Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[wbenson]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...monial-roles-for-king-charles-iiis-coronation

In line with His Majesty’s wish for the event to be rooted in tradition but reflective of today, and in accordance with Government advice, a Coronation Claims Office has been created within the Cabinet Office to consider claims to perform an historic or ceremonial role.

This replaces the Court of Claims, which fulfilled a similar role for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Coronation in 1953.

 

[Denville]

Bunte online, the German tabloid, has now for the second day an article online...
https://www.bunte.de/royals/britisc...-kann-fuer-die-kroenung-ein-problem-sein.html

And this one claims, there might be a problem with the coronation in principle - Because Charles is divorced and he was an adulterer... with the woman to become his Queen, which is divorced too.

And the problem results out of the fact, that the Church crowns the new King and makes him the Chief of the Church as well...

They cite some experts too, which published in the British newspapers Mirror and The Guardian - The Mirror sees no Problem here, but The Guardian does.

My personal take: I think this is very funny, if one considers, that the King is only Chief of the Church because of King Henry VIII.. The very King who preferred divorce by the sword and who was six times married.

But other people might see this different...

The title Defender of the Faith, was given to Henry VIII, but Charles has felt that it would be better to be a defender of faiths, of peoples' rights to their beliefs. Beng Supreme Governor of the C of E is a different matter and all monarchs since Henry have held this post and many of them have been unfaithful husbands. Re Henry VIII, Henry did not have any divorces.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...monial-roles-for-king-charles-iiis-coronation

In line with His Majesty’s wish for the event to be rooted in tradition but reflective of today, and in accordance with Government advice, a Coronation Claims Office has been created within the Cabinet Office to consider claims to perform an historic or ceremonial role.

This replaces the Court of Claims, which fulfilled a similar role for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Coronation in 1953.

Does a Court of Claims/a Coronation Claims Office have to be made new each time there is a new sovereign?

 

[Sionevar]

Roya Nikkhah is now reporting on Twitter that Harry has been written out of the Coronation script, and will have no official role in the service if he attends. Also that Charles has scrapped the 'royal dukes paying homage' part, and only William will now do this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611795413228736512

Mods, I'm not sure if this is considered a reliable source - please delete my post if it is not.

 

[JR76]

Roya Nikkhah is now reporting on Twitter that Harry has been written out of the Coronation script, and will have no official role in the service if he attends. Also that Charles has scrapped the 'royal dukes paying homage' part, and only William will now do this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611795413228736512

Mods, I'm not sure if this is considered a reliable source - please delete my post if it is not.

The tweet is a quote from her piece in tomorrow's Sunday Times

https://archive.ph/zLyQj

 

[Sionevar]

The tweet is a quote from her piece in tomorrow's Sunday Times

https://archive.ph/zLyQj

Thank you for sharing that - didn't realize there was a longer piece ?

 

[Spheno]

Roya Nikkhah is now reporting on Twitter that Harry has been written out of the Coronation script, and will have no official role in the service if he attends. Also that Charles has scrapped the 'royal dukes paying homage' part, and only William will now do this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611795413228736512

Mods, I'm not sure if this is considered a reliable source - please delete my post if it is not.

It's logical place to cut something. We know that the coronation ceremony is shortening.

 

[Lilyflo]

Roya Nikkhah is now reporting on Twitter that Harry has been written out of the Coronation script, and will have no official role in the service if he attends. Also that Charles has scrapped the 'royal dukes paying homage' part, and only William will now do this.

I thought it was in general discussion anyway that the royal dukes/homage thing wouldn't be part of this coronation. It's a convenient way of removing Andrew and Harry from the ceremony and spotlight of course.

 

[VictoriaB]

It's logical place to cut something. We know that the coronation ceremony is shortening.

And we also know that having at least 2 Royal Dukes pay homage would be difficult from a PR perspective (York and Sussex) and I think the Duke of Kent is very unsteady on his feet and would have difficulty from a physical perspective.

It makes sense to me that this happen, if the report is correct.

 

[Sionevar]

And we also know that having at least 2 Royal Dukes pay homage would be difficult from a PR perspective (York and Sussex) and I think the Duke of Kent is very unsteady on his feet and would have difficulty from a physical perspective.

It makes sense to me that this happen, if the report is correct.

It absolutely makes sense, yes. I can't imagine kneeling to give homage would be easy for the Duke of Kent. I'm sure he would consider it his solemn duty to do so, and give it his absolute best, but better to let him just sit in his seat instead.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

To be honest, I never understood the assumption that the homages were an unchangeable and unavoidable part of the coronation rite. As far as I know there is no law mandating it, and given that the Crown is no longer rooted in feudalism, it is not a practical necessity.

Even if the Dukes of York and Sussex had remained working members and as popular as they once were, to me it would seem out of step with the actual workings of today's monarchy for them to play a greater role in the coronation than the Princess Royal, who is also a younger child of a monarch and was even more active in supporting the Queen.

