Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 1

[Denville]

Yes it wasn't the ruling Sovreign from Monaco in 1953. I wonder if Charles really is doing away with the rule that it must be heirs who come.

I dont think that that is a rule. The general rule is that it is not monarchs who come because the focus at a coronation is naturally goig to be on the monarch who is being crowned. A representative of the royal family will come, it does not have to be the heir.

 

[valeas]

that is not the case. A constituional monarchy is a monarchy just as a more absolute monarchy is.

you did not get the point, but never mind.
my answer was related to a post doubting Albert was a monarch.
I hoped but doubt everybody here knows the different types of monarchies

 

[JGio]

Very glad to read that Albert will be at the coronation. Am also sure Charlene will join if her health allows.

Honestly, I think many monarchs will be there. Traditions are nice and all, but if I were a King I would be in the front row at the Coronation. I wouldn’t care lol. If you don’t want me, you don’t invite me.

Anyway, Albert cannot overrank Charles, so he must feel free to do what he want in this case.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Prince Pierre,Count de Polignac represented Monaco at the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.

Yes it wasn't the ruling Sovreign from Monaco in 1953.

And Prince Pierre was the father of the Sovereign Prince.

He was permitted to remain Prince Pierre (Grimaldi) of Monaco after the divorce, but I still find it odd that he represented Monaco, just as I would find it odd if Diana represented the UK at a foreign inauguration after her divorce even though she remained a titular Princess of Wales and mother of the future king.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/40020/supplement/6223

It was still an improvement over 1937, I suppose, when Monaco did not send any member of the sovereign family.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34453/supplement/7073

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Mayor of a city, whether large or small, isn't the same as the ruler of a coutnry, even if it is a very small one.

"The ruler of a country"... come on.

According to the to the latest IMSEE/Monaco Statistics ‘Focus’ report, published on Tuesday 22 February 2022, there were 5.008 staff on the payroll of the Ministère d'État on 31 December 2021 (including carabiniers, firefighters, street cleaners, department staff, health care workers, Justice, state schools, the port authority, etc.). Almost all of them are foreigners, by the way (3/4 French nationals, 1/4 Italian nationals). They are the ones running the Principauté de Monaco. The State lavishly pays a Ministre d'État and 5 conseillers (ministers) to run these 0,78 square miles at the sea.

 

[Denville]

are you saying that Albert, the Prince of Monaco is not th ruler?

 

[Denville]

you did not get the point, but never mind.
my answer was related to a post doubting Albert was a monarch.
I hoped but doubt everybody here knows the different types of monarchies

I know the different types of monarchies and I know that ALbert is a monarch. He has more power than the monarchs of most European countries....

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There is no such rule that fellow Sovereigns do not attend the Investiture of a new Sovereign:

Various Sovereigns did attend the Investiture of Grand-Duke Henri of Luxembourg, a fellow Sovereign.

Various Sovereigns did attend the Investiture of the Pope, a fellow Sovereign.

Various Sovereigns did attend the Investiture of Emperor Naruhito of Japan, a fellow Sovereign.

It really depends on the invitations. We may assume that in 2013 Prince Willem-Alexander did invite his fellow Heirs exactly because this was the end of "the shared voyage" he made with his "direct colleagues" Prince Charles, Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Victoria, Crown Prince Frederik, Prince Philippe, Prince Guillaume, Prince Felipe, Crown Prince Naruhito, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, etc. whom all did attend.
The Heirs of Morocco, Jordan and Monaco were too young and represented by senior members of their Royal House.

Other Investitures saw no foreign guests at all: see the ones of King Philippe of the Belgians and King Felipe of Spain.

 

[Alison H]

This morning's papers are saying that there'll be 3,000 guests, as opposed to 8,000 in 1953.

 

[Marengo]

Do they explain what caused the big difference in numbers? I suppose stricter safety regulations might have played a part in that too? Or is it only the lack of a tribune that causes such an enormous gap.

 

[maria-olivia]

and less expensive . We will not see the wifes/husbands of the Members of the House of Lords and Commun.

 

[Denville]

I'd say there are several reasons. One is finance. Another is probalby health and safety regs. Another is that things have changed since 1953 and a simpler ceremony is considered more suitable which also ties in with C's age and wanting the ceremony to be shorter and less tiring

 

[Iluvbertie]

Do they explain what caused the big difference in numbers? I suppose stricter safety regulations might have played a part in that too? Or is it only the lack of a tribune that causes such an enormous gap.

