The Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla, 6 May 2023


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
A very basic question but one I still don't understand: What is the reason a non-regnant queen is crowned? She doesn't have a constitutional role, didn't swear an oath but still gets the royal regalia including the royal scepter presented and is both anointed and crowned as if she is co-ruler.
 
A Tudor said:
First, even if the CoE loses its current status, that does not mean the King cannot keep his post as Supreme Governor, a tradition tracing back to the CoE own origins.

Second, even if they scrap some of the more traditional religious parts, there’s no need to exclude everything. The POTUS inauguration usually has many Christian features, yet there’s not really a discussion about it.
Click to expand...

Mbruno said:
Queen Camilla's family, I think.
Click to expand...

Yes. It was her family.
 
I think historically it was just to add to the mystique and aura of the monarchy and the Royal Family, especially as the queen would usually be the mother of the heir. Even queens who married reigning kings usually had their own coronations.
 
Somebody said:
A very basic question but one I still don't understand: What is the reason a non-regnant queen is crowned? She doesn't have a constitutional role, didn't swear an oath but still gets the royal regalia including the royal scepter presented and is both anointed and crowned as if she is co-ruler.
Click to expand...
That was common use in all monarchies which held a coronation: Prussia, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia - and Britain. In all monarchies which did or do a coronation both the King and Queen are crowned. In the old days it was a sacred office to be the monarch´s spouse, support him and give birth to the next monarch!
A (non-regnant) Queen had her own household and very often Queens stood in for their husbands when they were absent, went into battle or had died before the Crown Prince has grown up.
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
I must say that the King and Queen wearing the crown felt a bit cartoonish to me. Even the splendor of the jewels on the crowns wasn't showing in the Abbey as it did in the last coronation with the young queen and the more glittering congregation. The feeling I got is that they were hanging on (barely) to a ceremony that no longer has any meaning for those who were watching it and felt out of place or out of time.


The King was very emotional though during the service and was genuinely moved.
Click to expand...


The CoE was founded by a king, thus the coronation within the faith of that church makes sense. Somehow! Because it should have been all Christian faiths or even better by the main faith existing within the UK. Or just done by the parliament as a decleration of Charles' kingship. The whole anointment stuff (including the shielded vision) was just something so out of this world. (And I'm a staunch supporter of king Charles). I wonder if he had decided on a different coronation if it wasn't for the crowning of the queen. He loves her and yet for some she is still only a mistress, even after all those years of marriage and service. So I'm okay with the coronation. We love Royal weddings in church and now we got a coronation!



But I agree with you on the crowns. They looked a bit cheap. If they couldn't show the big blings due to ownership issues, and they were too heavy anyway, they could make new coronetsto wear instead of the crowns, especiallyas there were no rows and rows of peers all with their own coronets. They tried to modernize it but it wasn't enough. Well, it was nice coronation and there will be William and Catherine and maybe they make it more modern.
 
The BBC highlights programme has just finished. It’s really worth a watch for the interviews with people there - the conductor, performers, composers and most of all Lady Lansdowne one of the Queens companions. Highly recommend.
 
ladysarahmay said:
Does anyone know which family that was sitting across from the Royal family in the front row?

Are they Royals too?
Or does anyone know who that is in the front row?
Click to expand...


Those are Queen Camilla's children Tom and Laura with their families.
 
Kataryn said:
But I agree with you on the crowns. They looked a bit cheap. If they couldn't show the big blings due to ownership issues, and they were too heavy anyway, they could make new coronetsto wear instead of the crowns, especiallyas there were no rows and rows of peers all with their own coronets. They tried to modernize it but it wasn't enough. Well, it was nice coronation and there will be William and Catherine and maybe they make it more modern.
Click to expand...

I found it weird that from some angles, Camilla’s crown seemed much bigger than Charles’ crown. I guess it like how Camilla’s hair suit bigger tiaras. His crown has more gems, but look at the difference in arch height and velvet puffiness! And four of the eight arches were removed to match Charles. The more I look at it…
https://twitter.com/x/status/1654926806120529920

And I can’t decide if the scattered colors of everyone’s outfits were overwhelming or underwhelming. In 1953, in addition to large sections in red robes and white dresses, they weren’t wearing neon colors. And they didn’t have such good color photography.
 
Kataryn said:
But I agree with you on the crowns. They looked a bit cheap. If they couldn't show the big blings due to ownership issues, and they were too heavy anyway, they could make new coronetsto wear instead of the crowns, especiallyas there were no rows and rows of peers all with their own coronets. They tried to modernize it but it wasn't enough. Well, it was nice coronation and there will be William and Catherine and maybe they make it more modern.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this unless it's a side effect of high definition television. I thought the crowns looked good, not cheap at all.

The crown Charles wore, the King Edward Crown IS the crown that all British monarchs have worn ONCE, ONLY during their own coronation. It dates back to 1661 and has been worn by 6 different monarchs on their own coronations over 350 years. (The original St. Edwards crowns was lost after the reign of Charles I.) It is considered the most important crown in the Royal collection for this reason. For anyone who appreciates history, it was the only choice for Charles.

It was Camilla's crown (Queen's Elizabeth crown - that did not use the Koh-i-Noor diamond because of its controversy.

I'm not a traditionalist (I did not mind some of the changes to the outfits or no coronets for peers) or a Royalist or even a Monarchist but I love history and I appreciated that they used the crowns they did, especially The King Edward Crown for King Charles because it is THE coronation crown with its history.

