Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


If the British royals don't wear tiaras at the coronation, the foreign royal guests won't either. In any case, it would be odd to have the (British and foreign) royals in tiaras while the rest of the Congregation is wearing hats and daytime dresses. Personally, I think that would be a bit grotesque.


If they decide to leave the tiaras for a coronation ball or gala dinner at the Palace, I hope that cameras are allowed at least for the guests arrival and greetings to the new King (as was done in Japan after Emperor Naruhito's enthronement). There is no PR point in having a gala dinner or a ball if no images are shared with the public.
 
Last edited:
There might also well be a Coronation Ball with tiaras for all the invited royal guests
 
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.




The comparison I was making wasn't to the last year of her life, once she'd lost Phillip and started to slow down. Contrast the schedule of the current monarch to the one the former monarch kept pace with at the same age and there is a vast difference in number of engagements. Without a royal funeral and tour thrown in the mix.
 
If the British royals don't wear tiaras at the coronation, the foreign royal guests won't either. In any case, it would be odd to have the (British and foreign) royals in tiaras while the rest of the Congregation is wearing hats and daytime dresses. Personally, I think that would be a bit grotesque.


If they decide to leave the tiaras for a coronation ball or gala dinner at the Palace, I hope that cameras are allowed at least for the guests arrival and greetings to the new King (as was done in Japan after Emperor Naruhito's enthronement). There is no PR point in having a gala dinner or a ball if no images are shared with the public.

I think they'll leave tiaras for the evening reception - I'd hope it would be a proper ball / dinner but they may just go for a reception like that on the eve of the late Queen's funeral but with tiaras and gowns. Charles seems much more amenable to cameras so I suspect they'd be allowed in - it would be a chance to show Charles meeting lots of foreign royals / representatives. I agree, if the rest of the congregation for the coronation are in lounge suits / hat & dress the RF rocking up in tiaras won't look right. It makes sense for Charles and Cams (and any other royals involved in any ceremonial way) to be in full regalia rather like actors on a stage.
 
If the British royals don't wear tiaras at the coronation, the foreign royal guests won't either. In any case, it would be odd to have the (British and foreign) royals in tiaras while the rest of the Congregation is wearing hats and daytime dresses. Personally, I think that would be a bit grotesque.


If they decide to leave the tiaras for a coronation ball or gala dinner at the Palace, I hope that cameras are allowed at least for the guests arrival and greetings to the new King (as was done in Japan after Emperor Naruhito's enthronement). There is no PR point in having a gala dinner or a ball if no images are shared with the public.
There have been banquets or celebrations were cameras weren’t allowed.
 
The comparison I was making wasn't to the last year of her life, once she'd lost Phillip and started to slow down. Contrast the schedule of the current monarch to the one the former monarch kept pace with at the same age and there is a vast difference in number of engagements. Without a royal funeral and tour thrown in the mix.

Please share the exact numbers and to which years you are referring. Iluvbertie will surely be able to look it up based on the created archive with all royal engagements.
 
Please share the exact numbers and to which years you are referring. Iluvbertie will surely be able to look it up based on the created archive with all royal engagements.


I'm sure he's capable of figuring it out. I'll even give a base line.

On the occasion of the Queen's 70th year on the throne, Buckingham Palace released some figures during the time of her reign up to that point.

In 70 years, the Queen gave her asset to 4,000 Acts of Parliament (the contents of the Red Box) at a rate of approximately 57 per year, or 1 signature every six days. She also carried out 21,000 official engagements, or 300 per year, or 1 every 1.2 days, most lasting roughly an hour or so, with the exception of the occasional formal dinners etc.

It's not a bad life.
 
I'm sure he's capable of figuring it out. I'll even give a base line.

On the occasion of the Queen's 70th year on the throne, Buckingham Palace released some figures during the time of her reign up to that point.

In 70 years, the Queen gave her asset to 4,000 Acts of Parliament (the contents of the Red Box) at a rate of approximately 57 per year, or 1 signature every six days. She also carried out 21,000 official engagements, or 300 per year, or 1 every 1.2 days, most lasting roughly an hour or so, with the exception of the occasional formal dinners etc.

It's not a bad life.

As you may know, you are supposed to provide the evidence of your statement - not expect the other to look it up for themselves. And your statements were that (and I quote):

"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."