The Abbey only holds about 2000-3000 unless there is a massive rebuilding inside the abbey to put in stands etc. That is what they did in 1953 - closed the Abbey for six months to basically rebuild the inside to allow for the things like the box where you see the Queen Mother with Charles and tiered seating. There is also the safety aspects, as many buildings now have much lower capacity levels than was the case in 1953.

 

[Iluvbertie]

and less expensive . We will not see the wifes/husbands of the Members of the House of Lords and Commun.

I doubt we will even see all members of either House - but those that do attend will have their partners I am sure.

Outside the royal family and Camilla's family I imagine:

GGs and PMs of the other realms, with partners
Presidents or representative from other Commonwealth nations, with partners
High Commissioners from all Commonwealth nations, with partners
The Cabinet and partners, PM, Opposition leader and First Minister and Opposition leader and partner from the devolved nations as well as all living ex-PMs and partners
Knights of the Garter and Thistle and partners
All living VC and GC recipients and partner (they attended the late Queen's funeral for instance) from around the world
The senior peer in each degree plus any other peers who, traditionally, have a role to play unless a senior peer in their degree e.g. Duke of Norfolk is the senior Duke and Earl Marshal
Both Archbishops and the Bishops of the CoE
Representatives of the other major religions represented in the UK and Commonwealth, including other Christian denominations
Some foreign royals, with partners, but largely extended family.
Representatives from allied nations - possibly just the Ambassador and partner
Lots of representatives from the organisations and charities with close ties to Charles and Camilla

I really can't see say Crown Prince Frederick attending and not Crown Princess Mary or the PM and not his wife

I don't think any of the peers, other than the most senior peer in each degree and those with a part to play based on tradition and hereditary right, being invited ... and only if the homage remains in the ceremony, which I am not sure will happen. If no homage than only those peers with a role to play will be invited.

I am not convinced he will have all of the BRF present. He has two royal dukes about whom the public have issues and the easiest way to avoid any issues with them is for it to be 'working royals' only plus maybe George and Charlotte but no Beatrice or Eugenie, Louise or James, Peter or Zara. Charles may want them there but it would be hard to have them and not then invited Harry and Andrew and as much as he may love them as a father and brother the British public hate them with a passion and their presence would be a distraction - look at the way Andrew was pilloried for daring to go to his father's memorial service or Harry and Meghan at his grandmother's Jubilee. Easier to penalise the non-working royals and then avoid the headlines about either of the other two and the public would accept 'working royals' only as that would also free up seats for others.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Town and Country have confirmed that the Prince and Princess of Monaco will attend the Coronation of Charles III.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...oyals-attending-king-charles-coronation-2023/

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I'm guessing that there will be official portraits to coincide with the coronation. What do you think they'll be? I'm guessing there'll be individual portraits of HM The King and HM The Queen Consort, a portrait of them together, a portrait of them with TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales, and a portrait with HM The King, HRH The Prince of Wales, and HRH Prince George of Wales. What other portraits might there be? Do you think there will be one with HM The King's and HM The Queen Consort's children and grandchildren?

 

[JGio]

Charles III: Coronation Musings and Information

I am not convinced he will have all of the BRF present. He has two royal dukes about whom the public have issues and the easiest way to avoid any issues with them is for it to be 'working royals' only plus maybe George and Charlotte but no Beatrice or Eugenie, Louise or James, Peter or Zara. Charles may want them there but it would be hard to have them and not then invited Harry and Andrew and as much as he may love them as a father and brother the British public hate them with a passion and their presence would be a distraction - look at the way Andrew was pilloried for daring to go to his father's memorial service or Harry and Meghan at his grandmother's Jubilee. Easier to penalise the non-working royals and then avoid the headlines about either of the other two and the public would accept 'working royals' only as that would also free up seats for others.

Honestly, this would be embarrassing. Why not inviting your own brother to your Coronation? Why not your own nephews/nieces? Why having an Ambassador you’ve never met but not your cousin. This is going to be Charles’ most important day in his life. Leaving home half of your family would be mean and I’m sure the Brits will understand why they are at the Coronation. Imagine all the articles about Andrew’s absence. Also, all his nieces and nephews are much loved by the Brits, I guess they would like to see them there.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Honestly, this would be embarrassing. Why not inviting your own brother to your Coronation? Why not your own nephews/nieces? Why having an Ambassador you’ve never met but not your cousin. This is going to be Charles’ most important day in his life. Leaving home half of your family would be mean and I’m sure the Brits will understand why they are at the Coronation. Imagine all the articles about Andrew’s absence. Also, all his nieces and nephews are much loved by the Brits, I guess they would like to see them there.

