his conscience.

He can also veto, before the law even goes to parliament, if it would negatively impact his rights as Duke of Lancaster (William has the same power regarding the Duchy of Cornwall) and Charles was known to insist on protections for their lands from fracking for instance so legislation regarding fracking protected the lands of the Duchies because both The Queen and Charles insisted.

So, does that mean that from now on all State Dinners and formal galas that are held should be jewel free as well? Since the majority of those attendees also do not possess tiaras and gemstone rivière necklaces? Why not just auction them off then? If they are not to be used when an occasion really calls for it?

Again, without the pomp and sparkling trappings, the grand ceremonies and the rituals, the royals cease to be royal and become garden variety nobles. No more important or interesting than a lowly baronet.

This coronation is going to reportedly honour ordinary charity workers and possibly even charity recipients - people who live from pay cheque to pay cheque and shop at M&S rather than at Harrods or have designer dresses available.

People who attend State Banquets will be Heads of State and their staff - people who can afford to shop at the more exclusive end of town.

There is a difference to inviting the staff of a Head of State to a dinner and what they can afford to wear to inviting the lady who makes the tea for the charity shop operated by Historic Country Churches (one of Charles' charities and one he has supported for decades) in a small village to the coronation and expecting her to be comfortable wearing a dress she bought for 100 pounds and thinks that is a lot for a dress while the person sitting next to her is dripping in expensive jewels and a dress that cost the equivalent of 10 years wages for the lady.

 

[kimebear]

You do know that he has the power to veto laws and that there were a number of laws that never made it to parliament because The Queen told the PM she wouldn't sign it.

These unique circumstances are very few and far between and I doubt that the average UK citizen would blink if veto power was stripped from the monarch. It certainly does not constitute a full time job for the King. As I said, the vast majority of his time will be spent championing pet projects and cutting ribbons.

This coronation is going to reportedly honour ordinary charity workers and possibly even charity recipients - people who live from pay cheque to pay cheque and shop at M&S rather than at Harrods or have designer dresses available.

You're talking about the same people who queued for hours and hours just for a chance to pay their final respects to the Queen when she was lying in state. The same ones who lined the streets for miles and miles to watch the processions. They WANT the pomp that comes from having a living, breathing monarchy, whether or not they can afford the same couture that Camilla and Catherine wear. It's foolish to think otherwise.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Queueing in the street is one thing. You can wear jeans and a t-shirt if you want. Did you see what people were wearing to 'pay their respects'? They couldn't wear that to a coronation. Sitting next to someone wearing a decade's earnings in one dress is another while dripping with priceless jewels is another thing in a church service is another thing entirely. Easier to lower the dress code so everyone is comfortable so a nice day dress for the ladies and a suit and tie for the men will make everyone comfortable with whomever they are near. Same as having them all on the same seats rather than different ones based on 'rank' as happened at The late Queen's coronation - Duke's for example had high backs on their while the non-titled people had stools to sit on. That won't be happening this time and everyone will sit on the hard chairs that is the norm for the Abbey.

Head of State is a FULL TIME job and to think otherwise shows a lack of understanding of what exactly Charles now has to do. He will do very little of the cutting ribbons etc just as his mother didn't do a lot of that stuff. That was left to the lesser royals.

Most of his time is taking up with the boxes and meeting with Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ambassadors, High Commissioners and other government officers. The Queen used to take about 4 hours per day to do the boxes - some days it would be more than others but 4 days was the norm and she was a fast reader. Charles will be giving up a lot of his pet causes, as he indicated in his address to the nation on the 9th September, because he knows he won't have the time for them due to the new responsibilities he has to take on.

 

[kimebear]

Easier to lower the dress code so everyone is comfortable so a nice day dress for the ladies and a suit and tie for the men will make everyone comfortable with whomever they are near.

It's thinking like that which is leading to the mass downsizing of the monarchies in the first place. Lower the dress code. Lower the standards. Make the royal family more like 'regular people'. That sounds like the grumblings of a Republican who'd rather be shot of the entire concept of monarchy full stop.

The royal family needs to be special. They need to be on display in all their finery. Otherwise, they're just another wealthy family. Like her or not, without a doubt, Diana Princess of Wales was one of the most beloved members of the royal family in her time. She was likeable, approachable and still knocked your socks off when she was clad in her vast collection of evening gowns and jewels. She looked like a princess.

