I was away this weekend, the TV came on when I put the light on (same wall switch) to pack the clothes & other stuff I needed. I was disappointed that the few mins I happened to see hear were the Jesus bits not the putting the big crown on his head bits. Not disappointed enough to go find it on youtube though.
Not really. Your average CofE’er is slightly wary of High Church. Bit too Catholic. The Royal Family treads a careful political line, so sits firmly somewhere in the middle. Hence no ‘smells and bells’. The Queen was, apparently, quite low church in her practices, in the same tradition as Queen Victoria.
No, they don’t. Scotland has a crown, but the King/Queen no longer wears it, presumably because the crowns have been merged into one (hence, the ‘UK’).
good to know.
One thing that amused me in the commentary was when the helicopters did the fly-by everybody on the balcony craned their necks up, except the royal couple who only moved their eyes. One of them pointed out it’s an occupational hazard to actually look up when you’re wearing a crown.
They might have got the BBC’s telerecoding [kinescope] of it onto the overnight plane - the Rank Organisation’s colour film, entitled A Queen Is Crowned, took a couple of weeks to make it into the movie theaters.
When TV requires film of the coronation nowadays it usually uses the colour film rather than the BBC’s telerecording, which is too low-resolution for modern tastes.
I was thinking it makes him look like a Laker fan!
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held the sword aloft from the bosom of the water, signifying that I, (charles philip) Arthur (george), was to wield Excalibur. That is why I’m your king!
They could keep it in a glass case in the lobby of Rideau Hall whenever the King wasn’t using it. 
The film was flown to North America as soon as possible after the (1953) Coronation was over. Canada won the race - airing it on TV 27 minutes before anyone in the US saw it. (it was live over short-wave radio).
CBS and NBC flew the film to Boston’s Logan airport. The CBS plane landed at 4:12 pm; NBC’s at 4:57 pm (not overnight - this was the same day). However - ABC made a deal with Canada’s CBC - thus airing it some minutes earlier. Then NBC made a deal with ABC - allowing it to show it at the same time.
To add to the fun - CBS started showing the wrong reel, which showed the actual Coronation (rather than the procession and other pre-Coronation activities) - so CBS claimed to have shown the actual Coronation first.
The procession would have started at 3 am EDT; the service over, the returning procession would have left at 9:50 am - meaning that the balcony scene would have happened around 11 am. I doubt that it could have made it to Boston, or Gander (Newfoundland) within five hours, so the film probably ended at the end of the service (and the rest of the film sent over later).
#TheMoment a fighter pilot brought the Queen’s coronation to Canada - YouTube
Canadian, monarchist.
I stayed up all night because I knew if I went to sleep I wouldn’t wake up at 3:30 am (CST) in order to watch it. I teared up a few times; the first time the national anthem was played, when the Canadian flag was brought into the abbey and the bbc commentator called it ‘bold’, and at the Mounties in the procession.
I think he was trying to avoid saying he could recognise it without having to check his briefing notes, unlike quite a few of the other Commonwealth countries.
Yes. I didn’t intend to, but once I turned it on and saw all the great photography I stayed.
Welcome ! Have a beer 
Welcome, welcome! From the Realm of the Maple Throne. 
Would you like some ice cream? It’s maple-flavoured!
To answer my own question, I watched the procession to the abbey and the ceremony itself, but I skipped the procession back to the palace because it was already 5 AM my time by that point and I needed to get back up at noon to go to work. I may have to go back and watch the second procession at some point.
Don’t take this as unqualified endorsement of any particular national leadership system, but the fact is that stable government is worth uncountable trillions of dollars to countries that enjoy it. Unstable government is an economic disaster.
Like it or not, there is a (very) large body of any given populace that respects government in proportion to the wealth, pomp, circumstance and tradition that surrounds it. Don’t get me wrong – my secular, utilitarian view on life is such that I’d be happy with a national leader who dressed in rags, lived in a cottage and nobody knew their name – as long as they were a competent national executive.
But that’s not how a huge proportion of the populace sees it. Consequently, much as it may annoy me (and you) I have to face the reality that this sort of ceremonial nonsense is useful insofar as it appears to help with maintaining national stability and consequent personal and economic prosperity.
I agree. But I’ll just say this. I don’t want to be a total party-pooper and I do understand the relevance of a constitutional monarchy, and I strongly support it as a component of a parliamentary system of government. And to some extent, I support the relevance of tradition.
But seriously, what does this pic remind you of? Because what it says to me is … it’s Halloween! Can we please get more serious about how we’re governed, while maintaining the same basic principles?
Eh. As an American, the monarchy seems mostly harmless to me. They don’t actually do anything or have any role in government aside from having the occasional friendly chat with the PM, and it doesn’t seem like getting rid of them would improve anything, so let them have their fancy costumes and their parties and their speech on Christmas.