Actually Charles will have meet all the Ambassadors and High Commissioners as they will have been at the various Diplomatic Receptions and he has also had audiences with many of them, in person, since his accession.

This isn't a family occasion but a STATE occasion and he will have only limited say as to who will be invited - the government will have the largest say and it will want to have the High Commissioners and Ambassadors there for diplomatic reasons - no point in upsetting a country by not inviting their official representative in the UK, at the very least.

Much of the public in the UK actually objected to Andrew showing his face at Philip's memorial service so I can see an objection to him attending a coronation, even of a brother - sorry but that is how it is. I have a number of friends in the UK and all have said to me that if either Andrew or Harry attend they will know that Charles is as weak as they have always believed him to be and will move firmly into the republican camp.

This is not some private family event or even a public family event like a wedding but the formal acknowledgement of the change-over from one Head of State to the next and diplomacy comes before family for such an event.

With only limited seating capacity decisions will have to be made who to cut from the 8000 invited to the late Queen's coronation and there were fewer countries in the world then and the BRF was smaller. She still couldn't have everyone that she and/or the government wanted with 8000 in the Abbey so it will be a lot harder to have a quarter that number this time.

Charles has been rumoured to be on about having a smaller royal family so this is the time to show the world how small it really is - working royals only i.e. 12 plus George and Charlotte - the future working royals (probably and I am not convinced that Charlotte will be a working royal anyway).

 

[sophie25]

Honestly, this would be embarrassing. Why not inviting your own brother to your Coronation? Why not your own nephews/nieces? Why having an Ambassador you’ve never met but not your cousin. This is going to be Charles’ most important day in his life. Leaving home half of your family would be mean and I’m sure the Brits will understand why they are at the Coronation. Imagine all the articles about Andrew’s absence. Also, all his nieces and nephews are much loved by the Brits, I guess they would like to see them there.

No I do think that all members of the extended family will be there. It's massively historic so I am sure that will be the case. Andrew will be too and Harry if he so wants as well.

 

[Somebody]

I think George should be there, especially if they’re cutting the duration of the ceremony. Charlotte should be able to handle it, too. Louis - maybe, maybe not, but he could be brought in for a short period of time.

George and Charlotte attended the funeral at both Westminster Abbey as well as the second service in St George's Chapel, so they can definitely handle that.

I do hope that they will bring in Louis for at least part of the ceremony - so he won't be completely left out. He did attend the Christmas service this year for the first time, so that might be a sign that he is deemed old enough to start attending some more solemn events.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Louis should be allowed to attend part ot the Coronation.
It is not everyday one has a grandfather who has a coronation.

 

[Curryong]

Prince Louis should be allowed to attend part ot the Coronation.
It is not everyday one has a grandfather who has a coronation.

Well in that case Archie should attend the Coronation as well (for a short time.) He is King Charles’s grandson just as Louis is.

 

[kimebear]

Well in that case Archie should attend the Coronation as well (for a short time.) He is King Charles’s grandson just as Louis is.

He is and he should. But the problem is that Archie has parents who openly shout their disdain of the monarchy and most of the members of the royal family, thus embarrassing themselves and the institution itself and they don't deserve to go. Which likely means that Archie doesn't get to go either.

Perhaps that's something that his mother and father should have taken into consideration before their grievances tours.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

The reasoning behind having smaller Coronation is multi-faceted. Firstly, spending an exorbitant amount of money in this current geo-politicial and socio-economic landscape is foolish. We can see King Charles is already thinking like this as he donated a substantial amount of money from the earnings of the Soverign Grant to "the greater good". His past and present actions show me he isn't bounded that heavily to tradition and ceremony, but rather tries to read the room as best he can.

The other is security. William and Catherine and Harry and Meghan weddings were a complex even, HMLQ's funeral was even more complex, but this event is far more complex - you will have a substantial number of ambassadors, current reigning Monarchs and possibly heirs, Head of State etc and other VVIP attending. This isn't a wedding - this is about a Head of State. Far more political; far more complex. Smaller number of attendees, the number of vectors reduce.

Charles has had the better part of his life thinking and rethinking the design of his coronation. But I think reducing the number of his family will not happen - I think Charles is incredibly family-oriented, and is close to his siblings, nieces and nephews. As to Harry - there is no doubt he will invite the entire family.