 

[VictoriaB]

Homages have never been unchangeable.

This is a link to a speech made in the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor in 1953. As you can see, until 1902, every peer could give homage at the coronation. Of course life peerages were not created until 1958 but even with hereditary peers only, can you imagine how long that would have taken to get through.

The fact that there were only hereditary peers in 1953 and now they barely make up even a small percentage of the current legislature is, to me, another reason why what occurred in previous coronations is no good reason for it to continue into the current reign.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1953/jan/27/coronation-arrangements

 

[Iluvbertie]

The shortening of the homage happened in 1902 because Edward VII had surgery on the original date of his coronation. Had he been well enough to be crowned on that original date then all the peers would be still have made their homage. George V decided to stick with the way his father had done it (after all it took about two hours in 1838 and there were more peers by 1911). 1902 was when the coronation ceremony was largely dropped from about 5 hours to around 3 hours ... there was also no sermon in 1902.

I have said all along that the homage would be cut as it would cut about 30 minutes from the late Queen's coronation. If the reports are true that Charles III wants an hour long service cutting the homage makes sense. I do wonder what else he will have to cut as cutting the homage will only reduce the service to about 2.5 hours but the coronation of a Queen Consort has to be added so the service has to be a lot further shortened for instance I see the communion going (no need for the Supreme Governor of the CoE to publicly acknowledge that position by taking communion at his coronation).

 

[Hallo girl]

He could possibly take communion privately before the service, then acknowledged as taken place.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

To be honest, I never understood the assumption that the homages were an unchangeable and unavoidable part of the coronation rite. As far as I know there is no law mandating it, and given that the Crown is no longer rooted in feudalism, it is not a practical necessity.

Even if the Dukes of York and Sussex had remained working members and as popular as they once were, to me it would seem out of step with the actual workings of today's monarchy for them to play a greater role in the coronation than the Princess Royal, who is also a younger child of a monarch and was even more active in supporting the Queen.

Agreed. While once the King would be joining campaigns and fighting wars, thus needing public declarations of homage from his Dukes, doing that now seems very much out of step with the modern world.

I would like to see the Investiture of the Prince or Princess of Wales during the Coronation. If Prince George has a first-born daughter, I very much hope she will be the Princess of Wales in her own right when the time comes, thus why not include the Investiture at the same time as the coronation.

 

[David Smith]

Shortening the 2023 Coronation

The BBC coverage of the 1953 coronation is available on YouTube. The recording is about 3 hours long. Watching it, one sees the communion service takes up a great deal of that time so undoubtedly some or all of the communion service will be eliminated. Another portion of the 1953 coronation that took a considerable amount of time was the procession and recession of the participants. They walked in and out at a very slow pace so some changes there could speed the ceremony up considerably. Likely the homage of the senior peers of each degree might be eliminated especially if the peers are not in attendance in the numbers of 1953. Perhaps only the Prince of Wales will do homage for the royal dukes. On the other hand, adding the coronation of the Queen will require some additional time. The King's love for music will likely keep most of the choral and orchestral numbers that were an important part of the 1953 coronation.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He could possibly take communion privately before the service, then acknowledged as taken place.

He could but he is the Supreme Governor of the CoE and the coronation is supposed to be a religious ceremony. Communion is the most important religious service. Not including the communion must raise the issue of having the monarch as the Supreme Governor at all and should see the total disestablishment of the CoE and future coronations held with the PM doing the Crowning at some non-religious venue.

If the communion goes then the ceremony could just as easily be held during the half-time of the FA Cup final the following week.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The BBC coverage of the 1953 coronation is available on YouTube. The recording is about 3 hours long. Watching it, one sees the communion service takes up a great deal of that time so undoubtedly some or all of the communion service will be eliminated. Another portion of the 1953 coronation that took a considerable amount of time was the procession and recession of the participants. They walked in and out at a very slow pace so some changes there could speed the ceremony up considerably. Likely the homage of the senior peers of each degree might be eliminated especially if the peers are not in attendance in the numbers of 1953. Perhaps only the Prince of Wales will do homage for the royal dukes. On the other hand, adding the coronation of the Queen will require some additional time. The King's love for music will likely keep most of the choral and orchestral numbers that were an important part of the 1953 coronation.

Keeping the music and doing away with the communion should mean that the service is no longer deemed an religious ceremony so may as well move it out of the Abbey which is after all a church where communion is a central reason for it even existing.

I can see a lot going - and a joke of a coronation. I also suspect this will be the last coronation and given what a joke this one looks like becoming William will simply be handed his Crown on the balcony at BP and that will be it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Agreed. While once the King would be joining campaigns and fighting wars, thus needing public declarations of homage from his Dukes, doing that now seems very much out of step with the modern world.

