Coronation of British Monarchs

[Durham]

For most Britons I'm confident the coronation will be a welcome & joyous event & a unifying force for good.

There will of course be a noisy minority, amplified by social media, who will huff & puff but they can go do something else on the day if they want.

 

[wartenberg7]

For most Britons I'm confident the coronation will be a welcome & joyous event & a unifying force for good.

There will of course be a noisy minority, amplified by social media, who will huff & puff but they can go do something else on the day if they want.

Yes, I see it the same way. I guess it will stir quite a sensation as it didn´t happen for such a long time.

 

[Osipi]

Yes, I see it the same way. I guess it will stir quite a sensation as it didn´t happen for such a long time.

When I look at the changes that have occurred in covering events since 1953, I find it mind boggling. QEII's coronation was the first coronation to be actually televised within the Abbey and the actual part of the coronation itself was not allowed to be filmed and broadcast because the feeling was that "people in pubs could see a sacred event". Jackie Onassis Kennedy was among the reporters sent to London to cover the coronation.

Now almost 70 years down the line, the changes in our world has been astronomical. A burp can be heard instantly around the world and everyone and their grandmother's pet ferret has an opinion about said burp and things go viral with millions of "follower" within seconds, it seems. Nothing escapes being put on the information highway and a lot of times, rather than just facts the information is colored by the opinions and biases of the authors (with a huge box of crayons in all different colors to work with).

No matter how Charles' coronation goes, most likely we here at TRF will be besieged with information from all corners and opinions from all sections enough to keep us wagging tongues here on TRF 24/7 and no time for even a potty break. I *know* it will keep my attention riveted on the upcoming coronation and I really hope that I'm able to sit and watch and observe and comment as I love to do.

I also realize that before all this happens, we are going to be inundated with perhaps the most extreme event of all in our lifetime. The loss of an iconic Queen and the end of the second Elizabethan period sure to go down in history for many, many reasons. We'll mourn what was and look with hope to the future and I think Charles' coronation will reflect that. Hope for the future.

 

[rob2008]

But The Earl of Crawford and The Earl of Sutherland are titles in the peerage of Scotland. Not England.

The Earl of Shrewsbury is regarded as the Premier Earl of England as the senior Earl in the peerage of England with no higher title... Though the Earldom of Arundel (held by The Duke of Norfolk) is older.

It is possible that the UK could already have split up by the end of the current monarch's reign. That seems too fast and not a realistic speed. An English coronation is not likely for Charles.

 

[VictoriaB]

It is possible that the UK could already have split up by the end of the current monarch's reign. That seems too fast and not a realistic speed. An English coronation is not likely for Charles.

My understanding is that the English titles have seniority followed by Scottish titles and then Irish titles. After the Act of Union of 1707 new titles were created in the Peerage of Great Britain and then, since 1801, all new peerages are Peerages of the UK regardless of where the territorial designation is.

My understanding is that is why some English peerages, even though created after a Scottish peerage or Irish peerage, have precedence. So provided Scotland is not a republic by the time Charles is crowned, Scottish peers will still be ranked below English peers but before British or UK peers.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If I remember correctly, I think that was just the amount for the ladies' hats.

Are the top hats of the gentlemen a separate amount?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is possible that the UK could already have split up by the end of the current monarch's reign. That seems too fast and not a realistic speed. An English coronation is not likely for Charles.

I am not clear on what you mean, but I don't believe the potential for a UK split would have any bearing on an English coronation, or vice versa. It seems unlikely that if a majority of Scots supported independence that their views would be swayed by a Scottish coronation, or that the decision to hold the coronation in England - which would be in line with tradition - would be connected to concerns about Scottish independence.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

It is possible that the UK could already have split up by the end of the current monarch's reign. That seems too fast and not a realistic speed. An English coronation is not likely for Charles.

Coronations without Scotland has happened before.... Without Wales too.....

Even if Scotland leaves, it won’t affect a coronation, in other ways than fewer scottish guests, no moderator of the Church of Scotland present and no stone under the coronation chair...

 

[rob2008]

My understanding is that the English titles have seniority followed by Scottish titles and then Irish titles. After the Act of Union of 1707 new titles were created in the Peerage of Great Britain and then, since 1801, all new peerages are Peerages of the UK regardless of where the territorial designation is.

My understanding is that is why some English peerages, even though created after a Scottish peerage or Irish peerage, have precedence. So provided Scotland is not a republic by the time Charles is crowned, Scottish peers will still be ranked below English peers but before British or UK peers.