George and Charlotte attended the funeral at both Westminster Abbey as well as the second service in St George's Chapel, so they can definitely handle that.

I do hope that they will bring in Louis for at least part of the ceremony - so he won't be completely left out. He did attend the Christmas service this year for the first time, so that might be a sign that he is deemed old enough to start attending some more solemn events.

I think the Christmas service was testing the waters for Prince Louis, as the service then will be about the same for the Coronation service. However, it's not a matter of allowing Prince Louis, but rather if he has the maturity to be behaved enough for the Coronation - he would have just turned 5. No doubt William, Catherine, nanny Maria and others are preparing all three children for this event and will determine if he is ready/mature enough to be present

 

[Toledo]

King Charles III is now, for history, the first British king crowned on the 21st century and on this Millenium. He should invite everyone in his immediate family and if the press wants to make a drama out of this, it will wear off in a week.

1. Prince Andrew needs to be there if only seated and watching in uniform. His antics should not be taking the stage nor headlines if he is absent. Then he can just fade away to wherever he is now as a private royal.

2. Prince Louis is only four years old going into five years. He is not misbehaving, only acting his age because he doesn't comprehend the strange world adults around him are in. He would look cute attending a short part of the ceremony in a little uniform and then the nanny would quietly take him to a playroom to watch cartoons or video games until it's all over and he gets called for the photo sessions.

3. Harry and wife, plus kids, must be in the UK for the family photos. If the couple attends the ceremony fine as long as he is not in uniform, nor she is flashing a tiara tall as Big Ben. They made their choice and now they will be spectators of an historical moment. And hopefully, Harry's big mouth is on mute mode in the UK.

The family members that are controversial need to let go of their need for attention and focus on what is important, this is Charles moment and not theirs and they have to respect that he is their new boss at The Firm.

And I so hope when the Dukes of Montecito return to the USA, the only comment that comes out of their mouths is that 'it was a lovely ceremony', period! We are tired on H&M making everything about themselves.

Bur most of all, the staff associated with production should absolutely not give any screentime to Andrew nor the Montecitos. I don't want to see the internet play by play of their reactions on TV. Absolutely no screen time to them.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I hope this is true. Charles looks good in his Admiral uniform. I assume that Camilla will be in a day dress.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...es-Monarch-set-break-centuries-tradition.html

 

[wbenson]

William IV also wore naval uniform at his coronation.

 

[kimebear]

It would be a bit absurd for Charles to dress like his grandfather and great-grandfather in this day and age. His military dress is far more appropriate and quite dignified looking enough to get the job done. The whole coronation should be in the current style of white tie befitting an occasion of this magnitude.

 

[MsJulie]

Toledo, Ypu have some points but I disagree on a few of them. The Children need to be on their best behavior, no sticking out their tongues or making faces. They could enter and then ALL quietly go with the Nanny. The children need to behave like the children of Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel also like the twins do of Prince Albert and Princess Charlene.

IF Prince Harry attends he should wear his uniform. He fought for his country and earned the right to wear it. Prince Harry wanted to stay in and make a career but the Firm said no. How different things would have been if he was allowed to follow his dream of a military career. Prince Williams children are the spares now. (I don’t think Prince Harry will attend, he will turn down the invite, time will tell).

I don’t think Charles or Camilla would loan Megan a tiara so don’t worry about a flash Big Ben tiara.

Andrew attend to get what he can out of Charles in the future.

You seem very bitter about life. Life is too short but no one is looking at that, just keep on the bickering and fighting on ALL sides with the press fueling the stories and lies.

Might be time to abolish the Royal Family. The Firm is not perfect, nor is Prince Andrew, Prince Harry, who is the Duke of Sussex, Megan, who is the Duchess of Sussex, Prince William, Catherine, and many more. All are at fault, All of the family.

JMOO like you have yours.

(Sorry Mods. if you need to remove, please do so. I was trying to be nice and make a few points.)

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

It would be a bit absurd for Charles to dress like his grandfather and great-grandfather in this day and age. His military dress is far more appropriate and quite dignified looking enough to get the job done. The whole coronation should be in the current style of white tie befitting an occasion of this magnitude.

Coronation by itself is already really old-fashined tradition what other European monarchies haven't practised anymore long time. Others just swear an oath for parliament but Brits have kept whole coronation thing. Yes, it is holy rithual for them but sometimes you have just think could traditions be changed.