# Why did it take over a year to crown Queen Elizabeth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 12, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117 "2014-10-12T17:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/41 "2014-10-13T14:39:35Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > My guess? The UK would remove the monarch and go full republic. There’s a substantial part of the population that has no interest in maintaining a monarchy and such a crazy event might be just the push they need to get rid of the Windsors entirely. This may be a topic for another thread, but if that did happen, would you rename the country, and if so, what? ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/42 "2014-10-13T15:00:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > This may be a topic for another thread, but if that did happen, would you rename the country, and if so, what? “United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” would be the obvious choice. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/43 "2014-10-13T15:21:19Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > “United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” would be the obvious choice. What, the People’s Democratic Socialist Republic Of Greater London not spiffy enough for you commie furriners? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/44 "2014-10-13T18:53:51Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > “United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” would be the obvious choice. So then instead of referring to the UK, we would refer to the UR? Sounds like some kine of leet-speak or twitter! ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/45 "2014-10-13T19:00:04Z")
> [@APB](#): > > It has been suggested that next time one option would be not to provide so much extra seating in order to shorten the preparation time. The argument might be that the TV coverage makes a crucial difference. In 1952 the initial preparations were made on the assumption that only parts of the ceremony would be televised live. It could therefore be argued that, as television coverage can be taken for granted, it is now less important for as many people as possible to be inside the Abbey. Except try telling that to the thousands of VIPs who would find themselves deprived of an invitation. But the government makes money from selling those seats. They don’t make money from TV coverage (unless you want to sell the exclusive broadcast rights like they do for the Olympics, pro sports, etc.). The BBC doesn’t really make money either, since they don’t sell ads. They might make a bit more by re-selling their coverage to overseas networks. So financially, they are better off delaying the coronation to build more sellable seating. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/46 "2014-10-13T19:10:58Z")
Companies like Wedgwood will release commemorative coronation plates and such things. There might be increased tourism before and after the event. So the economic impact of a coronation might be substantial. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/47 "2014-10-13T19:37:10Z")
One of the TV companies (probably the BBC, which does these things in more style) will get the rights; they will probably have to share film with the other major British channels at cost but the foreign rights will rake in big money. Last time the Rank Organisation filmed it, in colour, as well as the B&W TV coverage; nowadays the colour film is more often used by the TV channels as stock footage. As most of the coronation ritual was well-known in advance it could be storyboarded well in advance and even much of the commentary was recorded in advance: they got it edited and in the theaters in two weeks, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/48 "2014-10-13T20:38:32Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > But the government makes money from selling those seats. They don’t make money from TV coverage (unless you want to sell the exclusive broadcast rights like they do for the Olympics, pro sports, etc.). The BBC doesn’t really make money either, since they don’t sell ads. They might make a bit more by re-selling their coverage to overseas networks. > > So financially, they are better off delaying the coronation to build more sellable seating. But it wasn’t the construction of the standing outside that took so long. That was a relatively simple operation. What took the time was the seating inside the Abbey and those weren’t for sale. ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/49 "2014-10-13T20:53:02Z")
Edward III’s mother deposed Edward II. And Ed III went on to rule for 50 years so it worked out pretty well for him. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/50 "2014-10-14T00:55:01Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > Edward III’s mother deposed Edward II. And Ed III went on to rule for 50 years so it worked out pretty well for him. Edward was, um, induced to abdicate. There were immediate plots and suspicions of plots to restore him to the throne, and this continued until he conveniently - suspiciously conveniently - died some eight months later. There is a more recent precedent for deposition, of course - James II and VII. But even at the time that was recognised as a revolution (the “Glorious Revolution”). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/51 "2014-10-14T04:14:57Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > 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. Hmm, really? Well, either way, I believe the old custom was pretty much always a year of morning. > [@UDS](#): > > Edward was, um, induced to abdicate. There were immediate plots and suspicions of plots to restore him to the throne, and this continued until he conveniently - suspiciously conveniently - died some eight months later. > > There is a more recent precedent for deposition, of course - James II and VII. But even at the time that was recognised as a revolution (the “Glorious Revolution”). James II wasn’t killed though, just deposed and exiled. Edward V was probably a better example – deposed and then murdered. (Most likely by his uncle, who was then killed in battle by the next king, Henry VII) ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/52 "2014-10-14T05:08:20Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > So then instead of referring to the UK, we would refer to the UR? Sounds like some kine of leet-speak or twitter! Prolly just “GB”. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/53 "2014-10-14T05:27:29Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Prolly just “GB”. And what about poor little NI? ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/54 "2014-10-14T10:02:40Z")
“How to Become the British Monarch” This one is hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/55 "2014-10-14T14:04:54Z")
her head was bigger than expected. ---
**Author:** ![Bert\_Nobbins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aeb1de/32.png) [@Bert\_Nobbins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bert_Nobbins)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/56 "2014-10-14T14:30:49Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Hmm, really? Well, either way, I believe the old custom was pretty much always a year of morning. We’ve sorted out the calendar since then. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/57 "2014-10-14T18:00:56Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Edward was, um, induced to abdicate. There were immediate plots and suspicions of plots to restore him to the throne, and this continued until he conveniently - suspiciously conveniently - died some eight months later. > > There is a more recent precedent for deposition, of course - James II and VII. But even at the time that was recognised as a revolution (the “Glorious Revolution”). Of course, one of the spicier stories is exactly how Edward II died. Rumour has it he was punished for his homosexual proclivities (by his wife, no less) BY having either a red-hot poker shoved up his ass or being hung upside down and having molten lead poured in. In either case, they supposedly used a metal funnel to open the way so that there were no external wounds. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/58 "2014-10-14T20:35:05Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > 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. This is a interesting viewpoint, but it doesnt include the issues when _who_ is the rightful King is the issue. For example: Edward the V. Never crowned, never proclaimed, never ruled. And a law was passed by Parliment which meant he wasnt the rightful heir. Now, later, that law was reversed. But long after EdV had died. So, how was he ever King? I mean, if he was King, then RIII was never rightful King. One or the other. Nor HVII. Was Lady Jane Grey ever Queen, then? ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2014, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117/59 "2014-10-17T21:22:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > This is a interesting viewpoint, but it doesnt include the issues when _who_ is the rightful King is the issue. It’s true that the question of who, exactly, is the rightful king could indeed arise, but clarifying this issue is not the purpose of the coronation; that question is answered long before the coronation in a different ceremony. The United Kingdom, traditionally, does that through the Accession Council - a special meeting of the Privy Council which proclaims the accession to the throne of the new monarch, very shortly after the death (or resignation) of the previous incumbent. This proclamation is not constitutive but only declaratory (since, legally, the heir automatically becomes monarch the moment of the predecessor’s death), but it would clarify ambiguities long before a coronation would be even scheduled. Edward VIII. was never crowned, but there was an Accession Council proclaiming him to be king. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-it-take-over-a-year-to-crown-queen-elizabeth/701117.md?page=2)