How will the coronation be different? Well, Elizabeth was a true hottie with bodacious ta-tas. Charles is an old fart with Dumbo ears. Odds are that when it comes time to crown Charles, there will be a lot of film played of his mother’s coronation, just to keep up the ratings.
A 1952 coronation vs. a ~2025 coronation? Fewer people will be smoking.
IIRC, Charles will not be crowned until at least a year after Elizabeth passes, because it is traditional for the family/court/nation to be in mourning for the old sovereign at least that long before crowning a new one, which is supposed to be jubilant occasion.
But, if he has not yet been crowned, he can still open sessions of Parliament and things, right? (And if he has not yet been crowned, does he wear his crown during the Speech from the Throne, as Elizabeth always does?)
He will certainly open Parliament, as he will legally be King from the moment of his mother’s death. I don’t know if there’s a difference in what would be worn before and after the coronation.
One thing to bear in mind is that, if the Queen lives as long as her mother, Charles will be a very old man when he becomes King, and depending on his health there may be less delay. If this is an issue, it could well be the biggest difference between the two coronations.
Elizabeth II opened parliament in November 1952, seven months before her coronation. There was no photography of it then, but I’m pretty sure she stayed in the George IV diadem. Before the speech, she also made a declaration that she was a protestant and would do everything under her power to maintain protestant succession (if there’s not a chance to do that before the coronation, it’s rolled into the oaths taken then).
But the coronation was in a church – surely people, even in 1952 (1953, actually), didn’t smoke inside a church?
Smoke, no, smoking, yes (as in smoking hot Elizabeth II.)
there is a list of requirements for THE prince of wales’ wife to be, virginity is just one of them. those that are not THE pow, just have to have the consent of the monarch.
You obviously don’t know much about Churchill! 
Sounding like an idiot and sounding like a drunk are not quite the same thing. 
“If you smoked during your own coronation, you might be a royal redneck!”
– Jeffrey, 12th Marquess of Foxworthy
Cite?
Is that the sort of diamond circlet with no arches, with diamond crosses-patee and fleurs-de-lys projecting up from the rim, kinda like a tiara only it goes all the way around the head? That was made for George IV? I’ve seen Elizabeth wearing it in so many pictures that it’s hard to imagine a man wearing the thing!
Because he’s a meddler and reminds many of Edward VIII.
. . . What, in having romantic/marital troubles?
*1) 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?)
*Given the 2 billion global viewers of the wedding, it’s obviously big business in addition to cultural tradition, and it seems that any amount of cost of these ceremonies could be covered (with profit to spare) by marketing the broadcasting/merchandising rights with all of the resulting advertisement revenue, souvenir sales, etc. I’m not sure how that works currently and not saying it’s a good thing (outside of saving taxpayers’ money) but there is clearly a lot of entertainment value in the monarchy and ‘Brand Britain.’
I think all the money spent on the recent Royal Wedding–& that will be spent on the next Coronation–is spent in the UK. British workers get that money.
And the coverage showed quite a few visitors from abroad lining the streets. Spending at hotels, restaurants & pubs. And buying those tacky souvenirs!
King George V: In the past all a King had to do was look respectable in uniform and not fall off his horse. Now we must invade people’s homes and ingratiate ourselves with them. This family is reduced to those lowest, basest of all creatures, we’ve become actors!
– The King’s Speech
And now, based on what you’re saying, they have become . . . advertising characters! Spud McKenzie, Tony the Tiger, Elizabeth the Second!
The POTUS gets the WH and Camp David. The Queen gets half a dozen palaces and added to that is the expense of the PM’s establishment at No. 10. How would merging them, as it were, add to the total expense? Presumably the President of Britain would use No. 10 and St. James’ Palace, and the remaining palaces would be turned into museums or hotels or something.