No, Elizabeth II was crowned on June second, 1953, which was a Tuesday. Next year, June 2 will be a Friday. It was widely speculated that he would choose June 3 as the closest Saturday, but apparently not. (May 6 is also a Saturday.)
His mother had stopped buying new items using real fur, so there’s no reason to suppose he wouldn’t do the same. That would be a ready-made, positive news story.
There’s a bunch of different garments with which the sovereign is ceremonially vested during the coronation ritual - the colobium, the supertunica, the stole royal, the imperial mantle, the robe of estate. And that’s before we get to the garments worn by the queen consort. All these garments already exist, often in several versions made for different coronations, and some of them do employ real fur.
The reason so many alternative versions of the coronation garments exist is that it has been the practice to make mostly new ones for each coronation, with only a couple from previous coronations being re-used each time. But I suspect part of the slimming-down of the ritual will include dispensing with most or all of the vesting in ceremonial garments and/or using existing garments rather than making new ones. It shouldn’t be difficult to arrange matters so that any garments which are used will be selected from existing garments not involving fur.
I read on the BBC that the date was selected to avoid any other major events in the time-frame.
1953 was more than a bit overblown. 8000 people squeezed into the Abbey, tens of thousands of troops and umpteen carriages in the procession, the ceremony itself taking three hours… not this time, I think. The imperial and pseudo-mediaeval pretensions would just look silly.
For one thing they’d have a smaller parade just because it’s a much smaller army now, wouldn’t they? But yes, the whole pretension of a literal divine anointment will just get people rolling their eyes even if it is part of the traditional rites. Charles has said he wants to streamline the royal business so that should be symbolically visible here (and like I said earlier even a slimmed down UK coronation will likely blow out any other of this time).
The interesting issue will be the Crimson Robe of State, traditionally worn for the opening section of the ceremony. Because that’s what the monarch then uses again for the State Openings of Parliaments. So, he’s going to need that anyway. Unless he stops wearing the crown and robes for the State Openings, which would be a serious option. Future state openings could be done exactly how it was earlier this year when he deputised for his mother - no robes and the crown placed next to him.
Not wearing robes for the opening section of the ceremony would however lessen the visual impact of the anointing. The monarch is first ritually stripped of their outer garments, including all the signifiers of royal status. Only then are they anointed. Then they get given the really blingy stuff. Wearing grand robes to begin with makes the symbolism more obvious.
Yeah, but that was because it wasn’t his crown. I assume he’ll wear the crown as a sign of his authority to open Parliament - don’t know about the robes, will probably depend on how the crown looks when he is in a suit.
Its the first time in 70 years there will be a coronation. It will be grand as hell. Pageantry is the one thing the Brits do well and people lap it up.
Mr. Wiggin: May I ask you to reconsider?
Client: Well.
Mr. Wiggin: You wouldn’t regret this - think of the tourist trade.
I’ve said it before but I think Charles and Camilla should just go down to the Justice of the Peace and get a small Civil Coronation.
Did you mean to post this in the non-famous movie quote thread? 
Well,maybe something just a leetle bit more like the Dutch - minimal fancy dress, community acknowledged in the procession but it only takes roughly 70 metres from A to B, exchange of oaths by monarch and parliament, speech, procession back, balcony appearance and all done in time for lunch.
That’s no fun. What’s the point of all the fancy dress, shiny bling, carriages and soldiers in uniforms from centuries ago if you don’t show them off during an event like this.
No, just the whole, “we’re cutting back”, “but we want to see spectacle!” brought the “think of the tourist trade” to mind and the rest follows naturally. My mind works in strange ways…and I’m sober right now!
Off topic: I’ve noticed that in the UK when they’re talking about having a masquerade party (i.e. the guests wear semi-disguising costumes), they call it a fancy dress party (or ball). Now, this is mainly in the period pieces I watch. But, here, you’re using fancy dress as just dressing up fancy. Does “fancy dress” still have a connotation of a costume party? Or has that gone out of fashion?
nvmnd
King Charles’ coronet he wore as Prince of Wales used Welsh gold, as well as a ping-pong ball as mentioned above.
Of course. But the late Queen didn’t wear it either the last few times she opened Parliament in person. Similarly, the Scottish crown (which she never wore) was only placed in front of her whenever she opened the Scottish Parliament. I think we must assume that officials will have realised that these could become the permanent practice for the Westminster Parliament going forward. It would be an easy change for a new reign. But, then again, if the robes have been made and the crowns altered for the coronation, using them again would be equally easy (except for the King and the Queen Consort who had to wear them).
Serious concern: if I were King or Queen and had to wear one of those heavy crowns and even walk with it, I’d be in constant dread that it would fall off my head.