The King's Coronation

[Jamie123]

We watched the king's coronation today. First time I ever saw one (except on film of course) - I wasn’t born when the queen was crowned. One disappointment though: no coronets. To explain, peers of the realm (lords) have robes and crowns similar to the monarch's (though naturally less elaborate) and though they do wear the robes on some occasions, they NEVER wear their crowns (or coronets) except at the coronation. I had been intrigued to see what they all looked like with their silly hats on, but no such luck. In the new "slimmed down" ceremony the peers were "requested" not to wear their crowns. Well, this was the only time in a generation they'd ever get to wear them, so what is the point of not letting them?

Yes, yes, I know - monarchy is an anachronism and we ought to have a President like the good ol' U S of A, apple pie and all the rest of it. Actually I'm quite fond of apple pie, but we've had a king (or queen) for well over a millenium and it would be a shame to abolish it just to keep up with our American cousins. (Our good sister Anatess would have plenty or answers to that if she were here, but of course she's not.)

[LDSGator]

This American watched a good chunk of it and enjoyed it. 

[Guest Godless]

[pam]

My understanding was that King Charles wanted a more scaled down version than what his mother and previous monarchs have had.

[mirkwood]

Didn't watch, don't care.

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Indeed, you can't wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!

[askandanswer]

I had no idea that lords were entitled to wear crowns, thanks for sharing it. I guess my ignorance is excusable, seeing how infrequently they wear them.

The presentation to the king of certain garments and ornaments, with counsel as to their symbolic meaning and what they were intended to remind the king of reminded me of parts of LDS theology and practices. I was surprised that the essential part of the coronation, the act that actually  turns him into a king, was completely sealed off from public view. Millions came to watch the coronation, but the most important part was obscured from view. Do you know if the same thing happened with his mum?

And @Jamie123do you know why the Queen's husband was the Duke of Edinburgh, but Camilla is the Queen? 

[Jamie123]

19 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Didn't watch, don't care.

Aha, but you do care to tell us that you don't care. You're the person who cares deeply about not caring, and goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows how much you don't care.

Two things I'm that way about:

1. The Kardashians

2. The Great British Bake-Off

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Jamie123

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

We watched the king's coronation today. First time I ever saw one (except on film of course) - I wasn’t born when the queen was crowned. One disappointment though: no coronets. To explain, peers of the realm (lords) have robes and crowns similar to the monarch's (though naturally less elaborate) and though they do wear the robes on some occasions, they NEVER wear their crowns (or coronets) except at the coronation. I had been intrigued to see what they all looked like with their silly hats on, but no such luck. In the new "slimmed down" ceremony the peers were "requested" not to wear their crowns. Well, this was the only time in a generation they'd ever get to wear them, so what is the point of not letting them?

Yes, yes, I know - monarchy is an anachronism and we ought to have a President like the good ol' U S of A, apple pie and all the rest of it. Actually I'm quite fond of apple pie, but we've had a king (or queen) for well over a millenium and it would be a shame to abolish it just to keep up with our American cousins. (Our good sister Anatess would have plenty or answers to that if she were here, but of course she's not.)

I hope the UK keeps the monarchy, and I think it’s a pity both that the ceremonial prerogatives of the peers were diminished and that the traditional spiritual/Christian aspects of the ceremony were watered down.  I hope they come back when it’s William’s turn.  In another discussion I recently wrote:

I can see the merits in the role of a monarch who embodies all that is good, virtuous, and traditional about a nation: and who is proud of his nation’s accomplishments and sincerely loves his subjects.

Then again, as I went on to note:

But Daffy Prince Chuckie hardly meets any of those criteria.  (And to be fair, that’s a heckuva role to be born into.)

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

And @Jamie123do you know why the Queen's husband was the Duke of Edinburgh, but Camilla is the Queen? 

Jamie can correct me, but I think the notion of a foreign peer/prince coming in and becoming “king of England” by marrying the queen has been a sore spot since Elizabethan times.  (Victoria’s husband was, I believe, a German peer; and Prince Phillip was technically Greek).  It’s probably a bit sexist, but “queen consort” to a birthright king traditionally hasn’t been nearly as problematic as being “king consort” to a birthright queen.  

[Jamie123]

8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Do you know if the same thing happened with his mum?

And @Jamie123do you know why the Queen's husband was the Duke of Edinburgh, but Camilla is the Queen? 

Yes, I believe it was the same with her. I don't know the reason for it though. Maybe (to borrow a Latter- day Saint expression) it's "not secret but sacred".

There are two ways of being a queen: you can be a "queen regnant" (a female king) or a "queen consort" (the wife of a king). Similarly a king can be a king regnant or a king consort.

However, the English have always disliked having king consorts, and though Parliament can approve them, it has only ever happened once. That was Philip of Spain who married Mary I of England, and was himself heir-apparent to the Spanish throne. Queen Victoria wanted Parliament to make her husband Albert king, but this was refused. I believe this is because it is seen as undermining the queen's authority: when there is a king and queen, people tend to assume the king is the monarch.