I would like to see the Investiture of the Prince or Princess of Wales during the Coronation. If Prince George has a first-born daughter, I very much hope she will be the Princess of Wales in her own right when the time comes, thus why not include the Investiture at the same time as the coronation.

There is no need for any Investiture. Until 1911 Princes of Wales were simply created and that was it. Only Edward VIII and Charles III had any formal investiture at all.

George V, simply make his oath at his father's coronation ... job done. Edward VII and George IV never even made an oath of allegiance having not been born with their parent was crowned.

Adding anything more than the standard oath of allegiance would increase the amount of the ceremony that has to be cut and over 2/3rds of Elizabeth's ceremony has to go to reduce it from 3 hours to 1 hour and they have to already add the coronation of a Queen Consort.

I am seeing no music, no prayers, no robes as they slow down movement, no movement, no blessing of the regalia, basically the regalia will be thrown at the King to fit in what has to be done in an hour.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Coronation of the Queen Consort

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I would like to see the Gold State Coach used for the Coronation.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18786759/gold-state-coach-made-of-real-gold

 

[sophie25]

I don't think they will bother with the rule of not asking existing monarchs either. I can see the present Kings and Queens of each monarchy being there over their heirs.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

If Charles is to become Defender of the Faith would he not have to be married to Camilla in the church or is a civil wedding considered sufficient? I realize that the union was blessed by the church but that is not the same as being married by the church.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles became Defender of the Faith the instant Queen Elizabeth II died. No 'if' about it.

The Church changed the rules in 2002 that allowed divorced persons to remarry as long as neither party had been involved in the break-up of a previous marriage. That decision was to be made by the minister performing the ceremony. Had Charles and Camilla asked my minister to perform the ceremony he would have gladly done so believing that neither contributed to the breakdown of either marriage - based actually on the words of both Charles and Diana i.e. that he didn't return to Camilla until the marriage had 'irretrievably broken down' and that he returned to Camilla in 1986 (the same year Diana started her affair with Hewitt by which time the marriage was over in all but name.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was originally going to marry them in the private chapel at St George's with no public display but then it was realised that that would mean that that venue would have to be available to others to use. That is why they went with the small private civil ceremony, which by the way is the same thing that Prince Michael of Kent had - civil ceremony, before the official blessing which was the same ceremony as a wedding ceremony anyway.

The current Archbishop, along with the rest of the Privy Council, have already acknowledged that Charles III is Supreme Governor of the CoE and Defender of the Faith - all of that happened at the accession council last September. These are the words of the actual proclamation made at St James's Palace:

”Whereas it has pleased almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth II of blessed and glorious memory, by whose decease the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George.

“We, therefore, the lords spiritual and temporal of this realm, and members of the House of Commons, together with other members of Her late Majesty’s Privy Council, and representatives of the realms and territories, aldermen, and citizens of London and others, do now hereby, with one voice and consent of tongue and heart, publish and proclaim that the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful liege lord, Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and of his other realms and territories, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the faith, to whom we do acknowledge all faith and obedience with humble affection, beseeching God, by whom kings and queens do reign, to bless His Majesty with long and happy years to reign over us.”

God Save The King.

 

[muriel]

The Archbishop of Canterbury was originally going to marry them in the private chapel at St George's with no public display but then it was realised that that would mean that that venue would have to be available to others to use. That is why they went with the small private civil ceremony, which by the way is the same thing that Prince Michael of Kent had - civil ceremony, before the official blessing which was the same ceremony as a wedding ceremony anyway.

Not quite. If my memory serves me right, the original plan was to have a civil service at Windsor, to be followed by the blessing at St George's. It is only when they realised that if they pursued the option, any member of the public could have their wedding at Windsor, that they changed venues and married at Windsor Guildhall. A church wedding was never the plan.

 

[lucien]

I don't think they will bother with the rule of not asking existing monarchs either. I can see the present Kings and Queens of each monarchy being there over their heirs.

No,that won´t happen.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Its hard to believe that the Coronation is less than 4 months away!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not quite. If my memory serves me right, the original plan was to have a civil service at Windsor, to be followed by the blessing at St George's. It is only when they realised that if they pursued the option, any member of the public could have their wedding at Windsor, that they changed venues and married at Windsor Guildhall. A church wedding was never the plan.

The original plan was a private service in the private chapel with not larger blessing at all. Then it was realised that would open up Windsor to all weddings and a public wedding wasn't going to be accepted by the public so the civil service and public blessing was the final solution.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think they will bother with the rule of not asking existing monarchs either. I can see the present Kings and Queens of each monarchy being there over their heirs.

As protocol is based on length of service as the Head of State you would have Charles as the most minor reigning monarch present at his own coronation. This is an internationally accepted protocol involving monarchies and republics. It is why Heads of State don't attend each others' coronations, enthronements or inaugurations.

 

[Minister of Court]

No,that won´t happen.

The Swedish Royal Court has already announced the King and Queen will attend the coronation.