"Contrast the schedule of the current monarch to the one the former monarch kept pace with at the same age and there is a vast difference in number of engagements."

Suggesting that the current king does far less than the queen did while she was the monarch. However, based on the numbers you provided, this is clearly not the case. The current king has done about 100 engagements in less than 1 1/2 month and you state that he is doing far less than the previous queen, while she was doing 300 a year - which equates to about 100 engagements every 4 months. Even though he's had quite a few engagements related to his mother's death, I don't see any evidence that he is doing less. Rather, he seems to be doing more... which is not surprising since he has been known as a workaholic for a long time.

And not everything that is in the red box needs a signature. Most of the papers that are piling up daily are to keep the monarch informed.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure he's capable of figuring it out. I'll even give a base line.

On the occasion of the Queen's 70th year on the throne, Buckingham Palace released some figures during the time of her reign up to that point.

In 70 years, the Queen gave her asset to 4,000 Acts of Parliament (the contents of the Red Box) at a rate of approximately 57 per year, or 1 signature every six days. She also carried out 21,000 official engagements, or 300 per year, or 1 every 1.2 days, most lasting roughly an hour or so, with the exception of the occasional formal dinners etc.

It's not a bad life.

More context would also include the amount of time taken to read the contents of the red boxes as well as numerous correspondance. And not all engagements would be in the London area so there's travelling time as well.

So no it's not up there with the busiest, most exhausting or dangerous job ever but a full life none the less. And rewarding for those she interacted with.
 
Last edited:
The current king has done about 100 engagements in 1 1/2 month

It's not my math that is off. It's the deceptive presentation of the 100+ number of the King's official tally since he ascended that is murky. With the implication that these 100+ engagements are full engagements and not just momentary notations.

In the court circular, if the monarch goes to church on Sunday, like millions of his subject do, it's considered an official engagement because he's the Head of the Church of England. If he separately meets with two different people at the same location, for the same purpose, but within minutes of each other, it's considered two official engagements, even if he never needs to leave the room.

If he takes a five minute phone call, it's considered a single official engagement. With the number of people calling the new King to give their condolences, it's no wonder that his engagements calendar since the death of HM the Queen is largely inflated.


A quick read through the Court Circular is all you need to see this.
 
Let's get back to discussing the Coronation.
 
|I thought that they removed the tiaras and put on the coronets, as indications of their being peeresses......

Yes, so did I. However I saw photos the day before yesterday of the royal seating area at the 1953 Coronation. I don’t know at what point of the ceremony it was taken but all the royal ladies (including Prss Margaret and the then Princess Royal) were sitting there with both tiaras and coronets on their heads.
 
What time will the Bells of Westminster Abbey begin to ring on Coronaton Day?
 
The comparison I was making wasn't to the last year of her life, once she'd lost Phillip and started to slow down. Contrast the schedule of the current monarch to the one the former monarch kept pace with at the same age and there is a vast difference in number of engagements. Without a royal funeral and tour thrown in the mix.

The Queen in her mid-70s wasn't doing as much as Charles has been doing in his mid-70s.

By the time she was in her mid-70s Anne, Charles and Philip were all doing more than she was.

Charles was 2nd or 3rd behind Philip and Anne (or ahead of Anne) from the early 90s onwards ... sorry but he has been doing more than the Queen for decades.

I just did a check on my figures since 2000 - other than 2002 Charles has done more than the Queen every year so 22 years ago, when the Queen was the age Charles is now he was outdoing her but anything up to 150 a year.
 
Last edited:
What time will the Bells of Westminster Abbey begin to ring on Coronaton Day?

Until we know what time the service begins we have no idea.

Given the reports of an hour long service (down from three hours for the Queen) it is possible everything at the Abbey will be over by about mid-day.

Normally royal services begin at 11.00 a.m. so an hour long service and a quick trip back to the Palace for a balcony appearance and everything done by 12.30.

We don't even know if the bells will ring as that will cost money so maybe a saving can be made there by not bothering with them.
 
It's not my math that is off. It's the deceptive presentation of the 100+ number of the King's official tally since he ascended that is murky. With the implication that these 100+ engagements are full engagements and not just momentary notations.

These engagements are things like audiences with the many visitors to the UK for the funeral and with the new PM.

Things like the Privy Council and the events around the actual movement of the Queen's coffin.

They do NOT include 'momentary notations' at all as those things aren't noted in the CC.

