Her father died in Feb of 52. She was officially installed June of 53.
Why such a long gap? I can see a few months to plan the event but 16 months?
According to wikipedia, the delay was mostly for the one-year mourning period for Elizabeth’s father (Coronation of Elizabeth II - Wikipedia). Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen a few days after the death of her father - it was only the official celebration that was delayed (Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II - Wikipedia)
Court mourning for George VI lasted only until 31 May 1952.
The delay was instead because of the logistics involved and because of the timing of George VI’s death. The actual construction work in Westminster Abbey required five full months and getting to the point when that work could begin required a further few months of planning. So holding it in the summer or autumn of 1952 was never going to be practical. It was therefore easier all round to delay it until the summer of 1953. Had George VI died a few months earlier, they might have gone for autumn 1952, resulting in a shorter delay. Much the same problem had occurred in 1936-7.
What did they build for 5 months?
Have a feeling Chuck might not want to wait over 1 year at his age. 
Queen Elizabeth didn’t become Queen when she was crowned. She became Queen as soon as the Earl of Sussex presented her with her predecessor’s ring and shouted “The Queen is dead! Long live the Queen!” Source: The movie with Cate Blanchett.
Oh. You were asking about Q.E. II. Nevermind.
Really? You didn’t get that the OP was about the current queen, especially given the reference to “June of 53”?
I think Septimus is trying to make a point that when you don’t use a numeral, the assumption is that you mean the first monarch with that name. The thread title should specify Queen Elizabeth II.
The OP was four sentences, of which the second sentence made it clear who was being referred to.
:smack: ::whoosh:: (And didn’t you get that I got what you’re getting I didn’t get, given the reference to “You were asking about Q.E. II. Nevermind.”?
Get it?
You’re both wrong. 
My point, if any, was that QEII became Queen when her father died. The anecdote from a movie seemed like a way to make the point, with a link to a great Blanchett acting scene thrown in for free. And if I’d suddenly realized I’d misread OP I’d have clicked to “ETA: nm” or such.
I must start including more smiley-faces. Either you Dopers have no senses of humor at all, or yours are very different from mine.
At least in Britain, the heir immediately becomes the new monarch upon the death of the old one (King is dead, long live the King). A coronation is just a ceremony – it doesn’t officially make one a king or queen, you’re already one. Edward VIII was never crowned, but he still counts as a king.
Usually, and this happens in most monarchies, a coronation takes place roughly a year (give or take) after the old monarch dies. It’s to honor the deceased monarch with a year of mourning before crowning the new one.
It won’t really make any difference to him. He will be king, with all the powers and privileges (such as they are), and all the honour and deference that that entails, from the moment it becomes known that his mum has popped her clogs. Likewise, Lizzie was queen, and recognized as such, from the very moment her dad shuffled off his mortal coil and went to join the choir invisible. The coronation ceremony does not really mean very much. It is just a big show to dazzle the plebs, and keep them persuaded that you are special enough to be ruling them. As such, you want to take the time to make sure that it is a good, impressive, show. (And from the point of view of the royals themselves, participating in such big shows is probably more of a pain in the arse than anything else, the price you have to pay to get all the good stuff.)
Edward VIII was king - he really was, for a bit - without having a coronation at all.
Why are you assuming that the OP meant 1953?
Logistical megalith, coronations. The planning, and the execution, plus the invitations.
Hell, my wedding with about 70 people invited was two years in the making!
It’s been fairly common for a considerable period to pass until the coronation. The one in 1901 was also delayed due to the King’s illness.
Actually, coronations have fallen pretty much out of use, at least in the European monarchies that are the stereotypical pop culture examples. Several European monarchies changed their monarchs rather recently without holding a coronation; examples include Spain (2014), Netherlands (2013), and Monaco (2005). In some of these instances, an official celebration took place without physically crowning the new ruler, but these celebrations take place very shortly after the accession to the office. It seems that 1953 was, in fact, the last time an actual physical coronation took place in Europe, so I don’t think there’s sufficient precedent for the statement that a mourning period of a year between death of the old monarch and coronation of the new one is common.
I have to correct myself on that: Pope Paul VI was crowned in 1963, and was the last pope to have a coronation. No other coronations have taken place in Europe since then, and Wikipedia seems to suggest that pretty much all European monarchies except the United Kingdom have formally or practically abolished that type of ceremony.
I think in this day big ceremonies might be frowned on unless they said no tax money was involved. Of course Chuck could just say he wants to keep it simple.
When Nixon died he declined to have the big funeral all other presidents had. He said he hated DC and did not want to go back there after he died.
Well considering it took Edward VII nineteen months and George V thirteen months to be crowned, sixteen months isn’t that bad. George VI was crowned only six months into his reign, but that was the date Edward VIII was intented to be crowned.
Plus, for obvious weather reasons, aren’t almost all coronations done in the summertime? Six months to plan a summer 1952 coronation wouldn’t have been practical, especially considering the vast size of the Empire.
…I thought they usually waited for the predecessor to die before new coronations, at least these days.
Bwahah poor choice of words on my part