The peerage is not divided in this way but recorded on a unified Union Roll. Longevity is not determinative because if Winchester and Hereford are the earliest, then why did Huntly and Arbuthnott represent marquises and viscounts in 1953; and Mowbray the baron level.

 

[VictoriaB]

The peerage is not divided in this way but recorded on a unified Union Roll. Longevity is not determinative because if Winchester and Hereford are the earliest, then why did Huntly and Arbuthnott represent marquises and viscounts in 1953; and Mowbray the baron level.

I was taking it from Burke's Peerage.

https://web.archive.org/web/2007020...ntry.com/Sites/Peerage/SitePages/page62-4.asp

Another article here which lists the order precedence around the middle of the page and the reasons why (including the various Acts of Union). According to this article, precedence of Peers depends on the whether they are peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the UK.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm#Official

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And while the official Roll of the Peerage does not deal with precedence (the peers are listed in alphabetical order), it does continue to categorize peers as peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain, etc.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/images/downloads/Roll_of_the_Peerage.pdf

 

[JR76]

The peerage is not divided in this way but recorded on a unified Union Roll. Longevity is not determinative because if Winchester and Hereford are the earliest, then why did Huntly and Arbuthnott represent marquises and viscounts in 1953; and Mowbray the baron level.

The Peers you mention were replaced for different reasons:
The Marquess of Winchester was over 90 at the time of the Coronation something that might've prevented him from taking part in what for the guests was a very long day.
The Viscount of Hereford, who had inherited his title from his grandfather the year before, was only 20 at the time of the Coronation and therefore had not yet taken his seat in the House of Lords.
The Barony of Ros was replaced by the Barony of Mowbray because at the time of the Coronation it was held by a woman who could not take a seat in the House of Lords.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Here's a little further information on The Coronation Spoon its exact date of origin is not known but is believed to be from the mid 12th Century.

https://www.rct.uk/collection/31733/the-coronation-spoon

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not familiar with the coronation of 1953, but seeing as it was a national occasion, it would be logical if it was treated as an exception from the normal rule that peers and other dignitaries of England take precedence within England and Wales, and ranked the peers in attendance strictly by the longetivity of their peerages.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Tatiana Maria, Here is information on The plan of the Coronation

 

[Gawin]

The Peers you mention were replaced for different reasons:
The Marquess of Winchester was over 90 at the time of the Coronation something that might've prevented him from taking part in what for the guests was a very long day.
The Viscount of Hereford, who had inherited his title from his grandfather the year before, was only 20 at the time of the Coronation and therefore had not yet taken his seat in the House of Lords.
The Barony of Ros was replaced by the Barony of Mowbray because at the time of the Coronation it was held by a woman who could not take a seat in the House of Lords.

According to Hugo Vickers, the Marquess of Winchester was excluded because he was a bankrupt and the Lord Chancellor's Office had decided bankrupt peers should be excluded from the ceremony. See Hugo Vickers, Coronation (Dovecote Press, 2013), p. 59.

 

[rob2008]

And while the official Roll of the Peerage does not deal with precedence (the peers are listed in alphabetical order), it does continue to categorize peers as peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain, etc.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/images/downloads/Roll_of_the_Peerage.pdf

The division is an historical factor and doesnt create a hierarchy. I sometimes wonder how to reintegrate Irish peers from the Northern Ireland territory into the UK peerage.

 

[rob2008]

Tatiana Maria, Here is information on The plan of the Coronation

I am convinced that Norfolk's rule forbidding motorised transport in 1953 will not apply next time.

I don't think the 1762 gold coach will be used. It will be the Diamond Jubilee coach surely for the new sovereign and queen consort.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think you missed the sources given by VictoriaB, above.

 

[JR76]

According to Hugo Vickers, the Marquess of Winchester was excluded because he was a bankrupt and the Lord Chancellor's Office had decided bankrupt peers should be excluded from the ceremony. See Hugo Vickers, Coronation (Dovecote Press, 2013), p. 59.

Thank you, I haven't read that book. The fact do show that had the three peers not been replaced for reasons such as age, gender or bad optics they would have performed their part of the ceremony based on the age of their peerages.

 

[Gawin]

Thank you, I haven't read that book. The fact do show that had the three peers not been replaced for reasons such as age, gender or bad optics they would have performed their part of the ceremony based on the age of their peerages.

Yes, and in case they were replaced by the peer holding the "next oldest" title.

 

[Mbruno]

The division is an historical factor and doesnt create a hierarchy. I sometimes wonder how to reintegrate Irish peers from the Northern Ireland territory into the UK peerage.