14 phone calls in a day is not something to be sneezed at and written off when those phone calls are with Heads of State such as the US President - I suppose you thing that that call lasted about 1 minute when it was probably closer to 30 minutes. And there were 13 other such calls in one day.

In the court circular, if the monarch goes to church on Sunday, like millions of his subject do, it's considered an official engagement because he's the Head of the Church of England. If he separately meets with two different people at the same location, for the same purpose, but within minutes of each other, it's considered two official engagements, even if he never needs to leave the room.

The CC records that divine service was held at a church that some royals attended when at Balmoral or Sandringham but doesn't list who attended and as such I have never counted them as official duties.

If two separate people enter the room AT THE SAME time it is one event but if they are introduced separately - i.e. one enters, has their discussion, leaves and the process starts again of course it is two engagements. It would be two meetings if it was in an office setting. Often, just because the King hasn't left the room doesn't mean that there is no time in between the meetings either. The first person has to be escorted out.

If he takes a five minute phone call, it's considered a single official engagement. With the number of people calling the new King to give their condolences, it's no wonder that his engagements calendar since the death of HM the Queen is largely inflated.

The idea of phone calls and video calls came about due to covid and were to replace the normal audiences. They aren't a five minute calls for the most part.

The number of phone calls was because people were OVERSEAS and it was easier. There is no suggestion that those 14 or so phone calls were five minutes each and as each of the people making the call was also planning on attending the funeral no doubt there was also discussion about the arrangements for the funeral. These phone calls were from one HEAD of STATE to another HEAD of STATE. These are never 5 minute phone calls.

A quick read through the Court Circular is all you need to see this.

I don't do 'a quick read' though but a detailed analysis - an analysis that will result, at the end of the year to a personal report that will go for over 400 pages of all the engagements undertaken by the royals. That is why I know that the CC doesn't list who attends church even though it is noted that divine service takes place. I post a weekly 'summary' on this site.

Only when a royal is named is such an event counted as an official engagement.

I have used the same criteria since I started doing this in 2012 and have usually been within a few engagements - sometimes one or two more and sometimes one or two fewer than Mr O'Donovan whose figures are the ones generally accepted as the 'official figures' due to his annual letter to The Times published at the end of each year ... although his letter wasn't published last year but as he is well into his 80s maybe he has stopped doing it.
 
Last edited:
I have used the same criteria since I started doing this in 2012 and have usually been within a few engagements - sometimes one or two more and sometimes one or two fewer than Mr O'Donovan whose figures are the ones generally accepted as the 'official figures' due to his annual letter to The Times published at the end of each year ... although his letter wasn't published last year but as he is well into his 80s maybe he has stopped doing it.



For what it’s worth, if Mr. Donovan has retired, I genuinely hope you consider writing to The Times yourself. You may even want to reach out to him- he may be looking for someone willing to take over one day.

As always, your detailed explanation of methodology is appreciated.
 
For what it’s worth, if Mr. Donovan has retired, I genuinely hope you consider writing to The Times yourself. You may even want to reach out to him- he may be looking for someone willing to take over one day.

As always, your detailed explanation of methodology is appreciated.

Thank you ... that is a good suggestion and I may write to The Times to find out if they can put me in touch with him.
 
My family and friends could live very happily without any aristocracy. They contribute nothing to our lives and while we wish them no harm of course, we don't see the point of having them at the coronation (or anywhere else important for that matter). I say this as someone descended from Viscounts, Earls and Dukes (a long time ago!). They are welcome to their titles but they mean nothing to me. I'd rather their places were taken by ordinary people who have gained awards for voluntary service, contributions to medicine, bravery etc. Why should those people be sidelined in favour of someone who just inherited the title Duke or Earl for doing nothing?
Thank you very much and good for you.
 
Most upper class people do lot of unpaid service and have traditionally been supporters of the monarchy
 
Is it too early to know about the broadcast to be planned? Like if any major movie or TV director name would be assigned to organize the crew for the broadcast, the camera angles, etc.? I just searched online, and nothing is available on the topic.

It would be grand if someone like the Lord of the Rings director, Peter Jackson, could be given this task to produce this major event for the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
It's way too early. We don't know when it'll start, how long it'll last, who will be invited, or who will be traveling from where...it's about nine months out at this point. Besides, I assume it'll be handled the same way weddings and funerals in the BRF are addressed, as far as camera and television wrangling goes.
 