My biggest memories of this coronation will be:

- the music. It was incredible. A wonderful choice of pieces so beautifully performed
- seeing the symbolism within the ceremony (objects, the crowning itself) and at the beginning (the parade of realms and the varied faith leaders)
- Prince William's interaction with Charles after swearing the oath: the kiss on the cheek and Charles' reaction
- watching King Charles' emotions through the ceremony (his mother was more stoic in the footage I've seen of her coronation)

I was born 3 years after the Queen's coronation and I realize that this might be the only coronation I ever witness live. Although I'm not a monarchist, it's a piece of history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody that has seen the Crown Jewels in The Tower of London would never call them cheap. They are priceless.
 
Hallo girl said:
Anybody that has seen the Crown Jewels in The Tower of London would never call them cheap. They are priceless.
Click to expand...



IKR?! I got on the conveyor belt multiple times to see them. They are absolutely stunning.
 
To be fair, I'd have likely called them garish if I had first seen them on a TV or internet. Fortunately, I saw them live before I clocked on the internet on being more than a work appliance. They are amazing.
 
Hallo girl said:
Anybody that has seen the Crown Jewels in The Tower of London would never call them cheap. They are priceless.
Click to expand...


Of course the Crown Jewels are not cheap. It is just that, when you see the footage from 1953, they looked spectacular on the young Queen Elizabeth II. On King Charles III, not so much, at least visually.


Mutatis mutandis, the same holds for Queen Camilla vs. Queen Mary for example.
 
Erin9 said:
IKR?! I got on the conveyor belt multiple times to see them. They are absolutely stunning.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I like that the conveyor belt is still being used. That is good. I have always remembered that, albeit vague.
The Crown being placed on Charles' head was the moment I had been waiting for and I was not disappointed.

He looked stunning in and with his Regalia.
 
Last edited:
FigTree said:
I know I am probably being thick but who is the man attending Charles in the kilt?
Click to expand...


Major Johnny Thompson, of the 5th Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland. He is the King's equerry.
 
Mbruno said:
Of course the Crown Jewels are not cheap. It is just that, when you see the footage from 1953, they looked spectacular on the young Queen Elizabeth II. On King Charles III, not so much, at least visually.


Mutatis mutandis, the same holds for Queen Camilla vs. Queen Mary for example.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is something to do with a young Elizabeth versus a senior Charles. It is possibly the romance of it that people found lacking. I found the whole service very moving, I had goosebumps all over.
 
Mbruno said:
Of course the Crown Jewels are not cheap. It is just that, when you see the footage from 1953, they looked spectacular on the young Queen Elizabeth II. On King Charles III, not so much, at least visually.


Mutatis mutandis, the same holds for Queen Camilla vs. Queen Mary for example.
Click to expand...

The young queen was very photogenic & as Purrs has said modern tv does make a big difference as this shows really clearly:

 
The clip of the Wales leaving the house is so cute!
*wave directly to the camera* not in front of the door!! in the carriage!!

And the boy on the balcony talking to the crowned king about planes.

Also tremendous claps for the boy who started off the coronation with “Your Majesty, as children of the kingdom of God, we welcome you in the name of king of kings.”
 
Somebody said:
A very basic question but one I still don't understand: What is the reason a non-regnant queen is crowned? She doesn't have a constitutional role, didn't swear an oath but still gets the royal regalia including the royal scepter presented and is both anointed and crowned as if she is co-ruler.
Click to expand...

Queen consorts did not used to be crowned during the Saxon era (I think there was one exception). It became common with an elevation of a role of King's wife. The king's wife really wasn't a Queen by default but that came with the anointing. During the Saxon era the wife's could just be repudiated as well. So the wife having title was in a way step forward with women's station (during a period where Queen regnant or anything else was not done).

I am not an expert but this is something I have listened in podcasts.
 
LaBettie said:
Also tremendous claps for the boy who started off the coronation with “Your Majesty, as children of the kingdom of God, we welcome you in the name of king of kings.”
Click to expand...

And then the little lad joined the chorus to sing like an angel. What a legend.
 
Mbruno said:
I
On a more "liturgical" note, as a Catholic, I can't help saying how surprised I am to see the consecration of the bread and wine being made in high Protestant churches with the minister facing the altar and turning his back to the congregation as it used to be the case in the past in the Roman Catholic Church, but has since been long abandoned.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been abandoned at all. In the Tridentine Mass the priest faces God, not the congregation and it is far more reverent. In Eastern Rite churches the consecration takes place behind a screen and you can't see the priest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
The Coronation: Guest Arrivals, Guest List, Rehearsal and Receptions, 5 May 2023
6 7 8
Replies
215
Views
28K
Prinsara
Prinsara
Marengo
  • Sticky
The Coronation: Big Lunch, Concert, Big Help Out, 7 and 8 May 2023
2 3
Replies
83
Views
12K
Somebody
Somebody
Ista
General News for Charles III and Queen Camilla Part 2, February 2024-
3 4 5
Replies
145
Views
21K
muriel
muriel
Marengo
  • Locked
Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 2
15 16 17
Replies
501
Views
57K
Marengo
Marengo
CrownPrincessJava
Queen Camilla's Fashion and Style Part 3: June 2024 -
3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
11K
Snowangel
Snowangel

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom