This Royal Wedding fervor got me generally interested and I found an old film of the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953, on YouTube as a seven-part series – start here. Quite a sublime and splendid spectacle, with all the peers in their robes and coronets, and the generals and admirals in uniforms an American officer never would in his wildest Pattonesque bling-of-war fantasies dare think of putting on, and then all those UK and Commonwealth troops with various uniforms marching through the streets of London.
The Queen, long may she live and reign, is now 85, I believe, and while she appears in good health and her mother lived to be 101, it is entirely possible that Charles the Prince of Wales (now 63) will become King Charles III (or King George VII, whichever he picks – I think “Arthur” and “Philip” are right out, “King Arthur” sounds, like, are you serious, and “King Philip” has bad associations to history-conscious Brits) within, shall we say, the next decade. What will his coronation be like? I don’t mean the form of the ceremony, that is fixed by tradition and (I presume) by law, but, well, the show for Elizabeth looks kinda . . . well . . . expensive. So:
Will there be any public protest in the UK at spending this kind of money on a lavish public ceremony which every other monarchy in Europe has dropped or simplified, to glorify an anachronistic institution while so many poor people, etc.? (Was there any in 1953?)
In response to such pressure, will the whole thing perhaps be scaled back a bit? Or even omitted entirely? A coronation is not constitutionally necessary, AFAIK; when a sovereign passes, the new sovereign’s accession is by operation of law automatic and immediate – it is a principle of British law that “The Throne is never vacant.” (Terry Pratchett once did a bit about how a wizard observed this meant succession traveling faster than light, hypothesized superluminal transmission particles called “kingons,” and proposed torturing a small king to modulate the signal.) OTOH, Charles has spent his whole life preparing to walk down that aisle, as it were, and it seems hard to deprive him of his moment. And all those peers get to wear their robes and coronets and it’s the only time in their lives they ever get to wear their coronets and it’s one of their last privileges, since the House of Lords was reformed. And, on the gripping hand, maybe the UK just really needs, or will really need at the time, a big, jubilant, traditional, linking-all-to-the-past celebration – a celebration not just happy like a royal wedding, but nationhood-affirming.
Will Camilla be crowned Queen with him? (Like Queen (consort Elizabeth was at the coronation of her husband George VI; she even got anointed.*) Will she even have the title of Queen? I seem to remember some stipulation to the contrary when their marriage was approved, or that it’s a morganatic marriage, or something. I know that she is the Princess of Wales but always goes by Duchess of Cornwall (to avoid stirring up memories of/comparisons with Diana).
That’s another thing – the film shows her being covered by a four-bearer canopy (like if you had a four-poster bed with canopy and four guys walked off with it), and then resumes after she has been anointed. Same with the king. Same with Elizabeth II. Apparently, the anointing is considered too sacred to be filmed or broadcast – in fact, those canopy-bearers are apparently there to shield the ritual from public view. Will that remain the same when Charles is crowned? I mean, nowadays it sounds as silly as touching for the King’s Evil.
In 1953, several levels of tiered seating were built inside of the Abbey to accommodate several thousand spectators, and a large building was added onto the front. I don’t really see them going to that kind of trouble next time.
There is precedent for scaling back, BTW. For instance, the Coronation used to be followed by a peers-only Coronation Banquet in Westminster Hall. That was the part where the King’s/Queen’s Champion would ride up and down the Hall and challenge anyone who disputed the right, etc. But George IV was the last monarch who had one. William IV dispensed with it (the expense of his brother’s lavish coronation having been unpopular), and no sovereign since has revived it. Rather a shame, that was an (even more) classically medieval element in the proceedings.
One wonders what would happen if anyone ever threw down his gauntlet at the Champion’s feet.
Liz II cost something like 30 million in todays dollars. Obama’s inauguration, by contrast, cost something like 150 million. So its not really that extravagant, and like the inauguration, I imagine they can find private donors to foot a good chunk of the bill. Its not like Coronations happen every four years, after all.
So I hope they go all out. If your going to have a monarchy, you mind as well have fun with it, and while its a little goofy, every country has its own goofy nationalistic exercises, Great Britain mind as well enjoy there’s.
Yes but on the fringes of political debate. Everybody knows having a President would be much more expensive than a Royal Family, so it would be a political stance in disguise and widely recognised as such.
I can see George Gallaway jumping on that bandwagon for instance (you may recall him from the drubbing he gave to certain US Senators in relation to Iraq [URL=“http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article523583.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1”] and maybe Tommy Sheridan (if he is not in prison at the time).
Maybe but not so much as you would notice, unless you were at the previous one which must be a very small subset. I suspect it will be lavish enough to please those that care about keeping up appearances.
Whilst she may be Queen whatever anyone says or does or calls her (unless a specific Act of Parliament is passed to stop it I understand she will automatically become Queen Consort) I suspect she will not use, nor allow to be used officially, the title of Queen but rather Princess of XYZ. It will help that when all this happens William and Kate will be the new Prince and Princess of Wales (assuming it all works out for them).