Historically some countries have been less fussy: Scotland for example recognised Henry Stewart (Lord Darnley) as King of Scots on account of his marriage to Mary Queen of Scots. 

 

[Jamie123]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Jamie can correct me, but I think the notion of a foreign peer/prince coming in and becoming “king of England” by marrying the queen has been a sore spot since Elizabethan times.  (Victoria’s husband was, I believe, a German peer; and Prince Phillip was technically Greek).  It’s probably a bit sexist, but “queen consort” to a birthright king traditionally hasn’t been nearly as problematic as being “king consort” to a birthright queen.  

You're absolutely right. I'm sorry you posted yours while I was typing mine. Whether they would allow a native Briton to be a king consort I don't know. It will never be put to the test in our lifetime.

[Ironhold]

Today was an annual event in the United States known as "Free Comic Book Day", when comic shops all over the nation offer a select assortment of comic books for free as a loss leader to get people to shop. 

This year's batch included a few YA-friendly titles (Smurfs, Dog Man, Disney, and so forth) that my mom and I decided to stock up on for some younger nieces and nephews I have who are having difficulty getting interested in reading. 

I did throw down a fair bit of money at both of the stores I went to, and convinced my mom to do the same so that we'd count as separate customers & so could get more books (both stores had a per-customer limit). 

[NeuroTypical]

Whelp, I personally don't get it, but I guess a lot of folks find it quite important, so hey, glad folks had a good time.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

... Similarly a king can be a king regnant or a king consort.

However, the English have always disliked having king consorts..

Pardon my ignorance, I only get information about Brits from other Americans...

But I thought that the husband to the Queen Regnant is called the "Prince Consort."  That really doesn't make sense except to avoid the idea that the man in question is in any way a monarch.  Yet the wife of the King Regnant is still called the "Queen Consort."

Is that the common or formal usage in the UK?

Edited May 7, 2023 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Pardon my ignorance, I only get information about Brits from other Americans...

But I thought that the husband to the Queen Regnant is called the "Prince Consort."  That really doesn't make sense except to avoid the idea that the man in question is in any way a monarch.  Yet the wife of the King Regnant is still called the "Queen Consort."

Is that the common or formal usage in the UK?

Although he was a prince and he was her consort, I don't think Queen Elizabeth's husband ever held the title "Prince Consort". I believe that title was created specially for Prince Albert, as a kind of consolation for not making him king. Generally speaking, wives derive titles automatically from their husbands, but husbands never get them from their wives. For example, if I were knighted I would become Sir and my wife would become Lady. However if my wife became a Dame (a female knight) she would gain that title but I would not become anything.

[Jamie123]

12 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Aha, but you do care to tell us that you don't care. You're the person who cares deeply about not caring, and goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows how much you don't care.

Two things I'm that way about:

1. The Kardashians

2. The Great British Bake-Off

 

Make that three things. The third is Big Brother!

[mirkwood]

13 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Aha, but you do care to tell us that you don't care. You're the person who cares deeply about not caring, and goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows how much you don't care.

Two things I'm that way about:

1. The Kardashians

2. The Great British Bake-Off

 

 

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

 

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

However if my wife became a Dame (a female knight) she would gain that title but I would not become anything.

You could legitimately wear a T-shirt that said "I married royalty and all I got was this crappy T-shirt"...

[Carborendum]

On 5/6/2023 at 6:55 PM, Jamie123 said:

Yes, I believe it was the same with her. I don't know the reason for it though. Maybe (to borrow a Latter- day Saint expression) it's "not secret but sacred".

There are two ways of being a queen: you can be a "queen regnant" (a female king) or a "queen consort" (the wife of a king). Similarly a king can be a king regnant or a king consort.

However, the English have always disliked having king consorts, and though Parliament can approve them, it has only ever happened once. That was Philip of Spain who married Mary I of England, and was himself heir-apparent to the Spanish throne. Queen Victoria wanted Parliament to make her husband Albert king, but this was refused. I believe this is because it is seen as undermining the queen's authority: when there is a king and queen, people tend to assume the king is the monarch.

Historically some countries have been less fussy: Scotland for example recognised Henry Stewart (Lord Darnley) as King of Scots on account of his marriage to Mary Queen of Scots. 

Well, I don't know how Wikipedia got its information on the topic.  But you've generally been a good source for all things British.  So, I'll take your word over Wikipedia.

Thanks for your insights.

[Jamie123]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I don't know how Wikipedia got its information on the topic.  But you've generally been a good source for all things British.  So, I'll take your word over Wikipedia.

Thanks for your insights.

Haha - don't. I always tell students not to use Wilipedia as an academic source, but in reality it is pretty accurate accurate about things like that. My information is more on a par with what "the bloke down the pub" told you, so treat it with caution.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Jamie123