Besides which, the new Princess of Wales has long been a fan of mixing couture with high street fashions. If she can do it, so can every other woman invited to the abbey for the coronation. You don't have to spend a fortune to look elegant. Women do it every day on a budget.

Head of State is a FULL TIME job and to think otherwise shows a lack of understanding of what exactly Charles now has to do. He will do very little of the cutting ribbons etc just as his mother didn't do a lot of that stuff. That was left to the lesser royals.

Well, a quick glance at the Court Circular does not show the King to be particularly busy compared to the late Queen. Perhaps he's just a slow reader.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The King has done 100 engagements since the 9th September this year i.e. since he became King just over a month ago.

The Queen did 134 from January until she died.

 

[An Ard Ri]

.

> I suspect Beatrice, Eugenie and Zara will not wear tiaras.

Zara maybe not but the York Princesses yes.

 

[wbenson]

Wearing a coronet and a tiara together looks/sounds very uncomfortable!

The ladies' coronets look uncomfortable period. I don't understand how they even work unless there's some kind of base woven into the hair before the ceremony. Or maybe back when women's hairstyles were more voluminous, the coronet could rest on a little bun or something. Otherwise they'd just be teetering on top with nothing to hold them on.

In any case, even in 1953, times had changed such that barons and viscounts and their wives were excused from the requirement to have a coronation robe and coronet.

 

[Curryong]

That might work for ladies in 1902 and 1911 who usually had long and thick hair worn up in voluminous hairstyles.

However hair was worn very close to the head in the 1930s and often permed. Hair in the earlier 1950s was usually quite short and permed as well. I can’t see there being enough hair for any sort of woven base at those dates.

Perhaps the Peeresses’ and Royal coronets were only worn while the Queens (Consort) were crowned and toppled precariously on top for a few minutes and were then removed. Or perhaps were secured at the back with long but discreet hair pins?

 

[Denville]

|I thought that they removed the tiaras and put on the coronets, as indications of their being peeresses......

 

[Mirabel]

I was thinking that it might be nice for Charlotte to wear a minimal tiara, similar to the one Pippa wore for her wedding.
It is more like a hair ornament than a tiara, and would look lovely.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think you have to eliminate all the pomp and circumstance of a coronation to slim it down. Yes, royalty should be majestic, otherwise, what's the point of it, but it doesn't follow that you can't also move that majesty into the 21st century.

There should absolutely be long gowns and tiaras and all that wonderful stuff, but maybe limit it to only a certain number of people, like the BRF and the most senior peeresses of the realm. Instead of a three-hour service, maybe cut it back a little. Instead of everyone arriving by horse-drawn carriage, maybe only have Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, and They Who Shall Not Be Named arrive in one, while everyone else comes by car.

 

[Elan]

I genuinely dislike this 'slimming down' trend that seems to be gripping the European monarchies lately. Get rid of the glittering jewels, the pomp and circumstance, and the average person is going to wonder what reason is there to have kings and queens at all.

Without the grand ceremonies, the rituals and the traditions, the royal families are nothing more than over-privileged aristocrats who serve no greater purpose than chairing charity groups and cutting ribbons. Just another group of ordinary socialites and, really, who needs more of those?

Interesting, well made points. The implication however seems to be that a grand spectacle will somehow tarnish, or be seen as an 'embarrassment' to the country rather than giving folks something to proud of, with economic issues of late.

 

[tommy100]

Personally I'm setting my expectations for tiaras at the coronation at ZERO - bar whatever Camilla wears.

I have a feeling we'll see something like a church service - formal wear with hats / millinery but I'm not so sure we'll be seeing the formal gowns and tiaras.

IF we do see some in tiaras I suspect it will be a very select group - working royals most likely rather than the whole family. Whilst I think Charles has affection for Beatrice and Eugenie I think they will be treated in the same way as Zara and Louise - so tiaras for all or not. Its been seriously speculated the York Princesses could even have their titles taken off them by Charles so I can't see him allowing them to be treated differently from Zara (who he is arguably closer to) and Louise.

I'm not sure there will be a coronation banquet as such but maybe a reception like the Diplomatic Reception afterwards, hopefully with tiaras.

 

[Denville]

Charles is not goiing to take away titles from anyone.

 

[tommy100]

That wasn't my main point so let's not go down that rabbit hole and get the discussion shut down. My point was I think Charles will treat all his nieces the same - either all tiaras or not, I'm going for not.