The actual act of anointing the monarch may well be televised in future. It was not photographed in 1937, nor televised in 1953, as it was considered Sacred. Now we are in an age when weddings and christenings are routinely filmed I would find it hard to believe that it would not be public. The usual nod to modernising the Royal institutions, and a very gradual process. I do not believe there is anything secret that goes on that would prevent it being public, it is just the concept of what is sacred now is much looser I suspect.
Finally I think it is a pretty safe bet that Charles will take the style George VII when he takes the throne. I also see little chance that he will pass it up to William unless he really is too old or infirm to do the job - QEII could easily go on for another 20 years if her mother is any guide.
It’s no great secret that palace officials have over the years considered the possibility of changes and the previous Dean of Westminster, Wesley Carr, has floated a number of them in public. There is, for example, the question of whether the event should be made more ‘inclusive’ and so one idea would be to follow the service in the Abbey with a multi-faith event, perhaps in Westminster Hall. Although that would involve much extra cost.
But, then again, one must remember that the 1953 coronation broke even - the Ministry of Works recovered its costs by selling tickets for seats in the stands along the processional route.
And my own hunch would be that the anointing (and the taking of communion) will be televised, but only from as far away as possible.
I am quite unaware of a condition of this sort being imposed by Her Majesty or by the government of the day. I fully expect Camilla to be queen-consort.
It may have been an “understanding” that this would be the case, but not a legal condition.
No legislation was ever passed on the subject, and absent that I agree that legally Camilla automatically becomes queen-consort. As previously mentioned, I suspect what may happen in practise is that she volunteers never to use the title.
According to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11806000 the official position is that she will take the title Princess Consort but clearly it is a fluid situation dependent on public opinion as much as anything.
Actually, it’s Charles that is the name that has bad associations.
Besides, I hope Charles never accedes to the Throne. He’s simply not up to the job. I don’t know if William’s up to the job either, but it is one into which he can grow, like his grandmother.
Is the concern that Charles may not be able to cut ribbons correctly? Or that while rubber-stamping parliamentary acts he may accidentally stamp himself in the thigh?
I’m not seeing the huge challenge of this job. As a challenge I would put it on about the same level as running a medium-sized branch of WH Smith.
I thought Charles gave up the right to be King when he took Camilla as his wife? Wasn’t there something about that? And I seem to remember the story of Diana having to submit to an gyn. exam before marrying Charles, proving no man had been there before. I haven’t heard of this for Kate. Perhaps, being a commoner, she’s not held to the same standard, but can she actually be queen?
Charles hasn’t given up his right to be king; we aren’t yet sure what Camilla’s exact title will be.
I’d heard that Charles was counseled to pick a virgin–one reason he let Camilla go. (Her “history” was hardly scandalous for somebody of our generation. But she had one.) Don’t know that Diana actually had to undergo a test–but she was obviously chosen for her inexperience.
After the debacle of that marriage, I think the Royals have gotten a bit more realistic. Of course Kate can become Queen.
A lot of titles come with the marriage whether they are used or not. For instance, Camilla is the Princess of Wales, but she doesn’t use that title because of its previous association with Princess Diana.
I saw on TV yesterday, a reporter asked Charles how he felt about his son’s nuptials and he responded with stiff upper lip, “It’s wonderful,” adding half-under-his-breath-but-quite-audibly (a skill in which all royals should be trained), “They’ve had enough time to practice.”
You could just tell he was thinking, “Just why was it that I was expected to marry a virgin?! I could have test-driven a few candidates, gotten to really know them and ruled out all the ones with a neurotic streak . . . sigh”
I have absolutely no doubt that the thing about a virginity test for Diana is pure UL. Her virginity was never legally required, just a matter of cultural expectations (if she had been a Catholic, that would have presented a legal problem).
As for Kate, everybody knows she and William met in college, and have dated continuously with some interruptions/breakups/reconciliations ever since then, about 10 years, and absolutely nobody expects virginity of either of them at this point. That is not because Kate is not a princess or a peer’s daughter; it is because British culture has evolved to the point where the royals can, in at least this one regard, act more or less like ordinary Brits would (i.e., marry your college sweetheart, but only after a decent period of unmarried cohabitation; and perhaps after giving each other a bit of time and license to play the field and sow the oats and get all that out of his/her system before settling down).
Will the Coronation of Charles III provoke a lot of guest-list controversy, like we’re seeing this week in connection with the Royal Wedding? “President-Generalissimo Umbwahahahaha was such a dear friend to Her late Majesty, and yet these tedious human-rights groups won’t have him in the parade! Just because he has so terribly many children publicly flayed and crucified to celebrate his birthday every year! Who are we to judge another culture by the standards of our own?”