All sources, however, claim that there is a hierarchy in the order of precedence, namely:

1. Peers of England.
2. Peers of Scotland.
3. Peers of Great Britain.
4. Peers of Ireland.
5. Peers of the United Kingdom.

From what I understand, however, the hierarchy only applies within the same rank , i.e. a duke always outranks e.g. an earl, no matter which peerage their titles belong to; however, among dukes, those in the Peerage of England outrank those in the Peerage of Scotland, and so on, according to the hierarchy above. Finally, within the same rank and the same peerage, precedence is determined by seniority (date of creation of the title).

An interesting point also is that the Roll of Peerage only records the main title of British peers. There is no official directory in the UK, as far as I know, of subsidiary titles (unlike, for example, in Spain, where all existing titles and their legal holders are officially recorded). Nonetheless, the Royal Warrant of 2004 which created the Roll of the Peerage says that inclusion of the name of the title holder in the Roll is necessary to enjoy the legal rights and privileges associated with the peerage in the United Kingdom.

EDIT: After double-checking, I verified that it is actually possible to be entered in the Roll under a subsidiary title if the applicant can prove succession to that title, but not to the most senior one, but I believe that is rare. There is a more comprehensive explanation in the link below.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/peers-roll-contents

 

[rob2008]

The Peers you mention were replaced for different reasons:
The Marquess of Winchester was over 90 at the time of the Coronation something that might've prevented him from taking part in what for the guests was a very long day.
The Viscount of Hereford, who had inherited his title from his grandfather the year before, was only 20 at the time of the Coronation and therefore had not yet taken his seat in the House of Lords.
The Barony of Ros was replaced by the Barony of Mowbray because at the time of the Coronation it was held by a woman who could not take a seat in the House of Lords.

Thank you. Winchester's bankruptcy was the more important in the decision. He married in the year before the coronation and then almost immediately left his new wife for Ian Fleming's mother. He seems quite an active nonagenarian.

I wonder why the 14th Viscount of Falkland was not selected when his title had an older pedigree.

Viscount Hereford doesn't have the participle 'of'. Thank you.

 

[Gawin]

All sources, however, claim that there is a hierarchy in the order of precedence, namely:

1. Peers of England.
2. Peers of Scotland.
3. Peers of Great Britain.
4. Peers of Ireland.
5. Peers of the United Kingdom.

From what I understand, however, the hierarchy only applies within the same rank , i.e. a duke always outranks e.g. an earl, no matter which peerage their titles belong to; however, among dukes, those in the Peerage of England outrank those in the Peerage of Scotland, and so on, according to the hierarchy above. Finally, within the same rank and the same peerage, precedence is determined by seniority (date of creation of the title).

An interesting point also is that the Roll of Peerage only records the main title of British peers. There is no official directory in the UK, as far as I know, of subsidiary titles (unlike, for example, in Spain, where all existing titles and their legal holders are officially recorded). Nonetheless, the Royal Warrant of 2004 which created the Roll of the Peerage says that inclusion of the name of the title holder in the Roll is necessary to enjoy the legal rights and privileges associated with the peerage in the United Kingdom.

EDIT: After double-checking, I verified that it is actually possible to be entered in the Roll under a subsidiary title if the applicant can prove succession to that title, but not to the most senior one, but I believe that is rare. There is a more comprehensive explanation in the link below.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/peers-roll-contents

In some cases peers are listed under a subsidiary title which allowed them to sit in the House of Lords. For example, see the entry for the Marquess of Hamilton which notes he is "customarily styled by the superior title Duke of Abercorn." He sat in the House as Marquess of Abercorn (in the peerage of Great Britain) because his ducal title was created in the peerage of Ireland, which did not entitle him to a writ of summons.

 

[JR76]

I wonder why the 14th Viscount of Falkland was not selected when his title had an older pedigree.

Viscount Hereford doesn't have the participle 'of'. Thank you.

Neither does Viscount Falkland anymore.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Coronation plans in 1937

 

[Blog Real]

The Coronation plans in 1937

This video must be of the plans for the coronation of King George VI. It is very interesting to see how a coronation is prepared.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Coronation Crowd
Crowds lined around Pall Mall and Trafalgar Square in 1953.
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/3398812

 

[wartenberg7]

A very good, from the people´s point of view, documentary about the coronation:

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Coronation Procession of King Charles II of England in 1662
http://www.alamy.com/coronation-procession-of-charles-ii-i1662-image349011299.html