Thoughts about the Coronation
For those readers who are interested in the nuts and bolts of the British Monarchy, there is an excellent article in today’s Daily Telegraph on the next Coronation, presumably of King Charles III and Queen Camilla.
Queen Elizabeth’s Coronation in 1953
Read the article here : Thoughts on the next Coronation.
Thanks for the link, John. Informative article and interesting comments.
Regarding the book recommendations you provided about a month ago, I have ordered one (”On Royalty”) but was unhappy to find that the local network of libraries does not have the multi-book set by Starkey in its collection.
Thanks again for the information.
By Melissa on January 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Don’t be concerned about that, Melissa, there are better books than Starkey’s. His set is just comprehensive, that’s all.
Paxman’s On Royalty is amusing and informative, but rather quirky and a little waspish. Don’t believe the bit about seven boiled eggs, that came from a wicked servant.
By John on January 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I will keep that in mind.
The cover of Paxman’s book made me smile. It looks a bit whimsical.
I did see that the library (or one of the many branches around town) has a few other titles by Starkey that were biographical/historical accounts of past monarchs. I’ll have to look into those sometime when I dig into royal history a bit more specifically.
I hope you haven’t yet contracted the dreaded stomach virus that is sweeping GB. I read about it on one of the UK news sites a couple of days ago and they talked about it on one of our national newscasts this morning. I can only imagine that it’s just a matter of time before an unsuspecting infected person crosses the Atlantic and brings us a late Christmas gift.
By Melissa on January 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Well, the Queen Victoria liner — launched by Camilla recently — is completely infected somewhere at sea. I shouldn’t think port authorities in the U.S. would allow her to dock without quarantine.
But my understanding is that this is a mild winter bug that will almost certainly already be in the U.S, possibly under another name. It only lasts 12 to 48 hours and people are advised to stay at home and drink water.
By John on January 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
With the international air travel, especially over the holidays, if the bug is in Europe, it’s in America, too. I haven’t heard news reports about it, but I imagine that will happen in a few days. I hope everyone feels better soon!
By Gigi on January 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I must also say here that I would deplore any idea of altering the ancient Rite of Coronation in Britain. In the most sacred sense, the monarch is, by this ancient Rite, united to the land she or he rules in a union as sacred and mystical as Christian Marriage. It must continue to be a solemn, an ancient, an intrinsically religious Rite, solidly founded on the Faith and with the officiation of the Church Prelates. If Charles changes this, he, and Britain, will reap the whirlwind.
By Gigi on January 5th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I continue to think that since Charles was not able to marry Camilla in a Christian ceremony, she should not be crowned queen consort. If Charles insists, then the crown should be passed to William.
By Evelyn on January 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Evelyn, I absolutely agree with you! Camilla is no different from Mrs. Simpson. I was very pleased that the Prelates of the Anglican Church stoutly refused to allow a marriage in church for Charles and Camilla, which was in keeping with the doctrine of the Faith. Now the Prelates must hold firm regarding the Coronation. Let us see what transpires.
By Gigi on January 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Yes, Gigi, you and I do see eye-to-eye on this.
I do hope the Anglican Church can resist being bullied into doing things according to Charles’ wishes, just because it’s important to him. If Charles insists on having things his way (crowning his former mistress as queen), then Charles should be forced to choose– he can be king and Camilla can be anything other than queen, or he can step aside.
I hope Charles will take his vows to country more seriously than he took his vows to Diana. Both are vows to God, not just to the Church hierarchy.
By Evelyn on January 5th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Well, reading this article about the roots and meaning of the crowning ceremomy, it looks ridiculous to imagine Charles at the center. His entire life is a violation of the standards his mother made it a goal for life to hold up. The peak would be to see Camilla crowned and proclaimed queen!
I should loathe it!
By Gena on January 5th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
See what happens when you have a faux queen christen your new ocean liner. Camilla failed to break the bottle of champagne over the bow of the liner Queen Victoria and now pestilence is spreading throughout Great Britain and heading for North America. This is reason enough to never crown Camilla queen!
By Arthur on January 5th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Well said Arthur. She would smoke the minute she had the crown on her head.
By Gena on January 5th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Addition: I still can not do the smiley :
By Gena on January 5th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
??? I try it again
By Gena on January 5th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Katie Nicholl has an article in The Mail on Sunday reporting that Chelsy Davy and her family are still stuck in Kenya, as many flights have been cancelled due to the political unrest. They are safe, just not able to get a flight out. Lots of photos.
If all written is true, Chelsy is working hard on an essay for one of her classes at Leeds that will be part of her final grade. It says that she’s planning to return to study there.
By Evelyn on January 5th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I doubt Camilla will ever be queen — she will be relegated to the status of Prince Philip — what is he - spouse in waiting or something. King Chuck and Queen Godzilla — glad I’m not British.
By Diane on January 6th, 2008 at 12:46 am
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN !
By Pat on January 6th, 2008 at 2:40 am
I agree with Gigi and Evelyn regarding the monarch’s role in upholding the standards of the Church. It seems odd that a king (i.e. Charles) would be the head of the Church given the very public transgressions that have occurred. The Sovereign is, after all, “defender of the faith” and “in his or her coronation oath, the Sovereign promises to maintain the Church” (the latter quote is lifted from the official website of the Royal Family).
It’s the old fuddy duddy in me that finds certain things about the RF rather hypocritical (the seeming acceptance of mistresses by some of the male members of the family being the primary one) given that the family as a whole, not just the Sovereign, is supposed to support the tenets of the Church and set the example for the whole of the country. I realize that the Royals don’t choose their birthright and may balk at the responsibility of being upright examples, but they do also enjoy enormous privileges. Of whom much is given, much is required. The Queen has done a wonderful job, in my humble opinion, but I just do not see Charles in the same light, as at times he has seemed to pick and choose which tenets apply to him and which interfere with his own desires.
By Melissa on January 6th, 2008 at 2:41 am
And I had seen a report about the ship that Camilla launched coming under the so-called “Camilla Curse” after many passengers came down with the bug. Quite an auspicious beginning for a new ship after the bottle didn’t break and a subsequent virus outbreak at sea. Maybe they’ve learned their lesson and will see to it that the Queen herself lauches the next addition to their cruise line.
By Melissa on January 6th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Evelyn and Gigi I also have to agree with you!!! as a practicing Episcopalian in a parish that is very COE I could never accept Cammy being crowned as she was not married in the church to Charles and also her first husband is very much alive. I think we should all lobby to have Wallis be given her rightful HRH posthumously. If Cammy is good enough for it then so is Wallis. But getting back to the coronation I have read the order of Service and seen footage of HM’s coronation and the sacredness and rites are very moving and uplifting I should hate to see Charles change any part of it to suit himself, IMO that would definitly be Blasphemy!!!
By Trudie on January 6th, 2008 at 2:56 am
To be fair, the article John linked to has some good points. The coronation rite has seen revisions in the past, especially in changing the wording of the nations the monarch would rule. I certainly would be fine with some minor additions– stressing that the monarch is to be concerned with the welfare of all people, including non-Anglicans and non-Christians, for instance. That would be in keeping with biblical expectations.
Of course, it was never God’s idea that God’s people would be ruled by earthly sovereigns. God always knew that would be a mistake, and God has not been wrong about that. God doesn’t expect perfection, but spiritual humility (including repenting of past sins) would be helpful. IMHO
By Evelyn on January 6th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Humility and contrition do go a long way. Part of being humble is accepting that there are consequences for transgressions. Repentance doesn’t negate those consequences. In my eyes, Charles is trying to negate the consequences and have things his own way.
By Melissa on January 6th, 2008 at 4:04 am
Melissa you are so right.
By Trudie on January 6th, 2008 at 4:10 am
From the earliest times, earthly sovereigns have been said to rule “by the Grace of God.” King David was chosen by the Prophet Nathan to become the King of Israel, and Nathan was inspired by God to choose a shepherd boy as King. It is critical for the monarchs of England to continue to be sanctified by the Cornonation Rite, and to take this sanctification and the Coronation oath, very seriously. What else is an oath but a promise made before God and to God, after all? Religion is intrinsic in the empowering of the monarch in a Christian country, which England is, despite the religious diversity of her people.
By Gigi on January 6th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Oh good grief, I meant to say the Prophet Samuel chose David to be King. I am having trouble watching the Steelers game and posting on RA at the same time!
At least that is my story and I am sticking to it!
By Gigi on January 6th, 2008 at 4:14 am
Yes, Melissa, I agree with you about what Charles is trying to do.
Gigi, one of the problems of Christian marriage in an increasingly secular age is that so many people think only of making a vow to the one they are marrying, without remembering that by setting their ceremony in a Christian context, they are therefore including God in the vows. People want the trappings of Christianity without the actual life-changing relationship with Christ.
The same could be said of a coronation, especially Charles’ case.
[Minor point, Gigi: the prophet Samuel anointed David as king; Nathan announced the consequences of David's sin with Bathsheba.
]
By Evelyn on January 6th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Evelyn, your comments bring me to a point that needles me regarding marriage in general and one royal marriage in particular. This is where I really have a problem with Charles: he stood in his church, the one which he presumably would one day be the head and defender of, and made vows before God, his country, his family and his bride-to-be. I realize that at some point it was tough going in his marriage but he made the decisions that he did. Many say that if a woman marries a male member of the RF, she should know better than to expect him to be faithful and is thereby implicitly consenting to some unspoken arrangement whereby the man is allowed to have mistresses to fulfill his “needs.” If that is the case, I would say to the men, don’t get married in a church. It is the height of hypocrisy to do so and if I get patronized for saying so, then so be it. I won’t be ducking! LOL
By Melissa on January 6th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Melissa, I assure you that you won’t need to duck on my account! I agree completely. And while God does forgive Charles and Camilla (and everyone else involved) for what happened, that does not erase the consequences.
If all happens according to Charles’ wishes (coronation and queen consort), I wouldn’t blame the Commonwealth nations for making decisions that would distance their countries from the King’s hypocrisy.
Long live the Queen!
By Evelyn on January 6th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Evelyn, rest assured that I would not be expecting to duck on your account. When it comes to the subject of Charles’ marital indiscretions, there seems to be a gender divide.
Yes, long live the Queen!
By Melissa on January 6th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Arthur, your science is impeccable.
By John on January 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Gosh, where do I start. Maybe I won’t even try.
That’s called the Gordon Brown defence.
By John on January 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
All this talk of unfaithful male members of the RF will be taken in proper perspective in the spring with the publlishing of the Earl of Snowdons biography. In the Telegraph he openly confesses to several extra-marital relations as did his wife Princess Margaret the Countess of Snowdon and the Queen’s sister. These occurred whilst they were still married. What’s this about sauce for the goose etc?
The female of the species is more dangerous than the male and subject to the same weaknesses of the flesh.
By Royalist on January 6th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Generalities in this particular case do not signify, however. We are speaking of Charles, who is the heir, and who will no doubt, in God’s good time, mount the throne and take the Coronation Oath to become King and Defender of the Faith. If he will agree to not having Camilla crowned queen, all may proceed and be well. But if, as is supposed, he demands that Camilla be crowned queen, then we have a problem, a serious problem. No woman should be able to be crowned Queen in Britain who has been guilty of long-term adultery with the Prince of Wales and because of that was not permitted a church wedding when, at length, they married. Sanctification requires purification of the soul, a truly contrite heart and humility. The true danger lies in people thinking that marriage in a civil office ceremony wipes out the sin of years of flagrant adultery. It does not, and it never will.
By Gigi on January 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Gigi, the current official position is that Camilla will style herself Princess Consort, although legally she will be Queen. If that’s the situation, she will not be crowned with Charles, in which case she won’t be Queen. That’s a conundrum which will have to be sorted out beforehand.
There’s usually a year or so before the Coronation following the death of a Monarch and the accession of another, so there will be ample time to figure out what’s to be done. It will be a tough call, though.
By John on January 6th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Thank you, John. I’m no Louis Pasteur, but I try.
By Arthur on January 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
John that is what CH wants everyone to believe but according to common law the wife takes the style of her husband. Problem was the Duchess of Windsor was denied this right illegally. The only reason she is not styled POW is because that title is so associated with Diana they wanted Camilla to appear respectful to the late Princess. If you read the announcement from CH at the time of the wedding it read it is INTENDED that she will be styled Princess Consort it is not written in stone and Charlie will throw a big HISSY FIT if she is not crowned Queen. The public is not as ignorant as CH wants everyone wishes them to be. After all he was allowed to marry her and have his way and give her an HRH.
By Trudie on January 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
If only we could accede to popular request, skip a generation and have King William and hopefully Queen Catherine, IF ONLY WE COULD.
By Royalist on January 6th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I couldn’t help smiling a bit as I read this thread. Those lauding the CoE for denying Charles and Camilla a church wedding seem to forget that without divorce there wouldn’t be a Church of England.
Also found myself thinking of John 8:7.
By Aunt Pierre on January 6th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I’d encourage reading on through John 8:11.
By Evelyn on January 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Very interesting article. Although I feel that Diana had her weaknesses and Camilla seems to be a very nice woman who seems to make Charles happy, I can see how crowning Charles and Camilla as the next king and queen might severely weaken the authority of the monarchy. For reasons similar to the previous abdication, it might be best if there were a way for them to gracefully step aside.
By Amity on January 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
It was a calamity for England when King Henry VIII shattered the commandments, repeatedly and with impunity. Many good and holy people died horribly at his behest because they dared to disagree. Some of them became Saints because of their dissent. It would be helpful, not to say imperative, for the Church of England to refuse to support flagrant adultery at the highest level of the Royal Family.
By Gigi on January 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Amity the only thing nice about Camilla is that she has the tendency to smile while stabbing you in the back to get what she wants. The woman is great at manipulating ones weaknesses as in the case of Diana who was 19 and naive. Another great friend who offered her house for use in their adultery Emilie Van Cutsem was cast aside all because she chose to adhere to protocol when her son married and not place the then unmarried or engaged Prince and Cammy together in HMs presence.
By Trudie on January 7th, 2008 at 1:14 am
I’d encourage reading on through John 8:11.
Oh, I have. Many times. Reread it again just to be sure, though, and it didn’t alter my perception of the thread. Some posts still seem way more reminiscent of the crowd than of Jesus. After all, he refused to condemn the woman (though he told her to change her ways), and he emphatically told his followers not to set themselves up as judges.
By Aunt Pierre on January 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Aunt Pierre, that’s exactly my position too. It’s easy to judge, easier to condemn, but we don’t know the whole truth of the matter — and people can change their ways for the better.
By John on January 8th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Trudie, your posts do not seem balanced to me. While Diana had a very public side to her that served the poor and disadvantaged admirably, she was also well-known to be personally manipulative and not terribly bright. Camilla has terrible PR, but seems to be a genuinely warm, kind and caring individual who does not particularly care to cultivate any particular type of public image - good or bad. That is probably part of Camilla’s attraction to Charles - Camilla doesn’t seem to care what the public thinks, but is just comfortable being herself. That said, their affair did cause quite a bit of pain to Diana - although Diana certainly had her affairs as well. And Diana’s chief faults do seem to be her lack of intelligence and naivete - which contributed to a sometimes vindictive manipulativeness - but Diana’s manipulativeness always appeared to me to be very similar to a child’s temper tantrums. Anyway, all that said, even though Charles may be well-qualified and has spent a lifetime preparing to be King (and I personally wouldn’t care if he and Camilla became King and Queen - not that anyone cares what I think) I do think that, for consistency’s sake, if Edward III were forced to abdicate for Wallis Simpson, a similar argument might be made for Charles and Camilla. (It would be sad, however, as Charles did not marry Camilla for the sake of the monarchy and a sense of duty, and was thus forced to marry Diana to produce an heir. And now he would be forced to give up his Kingship for the same sense of duty and to preserve the monarchy. There is a certain ironic tragedy about it, but life in general is often not easy or fair….)
By Amity on January 8th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Amity, nice balanced summary. That’s basically what I think too. But lots of people have other ideas.
By John on January 9th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Amity ofcourse Diana could be personally manipulating as most people as for not being terribly bright she may not have been academically, but she was bright when meeting leaders and visiting abroad and was always well informed about her charities. If Diana tried to manipulate by what appeared to be tempertantrums could you blame her? She was young and had to share her husband with another woman and no one tried to help the situation the RF knew about it and turned a deaf ear and tried to make Diana out to be a mad girl. As for Camilla well on observation you think she doesn’t care what people think? Ofcourse she does now she wants to be Queen and nothing is going to stop her. I think the RF should give Wallis her HRH.
By Trudie on January 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am
For all her public (and probably private) kindness and generosity, Diana could also be grotesquely immature. Giving Wallis her HRH is not germane, and your response itself makes no sense whatsoever.
By Amity on January 11th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Wasn’t Wallis given the HRH when she died? I have a vague memory of hearing or reading that somewhere. Could be wrong, though.
By John on January 11th, 2008 at 10:00 am