Posts about the duke and duchess of Sussex have been deleted.
 
Is it too early to know about the broadcast to be planned? Like if any major movie or TV director name would be assigned to organize the crew for the broadcast, the camera angles, etc.? I just searched online, and nothing is available on the topic.

It would be grand if someone like the Lord of the Rings director, Peter Jackson, could be given this task to produce this major event for the 21st century.




I say that it's too early for the information to be released to the public, but I believe that serious planning is already happening behind the scenes at Westminster Abbey as it is the coronation site. Fortunately have been large scale televised ceremonial event in the past fifteen years with a wedding, funeral and various Thanksgiving services so the TV/Film crews will be familiar with where to do their set up. The "set designers" will already be reviewing the late Queen's coronation footage, along with the notes in order to start planning.
 
The planning for this coronation has been in the works for about 70 years (yes 70 years).

About a week after her own coronation The late Queen meet with the then Duke of Norfolk to go through things she would have changed if she was to do it again. The notes of that meeting were included in the Duke's planning for the next coronation.

As the Duke of Norfolk has changed over the past 70 years the notes have been past on and the planning has been computerised and updated regularly.

There have been leaks for ages and people complaining that Charles was jumping the gun in planning his coronation while the Queen was still alive (the Charles haters had a field day) but the reality is that the Duke would need to update the information e.g. names of PMs and GGs from the Commonwealth ... no doubt he is currently have to highlight anywhere where the name Liz Truss appears as British PM ready to put in the new name when that decision is made. Australia kept him busy in the period from 2007 - 2018 when we changed PMs via party room spills or elections so often. Fortunately both parties have now made it harder to change leaders with the Liberal Party going so far as to say 'if a leader wins an election they have the right to go to the next election as PM, unless they choose to stand down but they can't be forced out'. If the UK had that in place Boris would still be PM.
 
Prince William takes ‘active role’ in planning King Charles’s coronation

Archive

(...)

Plans will be informed by an assembly of constitutional experts, including University College London’s Constitution Unit - which has produced a new paper making recommendations for the coronation.

Due to be published in the next week but seen by The Telegraph, it will recommend considering a separate civil ceremony at Westminster Hall or in Horse Guards Parade as a “venture of ‘recognition’ of the new monarch outside the religious canopy”.

(...)

Dr Bob Harris, of The Constitution Unit at UCL, writes: “The UK no longer has the capacity to mount anything like this spectacle, nor should it do so in straitened times.

“The next coronation will inevitably be smaller.

“Archaic elements such as the Court of Claims could be dropped.

“So should the homage, and thought be given to how the King as head of the nation should be enabled early in the reign to signify support for, and encouragement of, modern civil society.*

"A modernised form of homage could take place, for example, in Westminster Hall, or in a procession on Horse Guards Parade.”

(...)
 

What the Constitution Unit is proposing to take place at Westminster Hall looks similar to the Dutch inauguration, which I think is what will replace the coronation entirely by the time William is king.

An advantage, however, of having a separate civil ceremony at Westminster Hall is that MPs and peers can attend it instead and free space in the Abbey for other representatives of the UK civil society and foreign and Commonwealth guests.

There have been leaks for ages and people complaining that Charles was jumping the gun in planning his coronation while the Queen was still alive (the Charles haters had a field day) but the reality is that the Duke would need to update the information e.g. names of PMs and GGs from the Commonwealth ... no doubt he is currently have to highlight anywhere where the name Liz Truss appears as British PM ready to put in the new name when that decision is made. Australia kept him busy in the period from 2007 - 2018 when we changed PMs via party room spills or elections so often. Fortunately both parties have now made it harder to change leaders with the Liberal Party going so far as to say 'if a leader wins an election they have the right to go to the next election as PM, unless they choose to stand down but they can't be forced out'. If the UK had that in place Boris would still be PM.

That is the rule which the 2 major political parties already follow in Canada, i.e., there cannot be a leadership review when the party is in government, which does not preclude the prime minister being indirectly compelled to resign by his caucus, but rules out any formal leadership challenge or forced leadership election as it has happened often in the UK in the past six years. Of course the House of Commons can still pass a motion of no confidence in the government and force the PM to resign or call a snap general election, but that is unlikely to happen when there is a majority government in place.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom